You have a naive picture of academic climate. Mostly it's thunder, rain, and storm, with occasional sunshine. — Hillary

Silly boy. I spent thirty enjoyable years in that environment. But admittedly I was not locking intellectual horns with Nobel laureates.

Lucifer - that perennially mortifying, theologically disconcerting - and hence well-glossed-over - morsel of god - is both Prince of Darkness and Bringer of Light — ZzzoneiroCosm

It's speculated the the Jews of the time period of Nebuchadnezzar sarcastically referred to him as "Lucifer", one who thought so highly of himself that the sun rose because of him: the Bringer of Light.

At which point Lucifer became synonymous with Satan is possibly a mystery.

No, the independent thinker just produces bollocky hogwash that he thinks "has scientific grounds", but is probably neither science nor philosophy and probably nothing remotely noteworthy. — Tobias

:ok:

One important aspect of academia is that it is a social environment in which researchers converse with one another, sharpening arguments and discarding mistakes. Usually.

Proofs of God are deductive because one has to start already believing God exists. — Jackson

So, if one begins an argument by assuming what is to be proved, this implies that argument is "deductive"? A new and pathetic low on TPF. :roll:

Hegel brought this to my attention — Jackson

My God, man! What else did Hegel divulge to you?

Kurt Gödel, no less, was convinced there was something to the ontological argument. He, I was led to understand, developed his own version of it. Google for more! — Agent Smith

A great math guy but something of a nut case toward the end.

This thread is like a time travel back to the scholasticism of the 13th century using quantum theory to revive that ancient nonsense. String theory vs angels on the head of a pin. What a waste of the digital resources. :roll:

Ref: the Philosophy is Pointless . . . thread.

Present-dynamism => Frequency x Becoming (Space x Time) — Takso

Well, that certainly clarifies the issue. :roll:

You intentionally avoid the aesthetics of physical movement. To sit and stare at paintings or sculptures or listen to music while in a recliner, in the long run seems boring. But I suppose there are those who enter some kind of zone of contemplation, pleasing and seductive.

As you watch a skilled gymnast you become active in a sense, and the gymnast experiences a kinaesthetic pleasure from performing.

A problem with non-paradoxical travel to the past to simply witness an event is with the definition of "witness". Does that imply the reception of photon waves from the earlier time? In which case there would have been an actual physical change at that time. Could there be a way of witnessing that would not disturb the physical setting at a particular instant? Since there appears to be time symmetry at the quantum level this might not be a problem.

I am an artist, a very good artist, well known for my stoneware. — Ken Edwards

Yes indeed!

Ken Edwards

All processes are reversible on the small level — Hillary

In the broad river of time there might be tiny eddies where momentarily particles of reality circle before being caught up in the forward momentum.

Gnight! — Hillary

(I enjoyed three seasons of a crime series produced in Holland on Netflix)

Time reversal in physics formulae is often touted as an indication that processes might run backwards in time, but I suspect the interchangeability of + or - signs are just mathematical artifacts.

Obvious in the sense of obviously true or obviously problematic? — Joshs

Former, IMHO. :smile:

Husserl, Heidegger, Derrida, Deleuze and Bergson have shown in different ways that a quantifiable, mathematizable nature presupposes the kind of time which consists of self-presences transitioning from future to present to past in sequential movement (existing ‘in' time) — Joshs

Exemplars of the obvious.

I'm not sure if you are serious here... :chin: — Hillary

I can physics babble as well as anyone here if I put my mind to it. :wink:

Best wishes

Haim Harari — Hillary

:cheer:

lol....that is not what Hillary means by the term agency... — Nickolasgaspar

Particles possess charge, the agencies that couple to virtual fields by means of which they interact. — Hillary

???

What if our faces were on our back? — Hillary

Scientific speculation, philosophical even, is always welcome. My own suspicion is that time moves obliquely according to a functional operator and we experience only a projection of it in our spacetime geometry. By generating a computer time-field it may be possible to break through.

Time dilation might be explained by a shift in the time-angle created by velocity.

I can see only a white page in the link — Hillary

Agency in Physics
Carlo Rovelli

Between the extremes - Dems: print more money and give it away, do away with borders - Reps: pray that women will not have the right to abortion - there must be a middle way.

There is agency behind physical phenomena. — Hillary

Yes, there are agencies behind physical phenomena, but not the sort of agencies normally discussed in philosophy in which something resembling consciousness exists. Regarding "action" as defined in physics, e.g. Oxford Lang. :

action or intervention, especially such as to produce a particular effect

Agency in Physics

A lot of "what is going on" seems very "edgy" which is to say, not highly understandable, probably not widely supported. Four year olds switching genders and reactionaries who want to see women back in the kitchen in heels like 1950s advertisements, are both "far out". Left and Right just seem irrelevant terms for such of this (crap). — Bitter Crank

:up: Bizarre times indeed.

I'm currently reading a children's book on philosophy — Agent Smith

Post a few excerpts please. Looks interesting. :chin:

Kant writes paragraph long sentences — Jackson

There was a famous novelist who wrote this way in the 1960s I think. Can't recall is name.

What paves the road to mathematical competence is the removal of critical thoughts. — Metaphysician Undercover

At times I wish I were still teaching so I could take jewels like this into the classroom. :cool:

Thanks for your thoughts. Always interesting and provocative. One of the major tasks in the early grades is to develop critical and precise thinking skills. This paves the road to mathematical competence. How to do this across cultural lines is probably a challenge.

