Anti-religion and its concerns are as much a distraction from what really matters as religion and its concerns. You don't need to worry about saving anyone. — Janus

For me, such a viewpoint is naive nonsense. All religion can be used for nefarious purposes and can destroy peoples lives. A family which is ran on religious principles means that anyone breaking the often irrational and ridiculous and contradictory familial 'rules' involved, can be refused further familial support, and be left almost destitute. Do you seriously think people with any sense of justice, need not worry about such a horrific effect of pernicious religion?
There are of course even far worse possible effects of extreme religious faith. Do you think we need not worry about those who are willing to kill others, to keep a theocracy in place. Do you think it's a good idea to not worry about the people in Iran or Afghanistan, forced to live under vile theocracies.
In what way is being anti-religious, when it manifests in the myriad of pernicious ways it always does, a distraction?

How do you suggest we help those who continue to be manipulated by any pernicious uses of theism?

And the answer to this is, fucked if I know. — Tom Storm

I think this is the best answer most current humans should offer, on most of the current 'big' questions, as it's probably the most honest one. It is certainly my most honest response. The rest is just an exchange of personal opinion, based on limited understanding of the scientific field involved. It still remains interesting to hear the musings of others to compare with my own.
I freely admit that non-scientific opinion, for me, falls somewhat beneath my interest in the scientific musings of myself and others.

Are you convinced by the cogito as a foundation for certain knowledge that can withstand doubt and skepticism? — Tom Storm

I would not assign any aspect or concept of knowledge as ever being outside of the reach of doubt or skepticism. I am deeply comforted by that, as it means I am immune to accepting proposals like god/perfection/infinity etc as truth.

Do you know of any compelling arguments/evidence against the existence of 'I,' as representing
I think therefore I am, as opposed to thinking exists, therefore thinking has A source, but we can't confirm with 100% surety, what that source is.
My thinking happens within my brain and your brain functions separately/independently from mine.
What evidence currently exists to refute this?

I like the example of:
Think of a film title.
Now think of another film title.
Why did the two titles manifest to/in you in the order they did, and why those two film titles, as opposed to all others your brain has stored?

Did 'I' make the choice of film title 1 and film title 2, as an act of free will? Did I use some criteria to make the choice, almost in auto mode? As I had to respond quickly?
Did some external source make the choice for me? In which case, my thoughts are not fully my own, dualism is probably true, we have no free will and the universe is deterministic.

If 'I' does not really exist then does dualism, determinism and no free will, then not follow?
I currently don't find any arguments for any of these 3 proposals, convincing, do you?

There is soooooo much out there now, challenging the historical validity/accuracy of the traditional origins of Christianity. Enough for me to assign a high credibility to the proposal that the whole story of Christianity and all its characters are based on parodies of many historical real people who fought against Rome.

I particularly see value in the research done by and published in the books of:
Dr Richard Carrier, Joseph Atwill and James Valiant.
I also accept that these three people disagree with each other, on some of the main criticisms they make regarding christianity. Richard Carrier has even referred to Joseph Atwill, as a crank. Joseph has responded in kind, regarding Richard Carrier. Has it not been ever thus?


I am sure these types of analysis of old fables, was going on, when the people who specialised in making up 'religious truths/facts,' wrote the fables/lies that are now accepted today by such as Christians and Muslims as historical fact.

I have talked about that already (maybe not in this thread). I very rarely do that and only lust a statement and after I have already set forth my position clearly. And not so much as a support, but rather to show that I'm not the only one who believes something but even persons much more knowledgeable than me on s subject. And I always use very known persons, something which serves as a stable and solid reference shared with the other person. Also to give a little "color" or breath of air to the discussion, as a kind of "ornament". So, it is very evident that I don't actually need to do that at all. — Alkis Piskas

This is hardy a novel approach, with all due respect, it's quite mundane, and I think the points you make would certainly be supported better, if you could cite a wider range of published and peer reviewed science, that supports your position.

after all the argumentations and counter argumentations, examples, detailed desciptions and all that, explaining the non-physicality and even non actual existence??? Whereas you haven't really said --much less proved-- anything about the physicality of time during the whole time and not even in the challenge I proposed to you?

Godssake, universeness. Get real! — Alkis Piskas

You have not proved the non-physicality of time, in any way, shape or form. You have also not demonstrated why such non-physicality, if true, is in any way, significant. You have only mostly offered your own speculations. Also, making appeals, in the name of non-existent gods, does not help you demonstrate your own ability to 'get real.'

Henry Kissinger !!! 100 years old.
I was also surprised to hear Tommy Steele was still alive!

Yes. That's a way to look at it. Howeve, please allow me to say that 1) I present solid and extensive arguments --and new each time-- based on examples and real experience and 2) I also present similarly valid and grounded arguments agsinst your statements, etc. On the other hand, I can't see the same thing from your part. You seem not even try. It looks like you just or mainly stick to your views, without defending them approriately. — Alkis Piskas

This is just a your personal (rather self-centred imo) view Alkis, for me, it has no value beyond your personal complaint. You wont be surprised that I also don't agree with it's proposals.

bringing in external "help" from other people and esp. providing me with links to interviews etc., well this not at all my cup of tea nor I find it effective. — Alkis Piskas

The same thing was believed by Heraclitus 2,500 years ago! — Alkis Piskas

Einstein himself said that time is an illusion, and more precisely: "The past, present and future are only illusions, even if stubborn ones." — Alkis Piskas

Was your use of Heraclitus and Einstein above, you bringing in external help, contradicting your own position?

