You should read what you type and think about from the aspect of an independent arbiter with no vested interest. In my opinion, you would be found to be bitter.bitter, bitter and perhaps even a little twisted. — universeness

I'm not bitter at all. That's what you're projecting on me all the time, and I'm beginning to think it's you who is bitter and twisted WTF should I feel bitter. I just feel disappointed in those so-called hot shots you so religiously admire. Who in the hell asks money to answer questions, if you are lucky? That makes me feel bitter. They are not interested in knowing but only in money and promoting and advocating their own view. Which is even false... And, like I showed, Haim Harari doesn't feel himself superior.

Your main battle is still with the man in the mirror! — universeness

Is it a man? It's a woman! I have grown my hair for two years now and have come in contact with my female side! We all have male and female sides. They are unimportant in science and my physical theories have even been called gay theories, no kidding!

Why do we fear "laissez-faire"? We fear laissez-faire, as the name suggests, let it be bone without intervention. And what should we let be done freely? It refers to producing goods and services. What would the world look like? Pretty much as it looks today. The possessing class is allowed to laissez-faire freely. Entrepreneurial enterprise has considerable esteem and free entrepreneurship is considered a high good. Of course, you should treat the employees with dignity and decent wages. And you should be conscious of environmental issues. Do these interests collide? Most of the time, yes. It's time new economics kicks in.

Time has an odd geometry: it's linear & circular. If it's 5:00 PM today, it's again 5:00 PM (circular), but tomorrow (linear). Line + Circle = Sine wave (?) — Agent Smith

This comment actually shows deep depth! Everywhere in space you can imagine small pendulums. They all show circular behavior, returning to an identical initial state periodically, while the processes the pendulums are placed beside continue linearly. The clocks oscillate on a line and the more oscillations made the further on the line you get! You're a natural!

Not all sentences with a "why" in from and a question-mark at the end qualify as serious questions. — Nickolasgaspar

Same for comments.

Particles will experience the same forces, the universe shrinks, and wavefunction collapses are reversed.
— Hillary
-This is the quality of philosophy you have when you ignore the whole epistemic framework on why processes unroll at one direction.... — Nickolasgaspar

The point is that I understand that framework. All motion can be reversed. A collapsing wavefunction gets back in a superposition, all momenta could be reversed (the motion of hidden variables included) and spacetime expansion could be reversed also.

no because you are forgetting essential elements in those processes — Nickolasgaspar

Which are?

good luck providing evidence for that assumptions. — Nickolasgaspar

It's about the philosophical or physical question why time is moving forward. It could have been such that the universe started in reverse at infinity. But it didn't. And that's the strange thing about time. It could have evolved in such a way that the Earth and life on it evolved backwards, to become part of the hot initial planetary system, the galaxy evolving back, the primordial black holex being white and "ending" up in the final singularity (which nowadays is the initial singularity). If the the now final conditions were reversed the universe would evolve in opposite direction. Entropy would get less, effect would precede cause. But that's not the case. The universe started in a ordered state and order decreases.

Your main battle is still with the man in the mirror! — universeness

The man in the mirror is a parrot! It's a good looking parrot but everything I do or say he just reflects!

With my description of some of your real reasons for some of the irrational posts, you make regarding theism. — universeness

The real reasons exist in your mind only. I know better than that. Don't you think I have taken distance once in a while, to myself? Of course, but gods are inevitable! I don't look at them in my daily life. Once in a while they visit me or whisper in my ear (schizophrenia!). But that's all. I live life like the gods. And so do you! So dance along brother Uni! Hellilujea!

Well, I did predict you would disagree. As I said to you before, you need to learn to love the cosmologists again — universeness

I like them all! All nice people, but so damned self-righteous, while being wrong! Try to tellem that!

Oh, sorry! — universeness

It's alright! I did no roleplay. I never said I am a woman. What makes you think Im a man? You assume I play polytheist roleplay or panto because you can't understand it and by calling it roleplay you try to make it understandable. :wink:

Well, I did predict you would disagree. As I said to you before, you need to learn to love the cosmologists again and then you can stop scapegoating nonexistent gods or look to them for recognition of your scientific abilities. — universeness

Disagree with what?

