I mean, they either exist or they don't. What's so bad about it if they existed? We should be lucky they created a universe!

I am 99.9% sure gods don't exist. — universeness

But how can you be so sure if you don't know if they exist in the first place?

You should use Logic and its rules in all the aspects of your life...even when arguing against magical thinkers. — Nickolasgaspar

The point, my dear Nickolast, is that logic and chance don't work against magical thinkers. They just stand up, laugh at you, and play along happily! :lol:

Dark matter: primordial black holes
Dark energy: the hyperbolic curvature of a higher dimensional space on which our universe, together with a mirrored version, inflates towards infinity.

No mysteries...

Most aversion of gods is based on the modern notion of one inhuman omni SUPERGOD, the afterlife, and threatenings with eternal suffering in hell or awarding with an eternal blissful heavenly existence, the both of which are equally boring.

The truth is though that only an eternal heaven exists with a multitude of eternal gods living in it. Bored as they were suddenly with life, they made a collective effort and succeeded in the development of a magical kind of material, which they brought into existence by creation. And on this magical material, live evolves periodically in a series of big bangs. So their existential void is filled watching creation. There is no hope we will ever go to heaven.

It is shame that some people including so called scientists twisted the concept of time as if it is physical entity and wasted lots of time discussing and confusing people as if, it can be reversible or flowing to some directions etc. — Corvus

Time is made something physical indeed. The clock, which is projected upon an imaginary (!) time axis in relativity; it. In fact, ideal clocks, with a perfect periodicity, are a fantasy. Coincidentally, I saw on TV that "progress" is made. Time can now be measured more precisely than ever. In a million billion year (no kidding!) the clock runs off one second... Now what an image of progress... so time can be "measured". Which means putting a clock next to a process. Is the process then time? And what about the clock itself? A periodic pricess? Well, periodic processes don't exist. So how can time exist? The only truly periodic process involves virtual particles, which existed before the inflation of the universe. So real clock time only existed when there was no time yet! Far out, man! :smile:

Future is just imagination stemmed from present awareness and memories of the past. — Corvus

But so is the past. An imagination. So with the imagination of the future, an imagination of time is formed.

When one dies, the whole thing disappears, to nothing and everlasting darkness and silence. — Corvus

Very true, my dear Corvus! But the sweet echoes of your guitar fill the universe! Unheard, unseen, in total darkness and unimaginable silence, but still...

Only the living ones keep playing the guitars and hear the sound. The dead ones cannot hear anything, feels nothing and doesn't know what time is. Time is just perception. — Corvus

Very true. Again! But if time is perception, then there is something the perception is about. Your guitarplay would become strangely surreal if not. Desirable as that might be! :smile:

The two and most important that are left out: Physica and Theologica. The order then is:

1). Theologica
2). Physica
3). Metatheologica
4). Metaphysica
5). Epistemologica
6). Logica-Mathematica
7). Aesthetica
8). Ethica
9). Politica
10)???ica

Is the proposition that there are no true or false propositions true or false?
If there are no true or false propositions, can you say then this is a true or false proposition? No, and then it doesn't make sense to talk about them either. There are only propositions then.
So the proposition should be: there are propositions. Which is evidently true.

In the eyes of Wittgenstein, a philosopher has a huge outgrowth, or soft hanging blob, on the side of his/her skull containing the neo-cortex part for language. They usually lean slightly to the other side for balance.
— Hillary

:chin: — Agent Smith

By which I mean that Wittstone assigns too much importance to the language facilities of the brain, situated in a thin region of the neo-cortex. His caricature image of the philosopher is a figure with a language blob growing out of the neo-cortical language region. And because of the extra weight the figure has to lean to the other side (right side, if It not mistaken) to stay balanced.

You mean to say that clarity, consistency, certainty are markers of illusion? That's interesting! So the more you (think you) understand something, the more deluded you are (psychotic individuals tend to be 100% certain about their beliefs); vagueness, uncertainty, cognitive dissonance are the defining features of the real world, the real world is, as someone once said, messy. — Agent Smith

In a sense, yes. When we stand vis-a-vis the material world, it offers resistance to our expectations, ideas about it, and our perception of it. In our dreams, the ideas and perception, the illusions, have free play, and as such are seen as perfectly real. When illusion and reality meet, the world comes to be.

