Something Juicehead said.

[DocClox]

2 hours ago, aslab said:

All they have to do in return is, abide by natures rules, and serve her.

 

 

You make that sound like an ex-girlfriend of mine...

Edited July 29, 2024 by DocClox

[aslab]

11 hours ago, DocClox said:

 

You make that sound like an ex-girlfriend of mine...

But can you control her? Do you understand the deeper movements? After that, all you have to do is help her and want the best for her. You see nature like your ex will join you when your ego incorporates the other. But if your ego no longer holds her as part of you, separation becomes inevitable.

 

Life, “the grand illusion”, there are rules which form the grand illusion. Sadly, most get caught up in the illusion and never understand the programing behind the illusion. Through the reflections of creation, we tend to see things in reverse. So maybe by stop looking at her superficial rules, and understand her deeper motives, one will see that she is just another program, created by another part of one’s own mind. As a matter of fact, everyone is just programs, there is no inside and outside, me and you, we are all just one.

Edited July 30, 2024 by aslab

[Kraven12]

On 7/29/2024 at 7:36 AM, aslab said:

 

 Humanity would be living in a utopia. 

 

This has my tin foil and anarchist in me screaming " As long as we have greedy old families( dating centuries ago fossils which are still live) which controls the currency around the world( not saying get rid of money), who hate us for our simple existence, anti nature, anti human, anti communities, anti families, forcing mental stagnation, who want to be technocracy gods and reduce the human population to 500 million with them controlling who breeds-lives and dies, and stagnate our technological growth with despots, warlords, and leaders (not representatives) keeping all of us at each other's throat and not at theirs for (insert reason here) , we will never have that utopia everyone dreams of." They are the only group in our way. 

Edited August 1, 2024 by Kraven12

[aslab]

23 hours ago, Kraven12 said:

This has my tin foil and anarchist in me screaming " As long as we have greedy old families( dating centuries ago fossils which are still live) which controls the currency around the world( not saying get rid of money), who hate us for our simple existence, anti nature, anti human, anti communities, anti families, forcing mental stagnation, who want to be technocracy gods and reduce the human population to 500 million with them controlling who breeds-lives and dies, and stagnate our technological growth with despots, warlords, and leaders (not representatives) keeping all of us at each other's throat and not at theirs for (insert reason here) , we will never have that utopia everyone dreams of." They are the only group in our way. 

In an earlier post I mentioned the buddha’s saying that “all pain stems from ignorance”.

In a later post I mentioned how this life is an illusion.

Now I will try to elaborate and explain how all your true statements reflected back at one’s self.

You see aren’t we all selfish? We as a people have the know-how and the resources to build a utopic word. Yet time and time again, science reaches a crossroad and chooses the destructive path over the constructive path. Why would intelligent well-educated people do such a thing? Wouldn’t we as humans always choose our best path? After all, doesn’t one always choose what he thinks is best for himself? And there lies the answer.

 

One always chooses what they think is best for themselves, the question is who is oneself. Now with a completely shrunken egos, ourselves become grain sized leading some to not see beyond their skin and bones. Others may include some of their belongings as oneself. One who has a little larger ego may see themselves and their family as oneself. The oneself can be extended to extended families, nationalities, races, religions, and ultimately to non-animate objects as well, including the whole world. You see when one realizes that they are the world and no longer blame the world and realize it’s oneself that must be looked at.

 

We think morals help us, but in reality, moralities are a crude tool seen as our best weapon for peaceful society. The only reason people like morals are to stop others from doing things. So, peoples optimal scenario becomes when everyone else follows morals. They all loved to break the morals if they think they could get away with it. So, laws and prisons are made to help keep the people in line, while those above the law, bask in the security that the morals provide.

 

Never underestimate the lengths that one may go through to protect their livelihood. This fault is ingrained in human’s fundamental nature. This is not just the fault of the rich, the poor are guilty as well. Science blatantly deny truths, and destructive technologies are pursued. The only way to build the utopia, is to raise the human consciousness, and realize the only one at fault is oneself.

Edited August 2, 2024 by aslab

[DocClox]

On 7/30/2024 at 3:57 AM, aslab said:

But can you control her? Do you understand the deeper movements? After that, all you have to do is help her and want the best for her. You see nature like your ex will join you when your ego incorporates the other. But if your ego no longer holds her as part of you, separation becomes inevitable.