Yes, a nice response, a good letter. Evidence that most established scientists will respond to questions from the public but they can't answer everyone who sends a question. — universeness

It's evidence that one of them answered. And be honest, wtf should you ask money for a question you not intend to answer? Carroll is just a nefarious atheist who is not interested in science and knowing but only in promoting his own fallacious ideas and he doesn't welcome ideas contradicting that! Like most of them. While it's all so clear. But who cares? I know Im right, and mr. Harari is on my side. At least he offers constructive critique.

I am personally convinced that he roleplays as a polytheist to attempt to annoy atheists as his real love is science but the science community has not returned his love/respect for them in an adequate fashion for him, so he is pissed off at them in general and cosmologists in particular. — universeness

No universeness... Nice rational interpretaion but that's not my reason to be polytheist. The fact that the physics community tramps on me is not the reason. Instead of them trying to develop my model ( Harari is a great help by the way) they withdraw in their safe conventional shells. I don't even try anymore. I have a fair part translated in math (the particle's geometric structure is quite difficult though, and virtual gravitons rotating in spacetime while forming it, indicates that something else from ordinary virtual fields, like the photon field, is going on; if a mass couples to virtual gravitons, the spacetime around the mass is curved, the metric changes, and this can only be described by gravitons if the act on space, so not only on other masses).

Atheist traitor! :lol:

Hi univeeeerse! Look at the kind reply an Israeli professor sent me, instead of asking a dollar like that Carroll asks, without guarantee of answering!



Dear Deschele,

 

Thank you for your kind and friendly mail.

If I have to guess, Rishons should be massless, but since the dynamics combining them into quarks and leptons is far from clear, it is truly an open question, even if the model is right.

I still believe, 43 years after 1979, that some version of this model must be right, and hope to live long enough to see it.

Fortunately, the decision is in the hands of mother nature and not in the hands of a public opinion poll.

Best wishes

 

Haim Harari

Something else not?

I think it's your incapacity of understanding gods and the reason they exist. Dawkins has the same problem. Like your hero Sagan. They are scientifically kind of uneducated and by hailing science try to be scientifically uprated. But they don't have the genius for it!

guilty as charged! I do tend to use the phrase ...I don't know....when I don't! — Nickolasgaspar

I don't use the phrase because I do know. The only thing I don't know is where the gods come from and how they created universal matter.

"Claims about knowledge is what Philosophy is about! "
As you said....claims. Now you will need to demonstrate their soundness. — Nickolasgaspar

I'm as sound as I can be. You talk and write about sound without having anything to be sound about. Show me one of your sound knowledge claims.

there is nothing there in these ideas of yours.
They are philosophically and scientifically null, reminiscences of a era when humans saw agency, intention and purpose everyone.
Only when we removed agency and teleology form our philosophy ,we enabled science to experience an epistemic run away success for more than 500 years.
Your assumptions are known to be failed for centuries. Nobody (except some crackpots like Sheldrake and ) uses them in the Academia any more. — Nickolasgaspar

You're not even able to understand a tiny part of my cosmology. Let alone the big picture. Sorry Nickolas, but you will continue to live in the dark till you die... :lol:

know your story now "Hillary". Your ideas are not welcomed in the scientific field...so you are taking your revenge in philosophical forums. — Nickolasgaspar

I can't help it they don't understand my cosmology and I have no intention telling you about it! I have better means than telling that on a philosophy forum! Only some can share my cosmological secrets. You think I'm gonna tell it to everyone? There are a few professors on my side, and they offer better help than you or physics forums do, who only are interested in the status quo.

There is one philosophy.....the intellectual effort to produce sound arguments and wise conclusions.
Theology is not in a condition to provide soundness in philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

On the contrary! It provides the most sound arguments.