Do not write sentences so long they become paragraphs. Be succinct and smile at the reader.

My first few years as an asst prof I taught college algebra out of a textbook by Vance, I think. It incorporated the "New Math", an idea that had mostly expired by then. I tried to maintain a level of enthusiasm, but it was heavy going as I dealt with simple rules like a+0=a. The thrust of this pedagogical experiment was to introduce abstract underpinnings for the rote procedures previously championed. I suspect the NM did more to separate the superior math talented from those having average math intellects than anything since - the latter group losing what little interest in the subject they had to begin with. Perhaps the opposite of what is described in the article except for discovery notions.

The NM was an idea broadly supported by math professionals in universities, whereas the reform ideas advanced by advocates of approaches described in the article have little support amongst the professorial class. Hmmm.

Wiki:

Topics introduced in the New Math include set theory, modular arithmetic, algebraic inequalities, bases other than 10, matrices, symbolic logic, Boolean algebra, and abstract algebra.[2] All of the New Math projects emphasized some form of discovery learning.[3] Students worked in groups to invent theories about problems posed in the textbooks. Materials for teachers described the classroom as "noisy." Part of the job of the teacher was to move from table to table assessing the theory that each group of students had developed and "torpedoing" wrong theories by providing counterexamples.

No, math is not racist. But the following from a Seattle Public School document seems to ignore the fact that "Western" mathematics is the only kind that really works in the modern world. Historical contributions certainly came from many cultural sources, but we are beyond cuneiform impressions on clay tablets. I taught math history on occasion and relished the discussion of Omar Khayyam, one of the ancestors of the subject I explored.

Power and oppression, as defined by
ethnic studies, are the ways in which
individuals and groups define
mathematical knowledge so as to see
“Western” mathematics as the only
legitimate expression of mathematical
identity and intelligence. This definition
of legitimacy is then used to
disenfranchise people and
communities of color. This erases the
historical contributions of people and
communities of color.

I don't really have a clear-cut, well-defined, position on the matter — Agent Smith

For which you should be profoundly thankful. :roll:

it doesn't answer why there is universe. — SpaceDweller

The various branches of physics seek answers to "how" rather than "why". You philosophers are charged with answering the latter. Good luck.

A while back I wrote an argument that a "first cause" was logically necessary. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1 After much debate, I am satisfied that the argument successfully stands — Philosophim

That's good. I'm not convinced, but I'm sure others here are. My experience with mathematical dynamical systems that progress forward or backward in time makes me cautious.

@TonesInDeepFreeze or @fishfry might be able to help. I was a math prof years ago but can't assist you here. You might send them a message and see if they are interested. Just a thought.

Is it logically necessary that spacetime must be always the same? — Janus

That's beyond simplistic. Time and length dilation under high velocities should have no effect on applications of logic in respective settings. But I don't think space really changes, just distances between some objects. But what do I know? Virtually nothing about the subject.

I like a truly simplistic explanation: When embedded in spacetime logical necessity becomes physical causation. :nerd:

Bedtime reading, for if you can't sleep — Haglund

It's in Cyrillic. Nevertheless math symbols are the same, but to no avail for me - gobblygook. Feynman's path integral is not the functional integral I am familiar with. Playing with Functional Integrals

If you use the search words 'Does expansion create new space' on sites such a quora, physics stack exchange etc. You get many many viewpoints . . . — universeness

It's hard to discern on TPF if a poster really knows what they are talking about, especially topics in physics. I think Haglund does have a graduate degree, and Kenosha Kid has a PhD. There may be one or two more. But a lack of in-depth studies of QM or general relativity is not a deterrent to posting a seemingly knowledgeable and well written statement on the subject. And if you go to a source like Wikipedia you might find confusing arguments and counter-arguments among experts in the talk sections.

One member here suggested a metric used in GR and when I read it on Wiki I could not tell whether a crucial term meant proper time or spacetime. And guess what, neither could a few of the "experts" speaking out in the general TALK discussion. Another instance was my attempt to find out what measure was appropriate for Feynman's path integral. In the article itself its just a brief hand wave, and when I asked about it in TALK I got no response. After a while I deleted my question.

My view is that space does not bend and surely, not break. The immaterial does not bend or stretch, etc. — val p miranda

It does look that way, doesn't it? Confusion arises when 4D spacetime is introduced with a different metric, and said to curve, etc. But space itself does seem to show signs of curvature. Beyond me.

This expansion involves neither space nor objects in space "moving" in a traditional sense

The distance between objects changes in some sense.

Lagrangians (excuses for the term used on this forum) — Haglund

Kinetic energy minus potential energy? Or that functional used in path integrals? The term comes up over and over it seems.

Perhaps jgill would comment on the maths argument used above. — universeness

The arithmetic of infinities is a subject of axiomatic set theory. IMHO little to do with the real physical world. Others would disagree. As for the "expansion" of space, Wikipedia says it best:

The expansion of the universe is the increase in distance between any two given gravitationally unbound parts of the observable universe with time.[1] It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. The universe does not expand "into" anything and does not require space to exist "outside" it. This expansion involves neither space nor objects in space "moving" in a traditional sense, but rather it is the metric (which governs the size and geometry of spacetime itself) that changes in scale. As the spatial part of the universe's spacetime metric increases in scale, objects become more distant from one another at ever-increasing speeds.

(Wiki)