The peony has it all...

The laughter of despair?

How can space expand? I can see how it bends, but expand?

Oh man, you're "trying" way too hard ... — 180 Proof

"Try" what?

I have one Capra book. Not sure if it's the Tao. It's got a blue cover with a stone wall and a white wave. He says interesting stuff about economy but I haven't read more. The connection between life and QM, the part and the whole, not seems clear to me. Of course the non-locality of QM is interesting, and the QM phenomena are dependent on circumstance (close one slit and the pattern changes, which also happens in an experiment with two waterwaves, indicating that the wavefunction is, well, just a wave, which is nothing special per se; so why not associate waterwaves with eastern philosophy? Waterwaves have beautifull non local features, i.e., one part of a wave is no causaly connected with the other parts, all parts exercising the collective motion), but hey, there is more physics than QM. QM is nothing special, and I can't see the connection with consciousness. Quantum matter ain't different from normal matter.

"Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" lay around somewhere too. Penrose, Rovelli, all nice but not particularly enlightening. David Bohm is great. The hologram universe.

Notions of the "numinous" "sacred" "spiritual" "supernatural" "miraculous" "mystery" ... are 'meaningful' only in relevant discursive forms of life (metaphysical / religious / aesthetic traditions) as highly-qualified, or overly-interpreted, 'experiences' of limit-situations (Jaspers), etc — 180 Proof

Why not consider life itself "numinous" "sacred" "spiritual" "supernatural" "miraculous" "a mystery", instead as "highly-qualified, or overly-interpreted, 'experiences' of limit-situations (Jaspers)" (who ever that might be), as secular knowledge tends to turn it into?

Why should the burden be on the afterliver?
— Haglund
Because the burden of proof falls both on the positive claim and on the extraordinary claim which is contrary to ordinary experience and facticity. — 180 Proof

So the burden of proof lays on the believer because it lays on the believer? Why should they proof it in the first place? If they could, it wouldn't be a belief anymore. Of course it could be a fantasy then, but isn't the big bang a fantasy too then? How you wanna proof the big bang?

This sounds the same as the simulation argument. We can be in a simulation without knowing it. And not only is the world simulated, like in the Matrix movie, but our brain too. Because our brain is a simulator, it should become a simulator being simulated.

I'm convinced though that all intelligences can appear only from natural processes, so not from conscious construction. Only the gods can do that.

It depends what you call an organized approach. All is there. The particles (C and U), the charges (three of them), the Lagrangians (excuses for the term used on this forum), a particle shape, which might cause problems for short-range behavior, but at the distances involved should pose no problem. The difficulty lies in assigning coupling strengths for the strong color interaction.

I read it indeed after I posted. Why should the burden be on the afterliver? And what about the proof of theoretical induction, pointing merciless to infinite replay mechanisms?

PS___The Cause (impetus) of an ongoing chain-of-causation is necessarily prior-to & external-to the chain, yes? Hence, the First Cause question entails an Exogenous (originating from outside) Force, no? — Gnomon

What if the chain is infinitely long or closed? Ìf all prior causes are endogenous?

Old wine in a new bottle: The Ship of Theseus. What if we reassemble your brain parts. What then? — Agent Smith

This can, in my respectful opinion be established in a new episode of the cosmological drama. Within the current episode, the particles being you, can never be you again.

Neurons can't be made in a lab. Let alone 100 billion of them, interconnected like lightning in intricate ways. In a living body. In a living world.

We should be able to 'dig' each other within the 'guidelines of debate.'
I think we do that quite well — universeness

Yes! Enjoy StarTrek! Great series hey? Space, the final frontier...

In a sense, a virtual particle is causing itself. It can be seen as a particle rotating in a space-time diagram. If there is one space and one time direction, the wordline is a circle, which real particles can't do anymore. A real particle doesn't travel on closed wordlines, i.e., returning to where it starts.

Was writing something in similar lines (except the cosmological part!, but thanks!). The "battle" will continue my friend! :wink:

I'm not sure the atheist in general accepts my arguments. I consider the fact that we, life, and the universe are there is proof of gods. It can't have caused it's own existence.

There is not any objective evidence that warrants belief that there is an "afterlife" ( — 180 Proof

Neither is there that warrants there is none.