You see, this lack of expanding and supporting your personal views prevents me from seeing the foundations of your viewpoints, which could mabe allow me to view myself the subject from a different angle and with additional data. In fact, you deprive me of that pleasure! :smile:
Well, this is howI view this exhange myself, of course. — Alkis Piskas

I accept that the above, confirms that this is how you view our exchange on this thread.
That has little meaning for me, as I don't see our exchanges as competitive, I see them as interesting.

Challenge: Prove (show) to me that time is physical and thus it exists and it is real.
In a new unit of time. Forget all we have said. — Alkis Piskas

The term 'physical,' described as:
1. Relating to the body as opposed to the mind:
2. Relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete:
"the physical world"
SIMILAR: material, substantial, solid, concrete, tangible, palpable
3. relating to physics or the operation of natural forces generally: "physical laws"

Physicists define time as the progression of events from the past to the present into the future.

Your physical body in the reference frame of its own existence, (cogito ergo sum), in your own personal reality, materially, tangibly and palpably, experiences progressing from the past, to the present to the future. This can be empirically demonstrated by observing you over any notional time unit you wish, from sand clocks, sundials, water clocks to atomic clocks. (The base unit of time in the International System of Units (SI), and by extension most of the Western world, is the second, defined as about 9 billion oscillations of the caesium atom.)

I understand the proposals that time is an emergent property, rather than 'physically' real, but I think such notions are similar to all 'Plato style' 'idealistic' notions, such as the ideal clock or an ideal measurement etc. There is no biggest or smallest, or any real example of nothing/infinite/perfect. These are simple placeholders, for notions that have no actual existents and can only ever be asymptotically approached. WE (as an example of self-aware existents,) make time and distance real, and for me, any proposals from real physics or metaphysics, that time and distance are not real, remains, currently, of little significance or value. I remain open to the possibility, that such notions, if irrefutably confirmed, will become significant and gain value in the 'dare I say,' future.
It does not matter if you do not change your position regarding time, based on anything I have offered in our exchange here. The truth of what time is, exists, regardless of whether or not you, I or anyone else, currently, has correct knowledge of it.

I am interested to hear what people have to say about this. — Matt Thomas

Are you asking people to comment, relative to your own views?

I'm open to hearing an approach from any direction. — Matt Thomas

So an approach, in relation to/relative to yours?

Are the opinions in your op, absolute or relative?

Taking all the points made by both of us, and the links we have used, I see the main difference in our viewpoints, is, that I consider the observability and measurement and traversability of space, proof that space exists, and it follows that distance exists and time must exist, as change requires duration.
You did not find Smolin's viewpoints compelling. I find his point of view regarding time quite valid.
But I also find Carlo Rovelli's notions of time quite compelling, and he, like you, proposes that time is illusionary. I like his comment that:

So what does Rovelli think is really going on? He posits that reality is just a complex network of events onto which we project sequences of past, present and future. The whole Universe obeys the laws of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, out of which time emerges.

Are infinite and "not boundless" compatible?
I can conceive the Universe as one of the two. But only conceive. Can't know or figure out which for certain. — Alkis Piskas

Perhaps I did not present the terms involved very well. It's based on the proposal that the geometry of the universe may be curved, but on such a large scale, that our measuring methodologies report that it's geometry is flat.
How do we know the universe is flat?
The Possibility of a 'finite' Yet 'unbounded' Universe.

Einstein himself said that time is an illusion, and more precisely: "The past, present and future are only illusions, even if stubborn ones." — Alkis Piskas

An interesting counter view, is offered by Lee Smolin, in his book 'Time Reborn.' I have not read the book, but he talks about it in this interview (posted with an audio and textual versions):
Ira Flatlow 21min interview with Lee Smolin.

He states during this interview (with Ira Flatlow):
Well, what I mean when I say that time is real is that everything which is real and everything which is true is real or true in a moment, which is one of a succession of moments. That's what we experience, Ira. And the question is: Is that the structure of nature? Does nature exist in a series of moments, one after the other? Is that what's really real about the world? Or is that, as Einstein said, an illusion, and there is some timeless picture which is the truer picture?

Can I really perceive "distance" or "space"? Can I conceive them as something that can be sensed? — Alkis Piskas

You traverse space, by means of physical effort, you walk, run, (perhaps even still skip and jump Alkis!). Why is that physical experience almost overruled, by your metaphysical musings about the existence of distance? If distance does not exist then why do you have to physically traverse it, over time?

To say that something contains something else --in concrete, physical terms-- we must be able to perceive that kind of container, mustn't we? So, what is this "container" here? — Alkis Piskas

So how else do you perceive say, a box of cornflakes? So yes, the universe must be a container.
I also perceive the big bang singularity, with some notion of 'container,' don't you?

