The universe is there...
— Hillary

You also said:

you would know it gives no explanation why the universe is there.
— Hillary — javi2541997

Yes. And?

What I defend is that thanks to knowledge we can prove, at least, our existence — javi2541997

Of course. And we don't even need knowledge for that. To live is to proof existence. But that offers no answer to the why question. Why does the universe and all life in exist in the first place? What is the reason?

And the answer is...? — javi2541997

They offer an answer to why the universe is there. The universe is there because they created the basics.

Why are you asking more when we already exist thanks to our knowledge? — javi2541997

Because I don't think we exist thanks to our knowledge that we exist. That's what I mean about the brainwash power of science, knowledge. It is the same as saying gods created the universe. Knowledge having created the universe makes no sense. The basics of the universe just popping into existence even less. So gods are left. And they had good reasons. They can show themselves via the mind, in dreams, astral projections, clouds, etc. They might even show up in double slit experiments, though i don't think they will do so.

If there is not an explanation of why the universe is there, then why you connect it with God's existence — javi2541997

Because I like to know why the universe is there. Why we are there. Gods offer an answer.

Where are they?
— Enrico Fermi (referring to aliens/ET)

We're not alone! :chin: — Agent Smith

Indeed. The universe is teeming with life. In virtually all planetary systems there are planets with life on them. There are more people up there!

. Nevertheless, it is not so late to take part in this issue and improve your critical thinking — javi2541997

It's you who's brainwashed by the critical though doctrine of science. Like I was. But if you would know fundamental physics, you would know it gives no explanation why the universe is there.

It sounds childish saying that the basics of universe comes from God. — javi2541997

The child would be right though. I believed in god when a child. Physics took that away, and now I realize the child I was was right.

OK. Prove God's existence through physics as you can prove the damn X-rays — javi2541997

Gods can't make themselves appear physically. That would destroy the natural order. Hidden variables could do the trick. Via the mind they could show up.

Prove God's existence through physics as you can prove the damn X-rays — javi2541997

Good one! :lol:

I took a years study on the origin. I have a working cosmological model, but it doesn't explain where the stuff the model describes came from.

the other is based on faith and worship (religion). — javi2541997

Like I said, it's exactly physics I base gods on.

According to your own criteria:knowledge exists thanks to God.. — javi2541997

The gods just created the basics of the universe. All our knowledge about these basics exists thanks to us.

Both are incompatible — javi2541997

Why?

God" is not a reason for existence neither a proof of knowledge — javi2541997

A proof of knowledge?

You just killed all laws of physics, chemistry, maths, law, etc... in one flawed statement. — javi2541997

It is exactly the laws of physics I base the existence of gods on.

Another wacky "ontological" argument to defend God's existence.
Why God has to be the "greatest" thing? — javi2541997

There is only one good argument fir the existence of gods. Only gods offer a reason for existence. The basics of the universe are too dumb to have brought themselves into existence. So eternal intelligences must have done that. Only when you think the universe is irrational, gods don't exist.

Do you know what is better than hitting rock bottom, Hillary? Staying there. Specially if it's forever, and more specially if you know it. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Seems llike the worst life possible, though better than a bottomless pit, as half the world, if not more, lives in, as AS wisely commented. I would indeed feel very depressed.

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information. — Gnomon

The weight of information is very small though. Mass is a consequence of particles interacting, but massive particles interacting and forming a pattern, a shape, a form, adds not much to their mass. Enerģy is needed to maintain the shape, but compared to the mass energy this is very little.

What information is contained in the wavefunction?

One of the ideas that I did propose was that we're here to initiate the next step of evolution. — Harry Hindu

Which is circular. If life exist to generate next life, you involve life in the reason.

I am definitely born in the right era. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Yes, I think so too. The world never saw before so many fires as these days. Man-induced chaos rules supreme. Heaven for you!

By the way, who doesn't like chaos? — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

I like chaos, but not the one you talk about! Makes me depressed.

I'm not sure it's a depression then.
— Hillary

Then I am either a god or a monster.
I don't believe in gods. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

And you do believe in monsters? The monster of depression? How convenient. If you feel fine with your "depression", it's no depression. It's a sign of your incapability. You wanna burn it all!

I didn't say I was going to get that profit. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

What on Earth do you mean by profit?

Do you know what is better than hitting rock bottom, Hillary? Staying there. Specially if it's forever, and more specially if you know it. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Ah, a man of the Earth. How predictable. I knew you was going to say this. You are just as predictable as the people of which you know what's next.

Good luck with your "depression". Hope you finds some gold. What's so special about gold anyway?

But there is no actual (sensible) particle until a measurement — Gnomon

That remains to be seen. There are different interpretations of the wavefunction besides the Copenhagen view. We can see the wavefunction, as was done initially, before it was decided in Copenhagen what the standard would gonna be, as being a literal stuff accompanying the particle, which has a precise position and momentum all the time, in accordance with the classical view. The non-classicality enters when realizing the strange behavior of the particle. It changes instantaneously between all possible trajectories within the confines of the wavefunction. For example, in an s-orbital around a proton, the electron has zero momentum and hops around erratically within the orbital. Is there information present in the wavefunction? Let's look at a free particle.

A free particle has, in general, a Gaussian shaped wavepacket associated with it. There is an overall mean momentum, and the particle hops around to the front to the back, etc. All the time it has a position and momentum. When you measure it's position the wavefunction literary collapse to a small region within the bounds of uncertainty, and the measurement of momentum, which asks for two position and time measurement likewise.

Think about it. Where is the information?

It depends on the dad and the joke told. Jokes told by own dads can be the most fantastic or the most worse. I mean, if the professional comedian told a joke it could have a different impact than the same joke told by dad. The comedian could be the dad.

Without the Bible, you'd be yet another sucker "just trying to do the right thing". With the Bible, you'd be doing the exact same things, but you'd have the divine justification for them and feel righteous. — baker

Great point! "Me beating those faggots to death wasn't that bad after all!"

The only thing the good Lao does is giving examples of things he doesn't like and then says these things are not things he does like. Sorry, but I don't like the paternizing. But I won't bother again. "He who keeps critique to herself, will drown in contrariness".

But why should we get things done for others. For a possessing class? Who have their alibi to tyranny by feeding us with artificial corporate food, housing us in sick building, providing us with occasional entertainment, a chance in the lottery to go to the island, a health insurance corporation to provide us with torture as the cure for our artificially induced sickness and misery, while constantly being bombarded with fake smiles and ideality. So, free yourself and make life happen yourself!

If I'm able to endure the pain, I think that to be burnt alive would be a glorious death — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

You'll only know when you try...

Talking seriously... I like flames in every state of their existence. They make disgrace seem beautiful. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

It can't be denied that there is beauty in licking flames.

Most great people in the past were burn in flames. Like Giordano Bruno. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

I'm not sure if most where, but some indeed. You're born in the wrong era, my friend.

But do you actually like being depressed?
— Hillary

Yes. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

I'm not sure it's a depression then. I hated it when morning arrived and I was confronted with the beast!

How can you?
— Hillary

Nothing can be worse. Anything else is profit. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Ah, yes. That's true. Being in a manic up can only lead to falling down. But the height feels great!

It's shit -- to use even more shitty language -- retained at first and then later evacuated into a fancy toliet, at the time the evacuator chooses to do so. — baker

The evacuator! :lol:

until you're willing to respond seriously, I won't respond to you. — T Clark

I gave a serious critique. Every verse he wrote can be changed. Let's consider another verse. I'll pick a random one.

"Tao is a whirling emptiness (ch'ung),
Ye (erh) in use (yung) is inexhaustible (ying).
Fathomless (yuan),
It seems to be the ancestor (tsung) of ten thousand beings.
It blunts the sharp,
Unties the entangled,
Harmonizes the bright,
Mixes the dust.
Dark (chan),
It seems perhaps to exist (ts'un)."

Which suggests Zao was ahead of his time. What he meant to say was:

"Tao is the vacuum whirling with virtuality (closed propagators)
Yet in use (external) is inexhaustible (energy/mass)
Fathomless (converging),
It seems to be the underlayer (highers dimensional structure) of ten thousand universes,
It blunts the sharp (HUR),
Unties the entangled (interaction),
Collapses the wavefunction,
Mixes the Hilbert states.
Unobservable,
It's existence (reality) is doubted.

What else I need to say?

As a said above there are lots of kinds of people... more serious... less serious... — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Yeah, allright. But do you actually like being depressed? No, of course not. How can you? You are depressed.

I really like fire. It is one of the most beautiful things on earth... but not more beautiful than women are. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

You must have liked the flames rising to the nose of Joan of Arc...

145 Best Dad Jokes That Have The Whole Family Laughing

Take your pick or start a research program. :joke:

Epicureanism is just an anally retentive hedonism. — baker

So in what light can we place the pleasurable of an ecstacy driven dance with follow up love affair when we consider this? Is it shit that's kept in or shat out?

Eh? You?! Talk about religion being the opiate of the people! — baker

The people are free to choose their own opiate, brought to them by the dealer of choice.

All intoxicants sooner or later show their ugly side. — baker

So does life, brother baker.

I don't think Lao Tzu, as a good Taoist, wrote TTC with intentionality or desire. — T Clark

That remains to be seen. His advocating of non-desire doesn't mean he's free of it. He surely had the desire to express this.

It is virtually impossible to cite anything in reality that does not convey information — Rocco Rosano

#/=#ss!!@ trt4#@÷÷ fr $%%%$ 4÷=sa y6 yu777
Aa?

He who stands on tiptoe does not stand (firm),
He who strains his strides does not walk (well)
He who reveals himself is not luminous,
He who justifies himself is not far-famed,
He who boasts of himself is not given credit.
He who prides himself is not chief among men.
These in the eyes of Tao
Are called ''the dregs and tumors of Virtue,”
Which are things of disgust.
Therefore the man of Tao spurns them. — T Clark

Dear mother of god...

A critique

"He who tiptoes can see over the wall and do ballet
She who strains his strides can escape
He who reveals herself shows beauty
She who justifies himself shows resilience
He who boasts herself can win the game and be given a lot of credit
She who prides himself can be powerful"

The "dregs and tumors" turned into gaseous benevolence!

Man, to not get the joke is a serious problem! When we can no longer laugh at ourselves, we are in deep trouble — Athena

I completely agree! @ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf is too serious. He/she (though I think it's a he, who like fires more often than women) knows what's coming before and to take your depression seriously is kindof disturbing. I took it seriously too because I had too. Couldn't escape it. But people taking their worldviews or objective realities too seriously was exactly one of the reasons for the depression in the first place.

Dear brother Gnomon, as interesting your thesis truly is, we still have to take into account that the wavefunction contains no information but a means for particles to explore. Information is not contained in the patterns connecting particles, but in the stuff describing them.

Jesus! This is painful! — L'éléphant

Relax, brother Elephant... Take a deep breath or light a cigarette.

Of course moral can be objective. Just like the natural world. The objective moral is not to place oneself opposite to the natural world. When we do that we'll invite disaster.