I also have very ambitious vices as everyone else — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Tell me about them.

Severe clinical depression simply happens. Someone can be living a very happy and productive life then suddenly, for no psychological reason, they become depressed. — I like sushi

Total BS.

And since when, Jack, has (western) philosophy in the main not been inherently "multidisciplinary"? — 180 Proof

Since the day it's about one thing only: science, knowledge.

If you have had an episode of psychosis you probably understand this a little. — I like sushi

Yeah... All theist are psychotic lunatics!

There comes the giant ball. In slooow moootion. It approaches another giant ball. Then, when really close, the outer layer of the balls get squeezed. Reaeaeal slow. A force is l in both balls. Two opposite forces. Momentum transfer, dp/dt and all that. The incoming ball is stopped (if they have equal mass, the collision is head on, and energy is conserved, which is is all approximately true), the second gains momentum. Action and reaction. Conservation of momentum. Impulse force.

Now think about this fast forward.

Salmon wrote a book on causation. Causal forks, statistical laws, etc. I got so bored reading that. I can remember still its creative uniform brown cover. Correlations, causal connections, statistics, etc. Is the excessive use of toiletpaper in philocity caused by the the consumption of rotten stuff accidentally sold in the supermarket in the etymology part of town?

It's too much to bear! Another god thread! It's truly no coincidence anymore. Im convinced now...

But the theist will still suggest god created it — universeness

Im a theist. They didnt create that planet. It evolved.

Is fantasy currently under theistic ownership? — universeness

What makes you question that? I just say that the fantasy will always remain a fantasy. Let's face reality with a proper dose of realism. Where have we been in almost 70 years? On the Moon, 1 lightsecond away...

They haven't paid me anything the last twenty two years. — jgill

Then I understand it's difficult to grasp. Or should it be easy then? :chin:

the aether of fields interacting — jgill

The aether of the fields. Almost poetic.

Virtual particles, are the ultimate source of cause. They cause the real particle to come into existence, because of their influence on the vacuum (inflation). The gauge variety causes real particles to change momentum. More fundamental it can't get physically. Exactly how the coupling happens remains a mystery though.

Yes. I find it difficult to imagine emptiness being curved — jgill

It's not pure emptiness, as you know...

Way beyond my pay grade. :cool: — jgill

Do they pay you that little?

Thus, the fine-tuning "problem" is actually due to our choice of units not the required accuracy of some Creator — Real Gone Cat

Not sure I understand. We can set most equal to one, but at least one other has to be different from one then. Only divine creation can explain this.

I cant see art as offering any bridge between religion and science by means of the fact that Richard Dawkins can enjoy the same piece of classical music or like the same painting as a theist might — universeness

And art that would offer a bridge?

I think the common ground will be found in time! We are a fledgling consciousness, we have yet to even leave our planetary nest. — universeness

Don't get carried away by a little too much fantasy though! :wink:

What about an oil painting of the baby Jesus in its manger about to be lasered in the head by a time-traveling agent from the future? — universeness

Or perhaps a painting of Jesus and his whole family getting chopped up by 10 ethnic cleansers who burst through their door and are killing every Jew in the room? — universeness

I have to admit, you have a wild fantasy, uni! Apopstasist?

To me, as the saying goes - it's a distinction without a difference. — T Clark

Seems to me there is a difference, which is the cause for the two different words. Two different causal chains can lead to the same outcome. Determinism. Necessitarianism says there can be one such chain only.

determinism allows for the possibility that the causal chain as a whole could have been different, even though every cause within the chain could not have happened differently, given the antecedent causes. — Paul Michael

So two different causal chains can lead to the same outcome?

A physical cause is constituted by the various virtual fields, eternally and omnipresent in the vacuum, situated between charged particles. Real particles couple, by means of their charges, to these mediating fields. They cause changes in 4-momenta of the particles.

So the coupling of real particles to the virtual gauge particle fields causes other particles to change 4-momentum. Two real particles are needed at least. One particle coupling to the virtual field has a potential to cause.

Nice comment! Allow me to offer some critique (it's a philosophy forum,so...).

Currently the observations are such that the pointlike structure of electrons isn't challenged. One can dive into the electron by the power of imagination. I think all empirical data can be explained by considering electrons, like all quarks and other leptons, composite. Triplets of massless preons (linking pure kinetic particle energy with mass!) explain a lot of hitherherto unexplained phenomena in physics (particle/antiparticle asymmetry, particle families, force unification, etc.) but even proposing this or questioning on philosophy forums why this model is impopular gets you banned. It's an attack on the standard of pointlike standards and the basis of string theory would be endangered. The politics of power are employed to protect the sancta casa. The muon g2 experiment can be interpreted though in the light of compositeness. But this approach is not even considered. I don't understand why and no one was able to give convincing arguments against it. A ban was all they had eventually. The preons themselves can even be considered structures of space in which charges can be enclosed. So mass is a derivative of pure kinetic energy in massless particles. The content, charges, of particles is the unexplainable "mental" component.

I don't see the connection between information and mind. What's the connection between structure and mind? Of course, the structure of particles having a global shape, invisible at the small scale, is not physical. Particles in the shape of, say, a simple circle don't have necessarily a physical connection with diametrically opposite particles. Still they share a commodity. Otherwise the circle could not have its shape. But to say the shape is the mental? Dunno...

ithinkthereforeidontgiveafuck?

vanilla determinism? — T Clark

:lol:

Parsimony presupposes two or more realities to exist. This kind of weird reality exist in the great Everett fairytale of the many worlds. A fascinating fantasy. As long as one realizes that it's that only. Maybe in a parallel world I would be fooled.

