That's not a view consistent with Quantum Field Theory, which holds that quantum fields are fundamental, particles are quanta of quantum fields, and "virtual particles" just useful, computational fictions that are used to describe certain behaviors of quantum fields other than particle behavior. See this article. Here's a snippet: — Relativist

Yes, I have read that a 1000 times already. But not being observed doesn't mean the virtual particles don't exist. The mathematical description of a virtual particle is pointing at exactly what such a particle is. A particle not on mass shell to which real particles couple (and other virtual particles too). It's what the vacuum is made of. And the gods created that special kind of vacuum.

What about the ratio, "reason for existence"? Can I be more rational?
— Hillary
What you just said makes no sense ("ratio"?!). So yes, you can be more rational.
1h — Relativist

How can I be more rational then? It makes perfect sense to me: the gods are the reason for existence. The reason= ratio!

You had the right impression! Human gods. There is a Nickolast god even. Laughing his pants off because of your scrabblings. :lol:

BTW, I don't subscribe to there being some objective "burden of proof" for a position, but I do believe rationality entails having rational justifications for what we believe — Relativist

What about the ratio, "reason for existence"? Can I be more rational?

You mentioned it here: " I don't need to give proof because my default state (thanks, Nickolas!) is a material universe with eternal gods." — Relativist

Yes, but that was not in the five points. Your default state is the universe without gods. Do you have proof?

I don't understand your issue with "matter", as that's not controversial: matter is composed of particles, particles are quanta of quantum fields, which came to exist as our "universe" (i.e. the product of the "big bang" that we examine retrospectively) cooled after the big bang. — Relativist

Matter consists of real particles that inflated into real existence from virtual particles. Before the big bang, before inflation, only virtual particles rotated in the small spacetime or energy-momentum space (time-position and energy-momentum are equivalent). So the virtual particles turned real and in a sense real particles are time extended virtual particles with well definied position (time) and momentum (energy). But from where did this come? What caused this virtual matter to exist? What caused the spacetime they exist in to exist? Thermodynamic time and the space in which it enrolls emerged from the singularity and behind us this will happen again, as it happened many times before. But where does it come from, if not from gods?

So your argument is circular. — Relativist

No. Its not circular, as no cause or reason for existence is given by physics. Only gods can do that. The Default State is gods plus the universe they created. All claims positing that gods don't exist need to prove that claim and by repeating that I must give the proof, the real circular reasoning is exposed. Because that seems to be the main problem. The need for proof. No, the claim that diverges from the default state needs to prove the claim gods don't exist. I don't have to prove anything within the realm of creation.

Interesting subject, AS! Let me give one shot for the goal. The human memory function very differently from the computer memory. If an image is projected on our retina, a corresponding neural structure is activated. The world is full of patterns and forms of which the parts have no causal connection to the whole. Diametrically opposed parts of the circle don't influence one another directly, but still the circle ( or spherical form of the sun) stays a circle. All parts have a common cause and form the circle.

I could not call myself democratic/socialist/humanist if I did but I will continue to argue against anyone who presents any theistic viewpoint as truth. — universeness

They are no scientific truth. They can't be proven by measuring material stuff. But they offer a reason, explanation why there is a material world in the first place. As you know, I have a model for periodic big bangs. But how to explain that model? Why it exists? I guess one can be satisfied with the model alone, and don't get me wrong, I am! But still, without a reason that it exists, it seems an empty model, no matter how beautiful life is! There has to be something unexplainable that is explainable! The eternal gods! But don't worry... I don't worship them or listen to them, or derive moral from them insofar human relations are involved. The only moral I take from them is that creation is performed for all beings in heaven, not only for human gods. Creation was performed by and for all gods. Be it the virus or the whale god. Which doesn't mean we can't fight the virus though.

So are we back to shapeshifting gods or do you mean a god that is an actual mouse?
If so how far do you want to take that? An insect god? a lice god? a quark god?
Can you describe a typical action of your mouse god and is this god a lesser god compared to your lion god? — universeness

No quark gods. The heavenly life is non-material. The lion-gods, mice-gods, etc. just live like here. For all gods in heaven there is a material counterpart in the universe. Heaven is not made of the same material as the particles and space they created. The can't create a copy of heaven itself. They are not omnipotent or omni in general. A mouse eaten by the lion just continues living. They put a magic element in the particles they created, namely physical charge. Only with charge, a temporary copy of heaven can emerge.

