How many GODS do you have?

[Unbeliever]

But Mike, the universe we live in may be just the latest iteration of an ongoing, recurring process, that has been cycling through aeon after aeon for "eternity." But that's only if one or another of the cyclic models turns out to be verifiable. Models like the "ekpyrotic cyclic cosmology" of Steinhardt and Turok (et al), or Penrose's "conformal cyclic cosmology" (CCC). They're aesthetically more pleasing to me, so I tend toward them. But they haven't been verified empirically yet, so the jury's still out.

[Absolute_Agent]

I am not sold humans create reality--in this respect.  Let's take gravity--it is in effect on Earth.  No matter what I think of it, no matter how I want to change or effect it with my mind, I can't.  Gravity is a reality that is real no matter what I feel about it or think about it. 

If you can fool yourself about the nature of time the same applies to anything else.  If we are living in a holographic mind-generated illusion then gravity is no more real than anything else we seem to perceive.  Without the Sun's and Moon's orbits how can you prove such a thing as time actually objectively exists?


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Unbeliever]

Penrose postulates a time in the very far future, when the matter in the universe will be so widely dispersed that there will be no sort of "clocks," no processes left on-going for the passage of time to mean anything. And if time is meaningless, with nothing left that can measure the passage of time, then space also becomes meaningless. At this point, which he calls the future infinity, somehow things sort of flip, so that the very large becomes very small, and the expansion continues as another big bang. I can't say I really understand his model, but it's interesting.

[Baruch]

It isn't that there isn't any objectivity, in spite of the disconnect with "qualia" .. but it is known neuroscience, that your apparent "visual reality" isn't ... it is a TV show projected on the backside of your own cerebrum.  This has been visualized thru electronics.  Necessary, because without post-pressing the retina data, we would experience everything upside down (eyes only have inverse images, because of the simple lens system).

Now it is a question of philosophy of science in general, how with this complex system, which impacts all sense data (and given the internal generation of conceptual data (snake vs rope)) produces anything worthwhile at all.  Obviously the result of millions of years of evolution to promote and retard predation.  Just as cockle shells (with 32 baby blue eyes convergently evolved to be similar to the human eye) have eyes, so they can flee slow moving starfish.

[Mike Cl]

If you can fool yourself about the nature of time the same applies to anything else.  If we are living in a holographic mind-generated illusion then gravity is no more real than anything else we seem to perceive.  Without the Sun's and Moon's orbits how can you prove such a thing as time actually objectively exists?


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

I don't understand it as I'm 'fooling' myself.  If I am working on something for 4 hours and it seems only 15 min. has gone by, I am fully aware that 4 hrs. went by.  It just did not seem like it.  'If' the sun and the moon did not exist?  Well, they do and nothing can change that.  Besides, we measure time as a convince--we could use anything that moves in a measurable pace.  One can place 'if' in front of anything trying to change it.  There is no 'if' in physics.  It either is, is not, or not known.  You can make millions of conjectures and use millions of 'ifs', but nothing would (or does) change.  Your if-fictions stay just that--fictions.  If I were living on The Big Rock Candy Mountain, I could have my favorite candy whenever I wanted.  If god existed he would...................................fill-in the blanks--just as you already have.  God is still a fiction.

[Arik]

I am not sold humans create reality--in this respect.  Let's take gravity--it is in effect on Earth.  No matter what I think of it, no matter how I want to change or effect it with my mind, I can't.  Gravity is a reality that is real no matter what I feel about it or think about it.  Time, not so much.  There is a 'real' time that is measurable.  The Earth revolves around the Sun and it's axis in precise time frames.  We measure it.  But I know for a fact, that not all hours are of the same length in that some hours flash by and others crawl.  But that is on me--it is my perception of time which is real to me.  But not to those around me or anywhere else.  So, I would say that my mind creates it's own reality out of the actual reality.  My perception does that, but it does not impact the actual reality of the universe.  That's why my 'reality' is not yours or anybody else.

Eternalism, as I see it, is simply wishful thinking.  I can't prove eternity isn't real but the universe isn't eternal.  It was created by the Big Bang at a precise point in time.  Prior to that time, it did not exist.  And we have no way of knowing if this universe will last forever; but probably not, since it had a beginning.  To think we are eternal or the universe is eternal is simply wishful thinking at this point.

Well, well, well...............

All I can see in the last day in this thread is tons and tons of guessing plus tons of statements void of any evidence and little substance.

How sad......

Where is the evidence that the universe started with the big bang or that it didn't exist before?

