No, it's quite relevant to the conversation. He has some concept of God. I have some concept of God. To what extent are our concepts "same?" — YuZhonglu

ok

There's a larger problem here. When you use the word "God" and when someone else uses the word "God," are the two of you referring to the same 'God'? — YuZhonglu

I can promise you that this has nothing to do with the conversation. This god the OP is refering to could be Zeus, Allah, Jehovah or god xyz. It really is irrelevant to the OP.

Is that what you're shooting for? Coming to an agreement? — Terrapin Station

? What? Ofcourse or atleast come closer to that threshold.

Yeah, it is. You could attempt to make it coherent, though. No one has been successful in that yet. — Terrapin Station

true

The idea of anything existing outside of space or time is incoherent. — Terrapin Station

its not incoherent but it is hard to prove without future technology or some phenomenon that shows an consistency with current understanding of physics.

Empirical claims are not provable period. So you're asking for a category error. — Terrapin Station

Empirical claims are not provable period. So you're asking for a category error.-Terrapin Station

This is why we'll never come to an agreement based on your current beliefs. That is a whole another forum topic.

If you have no particles it very hard to measure time. — christian2017


I would say that if you have no particles you have no time to measure.

To say you need particles for new events to occur is conjecture. — christian2017


I don't think there's any conjecture to it. An event with no material is incoherent. — Terrapin Station

I guess our disagreement is over whether there are 5th dimensional objects. A good video to watch is "10 dimensions explained" on youtube.

Out of curiosity... what would you say that thoughts or ideas are? Material or non-material? — 0 thru 9


Material. They're ways that our brains function. — Terrapin Station

How would you prove that thoughts are a product of a 3/4 dimensional (space/time) object. Perhaps thoughts exist outside the space/time continuum. We could both ask each other what the source of thoughts are and we would both just be making conjecture.

I certainly don't think we should follow the teachings of Stalin, Hitler or Mao (China). I believe people need to have a fear of severe consequences for violence against others. And ofcourse there are other factors that anger people as well.

the viewers of the forum would have to see the context of the other posts to understand what i'm about to say but here goes:

matter or particles are measured in terms of speed in relation to clocks but clocks are constrained in there accuracy due to special relativity (see above post). If you have no particles it very hard to measure time.

To say you need particles for new events to occur is conjecture. Atleast the way we see particles. The problem with the OP is that it is conjecture. Whether it is proven to be true conjecture only time will tell.
The OP is saying an entity or creature that has 4, 5, 6 or more dimensions may have set in motion the 3/4 (space time) universe we live in. Does that help?

I noticed through out this forum topic that accusations were made in the OP that were never clarified on certain concepts. The 4th post down is an example of this. The poster of the 4th post F.A. said things were stated but infact they were never stated in this forum topic. The OP started a new thread because he/she had new insights new ideas. Some of your are being trolls today.

ok. i think that is besides the main point. Sorry for getting off topic.

Where did i make an assumption about what you have read? — christian2017


"Read the book Flatland" — Terrapin Station

Was i supposed to say "have you read the book flatland?". I'm sorry. My deepest apologies. Your being a troll Terrapin Station.

But it's okay to make assumptions about what I've read/what I'm familiar with? — Terrapin Station

Where did i make an assumption about what you have read? Don't be so sensitive. Show me where i made an assumption about what you have read?

don't make assumptions about my age. and no i'm not telling you how old i am. That is good that you read that book.

" Spacetime was created 14 billion years ago. — Devans99


All we know is that the big bang appears to have occurred about that time, if our theories are correct. That doesn't amount to spacetime being created then, or at any time. We have no idea about that.

Spacetime can't be created by something not of spacetime. The idea of that is incoherent. Space doesn't exist "in itself." It's not itself a thing. (And the same with time.) It supervenes on matter/the relations between matter. Space doesn't occur without time. " Terrapin Station



Specifically (And the same with time) It supervenes on matter/the relations between matter. Space doesn't occur without time"

That is why i mentioned special relativity and its relationship to matter and time. See above posts

You've gotten all the counter arguments you need from people MUCH more intelligent than I. And you have simply dismissed them out-of-hand.

My comment to you is not based on counter arguments. It is something more basic:

I ask you to consider why you suppose YOU have done what the greatest minds that have ever lived on planet Earth have been unable to do...

...and why you suppose it is so easy to see.

Why do you SUPPOSE that is?

Why could someone like Albert Einstein not see it?

Why could someone like Stephen Hawking not see it?

Why could someone like Richard Feynman not see it?

Why could someone like Carl Sagan not see it?

You suppose you can not only see it...but that it is basic...and that it can be shown to be so in just a hsort paragraph. — Frank Apisa

Only time will tell.

that is true

Then they would have their "facts," but these "facts" would not be comprehensible to us. When I talk about "facts" I mean "human facts." — YuZhonglu

ok

It means every so-called "fact" that any human has ever learned or thought about is the product of neuronal activity. If there are no brains, then there will also be no "facts."

If humans disappeared, the Earth might still revolve around the Sun. But there would be no "facts" regarding this phenomenon. "Facts," as people understand them, do not exist independent of the mind that created it.

EDIT: This has significance because when two people look at the Sun, they're not seeing the same "Sun." Similarly, when two people react to a post, they're not reacting to the "same" post. — YuZhonglu

this is a whole another forum topic. What if there are aliens or what if some other species evloves that can talk? What if some parrot says that your wrong YuZhonglu?

n order to respond, your brain had to interpret and remember the visual input coming in from your retina. Then, based on this interpretation, neurons in the brain send signals back to the muscles in your fingers to respond. In other words, as you typed this, sections of your brain are responding to input and stimuli from OTHER sections of your brain.