I als don't know which is considered larger: the space, which "contains" the Universe, or the Universe, which "contains" space? They are both so vast that it might nor even matter which of the two is the case. — Alkis Piskas

On such a scale, I accept that my perception breaks down, somewhere between the notions of infinite space and infinite space that is not boundless. At those scales, I merely have to admit, 'I currently don't know.'

But what I can say is that the word "contains" here is a figure of speech.
This is a very important point that I brought up earlier on: We are using concepts in expressions in a figurative way so often that they finally become a reality! They acquire flesh and bones. They come to be used in literal sense. See what I mean? One such expression is "space contains". — Alkis Piskas

I understand what you mean on the scale of the extremely big or at the scale of the extremely small. But, there is still you, me and all other biological lifeforms, traversing space, by physical means, and by doing work that uses energy. Distance and time are real, in that sense. So, I think it's very important to not state, that all notions of real experienced space and real experienced time/duration, are in every use of such labels, untrue. That what I mean by when I say that I think you are taking a logical step too far. Your step too far, is also too 'metaphysical' for me.

This distance you are taking about is a vector, i.e. it is defined by magnitude and direction. But this is not important. It's only to say that it is a term used in various scientific areas for description and demonstration purposes.
Distance is something we can perceive and/or measure. Again, the measurement factor comes in. You use it in geometry, to show how far way is point A from point B. But points A and B are hypothetical. They don't really exist. In fact, there are no actual "points" in the Universe. They are used only for descriptive purposes. — Alkis Piskas

This is why I asked you about such a path, leading to such as cogito ergo sum. It's like the solipsistic position. I don't see how you get to 'points A and B are hypothetical,' when I can choose them and physically label them A and B, in 'real' physical spacetime.
To me, It's almost like slapping a solipsist until they accept I am real and if they don't accept I am real, then I am justified in continuing to slap them, as if I am not real, then they are not really being slapped and I am doing nothing bad. Surely I am unable to terminate their existence, if solipsism is true,in any sense.
This for me, is where the empirical, trounces all metaphysical notions of spacetime.
But still, I accept that it's not possible for me to identify the smallest duration of time or the biggest size possible for a universe.

But let's look at what you say from a logical viewpoint:
So, what you are saying, I think, here is somthing like the following: "The distance between points A and B is X. If there were no distance, we could move from A to B instantly." Right? But this would mean that points A and B would coincide, since we can't be at two different points at the same time, can we? So, we couldn't talk about different points and hence any distance at all. Which nullifies, invalidates the first proposition. — Alkis Piskas

On your first sentence, yes. If quantum superposition is true then perhaps an object can be in two places at once, there is some evidence for quantum superposition discussed in places such as this Caltech article but this is superposition at a quantum level, there is no evidence (afaik) of superposition at a macro level such as experienced by humans.
I don't know what you mean by your last sentence, that fact that points DON'T coincide, and humans can't be in two places at the same time, is evidence that distance is real!!! You are the one suggesting distance is not real!

And also from a physical viewpoint:
Distance generally decribes how far one point is from another. Now, points exist only in geometry as applied to hundreds of different fiels, beside Math. — Alkis Piskas

No, they exist in real spacetime. I can make two goalposts, and label them A and B, and there is observable, traversable, measurable distance between them. These points exist in real spacetime and not just in mathematical geometric representations.

They are assigned arbitrarily and used to describe shapes, topographic elements, relations of physical objects in space, etc. We set, assign or draw a point on paper, blackboard, computer screen, etc., or we select any point on any object or shape and we call it point A. This is something we create or assign. — Alkis Piskas

Why do you conclude that the fact that we do the assignment, makes the result, not real? We are real, so what we do is real!

This is something we create or assign. And, how many points can we create depends on the size of the available 3D space and the size of the point. And the minimum size of of the point --which is what we need and should be-- depends on the medium that we use to draw or set it. In sa computer scree, for example, that would be a pixel, but that would also depends on the screen resolution. This never ends, as you see. Yet, we can assume arbitrarily a cetain point. Now what about outside any drawing media? What abount in the whole Universe? Can we assign such points? In fact, do such points have any meaning at all? Do such points exist at all?
So, if points do not really exist, distance doesn't really exist either. — Alkis Piskas

But 3D points in space do exist. Mathematical coordinate systems such as cartesian coordinates are valid. If I give you an (x,y,z) coordinate relative to an agreed origin position then that 'place'/'position in 3D space' exists! and any relative distance to it, is real as it then becomes traversable. We know this is true or else we could not have landed on the moon! A coordinate such as (x,y,z,a,b,c) is far harder to demonstrate, as we cannot demonstrate a 6D spatial point exists.

I personally am on the "joy" side. — Alkis Piskas

:flower:

Fall short of what? — Alkis Piskas

Being able to reference / label / indicate, what scientists observe.

Units of measurements are mathematical constructs/conveniences, I can appreciate that point.

But even we use it to refer e.g. to a chocolate bar, it doesn't mean much. — Alkis Piskas

Well it means 10cm of chocolate bar, and that categorisation has, as you suggest, mathematical meaning to humans, as does 10cm of space (even without indicating which dimension, as in length, breath or height.) I still think you are taking a step too far by stating that a concept such as distance does not exist in an observable 3D universe, which contains discrete objects, with very clear boundaries or termination points or spacetime between one object and another. I think such as time dilation, could not be true in a universe where distance had no 'reality.' If there is no 'real' distance, then why can I not just move instantly to any dimensionless coordinate within the universe?

