No I dont, I assign the posit a credence level. — universeness

You see? And some assign higher credence level to gods or God.

I think that the movement now is — universeness

Again, propaganda. Don't follow the movement. Follow your own moves. There are a lot of other movements telling that the fields are math. And what it describes as real.

Then you're wrong. And I was referring to Japan during wartime. WW2. Yukio regretted not to have entered war. Which was a lucky happening, as he could have been killed. Considering his love for death and blood this would have been no problem...

The American calling Japan a dictatorship :rofl:
YOUR COUNTRY IS THE ONLY ONE IN THE HISTORY WHICH USED NUKE WEAPONS
so do not speak about others states... — javi2541997

Who says Im an American?

No, you conflate evidence with belief! — universeness

No. You believe in many worlds. But where is the evidence?

but there are ideas such as continuing inflation creating bubble universes and the fact that life exists in this Universe requiring other failed examples (the goldilocks universe.) If you keep tossing a coin will there be an occasion when it lands perfectly balanced on its edge? Yes but you need a vast number of attempts. — universeness

Unwarranted beliefs! What causes inflation in the first place? A coin can indeed land on its side. It happened with a coin of mine! But there is no connection with many world fantasies. The coin flipping is just a determined process.

There is no direct empirical evidence — universeness

:up:

See? Same belief

You prefer a dictatorship, Japanese emperor style?

But so are you 'only human!' It's up to the individual to decide who in their OPINION they are most convinced by for a particular topic. — universeness

There you go! So if people want to believe that gods or God truly exist, its up to them.

You have to turn to religious or autocratic political authority to encounter that. — universeness

Same can be said of science. And at the moment, it's science that has political power and should be learned at schools by law, as you surely know! So it's just the bible replaced by the physics books. Or computer books, in your case.

If all particles are in truth, merely field disturbances then you never observe the exact same particle twice, as each time you do an experiment you will be involving the field disturbances at that instant in time — universeness

But, in truth, they aren't field fluctuations. Maybe field excitations, but these are merely time extended field fluctuations (virtual particles). The fields are secondary, the particles primary. The fields are just mathematical descriptions of particles, not the particles themselves. A particle is just a 6 dimensional structure with charge inside them. The field, an operator valued distribution in spacetime, describes the evolution of the accompanying wavefunctions. The motion of a particle is completely determined.

In my experience, an expert is (usually) immediately recognizable. Don't ask me how! — Agent Smith

It's easy: they seem to know what they talk about. They role play. That's why you are fooled by them... :grin:

Belief is a term I try to use carefully. I consider posits. Many worlds is a posit I personally consider to have a higher credence to the 0.1% credence I assign to the god posit. — universeness

You are free to believe what you like. But I dont let myself be fooled.

In the case of a Multiverse — universeness

You are serious? Even with caoital M: Multiverse...What's the evidence of a multiverse? There are simpler explanations for QM. Occam's shaving gel tells us to shave of the superfluous fantasies.

:cry: :groan: :grin: :cry: :rofl:

Most laymen, like you or @universeness, take what is told by "the expert" or the "the pro", for fact. "They know, they know, they studied it". Not realizing the so-called experts are inly human after all. And their scholarly and objective knowledge turns out to be no more than an opinion.

Danger Danger! Who will then decide who has the right to speak? — universeness

Obviously, @javi2541997! Scarry... :death:

If the multiverse is true then perhaps we don't need to worry about: — universeness

Don't believe anything they tell you. The belief in many world is exactly the same as belief in gods.

If I toss a coin I need at least 4 universes. — universeness

Are you serious...?

Tegmark would support you in this but only because he posits that all possible outcome happen in the multiverse! — universeness

I really don't give a luck what Tegmark thinks. It's a nice easygoing guy, but completely delusional and lost. His many worlds and real objective existence of math are signs of an upcoming psychosis, if he's not already in one! (like the inventor of the MWI, Everett, who believed to be immortal and drank, ate, and smoked himself to death, his daughter following him by suicide, so she would meet him in a parallel universe where he would still be alive...). What I meant was that matter doesn't show different behavior every time we examine it. One time going down, another time going up, and another time circle around (if it falls in a vacuum).