Language doesnt refer, it enacts realities, and the danger is that in our interactions with others , we can enact meanings in a way that leads to confusions about what we are doing — Joshs

Language doesn't enact realities. It's merely a means of reinforcing and express them. To a minor extent It's involved in shaping realities.

Thank the Eternal Virtual Particle Vacuum! Thank Vipav! Doddamnit, I'm good!

What's the equivalent to "Thank God" in atheism/agnosticism? — Agent Smith

The first one who says you make ñoise, I will personally... How philosophical can it get?

You could make more noise and increase the signal more than that... The ratio will get better! Lovely sound thiugh, noise! :smile:

.such as property, money, government, credit...?
— Banno

Are these illusions illusions? How? — Agent Smith

Good question. Is the illusion an illusion? I encounter this kind of self-reference a lot while crawling through philosophical discourse. The meta questions. Data about data or physica about physica. The truth about the truth. Wasn't it Kierkegaard who said that the ruling of the tyrant is over when they die, while the martyr's ruling then begins? Anyhow, are money and property illusions? To the poor, yes, and generally they should avoid illusions that more money and property is heading their way. But what about the concept of money and property? Are they illusions? No, of course not. A Zippo cigarette lighter can be as much your property as the brain in your skull. It's a real property of the lighter. And with money you can buy fuel for it.

In the eyes of Wittgenstein, a philosopher has a huge outgrowth, or soft hanging blob, on the side of his/her skull containing the neo-cortex part for language. They usually lean slightly to the other side for balance.

I think the notion of truth that deals with what is or is not the case in an objective propositional sense is a profoundly inadequate way to ground a philosophy. Philosophy should be about how events are useful and begin with the question of what is use? Relevance is a more fundamental notion than truth. — Joshs

Though useful for pragmatists and engineers, I think this notion of truth lacks substance. The truth about the universe are known indeed by interacting and enacting, but this leaves out the truth of the nature of what's interacted with or what's enacted. Which offers a fair part of the truth as well.

It's like they only had to create a bow under great tension. When created, a real arrow takes of (from the vacuum virtuals), the arrow gives the bow slowly It's tension back, while loosing itself all energy, and, BANG!, the bow relaxes again, shooting a new real arrow from the vacuum, which again loads the bow,....etcetra, etcetera...

Don't take them too seriously. Their so-called sense is nonsense just the same. But cleverly packaged! So it looks sensible. Unwrap it in the right way and... POING!!! Clownshead on a spring... :starstruck:

Delusions, in psychiatry, are defined as the inabilty to distinguish the real from the unreal! So, you're on the right track, mon ami! — Agent Smith

Yes, my friend! But the real genius is able to draw the line again after returning from the madhouse.

Look. As time approaches infinity, or if all matter has turned photonic, then that's the signal for the central singularity to kick off a new inflation with a new thermodynamic time emerging. The only thing gods had to do was create the correct 4d vacuum bulk space with the right virtual particles. 3d space and TD time can emerge on this.

We can examine the passage of time in countable, discrete intervals. — Relativist

Yes. And?

points of time — Relativist

Points of time don't exist. Nor points of space.

I mean the spacetime continuum.

Language doesnt refer, it enacts realities, and the danger is that in our interactions with others , we can enact meanings in a way that leads to confusions about what we are doing — Joshs

Meaning that we do or say things we don't mean?

What the external physical world lacks in depth makes it up for in vastness. What the internal mental world lacks in vastness makes it up for in depth.

But that's the reverse of what you claimed above; your post was that he is mad, and that we should therefore dismiss his ideas: " What strange ideas, and he is even taken seriously! Anyone with a healthy brain can see the guy is wandering at the edge of psychosis and he probably has stepped over the borderline already long ago". — Banno

Yes. I said one can easily see he's in a state of psychosis, induced by his social difficulties. But I didn’t say that because of that he's wrong. I didn’t say that because he's mad, he's wrong. I'm quite mad myself, but I'm not wrong. If you have that impression I wrote that, then that's my writing capacities failing.