Are you conceptualising a model, within which discrete (or separate objects) don't really exist?
Some notion, suggesting that the entire universe is really still, a singularity, its just in an expanded/inflated/extended state?
If so, I would expect to experience more ability to naturally network, with other humans.
Do you think such as Sheldrakes morphic resonance is such an example of 'natural networking?'

:up: Amen just translates to 'so be it,' theists have no ownership rights to such terms, that I recognise.

Hi Alkis! People have in the past, exclaimed 'long time no see! or long time no hear!' to me before, and I am never sure if their 'happy state,' indicates that my absence from their life, has been a joy or a curse. :lol:

It seems to me that you are stating that the labels that we choose to use for a real existent such as 'distance,' dimension or 'time,' fall short.

A concept refers to something that exists or not. Itself does not exist. (In the strict sense, of course. Because the verb "exist" can be used figuratively in all sorts of ways.) — Alkis Piskas

Does the path you are on, not currently terminate at cogito ergo sum?
Otherwise, what do you conceptualise, as existing, between dimensionless point coordinates, you observe over a duration in spacetime, say, from an agreed reference/origin point, (0,0,0,0) using centimeters and seconds, coordinates:
(2cm, 3cm, 4cm, 0sec) and
(4cm, 5cm, 6cm, 1sec) ?

I would insist that 'space or spacetime' or 'distance' or 'extent' exists between those two dimensionless coordinates, do you perceive of such differently?

I strongly support the need for (better than any currently existing,) non-commercial, non-profit, powerful and influential, free press style, media channel(s) of, for and by the people which is owned and funded by the people, via taxation or via a BBC license style system. I think we have broad common ground on that proposal.

To exist possibly means to persist through a duration of time. Can something exist in only an instant of time? The blink of an eye, then gone? Could we detect such an occurrence? — jgill

Quantum fluctuations?

So, we have to set a length for an instant, however small that may be. Which makes "present" a relative thing. — Alkis Piskas

In physics, Planck time is posited as the smallest duration possible. From wiki:

The Planck time is the length of time at which no smaller meaningful length can be validly measured due to the indeterminacy expressed in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Theoretically, this is the shortest time measurement that is possible. Planck time is roughly ${10^{−43}}$seconds. However, to date, the smallest time interval that was measured was ${10^{−21}}$ seconds, a "zeptosecond." One Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to one Planck length.

Does that "distance" --or any distance for that matter-- actually exist? Of course not. Both time and distance are dimensions. They aer both used for description and measurement purposes. They do not actually exist. — Alkis Piskas

Are you suggesting that a dimension does not have a physical existence?
Any reference to a space dimension has direction and extent, does it not? Just like any reference to a notion of a dimension of time, has a direction and a duration. Planck time has an associated Planck length, and afaik, anything smaller than a Plank length takes you into the physics of black holes.

Yeah, I think Quora has a good number of contributors who have a career background in science.

I was reading this repose from Victor Toth on Quora, to the question:
How did the universe expand faster than c during inflationary period? It’s been said that if the universe was in a false vacuum, that it would radiate out at c from a location in space. How is this different?

I think the question is flawed due to the notion of the universe starting from a position IN space but Victors answer, helped improve my understanding of the concepts involved and I think it relates to your musings regarding time. I initially editorialised on what Victor posted to relate it more to your OP, but I then decided to just let you read what victor posted and let you decide which parts you think relate to your musings on time. I did however underline the parts I thought were most important.

Here is Victors response to the emboldened question above:

"The universe did not expand faster than c during the inflationary period.

The universe did not expand slower than c during the inflationary period either.

Cosmic expansion does not have a speed measured in units of length divided by units of time, the way we normally measure speed. Cosmic expansion is measured by the Hubble parameter, which (in the units that are customarily used for this purpose) tells you that, for instance, at the present, two galaxies that are 1 Mpc (megaparsec, approx. 3 million light years) apart, are moving away from each other at a speed of roughly 70 km/s.

Now from this you can infer that there will be galaxies that are 10 Mpc apart, moving away from each other, on average, at 700 km/s. And there will be galaxies that are 10 Gpc (gigaparsec, 1000 Mpc) that are moving away from each other at 700,000 km/s.

Yes, 700,000 km/s. Which is more than twice the vacuum speed of light. Today.

This sounds like a direct violation of relativity theory, except that it is not.Relativity theory does not tell you that distant things, measured in your local reference frame, cannot appear to move faster than light in your choice of coordinates. What they cannot do is move faster than a ray of light at the same place where they are. And you don’t even need cosmology for this. Here on the good Earth, because of the Earth’s gravitational field, clocks tick ever so slightly slower than in deep space. So in principle, it is possible to set up an experiment in interplanetary space that involves a ray of light. Observed from the Earth, that ray of light will appear to travel from point A to point B ever so slightly faster than 299,792,458 m/s. Moreover, high-energy massive particles, chasing that ray of light, may also appear faster than 299,792,458 m/s as measured in our Earthbound reference frame. Does this mean that they are faster than light? Nope: They are still slower than the ray of light at their location. We measure them to be faster than the nominal speed of light because we are using our local coordinate system to describe distant events at places where the gravitational field differs from the field at our location.