 

Hmm. Did you ever see the movie Labyrinth? Goblin King David Bowie (wearing a Big Hair wig that was ridiculous even by 80s standards) kidnaps baby Toby to get the attention of his 16 year old sister, Sarah. Sarah goes on an epic quest to rescue her infant brother and at the end, the Goblin King makes his big play for her affections:

 

Quote

"Love me, fear me, do as I say, and I will be your slave!"

 

Sarah, entirely sensibly, turns him down and makes her escape.

 

On 7/29/2024 at 2:36 PM, aslab said:

A utopia where one can control nature and can get anything they want. All they have to do in return is, abide by natures rules, and serve her.

 

See, I always had a problem with  the whole "all will be well as long as you do exactly as you are told" pitch. My first impulse is to check my watch and wallet and make sure they're still where I left them. Which isn't to accuse you of arguing in bad faith, just to be clear. It's simply  that I don't think it's a good basis for an argument.

 

As for my ex, the lady in question is 30 years in the past, and I don't think either of us harbor any ambitions to get back together. And for what it's worth, she'd probably vigorously object to my comparing her to Bowie's Goblin King. Or not. You never could tell with that girl .

 

On 8/2/2024 at 3:23 AM, aslab said:

Yet time and time again, science reaches a crossroad and chooses the destructive path over the constructive path.

 

Nah nah nah. Don't do that. Don't anthropomorphize Science. It's not some self-willed monster that chooses Evil at every junction. Science is a methodology for better understanding the world and how it works. It's like a hammer; a hammer can be used to build a house or forge a weapon, and while you may see one of these as morally superior to the other, it's still wrong to blame the tool for the choices of the one wielding it.

 

On 8/2/2024 at 3:23 AM, aslab said:

You see aren’t we all selfish? We as a people have the know-how and the resources to build a utopic word. Yet time and time again, science reaches a crossroad and chooses the destructive path over the constructive path. Why would intelligent well-educated people do such a thing? Wouldn’t we as humans always choose our best path? After all, doesn’t one always choose what he thinks is best for himself?

 

Sounds a lot like Game Theory, which I often think is responsible for some of the great evils of the last 40 years or so. I mean it's great if you're planning a military campaign, better still if you're playing Chess, and even better if you're trying to teach a computer to play Chess.But apply it to small scale social interactions and you end up sucking all the compassion out of a system, because the theory needs everyone to be have like perfectly fungible, purely selfish automata to function, and most people aren't like that. At least not all the time.

 

That said, you do have a point. If we could all just throw off the veil of Maya and act with perfect Enlightenment then any system would work and we'd all be happy. Except that in that case, almost all of the population would Ascend leaving no one on the planet by a handful of pissed-off looking bodhisatva who'd be wondering what they hell they were supposed to do now.

 

Sometimes you just need to work with what you have.

 

Edited August 5, 2024 by DocClox

[aslab]

On 8/3/2024 at 6:33 PM, DocClox said:

See, I always had a problem with  the whole "all will be well as long as you do exactly as you are told" pitch. My first impulse is to check my watch and wallet and make sure they're still where I left them. Which isn't to accuse you of arguing in bad faith, just to be clear. It's simply  that I don't think it's a good basis for an argument.

 

Me too, I can never take seriously a preacher who says to practice non attachment, and give them all your goods. For that reason, I have done most my leanings from books, as I am uncomfortable to trust another with my soul. Aside from the lack of trust, non-attachment is actually a key to happiness. In order to explain why non attachment is a key to happiness, I would have to go into concepts that are beyond this post. But suffice to say non-attachment is a way to enjoy the moment.

 

 

On 8/3/2024 at 6:33 PM, DocClox said:

"Love me, fear me, do as I say, and I will be your slave!"

 

Now you’re getting it, “to rule is to serve”. If you want to becomes Earth’s ruler must become her steward/slave. You see Sarah was able to turn down the Goblin King, but can one turn down mother nature just as easily? We are bound within the rules whether we like it or not. The rules are in the system, every action has a reaction, every thought is an action.