You sound desperate and at war with yourself. — universeness

Huh? Projection?

Ok, perhaps your gods will one day take you there instantly. Thanks for the exchange! — universeness

You talk theist! No, they won't do that... Thanks for the exchange!

And the third round goes to...

You haven't beaten me! Apart from dogmatic use of primal fear or telling that Im unconvincing (which is not my intent).

Yeah well, that might take us more time than the lifespan of our Universe. — universeness

No, you could reach billions of lightyears in 80 years.

A free electron moves in all possible ways. A straight line is one of them.

So does that mean they don't exist just because you cant observe or detect the place they refer to. — universeness

No. It means they don't exist in our universe. They can show themselves but dont exist here.

Here is one interesting video about God debate, I find it interesting because it's so hard for scientists to do anything about God: — SpaceDweller

They can't do anything against gods. That's their frustration...

I mean if it goes in a straight line and returns.

If thrown up, it returns.

Here is my coordinate system that indicate where your gods live (1,9,2.5.9.0.0.0.0,1,1,1,1, 10278).
So is this proof your gods exist? — universeness

Gods don't exist in this universe.

We will never know if something exists or not if we will never have any way to detect it. — universeness

But we can! We can fly to the observable edge of what we see and go behind the horizon. Like on Earth.

From the physics stack exchange:
Electrons on the other hand, do have rest mass. It is very confusing when somebody learns about rest mass and thinks electrons can actually be brought to rest. In reality they cannot be. No one has ever experimentally seen an actual electron at rest — universeness

How can an electron not be at rest if it returns? It has to be at rest at some moment.

No, they are not observable! — universeness

Which doesn't mean they don't exist. If you go there with the sol you'll get there!

It's like the cookie dough example. The TOTALITY of the dough cannot expand if it is infinite but individual regions within the dough may be able to 'distort.' — universeness

Infinite dough can get twice as big. Hmmmm...! :yum:

Can we actually bring a photon, an electron, a muon to rest? Has this ever been actually achieved? — universeness

A phiton, eeeh, photon no. An electron or muon yes.

Infinite but not boundless simply means that the Universe may have parts that we will never be able to even 'detect,' so in that sense it has very real boundaries for lifeforms such as us. — universeness

Which means an infinite space with infinite observable universes.

Yes it does if the infinite can expand then it was not infinite. — universeness

It can. In infinite many regions, the regions can expand. Infinity can become twice it's size and stay the same.

I understand eternal inflation to be referring to the limits/edges of the Universe. — universeness

Eternal inflation posits an eternally inflating infinite space with pockets.

Another view is that it may be infinite but not boundless. — universeness

Infinite with bounds? I don't understand.

In science, infinite means boundless. That which is boundless cannot expand or else boundless does not mean boundless. — universeness

Which doesn't mean infinite space cant expand. Eternal inflation posits an infinite space eternally inflating.

In 'reality,' muons don't have a restframe. So your 'proper lifetime,' label is notional. — universeness

Muons have a restframe like electrons have.

The question, "why am I me?" is a meaningless question (many philosophical questions are) if you understand that you are the result of a causal chain of events, and that if there was a different chain of events, it would not be that you would be some one else, rather you wouldn't exist at all. — Harry Hindu

But the question is why you are that particular combination of particles originating near the big bang leading to the life you lead from baby on. Why are you not another combination of particles leading to, for example, a current crocodile?

In many locations in the US, you can call Dig Safe at 811. They'll come out and mark out where the underground utilities are. If you call, don't tell them you're burying someone. — T Clark

:lol:

"Dig safe"...

811... are you serious?

Yes, you are! A priori knowledge?

I have the impression guys that you are using a definition of a god that is far too alien from mainstream thought of what God is...
God by definition is Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, Omniscient, Omnitemporal, Omnipresent and Perfect.. — Arfel

There is more than one definition of gods. In ancient Greece there were a lot of them living on a mountain. Why are they part of mythology and God not? Some old philosophers weren't happy with that ancient pan and replaced it with a mono containing them all, and the world is stuck with him. Why should we stick to that old definition which came after the old definition?

"Model"? Ain't the standard model a model?

The link I provided you numb nut :D — I like sushi

You're very cryptic now. What riddle I must solve, in my humble humbleness, your highness? What did I numb out?