Physical causality is a logical necessity for life to exist. It's not a sufficient logical necessity though. But without it, life can't evolve in the first place.

11 April 1954! — Agent Smith

Oldham Athletic footballer Jack Shufflebotham sr. died that day! A most memorable day! Any time tourist would have revealed themselves!

We humans have an apocalyptic mindset — Agent Smith

:chin:

The only way to travel back in time would be a temporary reversion of motion. And if that motion were reversed again at my day of birth (24-09-1985), I would have traveled back in time. The past is gone, and only on far away planets they could see me how I acted 10 years ago (at the habitable planet around Proxima Centauri. Can we ourself look at our past? If we could use black hole, maybe. We could direct light and watch the light we emit. But our particles can't go back in time to meet their past versions. Only virtual particles can travel back in time be it over a short span. Suppose I travel back in time a day. I watch myself for a day and see myself travel back. I travel back with myself. We hide together. We watch again, and wait a day. It would get crowded in the past, if my present matter shows up there. Imaginary parallel worlds, from which matter is taken to solve this riddle, won't save the travel.

The question is how? — Agent Smith

Without causality, no life. Only if causality exists, life can exist. Life exists. So causality is an a priori logical necessity.

My view is, all of these primitive or basic intellectual operations such as number and logical principles underpin the process of rational thought and language — Wayfarer

That's you want them to underpin the process of rational thought and language.

.at least as far as our kind of intelligence...
— Mww

What other kind is there? — Wayfarer

There are more creatures in this world. People are by no means unique.

I agree they exist in nature, within the objects that exhibit them. I have a problem with assuming they have independent existence, because that raises more unanswered questions. — Relativist

Maybe not within the objects themselves. Rather in their spatial relation with other objects, or the spatial relations of the parts of which the object is made up (in which case the lay within the object, in a certain sense)). We know nothing about the objects themselves. We call the contents of objects (and the objects they are made of, way down to the fundamental level) physical charge and mass. These contents we only get to know if we literally consume them and they become part of us.

Differing languages have different grammars? Or did you mean semantics? — Banno

Different semantics seems obvious. The Swahili word for house might have a different meaning than the American word (and even the American house might differ from the American). Likewise for things like rocks. The grammar of language might also differ (contrary to Chomsky's rigidity).

In nature. Where else? The laws describe how natural stuff behaves so it's in the behavior of nature where they reside.

There you go! (And here I come!) And considering the fact that there is a broad assortment of communities, languages convey a broad variety of realities, and dependent on the kinds of realities might or might not contain common syntax.

Our social institutions have language as their basis. — Banno

:chin:

What I mean is, language itself, the symbols, contain no reality. The symbols are little works of art. On their own they are just curvy lines. But in the fertile soil of our brain they cause a flood of ideas, feelings, bodily stuff, etc. Call it enactivation.

I mean, foreign language doesn't cause a reality in me. The words have to fall in fertile soil. I can remember the strange experience of suddenly understanding Italian.

Indeed, that is how we do things with words. They are not only descriptions. — Banno

Indeed. I don't deny that. Learned words can't be seen apart from what they enact. But the enactivation is not contained in them. They can cause enactment, but do they themselves enact? Or is that exactly what is meant? Language enacts realities or causes realities?

Language can be used to describe. It can also be used to enact. "I name this ship the Black Pearl" makes it true that the ship is named the Black Pearl. "I promise to see you tomorrow" makes it the case that I have promised to see you tomorrow. — Banno

To enact. But it doesn't enact itself. When you have learned a word, the whole context is connected. And if you see that word again, the context "clicks" in.

and hence language is what enables the activity to occur. — Banno

Of course. It enables the expression of a world in a larger context. Language itself doesnt enact.

As evidence, consider:
The reality of this conversation is enacted via language.
The reality of a promise or a command are enacted via language.
The reality of such institutional entities as money, property, or marriage are enacted via language. — Banno

Don't think that's evidence. If I hadn't learned English, the connection would not be made. No enactive activity would take place.

I disagree with your contention that it does not enact realities. — Banno

Language per se doesn't enact the reality. It's the con"text" of language that does the trick. The words "morning dew" trigger a complete visionary or even sensory reality. The equation F=ma triggers an image of pulling and pushing, of motion, of change, of mass even. And the relation between them. Change F=ma in Fuck ma! and look what happens to the F, m, and a! "Morning dew" or "F=ma", or "Fuck ma!" are just black symbols, black lines with particular shapes. And it depends on context what you make of it.

The structured symbols in any language, if you know how to read them in the right way, can trigger ideas in your brain, and it can be used to transform these ideas into symbolic form. It will always be an abstraction, but the brain is versatile enough to connect the right ideas with the language used. So both to express ideas as to inform about ideas, language does well. And sometimes it can inspire new ideas.

So did I. But you suggested I didn't.

and as if mathematics were not language. — Banno

Math is a language.

As if science papers consist only in mathematical expressions; and as if mathematics were not language. — Banno

I knew you would bite! No of course not. But by looking at a physics article in Russian I could see what was done by looking at the math only.