So back to inflation. It is not about “faster than c”. It is about how the rate of expansion, characterized by the Hubble-parameter, changes over time.

Imagine things flying apart at a constant speed. Today, a galaxy is 1 Mpc away from us, moving at 70 km/s. Roughly 14 billion years from now, that galaxy will be 2 Mpc away from us, still moving at 70 km/s. So that means that 14 billion years hence, in this universe, the Hubble parameter will have decreased from 70 km/s/Mpc to 70 km/s/(2 Mpc) = 35 km/s/Mpc.

Now imagine in turn a universe in which the Hubble parameter is constant. Today, a galaxy is 1 Mpc away from us moving at 70 km/s. That means that when it gets to 2 Mpc billions of years from now, it will be moving at 140 km/s. At 3 Mpc, its speed will be 210 km/s. And so on. It is accelerating.

That’s what cosmic inflation means: accelerating expansion. The mechanism behind this inflation is a field that is a relativistic medium with very large, negative pressure. You may have seen the Newtonian field equation for gravitation, ∇2U=4πGρ.
Without going into details, this equation tells us that the gravitational field, U,
is determined by the density of matter, ρ.
Except that it’s not the full picture. When there is substantial pressure, a version of this equation with relativistic corrections replaces ρ
with ρ+3p. When p is large and negative, ρ+3p is negative.
If a region of space is dominated by such a medium, its gravitational effect on distant things will be repulsive. Pushing things apart. Accelerating them.

And that’s how inflation supposedly took place: the presence of a field with large negative pressure caused stuff everywhere in the universe to be pushed away from other stuff everywhere else, accelerating the rate of expansion. Eventually, this medium is supposed to have vanished, in a phase transition or something, so it is no longer doing its thing. (And this is one of the sticking points of inflation and the reason why some researchers are skeptical about the whole concept.) But if there was indeed a period of time in the early universe dominated by such a medium, every time distances between things doubled, on average, the rate of expansion doubled, too. This exponential period in the expansion of the universe is what we call the “inflationary epoch”."

It seems to me, that any notion of a personal 'awareness of time,' must be perceived with a description of expansion/inflation/ relative reference frames, such as Victors in mind. 'It's all relative.'

I like that the BBC will take part in some very honest and deep probes into government and the activities of the nefarious rich and powerful, which does help a little to keep them in check. It's just not enough however. The main problems I have with the BBC, is the unacceptable pay rewards they give to their top executives and presenters and how they have tried to protect themselves when their own internal scandals have been exposed, such as the 'Martin Bashir debacle' and their disgusting handling of the inside knowledge they had of scum like Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris and Gary Glitter.

I think the BBC license money could be used to create a far superior publicly owned, people based, broadcast channel(s).

It seems to me that you confirm that there are valid models that could be used to counter, if not defeat the more pernicious affects of privately owned and privately controlled media.
I liked the uses you cited for community based media.

Is it controllable? I'm pretty sure the Russians or Murdochs or somebody could hack it — Vera Mont

I often think about the Linux community and their open source software system.
Often, when a new cyber attack happens, the Linux community is the best at identifying it, containing it, defeating it and preventing it from recurring. This is because so many in the community know so much about the detailed workings of Linux that almost every second user can act as a very effective defender of the system. Such an approach is, I think, a very good way to best defend against internal or external hackers.

What we need is ground swells of local and national movements of where real power actually exists.
The people united in common causes to make things better for all stakeholders and not just a nefarious few. I think significant, people controlled, independent media would be an important step.
The concept of PBS (public broadcast systems), under the full independent control of the people and not the authorities, would be a good step forwards.
Current examples exist but they are not yet significant or powerful enough.

Do you have a model in mind that could work?
For example, let's say that a movement started in Scotland, which demanded that the Scottish government set up an internet communication channel called 'Scotland's people.' I wont go into the content that would be allowed on such a channel but it would have no advertising, other than advertising up and coming programs/content. Any non-profit grouping or individual, could place content on the channel, once it has been viewed and approved by a citizen body, which was made up of a single representative from the biggest 30/20/10 non-profit organisations in the country.
The money to set-up and run the channel, would come from national tax revenue/ the educational budget. The pressure to set-up such a channel, would come from the number of people who would be willing to declare, that they will only vote for those who agree to push for this channel to be set-up and maintained.

Just an idea that probably has many flaws I haven't realised yet, but whadyafink?
Do you have a better idea?

What we need to do is protect and support non-commercial public media. — Vera Mont

I think that would be a good move, yes.
What do you think of the YouTube channels that are supported via public subscription/donation?
It's mostly organised via Patreon. I am not a fan of that franchise type system:

From Wiki:
Patreon, Inc., was co-founded in May 2013 by developer Sam Yam and musician Jack Conte, who was looking for a way to make a living from his YouTube videos. They developed a platform that allowed 'patrons' to pay a set amount of money every time an artist created a work of art. The company raised $2.1 million in August 2013 from a group of venture capitalists and angel investors. In June 2014, Patreon raised a further $15 million in a series A round led by Danny Rimer of Index Ventures. In January 2016, the company closed on a fresh round of $30 million in a series B round, led by Thrive Capital, which put the total raised for Patreon at $47.1 million.

