Yes, but how can you set something in motion without moving yourself? Is he inert, supermassive?

Why is he called mover then?

And the unmoved mover? How he moves?

A few comments. Aristotle clearly does not think God/Prime Mover is the maker of the world. — Jackson

The demiurg sets it in motion only?

You don't understand?
— chiknsld

Please refrain from ad hominems. — Jackson

Why is that ad hominem? Well, it actually litterally is. A question is asked to you, It just asks if you don't understand. It doesn't imply that you're dumb.

Okay, the origin of the universe. Let's imagine, my philosopher friends, a 2-dimensional analogy of the true higher dimensional happenings. Consider two infinite stretches of space connected by a thin wormhole. The space is empty, but due to quantum reality filled with virtual particles making their eternal rotations in time and space. Consider them as closed loops in Feynman diagrams. The quantum bubbles. The vacuum is a bubbling medium. All preons (two, in fact, the absolute minimum) and all interaction mediating particles (photons and gluons) make their eternal rounds. There is no time yet going in one direction.

Now let's assume, dear reader, that all preons, photons, and gluons, are confined to just one dimension in our 2d imagery. Only gravitons can occupy the fullness of the 2d bulk space. In the real world, preons, photons, and gluons would exist in the three dimensions of the observable universe only. And our universe would be embedded in a 4d space, which exists on two sides of a thin 4d wormhole.

Now, let's consider the preons be situated on two circles circumventing the mouth. By giving the mouth a tiny width and by constructing particles from an flat plane by curling one dimension of this plane up to an equally tiny circle, and placing a particle as a small circle on it (giving them an apparant point-like form from a distance), we can fit the circles neatly around the throat (note that the 2d plane has become 3d but seems 2d from afar, like the point only looks point from afar.

And look what can happen now. The curvature around the wormhole is negative (repulsive gravity!). Meaning the virtual particles are inflated into existence. With a big bang on both sides. The rest is history.

Question remains, from where comes this big bangs generator and the particles and spacetime involved? The particles with specific charges...

I'm sure in the far future some scientist will work on that sort of things and start building machine that will be able to so something along those lines. BTW what kind of device do you really have in mind? — dclements

Let's take a look at the definition"

"Mind uploading, also known as whole brain emulation (WBE), is the theoretical futuristic process of scanning a physical structure of the brain accurately enough to create an emulation of the mental state (including long-term memory and "self") and transferring or copying it to a computer in a digital form."


So, a physical structure of the brain is scanned accurately. Whatever "a" physical structure means. This is used to create an emulation of the mental state, including long-term memory and self. Whatever is meant by that. This emulation is transferred or copied to a computer. Whatever meant by that.

I can't grasp this description. Its an incoherent, confused, definition, throwing around arbitrary concepts to give the impression the mind is litterally extracted (scanned), put in a bottle (emulated), and injected (transferred or copied). I'm baffled.

Death and Night and Blood (Yukio)

Western folks fear death. For the samurai it's nothing to fear and connected with honour. Death and night and blood (Yukio).

If something is eternal, meaning its always been around, by definition it can't be created right? — Philosophim

That's the question most difficult. You would say no, as they were always there, like the gods. But since gods have created the universe in heavenly image, they must have had a way to create particles eternally in the past. Or maybe created all of spacetime at once. And then put in the particles to follow the lines.

But if you believe a God could just happen, — Philosophim

Well, I don't believe this. They just exist forever. What can be one of the reasons for their creation. Eternal intelligence stands on another level than eternal particles. They fall in different categories, so to speak.

But if you believe a God could just happen, then logically, this could happen as well — Philosophim

There you God me! But gods are wise. They have creation power. Particles don't.

The particles can be eternal and still created by gods. I think.

Only events, paradoxically the name is, contain both cause and effect. It depends which way objects on worldlines flow which precedes which. If matter were set in motion at infinity, the end of the universe, we would now be typing away the text on the computerscreens. Can you imagine?

One big difference between Japanese art and Western art is the lack of individuality in the Japanese. The art has to conform to standards, so it seems and a move away from that standard gives entartete art. Entarteteart!

So for example, a particle could appear right now, then wink out of existence. — Philosophim

That can't happen. That's why the universe is eternal.

As I said, I'm not ready to have this argument. — T Clark

Okay. It throws a new light on revolution though. Eeeh.. on evolution. Viva La Evolution Revolution!

Why is matter dumb? — Jackson

Good question! Ill reflect. Too much at once...

You did not address the point I made. If you want a discussion, or to have your point be taken seriously, address the point I made please. If you don't understand the point I made, feel free to ask. — Philosophim

You took the words out of my mouth! You're right. I don't see (get) your argument. So I ask you indeed!

Why? And if matter is dead, wouldn't that mean it was once alive? — Jackson

Dead matter indeed was once alive matter. But matter is not intelligent enough to cause itself. It's too dumb, perfectly created as it might be (it contains the seed of life!).

It's a scientific dogma. On which Darwinian/Dawkinskian evolution is based. There also is an organism based version of evolution. Not popular though. It's Lamarckian evolution.

And if you believe God had no prior reason for its existence, then I'll post the original point I was referring to again. — Philosophim

Dead matter needs a creation. Eternal intelligence doesn't.

It is not known if the mutations are random or steered by the organism.

You might read about the scientific method ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method ), about Popper’s falsifiability criteria, etc. — stoicHoneyBadger

Sir pimpelPopper was a frustrated scientist, who tried to make science dance on the marchmusic of his false method.

Capitalism has certainly fucked some things up, like putting sugars and seed oils into food. But blaming all your troubles on it and assuming communism would do better might not be a reasonable way to go. — stoicHoneyBadger

Where I claim to be a communist?