There is an old saying that goes...........IF YOU WANT TO KNOW ALL YOU MUST KNOW YOURSLF FIRST but how can you do that if you only look outside and deny the mine of gold within?

[Absolute_Agent]

I don't understand it as I'm 'fooling' myself.  If I am working on something for 4 hours and it seems only 15 min. has gone by, I am fully aware that 4 hrs. went by.  It just did not seem like it.  'If' the sun and the moon did not exist?  Well, they do and nothing can change that.  Besides, we measure time as a convince--we could use anything that moves in a measurable pace.  One can place 'if' in front of anything trying to change it.  There is no 'if' in physics.  It either is, is not, or not known.  You can make millions of conjectures and use millions of 'ifs', but nothing would (or does) change.  Your if-fictions stay just that--fictions.  If I were living on The Big Rock Candy Mountain, I could have my favorite candy whenever I wanted.  If god existed he would...................................fill-in the blanks--just as you already have.  God is still a fiction.

It is mistake to assume that what you know is all there is to know.  The progress of science relies on informed conjectures (hypotheses) and the realization of one's ignorance.  The possibility that we are living in an illusion is not some wild hare-brained proposal, but is supported by recent discoveries in physics.  For practical purposes we must act as if gravity were real, and that we are real, of course, but our belief in them does not prove their reality.  The self naturally feels that what it does not know must be pure "fiction", yet under careful examination this position proves to be an irrational, unscientific assumption to live by.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

Well, well, well...............

All I can see in the last day in this thread is tons and tons of guessing plus tons of statements void of any evidence and little substance.

How sad......

Yes, I agree, you are sad.  Full of hot air and no substance.  You make stuff up and then present that as evidence.  You present 'arguments' like Arik--which means you a all huff and puff and nothing else.  You just are not worthy of addressing.

[Arik]

Yes, I agree, you are sad.  Full of hot air and no substance.  You make stuff up and then present that as evidence.  You present 'arguments' like Arik--which means you a all huff and puff and nothing else.  You just are not worthy of addressing.

Oh, I see........

That means that you are unable to provide evidence about the big bang that suppose to have started the life in the universe and all the rest?

Of course I am sad Mike, why shouldn't I?

[Baruch]

Oh, I see........

That means that you are unable to provide evidence about the big bang that suppose to have started the life in the universe and all the rest?

Of course I am sad Mike, why shouldn't I?

People here don't rely on the authority of Catholic priests saying Latin.  They rely on scientists saying maths.  The difference is less than they think.

[Arik]

People here don't rely on the authority of Catholic priests saying Latin.  They rely on scientists saying maths.  The difference is less than they think.

The type of scientists that they rely on equal to scientists that study physical science.

Unfortunately these guys still haven't got the notion that there is a lot more than the physical aspect of the whole.
In fact the physical aspect lies on the very bottom of what exist so by rely on the crumbs they only get crumbs while the whole cake is left untouched.

[Absolute_Agent]

Yes, I agree, you are sad.  Full of hot air and no substance.  You make stuff up and then present that as evidence.  You present 'arguments' like Arik--which means you a all huff and puff and nothing else.  You just are not worthy of addressing.

731 posts and counting... quite a record for someone "not worth addressing" [emoji28]

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

731 posts and counting... quite a record for someone "not worth addressing" [emoji28]

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

You are not good at counting, either, I see..............'95 posts'.  And all 95 spouting fictions and displaying an empty head with only beliefs and feelings--no facts or thinking.  You would have to climb a ladder to get to 'dumb shit!'.

[Absolute_Agent]

You are not good at counting, either, I see..............'95 posts'.  And all 95 spouting fictions and displaying an empty head with only beliefs and feelings--no facts or thinking.  You would have to climb a ladder to get to 'dumb shit!'.

Only 95 out of a total of the 731 posts in this thread were written by Arik?  Even better.  For a village idiot he sure elicits a large volume of responses--nearly an 800% ratio! [emoji106]

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

It is mistake to assume that what you know is all there is to know.  The progress of science relies on informed conjectures (hypotheses) and the realization of one's ignorance.  The possibility that we are living in an illusion is not some wild hare-brained proposal, but is supported by recent discoveries in physics.  For practical purposes we must act as if gravity were real, and that we are real, of course, but our belief in them does not prove their reality.  The self naturally feels that what it does not know must be pure "fiction", yet under careful examination this position proves to be an irrational, unscientific assumption to live by.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Atheists are always proclaiming their god-hood, or at least as fan boys of particular scientists.  Sophomoric really.  On the other hand, I don't think the nihilism of complete skepticism is good either.