They signed up more than 125,000 "patrons" in their first 18 months. In late 2014, the website announced that patrons were sending over $1,000,000 per month to the site's content creators.

Is the model behind PBS not a good one? I don't know enough about the drilled down details. I enjoy the PBS channel we get in Scotland, as one of the 'freeview' channels. In fact, I think it's the best channel on 'freeview.' I have read a little about PBS, such as:

PBS is funded by a combination of member station dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, pledge drives, and donations from both private foundations and individual citizens. All proposed funding for programming is subject to a set of standards to ensure the program is free of influence from the funding source. PBS has over 350 member television stations, many owned by educational institutions, non-profit groups both independent or affiliated with one particular local public school district or collegiate educational institution, or entities owned by or related to state government.

As of 2020, PBS has nearly 350 member stations around the United States.

I do think there is a great need for more communication systems that are non-profit and are owned and controlled by a local/national majority of people.

Do you think the sex trade, as it functions today, is in the main, a product of patriarchy?
Do male owners profit most or do you think that there are as many nefarious, powerful 'madames' and female dominated organised crime groups, who control/own the majority of the organised sex trade?
Do you think the majority of the global sex trade is organised?
Do you think the majority of the global sex trade is controlled by organised crime?

As a socialist, would you attempt to bring the sex trade under state control and ownership and offer sex workers the exact same protections as any unionised workers receive?

That's a lovely sentiment. Kind of seems to be doing the opposite just now though doesn't it? — Isaac

Well, I am sensing an underlying, emergent current of better focus on social media.
On some sites, the vitriol is lessening imo, and many are becoming more reasoned and slower to curl up into a Ninja ball of defence. Anywho!, meeting pals in Glesga for a pub session. Away to get ready! Have a good Saturday night guys!

I fully agree with the 'lack of prioritising,' you are highlighting.
This does not mean I don't fully support trans rights, it just means that I absolutely agree that issues such as ending world hunger and ending the exploitation of people, by a nefarious capitalist global elite, etc etc deserve a higher priority.

Which problem gets focussed on globally, depends on so many factors, yes? We don't have a united species or a world government, so we will rarely get a global consensus, in such a way, that would allow us as a species, to create a correct list of priorities, in such away that we could assign the correct global focus and attention to the biggest current problems facing our species in a united way.
Possibly our best attempt to do so is on climate change and that is not going very well.

I think it's only the national 'peoples' of the world, talking to each other intensely over a medium such as this internet, that will eventually nurture more global consensus on an issue. Then we will all compel national politicians to do what we want them to do or else! they may seriously face national/international and even global, tick tick tick tick boom movements that will tear their political systems apart if they don't do what the people want them to do.

I personally think the target will eventually become something like the UN. That's the only body I know of that if it had real power, could focus global effort and power to make real change happen much more quickly and solve a problem as big as global hunger, poverty or local wars.

:up: Brainstorming is always fun, no matter how the runes fall!

Perhaps there was a different phase of hyperinflation that affected the temporal dimension differently in the very early universe. — Pantagruel

Cant think how that would be conceptualised. Inflation just proposes faster than light expansion, how would such have an effect on our current position in the universe? Inflation only lasted from ${10^{-36}}$ seconds until ${10^{-32}}$ seconds after the big bang. After inflation, the universe was a volume of around 0.88mm cubed. If inflation happened for much longer then I think that would affect the speed of light constant, would it not?

Well, Sean talks of our relative proximity in time, rather than in spacetime, but I assume that he meant spacetime.
I always assumed that whichever direction we point our telescope in space, we observe the past, yes?
We cannot observe a galaxy any older than our own, can we?
There is no galaxy we can observe that is further from the big bang than us, as any such galaxy would be older than 13.8 billion years, and in a sense, in our future. That does not mean such galaxies do not exist, but they are beyond our observation, based on my understanding of the expanding 'raisin bread' metaphor. So, the very early, large galaxy formations reported by the JWST, are not explained by our 'proximity in spacetime,' unless I am missing something in my interpretation.

To me it’s the opposite. It’s the physics of time that’s not ‘real’. Or put better, such empirical accounts are profoundly limited by their ignorance of the subjective structures that make them intelligible. — Joshs

Well, I agree that any proposed structure of, or structure to, time, remains in some sense, empirically unproven.
Do you think that there is an existent universal frame, in which time truly ticked from 0 to 13.8 billion years? I can only imagine such a reference frame being 'outside' of spacetime, observing in and I currently reject that, as an impossible reference frame.

Sean Carroll discusses that area quite well, with:

"In his book The Big Picture, physicist Sean M. Carroll compares the asymmetry of time to the asymmetry of space: While physical laws are in general isotropic, near Earth there is an obvious distinction between "up" and "down", due to proximity to this huge body, which breaks the symmetry of space. Similarly, physical laws are in general symmetric to the flipping of time direction, but near the Big Bang, there is an obvious distinction between "forward" and "backward" in time, due to relative proximity to this special event, which breaks the symmetry of time.
Under this view, all the arrows of time are a result of our relative proximity in time to the Big Bang and the special circumstances that existed then. (Strictly speaking, the weak interactions are asymmetric to both spatial reflection and to flipping of the time direction. However, they do obey a more complicated symmetry that includes both.)"