 

On 8/3/2024 at 6:33 PM, DocClox said:

Nah nah nah. Don't do that. Don't anthropomorphize Science. It's not some self-willed monster that chooses Evil at every junction. Science is a methodology for better understanding the world and how it works. It's like a hammer; a hammer can be used to build a house or forge a weapon, and while you may see one of these as morally superior to the other, it's still wrong to blame the tool for the choices of the one wielding it.

 

The tools of science were created for the better understanding of our world. A pair of tools that once helped can then hinder. Just like major religions, which stemmed from great intentions of health, happiness, and oneness turned into a tool of destruction. Most religions now separates oneself from their true nature and happiness. Science turned into a selfish pursuit, one where the goal is respect, wealth, and maybe some scientific advancements. All fields of science are not equally guilty. Physics is still a relatively good field, yet Western medicine is a disgrace.

 

As long as one’s ego is shrunken, they will put their own well-being before the world’s. If a nobody’s work can help the world, but threatens the current status quo of science, would science let that work stand? Or would the experts in the field come in and give their expert analysis, falsely disproving the nobody’s work? It’s remarkable the lengths that one will go in order to uphold their current beliefs. This is true about trivial things where one may even hurt himself, in order to trick himself, that he is right. How much more so does one’s defensive positions come up when the stakes are raised. Truths become invisible, like a person looking for an item that’s right in front of his nose, they negatively hallucinate the item away. Negative hallucination is just as common, if not more common than positive hallucinations.

 

On 8/3/2024 at 6:33 PM, DocClox said:

But apply it to small scale social interactions and you end up sucking all the compassion out of a system, because the theory needs everyone to be have like perfectly fungible, purely selfish automata to function, and most people aren't like that. At least not all the time.

 

We are already all programs, have you ever seen someone get reprogrammed through hypnosis. Here is a little analogy comparing human to computer. The conscious level can be compared to the app level. In hypnosis, the hypnotist can access the operating system level. That app Level has immediate control, but the operating system is always running. When the two are at harmony, things run smoothly. In disharmony we get glitches and crashes. The funny thing is the hypnotist were the idiots of the field. If one wants to get true knowledge from the hypnosis field, they will have to look at the Mesmerism, or the ancient priests that healed with touch. Science tried to turn mesmerism into something they can understand. With hypnosis science can now credit mesmerism’s unexplainable phenomenon to a psychological aspect. Luckily for hypnosis a true genius came along by the name of Milton Erickson. Milton Erickson Saved hypnosis and brought some dignity back into the hypnotic world. Every once in a while, a true genius shows up around the field of science. Tesla was one of those geniuses, yet science does not really have room where the geniuses, they prefer to support the charlatans.

 

On 8/3/2024 at 6:33 PM, DocClox said:

Sounds a lot like Game Theory, which I often think is responsible for some of the great evils of the last 40 years or so.

 

I was just giving one point of view, there is so much good in the world, but humanity seems to be poisoned from many angles. How can there be so many harmful things when simple changes can mitigate half our problems. It’s a question I’ve asked myself and I’ve got some far-fetched answers, such as we are being bred by aliens and they are trying to strengthen our immune system. The humans who manage to get strengthened get their DNA incorporated into the alien’s genes. Kind of how humans breed sheep for genetic mutations. There are some other down to earth answers, such as after Atlantis was destroyed there was a group of survivors, tasked to stop the humans from ever gaining true knowledge again. Science was forbidden to go down a proper path. The only doors open to science where the destructive one’s. It wasn’t until the early 1900s that science gained the capacity to destroy the planet. There was one genius who tried to help science travel down a more productive path. Yet every time he tried to help save the world humanity just uses his technology to destroy the world faster. You see science is not the issue oneself is.

 

Edited August 5, 2024 by aslab

[DocClox]

2 hours ago, aslab said:

Now you’re getting it, “to rule is to serve”. If you want to becomes Earth’s ruler must become her steward/slave. You see Sarah was able to turn down the Goblin King, but can one turn down mother nature just as easily? We are bound within the rules whether we like it or not. The rules are in the system, every action has a reaction, every thought is an action.

 

Actually, that's pretty much the exact opposite of what I intended to convey. The Goblin King's "Love me, fear me, do as I say" line was clearly manipulative, and anyone who tries to use similar lines on you is selling something.

 

Or maybe the line was designed to give teenage girls a warm tingle at the implied soft BDSM. Personally, the submissive role never held much appeal for me.