-You are making a claim about knowledge...so we are off the Philosophical field...you will need to provide objective evidence for that knowledge claim — Nickolasgaspar

Claims about knowledge is what Philosophy is about!

lol you can not use "logic" and "logical conclusion ....are gods" in the same sentence.
The gaps are there, you just cover them with a magical plug that you made up. — Nickolasgaspar

What gaps are there then? I'm not aware of them.

That is kindergarten philosophy...argument from personal incredulity. Your claims are nothing more than fallacious conclusions. — Nickolasgaspar

Kindergarten creatures are still free from philosophical and scientific indoctrination. I have a scientific model of the universe, without gaps, and can only logically conclude that gods created the universal ingredients. As I should have participated in for sure, were I one of them.

A better questions would be what makes processes unroll at a specific direction or stones fall downwards. — Nickolasgaspar

But the point is that all motion in the universe could be opposite to the motion we observe. Why is the begin situation situated at the begin instead of at the end? Particles will experience the same forces, the universe shrinks, and wavefunction collapses are reversed. Litterally all motion could happen in opposite direction. But it doesn't. Saying that there is no place for questioning why this is the case closes the road to comprehension.

"Crab mentality, also known as crab theory, crabs in a bucket (also barrel, basket, or pot) mentality, or the crab-bucket effect, is a way of thinking best described by the phrase "if I can't have it, neither can you". The metaphor is derived from a pattern of behavior noted in crabs when they are trapped in a bucket."

It's confusing though. What crab behavior indicates that the crab says that if he can't have neither can I. Have what?

Philosophy's goal is to come up with wise claims about the world and expand our understanding.
That is realized by USING logic and constructing Valid Arguments. For the conclusions of those arguments to be wise Our Premises need to be SOUND.
Do you understand what soundness of an arguments is and how it is achieved?
Spoiler alert...by demonstrating the truth value of those premises. — Nickolasgaspar

Logic can be used in philosophy. Of course. I don't deny that. Like I said, the only logical conclusion, if the gaps are closed, is the conclusion that there are gods who created the universe. And just as science is involved in philosophy so is, and should, theology be. The truth value can be demonstrated by the existence of the universe. It's not that I'm throwing in all kinds of arbitrary fantasies. The fantasies are restricted by what we see in the universe.

If you keep using unjustified assumptions then you are not doing philosophy or metaphysics.
You are preaching your theology. — Nickolasgaspar

It's you preaching atheology. The assumptions are fully justifiable. Only within your conception of philosophy this isn't the case. The existence of gods is justifiable because of their existence, which you might claim an unjustified claim, because claims, according to you, are only justified when there is evidence that the claim is true. But like I said, the evidence of the claim is the existence of the universe.

Why is this so difficult for you? Making up magical explanations can never expand our understanding..like when a stage magician tells you his trick was magical that explains nothing about it. — Nickolasgaspar

It's very easy for me. The magical explanation, a universe from a divine hat, is the ONLY explanation (if the gaps are closed). In the magician's case, the trick actually can be known. The trick the gods played can't be known, though we can investigate the material universal and life evolving in it. And learn about the gods and their reasons for creation.

You don't understand!!!!!!
In order to say that you know the truth or that your claim is reasonable you need your claims to be based on methods(rackets) that can produce Objective results and play with the rules of logic — Nickolasgaspar

Screaming, dear Nckolas, won't help your case. The thing that is to be understood is not that things in the investigation of the universe don't need proof or confirmation or falsification. They need. Claims about gods or God don't need prove.

You are trying to promote claims as true or reasonable or philosophical without any objective or epistemic justification....by just saying "its metaphysics". — Nickolasgaspar

Again, there is no justifaction needed. At least, not the justification you have in mind. Gods are reasonable in the sense that they provide reason and cause of the universe.

From the article:

In other words, God could not be God. He would be at best some sort of super-alien, flitting about the creation flashing super powers, seemingly irrationally. That is what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is. Its "worshippers," the "Pastafarians," are the latest in a long line of skeptics, though with perhaps a finer sense of humor. And even if said Monster existed, it could not be God. There would be no reason to worship it; in fact, one would do well to avoid it and its "noodly appendages."