Math is just a means to express science quantitatively. The ideas precede their transformation into math.

What the experiencer is, I don't know, perhaps it's something to do with super symmetry; in my opinion everything is symmetrical but super symmetric phenomena occured, creating an illusion of asymmetry — Varde

Supersymmetry refers to bosons and fermions, and as such has no real world impact. Fermions and bosons can be turned into one another mathematically, but the transformation in reality can't. All matter is fermionic, all interaction fields bosonic. How do supersymmetric phenomena create an illusion of asymmetry?

We are the experiencer enigmas that experiences the being eclipses — Varde

The Platonic shadows?

For every illuminated phenomenon is shadow- for every shadow, a concave, and a mirror. In part a human is many, and this many, together, is super symmetric — Varde

:chin:

Helper:
If you view things plainly it seems as if it's not all symmetrical but if you consider each part its own center, you can imagine it. — Varde

Good point!

Risible. — Banno

You mean it does?

Frisible! Prisible! Trisible! Chrisible! Chrisbible! Christ, the Bible!

:lol:

I don't know about mr. Hillary, but I'm certainly not!

Not me. My arse!

Playing with words is not my problem. That's the easy part. It's the ideas that count. And language plays a minor role in the world of developing ideas.

Well we can see atoms or at least the protons and we can measure gravity waves with special equipment, but we haven't yet measured or even defined our consciousness. Maybe just learned self preservation behaviors given precedent over behaviors that are risky. Beyond that I don't know its purpose. — TiredThinker

The nature of matter is unknown. That's the secret to consciousness. The purpose, reason, or meaning of all life is a divine one.

Janus
You got the question wrong, Janus. The right question is __ Which is best? Lick or get licked?
— Ken Edwards

Would I rather lick an arse or have my arse licked? Neither sound at all appealing, unless it were a beautiful, clean young woman, but, otherwise, if I had to choose, I would definitely go with the latter. — Janus

Dear god... what is this forum turning into...?

What's a Pony trek? And just outof interest, what's your birthday?

Maybe Im the Christ of the new age (my wife thinks Im a nutter...).

In what way have they 'worked it out pretty well?' You just agreed that they do have a responsibility towards that which they created so in what ways have they met that responsibility? — universeness

In the way that all life in heaven appeared in the universe. Of course each god had their own responsibility. And the human gods fucked it up for their fellow gods.

99% of all species that have ever been on the Earth have gone extinct so what do their gods do now? — universeness

Watch all other life of course. What else? Or maybe they are not bored anymore, which would be strange, because why would they show up in my dream then. Whatever might be the case, their creation still exists.

It's interesting to find out how far your imagination can take this.
You will need to come up with something more Intelligible or you will remain open to constant ridicule but perhaps that's what you want as somewhere inside you think that's all you deserve. — universeness

It's the most intelligible it can get. The universe is a material reflection of heaven. Why should I find it out in the first place if I dont like it. Im no masochist.

Yet you want others to accept gods with no evidence accept the mere existence of life and the
Universe and you complain about science opening every box it can and you call this 'pressurising nature' You seem to struggle to balance your equations. — universeness

I dont want anybody to accept gods. I dont complain about science! I graduated from university! I love science!

You are directing this Pony trek, only you know what's really going on in your head that manifests in your shall we say fringe polytheism. Is it mere attention seeking? — universeness

Dont we all seek attention? But thats not the reason to believe in gods.

You often try to merge your science knowledge with your polytheist dalliances.
Your attempts are a bit 'Hans Christian Anderson,' in style.
Your polytheistic shape will never fit into any space found in Science.
You offer a meal of sugar-coated beef steak. The vast majority of humans will reject your offer. — universeness

If that's your impression. It's not my intention to merge them. And atheist cant give scientific counters because I know more about physics than any one of them, and the gods helped me. Why should I care if people dont want to eat what I offer? I'm happy with it, and if others dont want or arent able to eat it, who cares? It could be maybe that my brain is fried by certain substances.. Science cant have a space for gods? Why not? TheoLOGY!

CREDIBILITY---
1. Another mind (another person) makes a claim about reality.
2. A claim is honest IF the claimant is not lying or engaging in misdirection
3. A claim is thorough IF the claimant has not misunderstood their observations, AND has complete knowledge of their observations, AND has true observations
4. IF their claim is honest and thorough, THEN it is probably true — Virus Collector

3) and 4) are unjustified.

1. If initial observations of multiple events are the same, AND final observations of the same multiple events are similar, THEN a pattern has been observed
2. IF a pattern has been observed, AND initial observations match the initial observations of the events of the pattern, THEN final observations will probably match the final observations of the pattern — Virus Collector

1) applies to astrology as well.
2) That the final observations of the pattern and the final observations match depends on the state of the initial pattern. They can probably match or probably not.

BUT we still don't know HOW reality functions — Virus Collector

Don't we? Isn't reality made up of basic divine material?