 

2 hours ago, aslab said:

The tools of science were created for the better understanding of our world.

 

You're still missing the point. Science is the tool. What you have, I suspect, is a problem with how certain discoveries have been exploited, and probably how other ones have been ignored. That's not an issue with science. Stop trying to demonize a useful discipline.

 

2 hours ago, aslab said:

We are already all programs, have you ever seen someone get reprogrammed through hypnosis.

 

Yeah. Probably more than you have, to be honest. It really doesn't work the way it does in erotic mind control fiction

 

2 hours ago, aslab said:

Luckily for hypnosis a true genius came along by the name of Milton Erickson

 

Yeah. I'm familiar with Erickson's work, and how it's been adopted by Richard Bandler, et al. That still doesn't address the failings of Game Theory as a tool for social change.

 

2 hours ago, aslab said:

It’s a question I’ve asked myself and I’ve got some far-fetched answers, such as we are being bred by aliens and they are trying to strengthen our immune system. The humans who manage to get strengthened get their DNA incorporated into the alien’s genes. Kind of how humans breed sheep for genetic mutations. There are some other down to earth answers, such as after Atlantis was destroyed there was a group of survivors, tasked to stop the humans from ever gaining true knowledge again.

 

So: aliens, Atlantis and global conspiracy? It was quite an interesting conversation up until this point.

[aslab]

On 8/5/2024 at 3:12 AM, DocClox said:

So: aliens, Atlantis and global conspiracy? It was quite an interesting conversation up until this point.

 

So, I take it you don’t believe in aliens. You sound like a science man, if one looks at the odds of whether an alien species exists. The chances of another life form existing out there somewhere in the cosmos is far greater than not. Hey, using statistics is just a scientific argument, I have no clue if there are aliens, and I don’t even believe in statistics. I was once in a lecture where the presenter was basing everything off of statistics. At some point I got enough guts and said to him “statistics is a way to lie with numbers”. He laughed and said there’s a book called “how to lie with statistics”. Some scientists could still be smart. Statistics is based on the concept of randomness; randomness doesn’t exist. Things may appear random to our perception. Yet there are precise rules governing everything. Even the roll of a die is not random. You probably believe in the law of entropy, maybe you believe that Einstein was a genius. The things people believe are baffling to me, although I kind of get where they are coming from most of the time.

 

[Miauzi]

Vor 5 Stunden sagte aslab:

 

Ich gehe also davon aus, dass Sie nicht an Außerirdische glauben. Sie klingen wie ein Wissenschaftler, wenn man die Wahrscheinlichkeit betrachtet, ob eine außerirdische Spezies existiert. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass irgendwo im Kosmos eine andere Lebensform existiert, ist weitaus größer als nicht. Hey, die Verwendung von Statistiken ist nur ein wissenschaftliches Argument. Ich habe keine Ahnung, ob es Außerirdische gibt, und ich glaube nicht einmal an Statistiken. Ich war einmal in einer Vorlesung, in der der Moderator alles auf Statistiken stützte. Irgendwann hatte ich genug Mut und sagte zu ihm: „Statistik ist eine Möglichkeit, mit Zahlen zu lügen.“ Er lachte und sagte, es gäbe ein Buch mit dem Titel „Wie man mit Statistiken lügt“. Einige Wissenschaftler könnten immer noch schlau sein. Statistiken basieren auf dem Konzept der Zufälligkeit; Zufälligkeit existiert nicht. Für unsere Wahrnehmung können Dinge zufällig erscheinen. Dennoch gibt es für alles genaue Regeln. Selbst der Wurf eines Würfels ist nicht zufällig. Sie glauben wahrscheinlich an das Gesetz der Entropie, vielleicht glauben Sie, dass Einstein ein Genie war. Die Dinge, an die die Leute glauben, sind für mich ein Rätsel, obwohl ich die meiste Zeit irgendwie verstehe, woher sie kommen.

 

 

 

 

A really desperate attempt to discredit the current tools of science... probably because you never learn the fairly simple mathematical basics... which is why you believe every stupid piece of crap yourself.