You do not know about nothing but you have the right to speak whatsoever topic. I hate democracy — javi2541997

:lol:

Well, ignorance can be a bless, actually! Let it have it's words...

The natural laws are the rules according to which matter moves and interacts. Matter doesn't behave in random ways.

I subscribe to the two universes view. Our brain (when you look to the material part of it, so from outside) can simulate all universal processes. Be it an atom, triple ..quarks, dirty sheets, or the angry neighbor, all the things going on in the large universe can be simulated, without a program being involved, like in a computer. These simulations (or other, creative processes) in our microcosmos, on their turn, can shape the physical world, and we (our body) can change the macro cosmos by litterally shaping it. From the inside, the microcosmos is very differently from what an outsider sees, namely the material part only. So including the brain into the macro cosmos, as being a material part of it, is making a categorical mistake.

So yeah, the whole thing is weird. A kind of techno-utopian dream that sets aside power and social relations. It's a liberal-captialist fantasy. — Streetlight

:up:

A culture based on science and technological progress is doomed, by the very laws of nature it so eagerly wants to discover, to collapse. Which would be fine, were it not that it drags nature along in the free fall into the abyss.

Metaphysics as a term informs us for their currently unknown nature of those things. — Nickolasgaspar

No. That's what physics or science is about. Not metaphysics. As the name implies, it's what comes after physics (as if physics is that important, quite a misnomer of dear Aristotle).

There is a successor function that "counts" from one transfinite to the next, but you can't count integers (corresponding to a day, for example) and eventually reach aleph-0. — Relativist

Aleph0 is countable. The number of big bangs is infinite. The times in all big bangs go from zero to infinite (or very large time). So an infinity of infinities or just infinity. You could involve aleph34 or baleph476 ot kaleph3, but why should that be a problem for gods? They are themselves eternal.

Bear in mind that Craig believes the past is finite.
— Relativist
He says that? Then God didn't create time? How unomnipotent of him. — noAxioms

Why needs time to be created? Thermodynamic time is an emergent property. Before TD time, another kind of time existed, without cause and effect.

By the way, the only thing they have to create is virtual particles rotating in spacetime. An infinite 5d spacetime. Or better, two pieces of them connected by a wormhole. The real particles, thermodynamic time, and 3d space are emergent.

Time proceeds in countable increments — Relativist

What do you mean here?

Time proceeds in countable increments, and you can't count from aleph-0 to today. — Relativist

Well, aleph0 is countable. The continuum is aleph1

You're treating "infinite" as a number, and transfinite math doesn't solve the problem. Time proceeds in countable increments, and you can't count from aleph-0 to today. — Relativist

Yes. But that's no problem for gods. Maybe they created the first bang a zillion big bangs ago. The matter and spacetime structure to make serial bangs happen. One thing is sure, they created it once. If that's in an infinite past, no problem.

Antimatter could do the trick. It's a bit expensive though: about $62.5 trillion a gram. And you need a few ounces...

But there are quite a few speculative hypotheses like this. How do you justify settling on a particular one? — Relativist

Penrose's cyclic model and the oscillating branes resemble serial big bangs too, but offer no real cause for inflation. They take it for granted.

What makes you so sure the past is infinite? How do you reconcile an infinite past with time starting over? — Relativist

If before the current big bang, anither big bang inflates to infinity, then at the central singularity circumstances will trigger a new inflation. A new thermodynamic time and space emerge. And the end of our universe triggers a new bang behind us.

What does it mean to be "infinitely long ago"? Infinite past seems to entail no beginning. — Relativist

If the first big bang started infinite big bangs ago, then the serie is created infinite time ago.

I referred to an argument from ignorance: i.e. we don't know what happened, so you insist "therefore it must be X". The problem is there there are many existing speculative hypotheses available today, and there's many more could be developed. How did you choose the one you embrace? — Relativist

Mine explains dark energy. To be honest, I don't know if the others explain dark energy. Anyhow, every physicist considers his model right, and I can't see, and haven't heard yet anyone giving arguments against it. I criticized myself too heavenly. Maybe I see one problem. But Im working on it.

