The first cause is a copy of that which already existed? — apokrisis

Where did I say so?

Is this your honest argument? The first cause is a copy of that which already existed? You are surely smart enough to see how that makes no sense and fails to end the infinite regress?

If you can’t make a serious case, don’t expect to be taken seriously. — apokrisis

I don't take anything seriously. Seriousness is the root of all evil.

There is no infinite regress. The eternal intelligent life in the heaven dont need no first cause. Intelligent life can be eternal without the need for another intelligence to create it. But non-intelligent dead matter needs an intelligence to be created. Thats an essential difference.

Right, the moon is not the pointing fingers (religions). It is not religion and doesn’t need religion to be seen. — praxis

You got it the wrong way round. The Moon is religion, science is the pointing finger. Science describes, analyzes, observes, models, hypothesizes, theorizes, etc. Religion give the reasons. The essence of the Moon.

Wow! Incredible and beautiful! Anyone claiming that math is dull, arid, and ugly is asked to kindly STFU! Can you zoom in like in those colored fractal zoomings (where the colors represent a rate of convergence, if Im not mistaken)?

How and why should that provide you with comfort? It is more of a Cause than a Reason. — god must be atheist

It's the reason for existence. They had good reason to let universal life continue their mad plays in heaven.

This knowledge gives me more comfort than the story atheists like Dawkins and Harris throw around, hitting themselves on the chest. All scientific knowledge, and as a physicist I can play the game along, is just a description from a distance. Knowing the gods made the universe evolving gets you actually involved in life without anyone being scientifically able to explain me.

Have you seen the movies "The Fall", "Badlands", "Tree of Life" or "Koyaanisqatsi" (and two others in the "qatsi" trilogy)?

Why are gods always connected with morality and ethics? Isn't it enough they just created the universes and the lives in it? And Isn't it clear that we shouldn't mess with their creation? Well, we can, obviously, and replace it by an artificial, unnatural world filled with hot technology and reconfigurated life with rearranged faces, but why should we? Don't we get out of touch with paradise more and more?

Is information the fifth state of matter? :
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle. — Gnomon

It's my guess that when matter, particles, are in some nice shape wrt each other, the total mass is someone higher. Or, on a memory chip, if the 1's and 0's show an ordered pattern, the mass of the chip is slightly higher than if they showed randomness. What if the showed total order? Say all 1 or all 0?

I am sorry, but I asked a straight question, to which you answered (as far as I can see) that the meaning for your life is that the gods can watch us. — god must be atheist

You asked me the meaning of life. The meaning of our lives, of all life, I might add in joyful honesty, stems indeed from a rather selfish reason the gods had. They made all life to watch it. Not to judge it. So we better give them a good time. Or do exactly the opposite. Just bother them...

The medium is heaven. Outside of the universe. Maybe somewhere in a higher dimensional space. I dunno. Maybe they are not casually connected. Maybe they can interfere somehow. Quantum mechanics offers possibilities. But I think there was no need to interfere. What for? To teach morals? Don't think so.

Sounds like scientists performing an experiment — Harry Hindu

Well, they know what they watch. Themselves in better times.

And now that we settled that, I'll ask you, what end does that meaning serve you with — god must be atheist

The only meaning it serves for me is that science can't provide the reason. It gives meaning to my being. A reason for me being there. Which science can't provide. That's all. So every time science says I'm a product of evolution or particles bouncing around I can say, that's a description only. No reason.

In short, all creatures are copying the gods.

Aye! God was/is genuine as for as motherf**ckers go. — Agent Smith

God, the Holy MF...

Mater Irrumator Praetor

Holy MIP!

Why are your god's such bad designers — universeness

The dino gods had their fair share! Once in a while there are mass extinctions. But life always keeps flourishing on the deads of the past. Ìf technology keeps inflating and inflating the future looks dim. The way people change the surface of the Earth is a different way from natural extinctions (of course it wouldn't be bad if we destroyed an asteroid potatoe if we knew it would hit the Earth!) happened. It's a continue pressure on nature, which is growing. You can try to escape with a spaceship (it only takes 2 months to the nearest star). FF and repeat...

What is the meaning of life? In your own words or less. — god must be atheist

The meaning, the reason, for all life, in my humble opinion, is that the universe, or at least the particles making it up, were created by gods, so, for whatever reasons they had for it, so we and all creatures developed as a copy of heaven, so they can watch us. In which case every scientific explanation, reason, or meaning, ceases to be valid. Are the gods atheists? Maybe they didn't believe in themselves anymore. So they used their creation power. So let's not disappoint them and give them some spectacle!

I have no problem with declaring my wish/purpose/goal to increase the pace of scientific breakthrough, discover new technologies, improve the human condition — universeness

A nice dream. But just look what technology brought us. What's so special about technology and its advancement? It's time humanity turns away from it and acknowledges the so-called scientific progress is a dead end road and looks for new more natural ways of life. Only like that we'll survive. And let's be honest. We know how the universe came to be, we know the particles in it, we know about evolution, and now it's time we should resume a path from which we digressed about 3000 years ago, to take the path of knowledge while not knowing shit. Except for some isolated pockets.

think the why is simply 'they couldn't do what humans can,' — universeness

Very true! Killing the planet, the natural world, getting rid of other species and cultures is not seen in the natural world.

Science has shown me only descriptions of reality. Not meaning or reason. Unless you wanna give meaning to describing reality. For me that's not giving meaning to life. Though I admit science is a nice form of art! You can even make money with it!