 

aho - there is a fundamental difference between scientists and you yourself -> these people KNOW... while you can only believe because of your ignorance - because you yourself cannot actually verify anything in your worldview

 

I myself have perhaps a single "belief" -> that the world is recognizable to us humans... if we want it to be... but that is exactly what they clearly do not want me and others to see

[DocClox]

5 hours ago, aslab said:

 

So, I take it you don’t believe in aliens.

 

 

I think it's likely that life evolved on other planets. The Drake Equation is fairly compelling.

 

Do I buy into the whole X-Files/Aliens-Walk-Among-Us mythos? Not so much.

 

5 hours ago, aslab said:

Hey, using statistics is just a scientific argument,

 

Probability in this case. Just saying.

 

5 hours ago, aslab said:

Statistics is based on the concept of randomness; randomness doesn’t exist. Things may appear random to our perception.

 

Doesn't really matter. Probability (not statistics) is way of taking apparent randomness and extracting information. It doesn't matter if the randomness is truly random or if we're all trapped in a simulation program with all events dictated by a pseudorandom number generator. It still works.

 

5 hours ago, aslab said:

Yet there are precise rules governing everything.

 

Jury's out on that one.

 

5 hours ago, aslab said:

maybe you believe that Einstein was a genius

 

"God does not play at dice". You and Einstein have more in common than perhaps you realize.

 

5 hours ago, aslab said:

The things people believe are baffling to me

 

On that we can agree!

[Miauzi]

Vor 20 Minuten sagte DocClox:

„Gott würfelt nicht“. Sie und Einstein haben mehr gemeinsam, als Ihnen vielleicht bewusst ist.

 

 

Well, one should remember what Einstein received his first Nobel Prize for in the first place... for an important discovery in quantum mechanics... which he seems to contradict with this statement.

 

In any case, he put an end to the possible existence of the planet "Vulcan" - located in the inner orbit of Mercury - because he gave an explanation for the orbital deviations of Mercury with the General RT that is still valid today.

[DocClox]

1 hour ago, Miauzi said:

Well, one should remember what Einstein received his first Nobel Prize for in the first place... for an important discovery in quantum mechanics... which he seems to contradict with this statement.

 

Point is, I think, that he disliked the notion of randomness in the universe and believed that everything must, at some level, be deterministic. 

 

I think. I never actually met the man, so what do I know?

[Wut1969]

I'd like to add my 2 cents worth in this discussion. 😉

 

I do not really agree with the math associated with QM, I think it is cumbersome and crude approach and there should be a much more elegant form, but if we skip the math, I do love the rabbitholes that appear when you start unravelling the threads of reality. Like it or not, the rabbitholes are definitely there.

 

I think the idea that God doesn't roll dice honestly is a bit of an 18 or 19th century conception. It fits more with the socioeconomic structure of that period than with religion, any religion really.

 

Disclaimer: QMs math definitely didn't agree with me in uni, so I might be a bit resentful. 😁

 

 

[Miauzi]

Vor 5 Minuten sagte Wut1969:

Ich möchte gerne meine 2 Cent in diese Diskussion einbringen. 😉

 

Ich bin mit der Mathematik im Zusammenhang mit QM nicht wirklich einverstanden, ich denke, es ist ein umständlicher und grober Ansatz und es sollte eine viel elegantere Form geben, aber wenn wir die Mathematik überspringen, liebe ich die Kaninchenlöcher, die entstehen, wenn man anfängt, die Fäden zu entwirren der Realität. Ob es Ihnen gefällt oder nicht, die Kaninchenlöcher sind definitiv da.

 

Ich denke, die Vorstellung, dass Gott nicht ehrlich würfelt, ist eine Vorstellung aus dem 18. oder 19. Jahrhundert. Es passt eher zur sozioökonomischen Struktur dieser Zeit als zur Religion, eigentlich zu jeder Religion.

 

Haftungsausschluss: QMs-Mathematik hat mir in der Uni definitiv nicht gefallen, daher bin ich vielleicht etwas verärgert. 😁

 

 

 

I was able to cope with the mathematics part of my studies - especially since we also learned how semiconductors and the circuits developed on them also functioned at the atomic level... so there was a practical application.

 

Mathematical systems that I found no practical application for were difficult for me - that is, they had no application in either physics (chemistry) or engineering.