I'm asking what you mean by the term (which you used), not what IS sacred. — Relativist

It means holey, that you gotta have respect for creation. Its made by gods.

Indeed! Another strange coincidence today. Two large gas explosions, one in Cuba and one in Spain.

When are new experiments at CERN to be expected? I would advise them to smash electrons.

And their primary advantage over their male competitors was that they were able to sit still and focus on numbers for hours on end. — Gnomon

"Sit, and focus!"
"I tell you something, stick tha numbers on your p$n$s! Oh no, to big a number!"

Yeah, the only thing computers are good in is hyperfast execution of programmed material. Massive amounts of zeroes and ones. A material representation of programmed thought. The brain itself though doesn't work like a computer.

Just think how dumb humans will feel when Quantum AI learns to play war games like SkyNet — Gnomon

Yes! Dumb that we made it. :smile:

Smith is quite the optimist. I wonder if he's anticipating warp drive, suspended animation, teleportation - or something else. — Relativist

Haha! Who knows. If you go fast enough you can reach billions of lightyears in 80 years. Only the CMBR poses a velocity limit.

I'll assume that by "universe", you're referring to the stars/galaxies/dark matter etc that were produced by the big bang that cosmologists study. It's true that we don't have a scientific description of what existed prior to the inflationary period - — Relativist

But I have a description. And for what happened long before the big bang too. And after ours.

but why would you assume this implies it's probably not natural? Why assume we can't go deeper, when you consider the gaps in scientific understanding (quantum mechanics and general relativity aren't reconciled - but theoretical physicists generally believe they will one day be reconciled). You say "we can know", but do you allow for theoretical physics to advance and answer at least some of the questions? It sounds too much like argument from ignorance. — Relativist

The whole history of periodic big bangs is natural. And because I can't know more than an infinite past (in which time starts from zero over and over) so what else to conclude that the gods started it infinitely long ago? What ignorance you refer too? It all fits together. Quantum field theory, gravity, dark energy, etc. Its all accounted for. Particles are tiny geometrical structures (3 of 6 space dimensions curled up to a tiny Planck circle, so no singularities can evolve, and the particles precisely fit around the mouth of a central 4d wormhole (which in fact is 7d), so the can inflate away from the mouth, on a closed 3d (6d) structure), there are only two massless basic fields, etc.

What's sacred? Good question!

That's exactly the kind of science I look for. All beings, all kinds of life, have evolved between the heat of the Sun at day and the cold of the void at night. There is a magic element in matter, which physicists call charge, by means of which matter reaches out for other matter and forms ever more complex holistic wholes, running away from thermodynamic equilibrium. All life evolves like this, towards one equilibrium at day and the opposite at night (heat intake from the Sun, heat radiated away to the cold void). There are many forms of these lives evolving, and all influence each other. There is no subject object divide yet, at least, not in the sense of positioning themselves oppositely to nature. Matter has material as well as magic (mental) features. Again, that's charge. Then the unity of both splits into the pure mental appearance in the brain, and the purely material side in the material, objective world. The body, i.e., we, or other living bodies in nature, stands between. The trees and plants still sleep. The inner world, the brain, shapes the outer world and the outer world shapes the inner world. Before life emerged, there was no shift yet. The mental and matter were one. Then the mental, the charges, became part of the inner world (patterns of electric charges continuously running in the brain, which from the outside looks material, but for minds only) and the material part of the outer world. With our bodies (or that of other forms of life, though viruses are still quite one) in between. The physical world is constantly simulated in our brain, our brain continuously resonates but at the same time shapes the physical world. But this is all happening to represent heavenly life, and it has to be complex if all forms of gods are to be represented in the universe. All mortal life has an eternal counterpart in heaven, as the universe itself. The difference being that it's all material plus divine charge here. But the big bang repeats over and over, in agreement with the desire of all gods to watch themselves eternally. In a sense we are immortal.

3. Atmospheric studies of potentially habitable exoplanets (colonization)
— Agent Smith
Easy there, conquistador. :sweat: — 180 Proof

:lol:

Enthusiastic as ever!