It would be interesting to work out exactly what the cat would see as the faster-than-light red dot approached it and then passed it by. Just like you can't hear a supersonic jet coming, you also cannot see the dot coming as it outruns the light it emits. — noAxioms

The moving dot is just a marquee. You can let a number go seemingly faster than the speed of light. Without anything actually moving.

God created or fired-up time, and then created a 3D universe (space, not spacetime) — noAxioms

To let both (apparently) 3d space and thermodynamic time (which Einstein compared with an ideal, non-existent clock, which he placed on an imaginary axis: it), there has to exist a substrate (apparently) 4d quantum vacuum first (by which I mean a bulk vacuum filled with, or made up of virtual particles). If the gods create such a TD timeless state (with special geometry, and the right particle properties) first, the universe as we know it (and a right-handed mirror version with antimatter) will automatically follow. And infinite big bangs after it.

Your argument seems to be "the world is not a simulation because Bostrom is mad".

Have you a valid contribution to make? — Banno

That is not my argument. I think he's mad to believe that and advocate it in all seriousness. That's all.

So you can't count infinity to yesterday. — Relativist

The continuum can't be broken up in the first place.

Yes. You mean that I was right when I thought water came from exhaust pipes of cars? That there were dead bodies beneath the floor playing with ping-pong balls? Luckily there were people holding me back when I tried to suck the exhaust pipes! Are there people telling our friend Nick that he is wrong? Simulated reality and super intelligences... Wrapped up in quasi intelligent package. Yeah... of course...

So I dont think there is anything magical about ‘creating’ life. — Joshs

Of course there is no magic involved, but the point is, we can't create life. Life can only evolve naturally.

Our most advanced computers not only are less complex than a virus, they are less complex than the intricate structure of simple inorganic molecules, given that we don’t know enough about the physical world to invent such molecules. — Joshs

It depends on the simple organic molecule. Simple organic molecules can be made without detailed knowledge. But a virus, not even a DNA molecule, can't be created in a lab. So even DNA molecules or viruses are more intelligent than computers, which are no more than programmed instructions performed at super high speed, giving the impression of intelligence.

Oh, I agree. I was simply pointing out the fallacy of reasoning that "He is mad, hence he is wrong". Bad reasoning needs to be called out, less it become a habit. — Banno

He's psychotic. During psychosis you think your illusion is real. Wrongly.

Being mad doesn't make him wrong. — Banno

Wrong about what? That we live in a simulation? The universe is at most a material simulation of the eternal heavens with the eternal heavenly gods. But not a simulation of a material universe on another material substrate. I can guarantee you we don't live in a computer simulation. And he is taken seriously! For Christmas sake!

Yes.
I don't know why you are omitting the point — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

What do I omit?

From a Wittgensteinian standpoint there's no essence to either illusions/simulations or reality that could aid us in telling them apart. — Agent Smith

Yes, Nick Bostrom. Transhumanist and firm believer that we have more to fear of AI than environmental, natural chaos, rapidly growing. Nick Bostrom is a guy who had severe mental problems. He declared to have been closed up in himself and had social problems and his escape in theoretical physics (which resulted in no considerable contributions) and AI did result in an attitude that made him think we live in a simulation and the "super" intelligences springing off from computer developments will be able to take over. What strange ideas, and he is even taken seriously! Anyone with a healthy brain can see the guy is wandering at the edge of psychosis and he probably has stepped over the borderline already long ago. There is an essential difference between illusion and reality though a clear-cut division between the two can't be given and illusion and reality certainly influence each other.

How many babies can one man have in one year? Approximately 365. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

A man can have 365 babies per year? With 365 women? He can impregnate all woman in the world in two months! Ten days if extrememist male and healthy!

Women are more necessary in biological terms than men — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

How so? The gentlemen produce the sperm. Just as necessary, if you don't mind me saying. Without sperm, no egg can be awakened.