 

But a double-slit experiment with a single electron produces a diffraction pattern - in other words, there is interference... which only works if the single electron flies through BOTH slits AT THE SAME TIME... obviously the term "particle" in the subatomic world is not the same as "flying billiard balls" from the macro world

 

We humans create "visual models" in our heads to imagine things "visually"... we often forget one important fact -> the model is NOT reality!

[aslab]

20 hours ago, Miauzi said:

I myself have perhaps a single "belief" -> that the world is recognizable to us humans... if we want it to be... but that is exactly what they clearly do not want me and others to see

 

You are being very vague here; can you clarify what you mean by “they” who are “they”?

 

20 hours ago, DocClox said:

Doesn't really matter. Probability (not statistics) is way of taking apparent randomness and extracting information. It doesn't matter if the randomness is truly random or if we're all trapped in a simulation program with all events dictated by a pseudorandom number generator. It still works.

 

As long as one realizes that they are using a tool and not dictating absolute rules. then the extracted information can be put to good use. Quantum mechanics is partially based on Heisenberg's uncertainty-principle. These principles help one’s calculations, so the rational mind can begin to grasp through numbers, things that the intuitive mind can easily access. But if one thinks creation itself is based on uncertainty, they are sadly mistaken. If someone learns to walk using a crutch, at first their job is easier than the non-crutch using kids. But after some time when the rest of the kids are running, the one who used the crutch is still struggling to walk.  We have to realize that the rational mind is the weak link, in the sea of intelligence.

 

19 hours ago, Miauzi said:

In any case, he put an end to the possible existence of the planet "Vulcan" - located in the inner orbit of Mercury - because he gave an explanation for the orbital deviations of Mercury with the General RT that is still valid today.

 

Einstein put an end to a lot more than just the speculation of planets “vocan”. With the adoption of Einstein’s theories into the general scientific world, many of the global scientific advancements were brought to an end. Einstein had the audacity to say that aether does not exist. Aether is a field that no one can detect, and was rationalize by all intellects. Yet Einstein thinks that he proved that aether does not exist. Einstein then goes and applies some of aethers properties to space. So according to Einstein space is not aether but can has properties like aether.

 

Matter is condensed energy. One can see this happening in a tornado. The cone of the tornado become so dense that the cone can smash through many physical objects. The same thing happens with all physical objects. The planetary rotation of the electrons become so dense that we see and feel the object as physical.

 

What is gravity, apparently gravity is a lot weaker than Einstein or any other keplar/Newtonian based systems account for. Apparently, it’s not gravity that holds humans onto the earth. It is air pressure which is holding humans onto the earth. When one leaves the atmosphere they will no longer be drawn in by gravity. One can see this phenomenon when they go to the top of the mountain, they become a little lighter, even though more earth is under them. Science tries to explain this phenomenon by saying it’s the total mass of the object, not just the mass which is under one. since the distance to the center is further on top of the mountain, and the total mass is the same gravity would be less. I don’t buy this gibberish and would love to see an experiment which takes air pressure into consideration

 

Many things which Einstein said may be true. But Einstein distorted things and plagiarizes information. There is a nice chance that Einstein didn’t even discover the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb was probably discovered by the Germans. Yet the Germans were smart enough not to use it. It was only after Germany fell that the bomb was discovered. After the war, the Americans gave the credit to Einstein’s teams.

 

Can space bend? It’s feasible, but let’s refer to space as aether. At one point, I was trying to understand planetary rotation, and the creation of gravity, aether bending was one possibility. Either way there is some kind of vacuum/suction that is formed in planetary rotation, which we currently understand as gravity.

 

6 hours ago, Miauzi said:

We humans create "visual models" in our heads to imagine things "visually"... we often forget one important fact -> the model is NOT reality!

 

I couldn’t say it better myself. I can take this statement one step further. A person’s model can influence their perception to such a degree that anyone who sees the world differently is crazy. How about the world is an hallucination. Oh, before I forget

You are me. “They” are you.

Edited August 9, 2024 by aslab

[DocClox]

7 hours ago, Wut1969 said:

It fits more with the socioeconomic structure of that period than with religion, any religion really.

 

I think the question is basically: is the universe deterministic or not? It doesn't matter if you believe God laid down the rules by which the universe operates of if they evolved from the Big Bang, the question is the same.

 

7 hours ago, Miauzi said:

We humans create "visual models" in our heads to imagine things "visually"... we often forget one important fact -> the model is NOT reality!