Absafragginlootly!

Yeah, I am only attracted to the physics of time. Metaphysical notions/projections/handlings of time are a little like watching sci-fi, great fun, very entertaining, sometimes even thought provoking, but not real.
There is always the possibility that some sci-fi becomes sci.

I advocate for the Carlo Rovelli descriptions of time.


Having watched all his youtube offerings regarding time, a few times, I think that from the reference frame of an individual human, we experience time/spacetime, 'completely personally,' from cradle to grave.

My time and your time are never exactly the same. Even when I am right next to you, staring at your face, there is still a physical distance between your eyes and mine. That distance has to be covered by light. So I am not seeing you as you are now, as it took a duration >0 for the information regarding your image, to reach me and be interpreted/processed by my brain. As long as distance and brain process time, exists between you and what you are looking at/observing/detecting, you cannot observe/detect 'now.'

I think that's part of the description of time, as Carlo describes it but I fully accept, that this is my interpretation, of part of what he says about time.

As was the case for this thread too. — Mikie

Yeah, not sure if the Niki character is real, or it's just someone trying to bait folks into revealing the personal level of empathy they might generate towards the story they offer. Either just for kicks, or to find out what 'scenarios/word use/descriptions etc ' generate which emotive responses from people with an interest in philosophy. This can be a method used by nefarious individuals who want to learn how best to manipulate the emotions of others. Perhaps I am becoming too 'suspicious' of the agenda of others as I get older.

Amongst humans at least, I think that there are some objective truths, such as:
One persons deeply held conviction, is often another persons exemplar of total bullshit.
Perhaps Ocean Colour Scene had a point when they sang; There's no profit in peace.

What do you think of this?
During the Han dynasty in China, the emperors chosen females could only be guarded and communicated with, by males who were eunuchs.
The male rulers of China decided that to ensure other men did not have sex with any of their chosen women, the only ones allowed anywhere near them, had to have their penis and balls cut off.

Eventually the eunuchs themselves became a very powerful group of individuals who obtained serious power and ability to influence what was happening in the country in ways that allowed them to become very rich themselves. On occasion, the Chinese army or the mountain tribes, would rebel, slaughter all the eunuchs and overthrow the emperor. :grin:

Is 'Pragmatic humanism' or a version of it, the best way to critically challenge the established status quo. — Amity

For me, secular humanism and democratic socialism are practical/pragmatic goals, yes.
Do I think a female/feminine approach is the best way to nurture and advance local/national/international and global secular humanism and democratic socialism? No, I don't. Unfettered masculinity has unquestionably demonstrated, how backwards it can be. Such has been a foundational support for the establishment of autocratic elites.

I recently watched a 2.5 h, YouTube documentary about the Sumerians and the Akkadians and the early city states.
I also watched a recent 3.5 h, YouTube documentary about the foundations of China and the rise of the first emperor, the Qin dynasty and on to the Han dynasty.
These are both BC histories and demonstrate that human civilisation was well established in China and Mesopotamia way before Christ. You can trace the Mesopotamian fables directly to Christianity but during the same time in China, the larger and more powerful (imo), Han dynasty was developing, with no involvement whatsoever, of Canaanite gods like Yahweh and it's further fabled human form of blood sacrifice manifested, with the ridiculous purpose of sacrifice of itself to itself.
To me, this history demonstrates the folly of unfettered masculinity in two completely separate human developments on either side of our planet. Yet, the exact same results occurred.
Rule by a nefarious few and suffering and very poor experience of life as a human, for the majority of humans.

The influence of fabled female deities, did little to counteract the effects of unfettered masculinity in history. Female gods and female rulers were every bit as bad as male ones. From horrors such as Cleopatra or Catherine the great to modern horrors such as Margaret Thatcher or even horrible female philosophers like Ayn Rand.

The term pragmatic humanism is a better term to me, than pragmatic feminism, but I do think that the feminine approach is much slower to choose war as the way to solve major disputes between human groupings. The feminine approach does seem to offer more chance of co-operative solutions, rather than a knee jerk, quick jump towards the traditional male competitive solution of physical combat/war.

Does it make sense to take responsibility for the way the world is shaped? — Amity

For me, it's not a matter of such making sense, it's more that we will never 'grow up' as a species, until we do fully and irreversibly accept, that we (all humans) and we alone, shape our local/national/international and global lives. Scapegoating gods has always just been a subterfuge and a delusion.

We all live in it and have a stake in its and our well-being, no? — Amity

Yes!

The question is 'What can be done, if anything?' — Amity

Organise, debate, discuss, protest, direct non-violent civil disobedience, educate ourselves, advocate for secular humanism, democratic socialism, a united planet, freedom from the money trick, resource based economics, no governance via party politics (vote for a person, not a party,), pragmatic humanism (the best that feminine and masculine can muster, working in co-operation and not competition.)