The same applies to me, too, of course. — YuZhonglu

Are these facts or opinons. I'm pointing at myself right now. That is a fact not an opinion. After i finally got my head screwed on straight i agree with everyone else.

"Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Since you wrote the post in an honestly subject way and neatly avoided any sweeping statements or assertions (usually easier said than done), I can’t disagree with any of it. Even if a phrase or two of it hasn’t been in my particular experience or my current opinion, which is to be expected. (I appreciate good questions as much good answers, if not more so. A good question is like the beginning of a favorite movie, where a new world and characters unfold before one. The answer is like the finale or resolution of the movie, and while necessary and perhaps climatic, signifies a closing up of the story and it particular created world.)

Anyway, in reply to your post... I would agree that it is a tightrope we walk between reality and fantasy, between the subject and the objective. Not saying that the subjective tends to be unreal fantasy, and the objective is always factual and real. Or maybe it is like being in a hall of mirrors... subjects looking at objects reflecting subjects... Anyway one puts it, if a every type of spade could simply be called a spade, the need for further speculation and clarification would have ended millennia ago. Or maybe it is like Alice in Wonderland...

So we are in a world that is arguably so multi-dimensional that we cannot even reach a consensus on how many dimensions there are. Add to the mix that everything is constantly changing, though sometimes imperceptibly. So usually the best I can do is have some “yardsticks” to hopefully gain some perspective. As mentioned above, I find Ken Wilber’s quadrants and levels to be helpful concerning organizing phenomena into both the “interior and exterior”, and the “individual and collective”. (And all within a handy sliding scale that fits neatly into your pocket, lol.) It seems to give validity to the areas of matter, mind, and spirt simultaneously as fairly and distinctly as one could hope for. But no diagram or model of the universe is without its compromises, of course.

There are some other models and metrics I have found useful. The Buddhist concept of the Two Truths, the Absolute and the Relative, is simple yet elegant. Pithy yet profound. As is the concept of Yin and Yang. Like is said of chess, it takes an hour to learn, but a lifetime to master (and explore, and explore some more... ) "

that was well said.

read the book Flatland. It greatly influenced Albert Einstein. You've probably seen magazine covers saying the Universe is like one giant computer. Read those articles too if you like.

Spacetime can't be created by something not of spacetime. The idea of that is incoherent. Space doesn't exist "in itself." It's not itself a thing. (And the same with time.) It supervenes on matter/the relations between matter. Space doesn't occur without time. — Terrapin Station

The theory of special relativity dictates that the measurement of time is only in accordance with how fast particles are moving. In the case of a photon and all the particles that are of a similar size or small than a photon: the x vector, y vector, and z vector can never be combined to exceed C (speed of light). A clock that approaches the speed C will slow down in terms of the way it tells time.

This has been shown on airplanes carrying clocks over long periods of time. Time can only be measured in relation to moving objects. If there is no objects there is no way for humans to measure time.

its available for free online sometimes as a digital download

you can probably request "Flatland" from your local library.

A great book to read that addresses this issue to some extent is called "Flatland". It was written by Abbott Abbott. It greatly influenced Albert Einstein.

You can't literally point at something without a finger, right? Does that mean that we can only point at our finger? — Terrapin Station

this pretty much clarifies the whole thing. There are some facts that aren't worth debating by anyone.

crap. he got me.

I feel my previous posts clarified what YuZhonglu was trying to get across. I could be wrong.

*hal·lu·ci·na·tion

look up tactile halluicination, halluicination, and delusion

i think YuZhonglu is making the notion that in a historical, crime scene, and scientific perspective that over time new conclusions are made about old results. If i have video footage that Bob robbed my house and 10 years later i discover Bob died in 1990 and infact it was hologram of Bob. The actual person who robbed my house was Frank and he did it with out being caught on camera.

Not all opinions are created equal. — YuZhonglu

Definitely. Now we get into an argument with some who decides whos is greater but i hope not today.

yeah thats very often the case that needs to be considered by everybody when making a judgement on a situation. I'm not sure the concept of fact should be thrown out by greater society.

thats really well put. Thats why i would argue to truly judge a persons character at any given time you would have to take 100s of varialbes and each variable would have a different weight to it. To make this judgement would take someone from the outside. An example of what i'm talking about would be.

A^3 + 2B - 4C + D/2 + E^7 ..... (Zsubscript200) ^2/3

Each letter represents things for example were they discriminated against, by who, how nice they were, how much money, how hard they worked..... and so on

If this continued for 100s of variables onward it would get extremely hard to calculate. So basically our worth is either 1) how happy we are why we are alive or (2) what some diety says after we die or (3) what history or our family says about us after we die.

I hope i didn't get too far off the topic but i felt this pertained to the OP. Maybe it didn't. Please correct me if it did not pertain to the OP.

Thats my opinion.

While there is something to what you are saying. Some opinions are so close to being 100% true most of the time that they are tested that you may as well call them facts.

thats a really good answer. I usually don't see answers like that on this forum.

"children are arrows in quiver when the enemy is at our gates" (somewhere in the Old testament) check out www.biblegateway.com if you would like).

I've heard but i don't know how true this is that Muslims tend to have more children and are growing due to population growth. I would argue Christianity is decreasing due to problems within the church. I could elaborate if you like.

I think alot of the concepts Devans99 is explaining would be better understood thinking about it from a geometric mathematical mindset. Perhaps if Devans could show us some pictoral examples he/she could further the discussion.

i agree