Nietzsche: Guys, guys, guys, we're better than this! C'mon! — Agent Smith

Wasn't it Frederick thinking people are parasites sucking on the skin of nature? Wasn't he thinking he stood far above the others, being an übermensch? Nietzsche über allen! His sister tried hard in South America. Nuova Germania... Stronghold of the über Aryans.

If it is science, can you verify or falsify it? — stoicHoneyBadger

That's no criterion for being scientific.

You are welcome to believe whatever religion / cult / ideology you want, just be honest with yourself and don't call it science — stoicHoneyBadger

What's non-scientific about it? Seems pretty convincing to me. You gotta admit that capitalism is fucking up the planet. Which might not be evil per se, but is quite disturbing to be honest.

There is just a relationship between a non-spatial point of reference (point of location), which is somewhat arbitrarily placed in the spatial world, but only arbitrary to the extent that the required relations may be determined. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sounds like affine space, without an origin.

I see what you mean, I think. But what if your space changes it's metric? Your shapes would change. If you draw lines and shapes on a thin piece of stretchable rubber, don't the shapes change form? If they keep their shape, the distances between the shapes will change, like the distance between static galaxies in the universe grows.

Well I know you believe that, but I have no reason to. I'm not in the secret, suppressed knowledge business. — Tom Storm

Then straighten up, head full in the wind, and walk proudly and tall. If you don't need the knowledge it's up to you. Material knowledge can't explain the origin of that matter. Or impose boundaries on that knowledge.

I don't know what you mean by religious knowledge. — Tom Storm

That's because that knowledge is suppressed from the time you were a kid. It's simple though. It's knowledge about the heaven and the gods in it. About their reasons to create life based on matter. Knowledge to talk to them, or how or if they contact us. It's not moral knowledge Though It's related and the divine knowledge has influence on the scientific knowledge (material knowledge) or knowledge of the soul and mind.

question what was there before becomes infinitely never ending question.
in other words, scientists will never be able to defeat God. — SpaceDweller

Ah yes! Science can describe the universe but not explain it. I had an epiphanistic experience about an infinite series of big bangs on a bulk space. But from where does this infinite series come? Only god(s) know(s).

if matter is eternal then that's a big problem. — SpaceDweller

Why's that?

No, I can't see that. How would you demonstrate this? — Tom Storm

I don't mean to demonstrate it, but ask if it could be. Isn't religious knowledge proof? Isn't theology taught at our universities. To which I might add, on the highest floor, normally, with lifts with one button only. "I wanna go down".

I think you're wrong on that because scientists are trying to answer something from nothing rather than avoiding it. — SpaceDweller

Krauss and grassy Tyson offer no theory of something from nothing here. They say nothing is empty space. Filled with virtual possibility. From which the real flashes into existence. Which is different frome something from nothing, as it is falsely claimed.

I have no reason to ask 'who' or use the word 'created' for anything. I think you may be right about eternity but this may be beyond human understanding for now. — Tom Storm

Can't we have an innate, a priori divine, religious knowledge? If beyond human understanding for now, when will we know? When we die?

A 1d sphere is a circle. A 2d sphere is like a 2d shell. If you travel in it you come back where you started. Our universe is a 3d sphere.

I don't think science has ever determined that there was ever nothing. The 'something from nothing' trope seems unique to religious worldviews. — Tom Storm

If the universe is eternal, which, in my calmly reasoned, humbly humbleness, seems to be the case, then who created eternity? Why can't a cause lay infinitely far away in the past? What is time if not experienced by their eternal creations? Eternity might take the blink of an eye.

Hawking in "Godel and the end of physics" wrote:

"In the standard positivist approach to the philosophy of science, physical theories live rent free in a Platonic heaven of ideal mathematical models. That is, a model can be arbitrarily detailed, and can contain an arbitrary amount of information, without affecting the universes they describe. But we are not angels, who view the universe from the outside. Instead, we and our models, are both part of the universe we are describing. Thus a physical theory, is self referencing, like in Gödel’s theorem. One might therefore expect it to be either inconsistent, or incomplete. The theories we have so far, are both inconsistent, and incomplete."

Which is nonsense. We can imagine ourselves outside of that universe and contemplate the happenings while time proceeds for us.

As I explained to apokrisis, you cannot add another dimension without adding another feature. If you add another feature, then the figure is not the same figure. For example, a one dimensional line is not the same as a two dimensional plane, and a two dimensional circle is not the same as a three dimensional sphere. So it doesn't make any sense to talk about the same object in 2d, 3d, and 4d, that's a fundamental category mistake. — Metaphysician Undercover

Gaussian curvature is an intrinsic property, which can be measured inside the curved space. For example, on a 2d sphere, initial parallel lines, after parsllel transporting them, can cross. Or triangles have different angle sums.

One might, exercising the uttermost caution, conjecture that the phenomena are the outside appearances, and the noumena antithesis thereof, the inside story. Appearances, as we all have come to learn, can deceive, and the question intrudes, in the name of truth and justice: should we look for a more fruitful synthesis of both? Is a synthetic trinity, instead of the quite disappointing dual of the thesis and antithesis, what's desired?

What you think of the new atheists and the far right?

In my opinion, I am real, you are real, the Universe is real, we are capable of dream states, there are no gods and advanced transhumanism is and will continue to advance and 'downloading' a human consciousness in the very very distant future will be possible. Again, thanks for the exchange — universeness

A valuable opinion! An admirable goal. Let's see what happens. Fact is that you and I are real and live in two different but not mutually exclusive realities. Maybe one day the transhumans shake hands with gods, lemme tellya! :cheer: :starstruck: :pray: