you anti-science buffoon — Noah Te Stroete

That's a bit much considering the op.

Wave functions collapse everywhere without any observer. Does sunlight not interact with all the places on earth where nobody is looking and that's why the globe is warming? Because there are more brains around remotely collapsing waves.

Nonsense.

But I think you knew that.

Theory of everything.

There is nothing known that can fit the description of what matter is made of. Nobody here has come close. Even light or the field it's waving through must have a definition other than what it does or the potential it has. The ToE wont exist if this question isn't answered within it.

Nothing works.

Me. He's a liar and a cheat. Not to mention a coward. Looks to me like maybe you have done some of this wish washy, half lie, half truth rubbish and you want some positive reinforcement. That it's not the same as lying?

Why does it matter that an infinite afterlife would leave you bored or to have some godlike mental capacity if there is no such thing as an afterlife?

infinite is arbitrary because there are infinities bigger than others — Filipe

Only to a mathematician. Infinity has no size in reality and "bigger" means nothing to infinity.

Your brain has a capacity. Even if we never figure out what it is. Don't be worried about eternity because we are very finite. The universe in infinite but only if you freeze time and travel around outside of it. Otherwise it all changes through time and nothing in itself is infinite in time. In other words, by the time you get back from the other side of the observable universe, nothing will be the same. Only the space itself is infinite and it's empty space, not real stuff. So eternity is impossible for something real, like your mind.

Is it not then still a lie as you are aware of the deceit?

You can't lie and then afterwards, realising what you said was actually correct, erase the lie. It remains a lie but changes from false to true. All that happens is the liar becomes a mistaken liar who happened to be correct. To define what a lie is you must invoke truth and falsehood but to define wether something is true or false, lying doesn't need to be mentioned. In other works, a lie can be true or false.

Where are all the better ideas?

'Stuff' would mostly be energy/interactions going 'round, although I lean toward calling 'stuff' to be happenings/events, with apparently stable 'stuff' being just long events. — PoeticUniverse

Oh, a particle is a long event happening.

I should of known.

I love you. That's amazing. But you are still made of nothing so how on earth can I take you seriously?

Joking

Beautifully said again though.

I want to hear your idea of what could possibly be at the centre of stuff?

If nothing isn't good enough for you...

I hope so because what you said was really beautiful. It sums it up really well. I have decided empty space can do things it shouldn't be able to.

However I'm completely convinced that space and energy can only be made of emptiness.

In a field of something, like a cloud or fabric, an area of nothing has a presence. If you walk along a path and the path is replaced with nothing. The opposite of nothing happens and you fall.

I know 'nothing' wouldn't have any effect on something real but what if the things we consider real, are also made of nothing. I find it hard to explain. I'll just keep on believe in nothing, until something comes along.

I'm open to a better suggestion. But I've been open to a better idea for a while. A may well of gone mad.

I think nothing is completely something. Nothing on its own is a useless, non reality. When there is something, like a universe, then nothing has everything.

Space is made of nothing. Lots and lots of waves of nothing. So many bands of empty space at different frequencies, coming from all directions, creating a fabric of nothingness. The absurd part is believing that empty space, however non existent, must build up in some way to create a something. I can't see any other alternative.

I get what you mean but there is a truth to all things and regardless of whether that thing is this or that, it still matters to me that it be defined. Deeper understanding is only possible when you know enough about what's come before to bridge the next gap. Just settling for characteristics or qualities won't give enough insight to see around the next corner, even if at first it's just an assumption, what it leads to could be more than the sum of its parts. I think a label on what energy is, is the key to understanding how the universe works, and what it's made of. You have to admit, accepting energy for it's qualities hasn't brought much to the table.

It isn't enough for me to accept it on its influence in reality. To me, it seems the same as saying energy.

How about NOTHINGness, just empty space. Interacting with other empty space, until SOMETHING is happening out of nothing. I believe you really can make something out of nothing.

I think there is always going to be the problem of infinite regress about the constituents of reality — Andrew4Handel

This is the point of view I hit upon. And I couldn't accept the most common answer of it just being made of stuff. Nor will I ever intertain the idea that the universe cares about our consciousness and therefore has nothing to do with mind or the awareness of it. So my reasoning is that it's nothing. Not in the nihilistic sense but in the sense that the building blocks of reality are made of empty space. Light is a wave of empty space. Matter is closed pockets or knots of empty space, within a bubbling sea of fluctuating empty space. I know it sounds ridiculous but the more I think about it, the more realistic it becomes. After all, no matter how small you divide something, each half can always be divided again. I see the only logical solution must be nothing, because nothing else works.

It seems strange to read such a full description of the epic journey through evolution we made to get here and then I see you state it doesn't matter if we are gone. You could of summed the whole thing up by saying, 'the universe (not conscious) will carry on regardless of us'. Which nobody would deny. Pointless.

I think infinity breaks down and becomes impossible when you are dealing with numbers, or any kind of symbol which represents something else. Maths can't work with it but it can still be represented. O

Something like a perfectly balanced, circular orbit with zero friction on the other hand. That's where infinity is. You can't write it down or spell it out but you also have to accept it will theoretically go on forevermore.

The universe is infinite in all directions. If you try to think of infinity as linear, it will always hit a wall.

Well the original point you made about a counting God in an eternal universe is, in my opinion, a worthless thought experiment. An eternal universe has no need for a God. I can't even make a logical argument against it because it's tainted by the ambiguity of a fictional being. Sorry.

It's not about me knowing the truth. It's about how all the questions are pointless to begin with. You're talking about hope and making sense of the world with the sense that without some form of supernatural fiction, it's harder or lesser somehow. I'm sorry to be so blunt but I really wish people could just stop with all the bull. Let's keep fantasy and fiction in the same box. I've got as much "hope" as the next human and I doubt anyone's understanding of the (real) world will ever be improved by invoking the supernatural.

Tooth fairy
Lock Ness monster
Santa
God
Ghosts
Sponge Bob

All together in one list.

Socialism comes in many forms. So it's about which demographic can see it in the best possible light. It's a correlation between the ability to make socialism work in theory. Which also means that if a person feels strongly that we are living as we should, then socialism is instinctively contradictory, hence not viable. So someone has to both feel as if we are not yet doing things right and be able to picture a version of socialism that would work. Personally I think it hinges mostly on how well a person suits this way of living compared to those who would change it. And again, that's after you factor in the likelihood of someone holding that position before becoming a professional as it would obviously have some say over their life choices. Honestly there's so many variables the figures are useless on their own.

As if they'd be able to admit it freely. "None" is absurd. There must be a degree of weakness of mind allowed for describing those who believe in the supernatural. I think it comes down to how much a person needs to know the answer to the questions; why are we here? And, what happens when we die? Because religion offers the only answers other than the truth (that there is no reason for us being here and it's simply lights out). Some people can't handle that reality, regardless of intelligence.

The difference is that if you pick God, you still need science if you want to achieve anything. Whereas once you have a ToE, you no longer need God. In today's world, where all but the most cryptic mysteries are left unresolved. Only that small space remains for God to hide in. The God of the gaps. But once we figure it all out, he'll have nothing to hide behind and it will be clear, he was nowhere to be found.

I would say the issue with most theories about sleep seem to, like yours, give some form of separate consciousness to the unconscious brain. DMT released during sleep can block receptors, which could lead to a redirection of the circuit or loop. But I think any process in the brain is governed by chemistry. Your brain isn't doing anything on purpose or making decisions about what memory to pick from. Lastly, one thing I'd suggest working into your hypothesis is the role of the limbic system and the amygdala as emotion in dreams seems to me to be quite Central.

An eternal universe is the only logical answer. If at any point there was no universe, no universe would exist today. God needn't come into the argument as he never existed or exists today.