 

Moreover, the models we create (visual, mathematical, or otherwise) can never be correct. Gödel's Theorem tells us that. Any model of the universe we create will, necessarily, either have things it does not explain, or will contradict itself in places.

 

I find that oddly comforting.

 

1 hour ago, aslab said:

But if one thinks creation itself is based on uncertainty, they are sadly mistaken

 

Citation Needed, as  the wikipedians say.

 

1 hour ago, aslab said:

You are me. “They” are you.

 

And your mother wears army boots. Will you knock it off with the pattern language? Thank you.

Edited August 9, 2024 by DocClox

[Wut1969]

1 hour ago, DocClox said:

 

I think the question is basically: is the universe deterministic or not?

If I were an ancient zen master I'm sure I'd come with a fancy quote to humble down this question. And I'd probably get to hit you with a stick while doing so. 😁

 

Personally I don't think the universe is deterministic, but even if it is, it won't be from a practical perspective, even if you ignore QM effects.

Even if we'd have the perfect model, we wouldn't be able to fill in all the variables. There are way to many butterflies and other critters flying around in rainforests creating storms.

If you combine chaos theory with the limits of the observational universe, things become even more difficult.

 

So getting back to your question: if the universe would be deterministic and if we'd come up with the perfect model, would we have a way of proving that, and would we be able to have a practical use for that model given the amount of variables both in and outside our view?

 

I think the answer to both questions is negative, so I think the best answer is that the universe is non deterministic to us.

 

Like you, I think this is comforting. 😁

Edited August 9, 2024 by Wut1969

[Miauzi]

Very funny... the "world ether" is crawling around the corner again... and I think to myself "... I really don't want to smoke this weed

 

Just the claim that air pressure keeps people on the earth... if that were the case - you wouldn't be able to get up after sleeping in a lying position.

Oh no - you can do that... oops - the air pressure acts evenly on the body from all sides... oh - but then it's completely useless as a force to hold someone down.

Ah - and then when diving... well, I have several years of experience with recreational diving (several hundred dives including various qualifications) - you would never get from the bottom to the surface again.

Yes - such attempts at explanation are always pretty funny - it's almost like the explanations of the flat earth... because the hypotheses put forward are so full of holes that every student in physics class can refute them can.

 

I am pretty sure that the author of this ether text uses a modern navigation system with GPS in addition to a semiconductor-based computer... but never made the effort to ask whether the influence of gravity and time should be taken into account when calculating the position... or whether it should be taken into account!

But it doesn't matter at all - I am now really looking forward to these contributions from the "realm of unscientificity"

 

[DocClox]

Personally, I like the idea of a non-deterministic universe, simply because it leaves room for Free Will.

 

If we have a purely deterministic universe then all our actions are preordained and our lives are reduced to meat puppets jerking and twitching their mindless way to the heat death of universe with no more say in the matter than a ball on billiard table. In a deterministic universe, free will is an illusion and consciousness is a phenomenon that exists for no other purpose than to perceive that illusion.

 

I find that view of reality distasteful, so I like to think non-determinism is the rule. Not that my predestined, meat-puppet preferences have any effect on how things truly are, of course. Still, so long as there is room for debate in the matter, I will continue to believe myself conscious and self willed. Not terribly scientific, but if Einstein can talk about God and Dice, I can probably get away with having a preference regarding the nature of reality.

Edited August 9, 2024 by DocClox

[Miauzi]

a deterministic universe would simply commit suicide out of boredom ... after 10 to the minus 40 seconds (10 exp -40)

[Djlegends]

ight so can somebody explain how we got to juicehead talking about SF to talking about philosophical ideas lol 

[DocClox]

It's off-topic, but it's also kind of fun, so ...

[aslab]

21 hours ago, DocClox said:

I think the question is basically: is the universe deterministic or not? It doesn't matter if you believe God laid down the rules by which the universe operates of if they evolved from the Big Bang, the question is the same.

 

Asking whether the world is deterministic or not is a completely different topic then “does God play with dice”. The world can be nondeterministic and have precise rules. If one plays a computer game, every input has an action, yet one chooses the input. In this world every action has a reaction. we choose what actions to do, but the reactions are precise. we tend to see things backwards, causing one to see reaction as action, they then add more action thinking their reacting. Ultimately adding more fuel to the fire thinking their putting out fire.