The same way that something intelligent can exist without being created. — Present awareness

But something intelligent existing eternally has creation power. It can create the universe out of nothing. Stupid dead matter can't create itself, even if eternal. It's too stupid for that so it had to be brought into existence an infinite time ago. Or maybe a few big bangs in the past.

Anything. — Harry Hindu

Except for closure of everything and give meaning and reason to anything, which science alone can't provide.

Not useful. — Harry Hindu

For what?

If it’s possible for something to always exist, like eternal intelligence, then it’s possible that the universe itself has always existed. No beginning and no ending, just a constant changing of forms. — Present awareness

How can something non-intelligent exist without being cretated?

I bet the whole computer including the chip, would turn bright orange with a yellow top and its first communication would be
"Seriously folks, this is the best, most wonderful chip of all the chips that have ever existed in a Universe full of chips, really folks, its the truth, it really is, all those other chips are just .fake and .foolish chips — universeness

:lol:

Would be a nice sketch!

I hope the next time you hurt yourself you get cured through prayer and you don't get all 'hypocritical' and visit a doctor! — universeness

Prayers won't help. And neither does the doctor.

Ha! Believe it or not (speaking of which), a small barking female creature pulled my arm last night. "Zzzack!" I gitta use my other arm now. Damned! But it will heal. Don't need no doctor (I can't stand my doctor! She refused to help me when I truly needed her. "Oath of Hippocrates..." $#@$%%$#!!!!!

Just kneel and pray at your bed before going to sleep. That donkey will come around...

Kant starts his book The Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786)

Matter is the movable in space; space, which is itself movable, is termed material or relative space; that in which all motion must in the last resort be conceived (which is therefore itself absolutely immovable), is termed pure or absolute space.

Nope, my main primal fear is that the price of certain single malt whisky might get too high for the contents of my sporran! — universeness

For which the donkey with the Golden Coin Donkey god would come in handy!

Of course they are bound. To copy heaven and life in it, they had to come up with and create particles and space in such a way that if the were let free all god creatures in heaven showed up in the universe. Which means precisely the (macroscopically) 3D space (rotation degrees equalling translation degrees), an extra dimension to let it expand in, and the right kinds of particles to let it all happen. The right coupling strengths for mass and large scale interactions.

You offer science-based commentary then you raise the incompatible flag above at the end — universeness

Ah! I see what your primal fear is now. You fear there is more than the universe...

The stories of Hans Christian Anderson are more convincing as facts — universeness

:lol:

Do you believe in the asininuous donkey shitting gold pieces? Could be...

SU(3) wasn’t constructed to fit the strong force. The structure of the strong force was found to be explained by the logic of this permutation symmetry. — apokrisis

It could have been U(3). But why is the trace 1? Because we made it. And no color singlet for gluon-antigluon pairs exist. But why they exist in the first place,?

So again, how does the symmetry fail to account for the structure of the interactions? — apokrisis

It doesn't fail to account. But like I said, SU(2)×U(1) accounts too but doesn't show what's going on really. And apart from accounting, SU(3) doesn't explain why it's there in the first place.

Holy mother of God! — Agent Smith

Grandma of JC! Could it be that God Himself fertilized the egg from which He sprang? Could we call it an immaculate conception? Retro-Sex maybe? In Vitrus Sanctus?

How about:
DonaldTrump.awForFu**Sake — universeness

:lol:

I don't wanna get uploaded in that file! The chips might explode!

I think you are talking about life, not gods. I think you just use the god label because you like a little woo woo in your life and it has the extra benefit of sating your primal fears, even though you deny it.
When your god posit is just based on, n my opinion. pure irrational emotional need, we are left with nothing but an exchange of opinion. — universeness

There can only be woo woo with gods. Then all of life becomes woo woo. Woo woo! Science can't explain woo woo. You can invent all kinds of labels or rationalizations, like a primal fear (no doubt I have them), but it will indeed stay your opinion that gods don't exist.

unlikey sources,' — universeness

You not likey likey god? :lol:

Yes, I did but only to expose them as 'unlikey sources,' of our Universe.
The difference was explained by apokrisis as well as me. The god posit gets pushed further and further back in its 'moment of spark.' It becomes less convincing that the god posited by any current religion has traction. — universeness

You don't push gods back by placing them in an infinite past. They still have created it.

SU(3) accounts for the strong force. It's the question if S(2)×U(1) accounts for an electroweak force. But apart from this, where did the interacting particles that made us invent these symmetries come from?

This is just the same as what Penrose is claiming. If you agree that the Universe oscillates between linear time frames of existence, then you agree with Penrose. You may disagree on the mechanisms involved but you agree on the results. — universeness

But the mechanism is different. I think every inflated universe backfires not within the current 3D universe, but, via a 4th space dimension through which only gravity propagates (all stuff is confined to only three dimensions), back to an origin in 4D, from where a new pair of 3D universes inflates into existence.

The creatures in heaven got it figured out damned well!

So perfect intelligence creates imperfect dumbness in order to create … some kind of half-arsed intelligence that exists to entropify — apokrisis

:lol:

Yeah, something like that. But how else could they have done it? The evolution of life can get along only if the thermodynamics is not in equilibrium. They were very smart in designing the right particles or mechanism to let the right ones appear.

We can “explain” any law by appeal to the fact it survives the test of existing. There must be something about it that works, in the largest sense.

That something is usually a symmetry or invariance. Which makes sense. An invariance is something you just can’t seem to get rid of no matter how much you twist and turn. — apokrisis

That doesn't explain the very existence of particles, spacetime, or the invariances in them. That merely describes, which is not an explanation of them being there.