Those who say they do not believe in God often give lack of evidence for their unbelief. This is a confusion of knowledge and faith. It is also an error of logic -- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There cannot be any empirical evidence of the existence of God, for God does not exist.

Let me be clear: I believe God is. But my faith is not knowledge. At best I can give sound reasons -- sound to my mind, at least -- why my faith is not irrational. And that begins with clarifying the terms. What we call god (all human languages have a word for it) is something we infer from the fact of existence. The universe is, and it exists. Why it does -- why there is something rather than nothing -- cannot be proven from the terms and relations we can discern in the makeup of the universe.

"Pastafarians"... He's got a sense of humor! But why you should posit a spaghetti monster? Is that a god who eternally eats spaghetti? Well, it could be that's a true image of God. But why should God exist alone in the first place? The Greek gods were many, with distinct features, so why couldn't gods be manifold? Or animal like? Plant-like? Or slipper animal gods.

The post it was quoted from contained a link to God does not Exist, by Bishop Pierre Whalon, so the phrase ought not to be taken literally. — Wayfarer

Our beloved bishop claims to have knowledge of God in the same way as claiming the gods look just like life in the universe. His concept of God is an intellectual abstraction which doesn't resemble the true nature of divine presences.

Independent of the nature of the universe our "rackets" should be able to produce objective results...if not then we admit that we don't know and can not prove — Nickolasgaspar

Why is that independent on the nature of the universe? It depends on the rackets we use, the balls used, the (presence of an) arbiter, the nature of the field (grass, concrete, gravel, etc.), on our ideas, on the weather, etc. If we investigate nature the stuff we investigate directs us, while we direct the stuff. Its a two-way street. You present it like a dead-end street.

The only rackets that are relevant are those conforming to the rules of logic. Your metaphysics need to originate from a sound starting point...not an assumption that you don't care to demonstrate. — Nickolasgaspar

There is a big collection of rackets to play the game of science, philosophy, or theology. We could play the double game, you holding the logic racket, me holding the science racket, and the opponent double the philosophical racket and theological racket. I would point them out though that they play with my racket.

You have a point, but, from what I gather, this is part and parcel of philosophy and science. Philosophy is more deconstruction than construction if you catch my drift à la Socrates who was the wrecking ball of the ideaverse. After him, all that was left were piles of rubble where once majestic belief systems had been erected! He was the Genghis Khan of the world of beliefs. — Agent Smith

A wonderful description of the state of modern "philosophy"!!!

:up:

The point being that according to today's empiricist philosophy only that which can be conceived of as existing in time and space is considered real. There's no conceptual category for the transcendent, and no way of conceptualising it or reaching it through discursive philosophy.

See also God does not exist. — Wayfarer

The last is of course questionable. And philosophy should asks these questions, as it should question the opposite too: "God does exist. This is questionable". We can easily conceptualize gods as ethereal, spiritual, enlightened eternal beings, made of pure magical soul, while the universal life is a material finite abstraction thereof. If the finite material beings recur infinite times (but non-identical) in subsequent universes, then the eternal heavenly life can be said to be reflected in the material universe.

The problem is that your racket and ball only share the same label and nothing else, plus you keep denying the use of the net and lines.....
1m — Nickolasgaspar

It depends. If we consider the material universe we play with the same rackets and the play field is well defined. Though your racket is different from mine. And besides tennis a lot of other plays could be played.

Concerning the theological play, there are many different rackets to play with just the same. But you play with no racket at all. Which is admirable, but I won't challenge you in that case, as thats unfair.

Read again, I never said it wasn't!!!!! I said its natural but it lacks the physicality we observe in larger scales — Nickolasgaspar

The electron behaves differently from a tennis ball. But it's still a physical object. It lacks the physicality of the tennis ball but at the same time shares a lot.

you sound like an amateur tennis player bragging on how good she is but when I challenge your claim and offer you a racket and a ball ...you answer is "I don't play tennis with a racket and a ball or a net". — Nickolasgaspar

The point is, I would love to play tennis with you. I have my own racket and balls though. A magic racket and magic balls. You would be tired and ask for mercy... Or blame the arbiter. "The ball was OUT!!!"

