The trans-polytheism inherent to buddhism seems in coherent congruence with samsaran notion. The notion of the physical bootsrap conjecture, devoid of matter, while emphasizing the universal interconnectednes, universal interaction and it's transitional character, and the notion of the ephemeral, is a welcome aid in the shake-down of desire, motives, reason, and cause. Freed from these one floats through life like the dandelion fluff, without longing or caring, the only desire being to let the winds continue and the Sun to shine. Without internal substance, lost in the eternal ocean of infinity.

Electric charge would be one of the properties of the composition of the electron and electric force would be a (causal) relation between two electrons. — litewave

This is the wrong way round.

Is the charge pre-assigned to the electron as a property? Or is the charge created by the interaction — Joshs

The charge is assigned. It's an inherent property. It's the mental load, so to speak. And this charge couples to "virtual" (they're not really virtual) particles (electric charge couples to "virtual" or real (which are just time extended virtual photon) photons).

So the mindcharge reaches out to other mindcharge. Which looks like two material particles interacting.

In QFT, charge is the generator of the A field. Which is kind of misleading as photons sre not generated by charge. Charge couples to already existing virtual photons, which is wrongly pictured as a photon being emitted.

In what way do these differ from
push/pull, up/down, backwards/forwards, big/small, male/female, black/white etc? — universeness

Reaching out to attract is love. Reaching out to repel is hate, the bad, the evil.

coupling to a string,' makes even less sense from someone who does not advocate string theory! — universeness

The particle itself is no string. The elastic strings stand for the closed quantum bubble without external legs in a Feynman diagram. The mathematical expression that goes along with it is an integration over all energies (including negatives!) and momenta (independent time and space components of the momentum four vector, which in the real particle case are connected by the relativistic energy momentum relation). The particle rotates in spacetime (fluctuates!, hence a fluctuation!) With all energies and momentum, giving what is needed in an interaction, and returning to the isolated elastic string state. They are not strings from string theory, just a means to visualize. A closed string breaks open, connects with two electrons (coupling), gives them the right energy and momentum, and closes again. Of course, the virtual photon interacts with virtual electrons. Second order processes. A single electron can interact with closed loops to reach out but it can also reach out to itself (self coupling, giving rise to anomalous magnetic moment). And imagine. For one two electron interaction there are infinite Feynman diagrams. There is no need to renormalize this though if we consider the particle non pointlike. A point particle is the biggest mass hallucination in history.

The distinction between stuffs and relations is the root of the problem — Joshs

Dunno. Already in electron there is a distinction. The electron contains charge (mind) and couples ti the virtual photon field, to reach out for other electrons or other charged particles. The interaction with other particles is an expression of charge, mind. The nature of charge isn't explained though. Only the electron knows. We could imagine to be one, I guess. Just close your eyes. You're an electron with a face, arms, legs, and charged with a mind!

There is an easy answer to your excellent question. The evolution approach to the hard problem in consciousness states the obvious. Consciousness evolved. Right. We know that. But did it evolve in order to propagate genes or memes, as Dawkinskians put it? Is it a sign of fitness?

The view on evolution is based on dogma. All books Dawkins wrote, all approaches to features of life, be it a dream, ethics, sex, even death, are based on

The CENTRAL DOGMA of molecular biology

Dawkins is the modern preacherman of the New Dogma.

not a consequence of, or a manifestation of, a fundamental force of evil that exists objectively, separately, and universally — universeness

Already on the fundamental level, good and bad exist. Attractive forces and repulsive forces. Positively charged particles and negatively charged. Particles and antiparticles. In my cosmology there is as much matter as antimatter. A balance of good and bad. Disturbing the balance is the true evil. And that's man-made.

They closed it. It git down voted. Then I deleted. Ill undelete!

Elon Must — universeness

Nice one! Like 10 000 tears... :lol:

Do they give you their reason? — universeness

Lack of detail. Missing clarity. But I mean, how clear can I be? Rotating particles in the whole of spacetime. Rotating in space and time. Equivalent to rotating in energy and momentum, taking all possible values independently from one another, offering real (themselves, with an anti, being virtual particles with the relativistic energy momentum relation) charged particles the perfect means for interaction by coupling to them.

An analogy. Consider the virtual particles elastic strings all over space. Two charged particles interact by coupling both to a string. It breaks up and resembles the curvy line in a Feynman diagram. It delivers the right energy and momentum to both electrons (which is easy since it has all of them!). In the mathematical expression for the associated Feynman diagram this is accomplished by Dirac deltas which pick out the right energy and momentum value (or, in the position representation, the Fourier transform, the right times and position; that's why QFT in phasespace is perfect!). The photon, after the electrons have couple ld, decouples and returns to it's closed form, the "virtual" elastic string. A single electron continuously couples to a whole bunch of them. An electric potential is established. The elastic strings continuously break up, reach out, and return to the vacuum.

Btw, have you seen what they did what the question on stack exchange? They closed it. Do I have to say more?

My visual sensors — universeness

You'll make it to transhuman. In fact, you already are.

My visual sensors work fine and provide real input, unlike the 'dreams' based input you assign significant value to. — universeness

BS

It's what humans judge as evil behavior or evil acts performed by other humans. — universeness

Aint the judgement part of the universe? You might say it's a feature caused by evolution, to whatever nonsensical woowoo purpose, but then you take away it's fundamental existence and replace it by your own interpretation.

Oh, mr. Gill, this is a philosophy forum, not a math forum. Yes, the tangent planes on the cylinder contain two perpendicular vectors. One in the direction of the circle, one in the direction of the length. There is no Lorenz contraction in the circle if it speeds close to light.