Do humans have any responsibility to the children they create? Should this not apply even more to gods? — universeness

It does apply to gods just as well. And they worked it out pretty well. I think you have the wrong idea of heaven. You think all gods are human like. But the dino gods have literally dino shapes. It are no human shapeshifters (that's why I asked the last question). The bird gods are literally eternal birds, etc. So they did a good job in taking care of their creation. The people gods, as can be seen from their mortal material counterparts, fucked up in the preambles to creation.

All you suggest here is let's just focus on the pretty box rather than worry about its internal workings. — universeness

No. I give attention to the inner box. Im curious about the innards. Especially the pre big bang era and the neural network.

So the point you were making is moot! — universeness

What point did I make? I just said that Matt is another TV preacher.

Surely your theology cannot be killed if you won't let it die so what are you worried about? — universeness

Indeed. I have no reason to worry.

I know, you have already suggested your gods are inadequate and heaven failed for them.
They seem to fail much more than they succeed. I think you project human frailties onto them. Perhaps you project your own personal frailties onto them to make sense of yourself. — universeness

Yes, it's me that's bored with life! Come on! You can do better than that!

That's for you to offer not for me to guess! — universeness

Then how can you make claims that they are inadequate? They ard, in fact. All of them, from dog to whale, just got bored. And the used their bundled intelligences and creation power to create the necessary ingredients. Divine elementary virtual particles with the right properties and a bulk space to let them evolve in. And again, these wicked, sneaky people gods...

How you think my vision of heaven and the gods looks like?

Your birds of paradise do the same mating dance every time. Do you think your gods ever get bored watching the birds of paradise repeat their dance? — universeness

They don't only dance. And yes they get bored. It's what actually happened!

Amoral because they take no responsibility for their own creations, something you accuse Science of. — universeness

Not sure if I understand this. They take no responsibility for their creation? What should they be responsible for?

I find it hard to follow your thought processes at times. Lost in translation perhaps.
Are you saying you are happy to be a performing monkey to entertain inadequate gods? — universeness

:lol: Almost! I'm happy to be a handsome guy with an almost clownesque intelligence and maybe I make my god counterpart or other gods, in heaven laugh, cry, or neither. Frankly, I don't care what they think of me.

So these birds dance to entertain their god and it has nothing to do with attracting a mate as Science suggests it is? Is that your claim? — universeness

Of course you can look at it the scientific way. Like you can investigate all in our universe. The whole process of evolution is not to pass genes or memes (though of course this happens) but just to make life appear.

How does it work both ways? — universeness

The gods are entertained and life can enjoy life. It's good for us and good for them. Both ways.

So, you don't care so will that stop him or does it defeat the points he makes? — universeness

I don't think that will stop him. Neither will it stop the evanhellicals.

My advice would be keep engaging! Don't just surrender to woo woo, at least keep your mind open. I remain open to gods. All the cowards have to do is show up and submit themselves to scientific scrutiny. If they can't then they are not gods and they don't and never have existed. — universeness

I have never surrendered to woowoo. I keep my mind wide open, but at the same time I keep it closed for attempts to kill my "theology".

I engaged myself in all that reasoning against theism too. "But if god... then how...and what...? Against the view I hold no, no reasoning or argument suffices.

Every mathematical shape has a counterpart in nature or can be created by us. Of course an infinite dimensional vector space has no counter part, and it's the question of path integrals of the Lagrangian truly exist, but it should be possible to physically make one. Like Möbius bands.

Matt Dillahunty:
I say Yay! you say Nay! I doubt he cares one jot. He proves himself imo, every time he chews up another theist viewpoint, espoused by the theist callers to his show. — universeness

And I really don't care a jot about his preachings, like I don't give a jot about the phony theist TV vanhellicals!

Your god(s) sound like selfish pigs and imo, seem unworthy of your need for them or your determination to assign them existence. — universeness

And not only pigs. Monkeys, mice, trees, bacteria, flees people, and even my pussies! And I like to give them a nice show! And so do all other forms of life. If they are worthy or not is not my interest. Maybe they are, maybe not. I take joy from the fact that they took care of it.

Where did I mention knowledge from before the big bang as a prerequisite for human dance? — universeness

Okay, but scientific knowledge is not needed to dance. To take pictures, a camera is needed, to paint, linen, knowledge of paint or how to use it, knowledge of varnish, and we can use computers to translate communicate or create new stuff with.

I don't know, do they? — universeness

How else can the paradise bird dance?

Yeah, I've seen some of it. I think from Gene Kelly, Fred Astair to Darcey Bussell, Rudolph Nureyev all the way to even.....Lady Gaga and my nieces are much better. — universeness

It's not who is better. We dance differently, and most people worse than the paradise bird! Science says it's a mating dance to pass on genes. But its just the way of the paradise bird gods. That's another reason I believe in gods. Science tries to explain all human and animal behavior like that.

and your alternative 'what it's all about,' is to keep inadequate fictitious gods entertained? — universeness

And ourselves! It works both ways.