Truth is an evaluation terms we use on claims that are in agreement with facts.
You admit it yourself you can not provide proof for your claims. So you can not claim that you know the truth.
YOu accept claims as true to ease your existential and epistemic anxieties...that's all. — Nickolasgaspar

I partially agree. Its indeed an evaluation term we use on claims that are in agreement with facts. But there are more facts than the ones about the material world we live in and even when we limit ourselves to the material world, there are conflicting views on how reality truly looks like. One might see point particles where others see structures.

Its natural and energetic — Nickolasgaspar

An electron is both natural and energetic. Around a nucleus, depending on the orbital, it has varying angular momenta. though it's energy is well defined.

No it isn't and as a superior male I am right (see what I did there?).
Wow its really easy to argue by your standards ! — Nickolasgaspar

Like I said, in investigating nature, the physical, material world, high logical standards and proofs should be applied to our arguments about the material investigated. Your arguments about the electron are nonsensical and unsubstantiated or proven. Nor is there evidence (see what I did here?).

I can make the same claim and say that your argument about heaven is not just irrational, but wrong since for me the claim "heaven doesn't exist" doesn't need justification. — Nickolasgaspar

Indeed, you can! I'm not saying I know the truth for you. There are more objective truths, and depending on who you ask, a different story will be given.

There is this thing call logic... — Nickolasgaspar

What else, if the gaps are closed, is there to logically conclude that the universe, or better, the stuff it's made of, was created by gods?

Why did you demanded from me to verify my claim "women are inferior to men''? — Nickolasgaspar

I didn't demand verification of your value assignment. If you (hypothetically, of course) think women are inferior to men, that's up to you. I only said that this thread shows it might actually be the other way round.

That is because in those "energetic" scales "physicality" doesn't emerge. Physical properties emerge in larger scales (molecules and their structures). — Nickolasgaspar

The states of electrons around a nucleus are just as physical as any physical macro system.

This manifestation of their energetic property allows them to interact with other systems and particles. — Nickolasgaspar

No, it's not that which allows them to interact. That's a wrong statement and logically false.

literally.He's thinking of Information as a "state of Matter". — Gnomon

Yes. And that state has a tiny amount more energy than the uninformed state. Gibbs free energy is added. If massless pure kinetic energies interact, an effective mass emerges.

No heaven has ever been verified...so its irrational to introduce it in an argument as a premise. — Nickolasgaspar

The question is: why does heaven need verification in the first place? For me it doesn't.

Again no divine stuff has ever be demonstrated, — Nickolasgaspar

It's the stuff around you and the stuff you're made of.

Only if you prove the above unfalsifiable claims you can conclude to magical agents — Nickolasgaspar

Again, there is no need to proof, verify, or give evidence. Only in the scientific investigation of the material world this is of importance.

An other unfounded assumption... You are officially guilty for "practicing" the Philosophy of Absuridism. — Nickolasgaspar

Absurdism is a great philosophy, absurdly as that may sound. If I'm guilty of practising it, then that only is in my advantage.

You keep telling us what you believe but you fail to demonstrate good reasons on why you do. — Nickolasgaspar

The reasons are obvious. To give a reason for existence. How rational can one get?

Why are you attacking a strawman? Math is just a tool we have to describe relations, differences, analogies and equations between properties and systems in nature. Why would you ever assume that math have a "real existence" lol. — Nickolasgaspar

I don't assume that, but scientists like Tegmark or Hawking do. Hawking even thinks God is a mathematician. Which some of them are, and it can be argued that some of them, being members of the human god species, played a wicked role in creation.

-". Tell me, what is charge? "
-Not part of this conversation — Nickolasgaspar

It is, as we talk about agency, and charge is an agent.

There are interesting things said (and filmed?). It's a bit "fear" centered though. The word "fear" pops up a thousand times!