Already at the most fundamental level of the universe, good and evil rule. Particles either attract or repel. Which are the good and the bad struggling (or the other way round, that's how we interpret it). And they can't live without each other.

The greatest evil present in modern society, but not recognized by them in the middle of it, is the distancing from nature. Woowoo visions of a future super transhuman testify of this. Somehow, modern man and woman are not satisfied with the gods-given.

Evil has no objectively real existence as a fundamental part of the Universe. — universeness

Open your eyes!

I'm not following you. You claimed that science(in general) ridiculed some other scientists(presumably a minority) who were "right". — creativesoul

Yes. For example, the notion of a point particle being replaced by a more natural interpretation.

The point is, how does one know the peers are right? Because they say so? And you trust them? Okay...

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4375742/what-is-the-3-dimensional-equivalent-of-this-1-dimensional-problem

Of course not. That would be silly and surely not sufficient. You gotta have good grounds for believing that a mass hallucination is happening in a scientific community.

As I am a physicist outside from the community, I think I have a better view on it.

As for AI most of the arguments are based on what computers can do now, not what they can do in the future, ex. quantum computers. — GLEN willows

Even when projected into the future, it will be to no avail. Computers will never be conscious, regardless what kind of computer. Consciousness can't be computed. It can't be forced. It's inherent to freely evolving processes. AI only looks intelligent, to a very small extent. Computers are good in the hyperfast execution, on the rythm of the hyperclock, of a sequence operations on massive data streams. In the brain there is a totally different process happening. The running of spike potentials on the neural network is wrongly compared with potentials and currents used by computers. The spike potential patterns that travel parallel en masse on the network are no information as used in a computer. The patterns running in the brain form mental objects themselves, without being information like in computers, which refer to other object, inform about objects. A pattern of freely running spike potentials is a different pattern intrinsically than a pattern of ones and zeroes being pushed around programmed. In a computer, a pattern of ones and zeroes can hold information about, say, a football, is different from a brain pattern that simulates a ball. The simulation in the brain is the ball in mental form. The information on the computer just refers to a real ball without itself having ball features. The mental ball floats around in the brain. Information about a real ball, in a computer, is pushed around by a program, without itself showing ball-like behavior.

I say evil is with us and part of us. It has shown itself. By what life does (not only people). Why is that reifying? What else approach can we take?

Well, the enduring strength and prodigeous achievements of modern natural sciences — 180 Proof

Just a value judgement.

Again, you are reifying what people do — Banno

Where? I place evil inside the universe and ask how or if to deal with it.

I mean, focusing less on technology. Technology tends to de-humanize.

For example, there is a movement called transhumanism aiming to artificially "improve" people and giving longer lives. Creating the new übermensch. They could better focus on existing life as it is.

It is technology that has pushed paradise further and further away from us. And there is no harm meant maybe, but the evil done by far exceeds the natural badness inherent in the universe.

How's your site doing?

I think it's pretty substantial. It resides in substance. Like charge in an electron.

How many people dream of coming up with a revolutionary theory you imagine? How many really do? — Tobias

You tell me. I know I do.

You know how many physicists there are in the world who dream of one day becoming Newton? — Tobias

That not are the geniuses. Newton was no genius whatsoever. Maybe I have nightmares about him but I certainly do not have wet dreams about him.

"Dear mother of gods..." And your reading comprehension, I gave an example and took it from there. This is not necessarily my opinion. — Tobias

I truly have no idea what you saying here. Must be my reading compression...

A heist is more socially acceptable than shoplifting? — ZzzoneiroCosm

If a painting is stolen from a museum, in an ingenious way, people tend to have more respect than for me as a junkie stealing ahorn syrup in a supermarket.

How can we understand the notion in our human context. — jgill

Take a long plastic pipe. Put a string around it. Move the string over the pipe. The structure is 2d but if the pipe is thin enough it looks like 1D. What more human context do you need. It's impoosible to understand how you put a 3d elastique around a 6d cylinder.

The mathematical description is not too difficult.

We have mastered technology and turned our backs on the gods — Athena

We also could turn our back to technology.

However, a society that focuses on technology and neglects education in virtues and good moral judgment full fills the fear of Zeus. We have mastered technology and turned our backs on the gods. We are technologically smart but not wise. — Athena

:up:

You need to brush up on what "perpendicular" might mean in higher dimensions — jgill

It means the same as a circle around a cylinder being perpendicular to the length of the cylinder. Every tangent on the circle is perpendicular to the length direction. What's so difficult to understand?

Like the perpendicular circle can move in one perpendicular direction, so can the 3d closed perpendicular structure move in 3 perpendicular directions. Like a particle!

. I want "perpendicular" to refer to an object in 5D relative to an object in 3D. — jgill

You lost me... Why you want that?

Yes. On a cylinder all angles between the circle and the length are 90 degrees. Perpendicular!

Perpendicularity doesnt mean straight lines. Its my impression you're very good in the complex plane but reak space confuses you... :chin:

Well, I mean the actual heist. People like that more than a simple shoplift. While in fact more material harm is done.

I'm getting dizzy going around in circles. What's the distance? An infinitesimal. Do you really think of particles as circles on cylinders? A reference would help — jgill

The circles on cylinders are the 2D case to visualize. The 6D case contains perpendicular 3D closed planck spheres, like the 1D circle. If this is oerpendicular to 3D the particles look like points from afar. If they are on top of each other their distance is the Planck length, more or less. Closer they cant get!

So, a jewelry heist as in movies? Ocean's 11?