I could go on but in a nutshell we really can't even define God because it is all but a given that we can't comprehend an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-whatever else would be like and so we can only imagine and/or guess as to what God is. And when it comes to when we try to guess at such things, it is always best to remind ourselves that such things are in the realm of fiction and to reality and mixing up the too doesn't work when doing real science. — dclements

The questionable assumption made here is the gods being omnipotent and omniscient beings. Which makes the conclusions you draw invalid.

if it is through "magic" then how does this magic even work? — dclements

It's partial magic partial hard science. It took them a pretty long time to create and develop spacetime and the two elementary particles fit to let them evolve into the universe we know with all of life in it.
The particle creation involved magic, the subsequent research, development, and tinkering involved science.

if you have knowledge of the initial conditions of the die/coin, you can predict the exact outcome of the die/coin — Agent Smith

How you wanna do that? Can you know the outcome before the dice show their outcome? We could get rich love!

To conceive full-blown heaven fundamental science and the arts are indispensable attributes. Without them we would never have been able to contemplate the motives and nature of the gods. The ultimate mystery remaining is their very existence, their divine power of true creation and the nature thereof.

Dunno. Whatever the genesis of the schism is, the atheist think they know it better. That theism involves fantasies of which they sure they have no counterpart in reality. To say, as Richard Dawkins, that they are 99.9% sure is the most non-scientific reply you can imagine. It can't get more unscientific. Moreover, Dawkins uses dogma in his books just the same as the religious dogma he fights so vigorously.

Can the commandment Thou shalt not kill be rephrased, salva veritate, as Thou shalt save. — Agent Smith

If you don't save you don't kill.

major good for the greatest number" — Alkis Piskas

The "greatest number" is easily measured. But what is the "greatest good"? Doesn't this beg the question?

When I think about that, I just remember the things I like about being alive, like being able to drink water and pet dogs. I also have very ambitious vices as everyone else, but I would not change the first two for anything. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

I think that's a profound realization.

The ultimate goal of the philosopher is to see themselves acting as copies of the gods in heaven. After long excursions and trips into the fields of ethics, ontology, science, metaphysics, etymology, mathematics, freedom, will, determinism, dualism, matter, mind and body, monism, atheism, theology, politics, observations, perceptions, objective truths, methodologies, logic, etcetera, it's time to time to thank our philosophers in time and welcome a new dawn in Philosophia.

Gods are alive and laying!

I find myself observing, and also not doing it, which makes me think: Is my condition actually an illness, or is it an adaptation, really? — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

The modern approach to depression is to see it as being caused by a chemical imbalance of neurotransmitters. Too many of them or too little. This can be the case. In which case there is no real reason except the neurotransmitters being produced too much, or too little. Or them being re-uptaken badly. Or whatever can cause the abnormal quantities. Drugs can relieve the pain. Heroin is well-suited but has known consequences. Mainly money-related. Given on prescription (in Portugal it's a legal stuff, like most drugs). Methadone, the state-provided drug, offers relief too. They don't kill physical pain only. Many people don't experience relief by taking anti-depressants. The situation actually can get wirse, no matter the sophidtication of a "new generation" of drugs (selective re-uptake inhibitors, for example). They did make it worse for me.

This imbalance could be caused by some defect in the brain mechanisms keeping the balance right. Modt of the time though, the imbalance has external causes. And most of the time these can't be taken away. Modern society is present in virtual every spot in the world.

Why so many people are depressed? Sign of the times.

, as I don't usually talk to other people. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Why not? I've been depressed for most part of my life. Luckily with great highs in between in which I felt myself truly. Bipolar is the label. The depression is not caused by a chemical imbalance. The depression, the imbalance, is caused by the unnatural surroundings we are puffed in. The baby grows in a world not fit for the brain. So the brain reacts Depression, psychosis, mania, drugs addiction, etc. I had a fair share of all and they are just reactions of the lightning-shaped chaotic brain to the linear environment it's pushed in.

Seems though that a monad is still a monoid in the category of endofunnctors.

Science doen't matter if we believe in it or not it is still real. Whereas Dogma needs belief to exist. — GBG

Science too needs believe to exist. It does matter if we believe it or not. Even in the science itself dogma exists. The central dogma of molecular biology, for example.

:lol:

Yes, they would. Would they truly wish everyone healthy? Would they sacrifice themselves for global health? Would they take the bullet?

The Codex Alimentarius will take care of their jobs... "All fall down, all fall down. Codex Alimentarius."

"Damned nurse Jetty, no customers today?"
"The more business for us, doctor Bonkers!"
"Nurse Jetty!"
"Doctor!"

In Buddhism, a bodhisattva (/ˌboʊdiːˈsʌtvə/ BOH-dee-SUT-və; Sanskrit: बोधिसत्त्व, Pali: बोधिसत्त) is any person who is on the path towards Buddhahood.

The Buddhahood of Man! Kill yourself to save the millions. Kill the millions to save yourself? Killemall? The eternal search for the supreme ethics. Eliminating the bad can be considered good but is it? Is a bad-free world of divine being preferable to a bad-loathed realm of sodogammoric torturing?

The trolly scheme to collect travelers down the rail. Trollybus company bosses can be difficult... what if the driver knew he would loose his job?

If you shoot thin Bonnor beams through the universe (and you would see them, though thats questionable,) the curvature of space becomes visible. Do you find curved space hard to imagine?