For what purpose was this done by these entities in this place you have called heaven. Why did they need to replicate themselves and how can you be sure that you are not just projecting human attempts/wishes to replicate themselves as a means of lifespan extension onto the god posit? — universeness

They created the universe for good reasons. I don't mind they created it for their own selfish purpose! I give them a nice show to watch! But I realize the human gods are not the only gods. All of universal life has a counterpart in heavenly paradise. Be it a musquito or a fish. But the humans have fucked up during the creation efforts. They put a twist in the particles that evolved into life. Humans like to investigate the material of creation. This material doesn't exist in heaven.

heaven place?
Would they not get quite bored with us new toys quick quickly if they got bored with everything eternal heaven had to offer them?
Does this all still sit 'perfectly' well with your own internal rationale? — universeness

We can only hope they don't get bored. But who cares? Maybe they got bored already and have continued their eternal play. I don't think they bother do destroy their creation.

Thank you for remembering me :) These days I have been in the house for working, reading and practice guitar playing etc. So it is now a lot more flexible time thanks to COVID. — Corvus

So COVID had it's good sides as well! :smile:

I'm not sure why you think time doesn't exist so can't move either. Doesn't the Sun shine longer in the summer (in the northern hemisphere) than in winter? Doesn't the clock show, say, 8 hours in winter and 16 in summer (with or without clouds)?

There is support. The existence of the universe.
— Hillary
The universe is a natural entity, so clearly doesn't imply anything exists other than the natural. — Relativist

But there is no natural cause for the universe in it's eternal and infinite extension. There is a cause for every big bang in the eternal sequence of them, but what's the cause for the whole infinite sequence? And the cause for the right coupling strengths of elementary particles? One can invoke a string landscape (which is unprovable as well and invokes only 10exp500 possibilities, and strings are dubious in the first place, if you know what's it about) but what brought this string landscape into existence?

There is support. The existence of the universe.
— Hillary
The universe is a natural entity, so clearly doesn't imply anything exists other than the natural.
Material, even when eternal, cannot have brought itself into existence.
— Hillary
Irrelevant - you seem to be making another unsupported assumption that material objects cannot exist uncaused.

Only eternal intelligences can do that.
— Hillary
How could anything cause itself? If intelligence is needed to cause something, then you require an infinite series of prior causes. An uncaused initial state is coherent. — Relativist

Material cannot have brought itself into existence, even when eternal. How? What's the physical process behind the emergence of matter?

In that case, your first premise is based on this unstated premise that a God exists, which makes your argument circular. — Relativist

Let's see. My first statement is:

1)We have found the cause of the universe and all gaps are closed.

No gods mentioned!

Not neccessarily [irreducible], but in the real world it is, as you will realize how it works.
— Hillary
No, because an initial state of affairs can possibly be reducible to distinct, atomic states of affairs. — Relativist

As it indeed is!

You also clalm that an irreducible cause can't explain it's own cause, but irreducibility is irrelevant: a first cause is uncaused, and therefore it's logically impossible for there to be a causal explanation for it. To assume other sorts of explanations exist entails another unstated premise requiring support. — Relativist

That's the demand for proof. The infinite chain of cause and effect (serial big bangs) needs outside creatures to be brought into existence (in an infinite past). Non-intelligent matter needs eternal intelligences to exist. I don't need to give proof because my default state (thanks, Nickolas!) is a material universe with eternal gods. It's me who should ask evidence for their non-existence.

Gods are only human... Some of them, that is.
— Hillary

I don't mind your 'only human' gods, Humans can cope with other humans who apply the god label to themselves but you also type 'some of them, that is,' so, our dialogue on that part continues. — universeness

Well, what I meant was that some gods are human, some are stegosaures like, some are mice-like, and others parrot- or lion-like and slipper animal-like. All life in the universe has an eternal part in heaven.

Figured what out? — universeness

How to create the material the universe is made of.

Do you mean like the Penrose bounce (different Universe every time) or the whole Universe plays again like a movie on permanent replay? What would be the purpose of permanent replay? — universeness

The purpose would be to fill the void of the boredom that fell upon heaven after their eternal playings. They created elementary particles and space. So a big bang can appear periodically. Kind of Penrose-like but with a different mechanism.