As far as God goes. I am God, you are God, we created this world. It is our shrunken ego that loses sight of our true nature. We enter the temple of our body, and see the world through our body. Sadly, most people’s souls are too weak to even fully stay in their body. They partially float outside of their body looking back at themself. They get sucked out by all the worldly affairs that appear so important. The first step to health and happiness is, learning how to establish oneself in oneself. If one entered something else, say a tree or a bird, they will perceive the world differently. It is only our ego that constrains us to our body. If one expands their ego, they will be able to perceive the world from another perspective.

 

19 hours ago, Miauzi said:

Very funny... the "world ether" is crawling around the corner again... and I think to myself "... I really don't want to smoke this weed

 

Just the claim that air pressure keeps people on the earth... if that were the case - you wouldn't be able to get up after sleeping in a lying position.

Oh no - you can do that... oops - the air pressure acts evenly on the body from all sides... oh - but then it's completely useless as a force to hold someone down.

Ah - and then when diving... well, I have several years of experience with recreational diving (several hundred dives including various qualifications) - you would never get from the bottom to the surface again.

Yes - such attempts at explanation are always pretty funny - it's almost like the explanations of the flat earth... because the hypotheses put forward are so full of holes that every student in physics class can refute them can.

 

I am pretty sure that the author of this ether text uses a modern navigation system with GPS in addition to a semiconductor-based computer... but never made the effort to ask whether the influence of gravity and time should be taken into account when calculating the position... or whether it should be taken into account!

But it doesn't matter at all - I am now really looking forward to these contributions from the "realm of unscientificity"

 

 

I’m not sure what you’re saying, when I say air pressure, I’m including total atmospheric pressure. Why would one not be able to get up, do you think atmospheric pressures is that strong? A better questions you should ask yourself is, how does a tree rise. Or, how does a spring, spring out the top of a mountain. As far as aether goes, denying that the universe exists in some kind of medium is silly. Based off your previous posts it appears that you are split. Part of you is vigorously defending science, yet deep down you know there’s something more. You may not know who they are that’s stopping the from knowing. But you know.

Edited August 10, 2024 by aslab

[Miauzi]

Vor 3 Stunden sagte aslab:

 Was den Äther betrifft, ist es albern, zu leugnen, dass das Universum in irgendeinem Medium existiert. Basierend auf Ihren vorherigen Beiträgen scheint es, dass Sie gespalten sind. Ein Teil von Ihnen verteidigt energisch die Wissenschaft, doch tief in Ihrem Inneren wissen Sie, dass es noch mehr gibt. Möglicherweise wissen Sie nicht, wer sie sind, die Sie daran hindern, es zu wissen. Aber du weißt schon.

 

The universe must exist in a medium, please? Huh?

 

Well - in your worldview it may be necessary - when I look at the statements about other things like gravity and space travel.

 

But in my worldview neither an "ether" nor a "God" is needed to make things work... I even know how trees grow - the knowledge of this is called -> "biology"... was a subject that was taught for 7 years in my childhood and youth - deep into topics like "ecology" or "anatomy" - even topics like molecular biology were part of it

 

And because I have had this basic knowledge for more than 45 years... I can relax and watch the trees grow in front of my house.

[DocClox]

5 hours ago, aslab said:

The world can be nondeterministic and have precise rules

 

This is true. On the other hand it cannot be deterministic and have random events. Unless of course the dice you roll are themselves part of the deterministic world and generate a pre-ordained sequence of numbers ... but then they aren't really random.

 

5 hours ago, aslab said:

As far as God goes. I am God, you are God, we created this world.

 

This is like the feeling that I get when Jehovah's Witnesses turn up on my doorstep. It's not that I necessarily disagree with much of what they're saying, but their dreadful earnestness is somehow off-putting.

 

5 hours ago, aslab said:

If one expands their ego, they will be able to perceive the world from another perspective.

 

Quote

“A cloud does not know why it moves in just such a direction and at such a speed. It feels an impulsion … this is the place to go now. But the sky knows the reasons and the patterns behind all clouds, and you will know, too, when you lift yourself high enough to see beyond horizons.”

 

-- Richard Bach, Illusions.

 

I get it. Really I do.