:up:

What fun would life be with no challenges? — Athena

You are describing a non-existent state as far as I know. Everyone alive has challenges.
Being able to take the basic means of survival for granted will never remove 'challenge' from a individuals life.

One of those challenges is social position. Social animals have social positioning. Some will have more power over others and some will have none. This includes all social animals not just humans and our economic system. — Athena

This reads to me like Jordan Peterson talking about natural hierarchies.
The human race is not forced to accept the social consequences of following the path that natural hierarchies leads to. The kind of social positioning you are referring to, that ultimately leads to 'rule of the few' with some leader at the top supported by an elite, who control all the military assets, is a model we all know well and is why we are in the mess we are in.

Our desire to be accepted leads to good social behavior and those with the best social skills will be leaders. — Athena

This methodology has failed miserably. We need to keep pursuing a better one.
Especially when 'best social skills,' commonly means 'best at fooling some of the people all of the time.'

The majority will be followers because they do not want the responsibility of leadership. — Athena

The leaders/followers model is a failed model, we need something better.
Government of, for and by the people must become vocational and be rewarded by high esteem, role model status, positive historical legacy etc, rather that personal wealth, and power.

I look around me and see people who do nothing but play computer games or watch TV and eat! They destroy their bodies and minds in their pursuit of happiness. — Athena

That's a common interpretation that people have but I know many people who seem like that, but are actually also involved in trying to change things for the better, in many ways.
Old cultural stereotyping can cause some to hold an inaccurate image of others.
Completely Ineffectual, hermitical people, be they wealthy or poor, are often unfulfilled people.
If people are mostly unhappy then they need to communicate that and get involved in trying to change things for the better. There is nothing else that an individual can do. You either stew or you try to change your life and the lives of others for the better.

Having family and a job are important parts of our identity and structuring our lives. The homeless people with no social ties or responsibility and accountability to others, become as referral cats. They are not "civilized" and are likely to spend the rest of their lives alienated from their own society without serious intervention. — Athena

So we need to create a system that offers people good opportunities and has that 'intervention,' safety net you describe, no matter how long it takes.

I must say, I speak because I am not at peace with my thoughts. I am not sure of what I think, only of what I have seen. If we do not take great care, we have serious personal and social problems. — Athena

Few people do have such 'peace,' of thought. I certainly don't, but I remain absolutely astounded sometimes, when I hear about the simple altruism demonstrated by so many, everyday, often towards complete strangers. Human beings can behave so much better than any god, I have ever heard the fable of. I recently watching a story on youtube about a guy, who just drives to the front line of the war in Ukraine, just to have the chance to save someone and bring them to safety. Civilian or soldier.
He is just a civilian himself. He does not work for any organisation. Just a man with a van.

All the unanswered questions in the universe and the journey to discover who you are and what you want. — universeness

That is not natural for all people. — Athena

Yes it is, If they are given the chance to think about such things.
Most are too busy being scared that they can't access the basic means of survival.

Please come spend a day in my life. I am heartbroken by how my own family can totally miss any pleasure in learning. They are locked into helplessness and defend themselves by avoiding any challenge other than computer games. — Athena

I don't know the mindset of the members of your family that you are referring to, but I would bet they would not accept your interpretation of them. I know my own immediate family members do not always agree with me as to what my strengths, weaknesses and priorities in life are, in the same ways that I do. I am probably also wrong about some of my interpretations of their priorities in life.

all around me are people who do much other than watch TV. They like to socialize but all they about life is the own personal experience of it, so to me they are very boring! I would say most people avoid life as much as they can. They most certainly avoid thinking. No thinking = no doing. — Athena

I think we all feel that way about some people in our lives or on the periphery of it.
I know that when I hear a tory politician talk about their priorities in life, I just feel like we are not the same species.

Find a cause that's not all about you! That's the part you seem not to have figured out yet. This universe does not tap you on the shoulder and say, here it is. This is what will give you meaning and purpose in your life. Part of the adventure of life is figuring that out for yourself.
Perhaps if you set an example, your younger sibling would notice your example.
If you kill yourself then your story ends and that's a waste of an opportunity to create meaning and purpose. That's what you are capable of, that no other lifeform or existent in the universe can demonstrate in the way you/we can. At least, we have encountered no other lifeform or existent in the universe, so far, which has such an ability.

IMO, you have now posted quite a few threads on TPF which are basically you complaining about your life, and seeking some therapy from TPF members. That's fine, but you don't follow up. You get plenty of encouraging and thoughtful responses but you rarely respond to any of them.

Will you wait another 20 or 30 years, before you realise that if you can take your basic means of survival for granted then your life is what you make it!
You seem to have been able to acquire or be supplied with, food, water, shelter etc, for your almost 40 years of life so far lived.
Use what you have learned about life and about people! Find a cause! Create meaning and purpose in your life, or continue to feel like a failure.
You! are your main problem. Cultural, familial, societal, political, medical, issues can all play their part in helping or hindering your life, but,, this is not a rehearsal, this is your life, stop treating it and living it like it is a curse.

I also don’t know what to do. I’m lost, confused, depressed, suicidal, & feel like an alien. — niki wonoto

Then maybe it's time for you to change.