Not hard to tell which side I'd be on... Rick the rebel!

Gods are only human... Some of them, that is. Life in heaven is exactly the same as here. Look around you and you see heaven. The difference is that life in heaven is eternal, and we don't go there after dead. We are material, mortal, finite copies of heaven, like all of life and the universe we're living in. Luckily they figured it out "perfectly" (there you go!). It starts all over again every big bang. So in a sense, we never die.

All claims need to meet their burden of proof IF our goal is to hold reasonable beliefs. — Nickolasgaspar

What if the proof can't be given? How can I possibly give a proof? If I tell you I saw it in a dream you say it's just a dream. What if an outcome in the double slit experiment gives unexpected results? Say that instead of an interference pattern a one slit pattern shows up? What if there was proof of gods?



Maybe, dear Nickolas, you should learn some real Physica, Science, before engaging in philosophical debate. You will find then that Metaphysica is a lot more than engaging in logic and that ontology includes Theology as well as Science.

Even the theists know the dangers of being perfect or even claiming to be. Humans will crucify you! — universeness

If Christ really existed, that could have been the reason! Too perfect. Too good to be true. Did Christ have a Jesus complex?

Too late... I just saw it now...

again lets assume that the caliber of this arrogant pretentious demagogue is above me....HOW would you know??? — Nickolasgaspar

I know because I had many conversations with him before. And he has a completely different attitude than yours. Discussing with him gives a good feeling. You try to put yourself above others. You are a good classic philosopher, no doubt. Sticking to the true schematics of the western philosopher, and all that. You insist on proof. Uni does too, but at least he tries to look into the things I believe in, the gods, that is. The only thing gods do is giving a reason for the universe. And we just gotta live to find out what heavenly life is about. And taking care of paradise. Science creates chaos in paradise and the apple bitten by Eve was probably the apple of scientific knowledge.

The neutrino is not what is meant. Jn the popular press, yes. But not in qft. I had to learn them while studying qft, and neutrinos are not involved. For example, the Goldstone boson is such a ghost. No one has seen one. It's a fantasy thought to exist!

.that must be a new low for you...but then again moving your finger to others while falsify accusing them of things just to hear your voice is right there. — Nickolasgaspar

Universeness is atheist, just like you. But his calibers are above yours. Shall I post or shall I not...?




Maybe. But Carroll too believes in a mirror universe, but going to the other side of time zero.

Look here:

In the terminology of quantum field theory, a ghost, ghost field, ghost particle, or gauge ghost is an unphysical state in a gauge theory. Ghosts are necessary to keep gauge invariance in theories where the local fields exceed a number of physical degrees of freedom.

If a given theory is self-consistent by the introduction of ghosts, these states are labeled "good". Good ghosts are virtual particles that are introduced for regularization, like Faddeev–Popov ghosts. Otherwise, "bad" ghosts admit undesired non-virtual states in a theory, like Pauli–Villars ghosts that introduce particles with negative kinetic energy.

Unphysical states...

Well, its a descriptive nonscientific term used for the benefit of the public, — universeness

No. Its not for the public. They are found in qft books. What are they?

Ghosts in physics

That is a false equivalence . The existence of a material universe CAN ONLY BE USED AS EVIDENCE for the existence of a MATERIAL UNIVERSE. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes! You got that very right. With or in the material universe you can't prove or disprove the eternal heavenly realm. For you it's a fantasy, for me an improvable reality giving reason and meaning to my material dancing. You're still in denial, or school took it away from you.

I didn't sent them one after another. I sent them spread over long time. Ill show you one:

Hi Sean Carroll! I was discussing on the philosophy forum. I'm writing about a cosmological model which tries to explain dark energy, particle/antiparticle asymmetry, mass generations, the nature of spacetime, etc. I think massless preons exist which make up quarks and leptons. Not as pointlike particles but as 6d structures of which three are curled up in Planck-sized circles (like circles on a cilinder). Their bindings in triplets creates massive quarks and leptons. In 3d they seem pointlike. Our universe contains equal numbers of both. 


The thing I wanna ask you about. If the universe consists of two infinite 4d spaces, divided by a Planck-sized wormhole (like the center of a torus, the torus being open on the outside), could it be two 3d universes are pushed into real existence from a virtual state? Like Hawking radiation? Could all matter (except gravity) be confined to 3d while expanding in a negatively curved 4d space (the Gaussian curvature on the mouth of a torus is negative). Maybe our universe is, together with a mirror universe (antiprotons, antineutrons, positrons, and antineutrinos) expanding from a central tiny mouth, and when the both have accelerated away to infinity, the stage is set for a new inflation around the mouth, and two 3d universes are spat out, which again expand to infinity, etcetera. Is there an argument that reasons against this? Thanks in advance!


Pestering?

If yes pls demonstrate one of your existential claims. — Nickolasgaspar

Okay, one last try. In my Default Position, the very existence of the material universe is proof of the heavenly universe, because they come in a duo package.

You are unable to understand how we define a Default Position or why all claims come with a burden. — Nickolasgaspar

My Default Position is different from yours. My default position is a heavenly etetrnal universe, and next to it the material copy of it, in which heavenly life repeats eternally in periodic big bangs.

To be honest I am not sure about your ontology... — Nickolasgaspar

Don't worry about my ontology, Nickolas. She sleeps safe under the bed. We just gave her a meal and later I take her for a walk...

I exposed your patronizing urges and your bovine manure on a discussion you never read.... and I said 'YOU ARE DONE".
Do you have unknown words in that sentence or you are still riding your ego-dragon? — Nickolasgaspar

Ego dragon, bovine manure? If anyone offers cinstructive comments it's @universeness! Not sure about you...

Sorry, Uni! I thought you write the parental thing... sorry again

Relax, brother. I just believe in gods, no, Im sure they exist. You don't. So what? Im curious about the material universe just like you. Why you think I studied physics (without having attended colleges, except for the last, most interesting year). I like physics even more, in the knowledge that gods made the basics of the universe.

Obvious books do not fit where your head is located... or you don't have enough light up there, try ebooks.lol
When you ever decide to address the actual technique and example I used, then send me a msg.
I am not here to satisfy your parental urges. — Nickolasgaspar

What are you talking about? My parental urges? You think I play your mother?

Your playing again — universeness

You call everything I say against science playing. Tell me, what about ghost particles?

I agree, he should have, but he has not committed an unspeakable act against you. — universeness

No, that's not what I said. I said that he answers only things he can answer and are not suggesting something else and better. I have sent him five emails now and Im done with him. He's not really interested in truth, as you call it. Just in promoting his own ideas, which are false.i dont think he likes it I pointed him out.

who is this new God you talk of and what slaves do I drive? Which system benefits from me? Why would you deny to teach math? Who is the old God? — Tobias

The old god is the one in power before the enlightenment. The new god is the impersonal, so-called absolute, objective god of scientific thinking. Just look at all the tasks to be completed, the problems to be "solved" in the learning books, especially the math or "exact" ones. Which is all nice, I love them! But why, for example, should astrology not be learned by law?

Use as much of your fantasy capabilities to assist your musings about reality as you like. — universeness

What about good and bad ghosts in quantum field theory? The point is, science itself is a fantasy look on reality.

So Sean Carroll is required through the 'business' called Patreon to ask for a small amount of money to get him to consider answering your question. That's how many such sites work.
I doubt Sean himself will become rich based on the actual cash money he will get out of it. — universeness

Yes, I know brother Uni. But I sent him a private mail. He could at least have the decency to answer. Like professor Harari.

Their parents pay through their taxes and many teachers also take pay for private tutoring. — universeness

Yes, I did some private tutoring too. But that's because they offer it. It was asked.

Ah, brother Uni, it's actually completely irrelevant if you believe in gods or not. It's living life that counts. If gods add some for me, why not? If they don't for you, okay! What's the difference?

was paid a state teacher's salary for over 30 years! — universeness

Did you ask your students for money. Any teacher is a very refined slavedriver for the system (though not realizing it, I loved most of them!), the new God by law pushed in the children's mind is science.. They asked me to teach math and physics several times but I denied. I only taught teeners who came to me and offered money. But a grown up guy, as Carroll seems to be (in his mind here still a child, like you, still in denial) claiming he loves science is a hypocrite. Luckily I have a great professor on my side now. We have a great exchange and he offers great insights! For free!

And guess what? He believes in god...