Incidentally, In Sean Caroll's excellent speech, I stumbled about "a part of infinity".
Eckard Blumschein
Joe William Fisher replied on Oct. 2, 2019 @ 15:34 GMT
Dear Eckard,
Thank you for agreeing with me wholeheartedly.
Joe Fisher, Successful Realist
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 2, 2019 @ 16:35 GMT
Hello Eckard,Joe,
Eckard,thanks for sharing your points of vue about the finite systems,the infinities and infinity.I didn't know Muckenheim. I like so much Galilei,one of my favoritsS with Planck,Newton,Einstein,Fermi,Dirac,Feynmann mainly.They were so relevant generally speaking.The finite systems are built too with these infinities,and constants.What I find relevant is to correlate with this infinity outside this physicality,finite.Philosophically speaking I beleive in all humility that it's very important like main cause of our reality.Regards
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 4, 2019 @ 04:39 GMT
My position is only a bit different from militant atheism by Richard Dawkins who even suggested anti-Templetonism.
Admittedly, as a boy I was not very interested in a dissertation by a relative of mine, Oskar Blumschein "Leibniz und Ludwig Feuerbach : die Persönlichkeiten und ihre ethischen Lehren", Erlangen, 1919.
Incidentally, when I mentioned Salviati (Galileo G.) I referred to his opinion that the relations smaller than, equal to, and larger than are invalid in case of infinite quantities. They only belong to finite ones.
To me today, the belief in a "main cause of our reality" is mere religion, no science.
Dr. Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 4, 2019 @ 13:32 GMT
I respect your point of vue.But never you shall ponder general équations,or theories if you Don't insert this infinite Eternal consciousness,this maincause of our reality.It's odd for a doctor to not encircle this.For your information Einstein said that God dindn't play at dices.We can have faith and in the same time respect our pure determinism.For your information stil,all these past thinkers like Tesla,Newton,Galilei,Dirac,Einstein,Planck,Maxwell,Lie,Feynm
ann and so more had considered this main cause.Don't confound religions which are Simply human inventions,it's totally different,I am not religious.I just consider an infinite Eternal consciousness creating the codes to imply this physicality.For me Eckard,it's odd for a doctor to not understand this main cause.On facebook,many freinds from USA,India….,philodoctorates understand what I tell,and them too consider this main cause,for your information,even Witten and his strings,branes consider a 1D main field creating the matters.Don't confound religions please which are human inventions,not rational.Even Poincarré,Cantor,Euler,Riemann,Lie….Don't be offensed but instead learn better the works of these general thinkers ,you shall understand better these finite series,the infinities,and the INFINITY.If not you shall just ponder details but vever generalities.Sorry but it's the Truth Eckard,don't forget,God doesn't play at dices,but with sphères in motions,rotations,oscillations.Don't forget too,don't confound the religions with a deterministic faith in God.Regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 4, 2019 @ 13:50 GMT
Eckard,really it's very odd,do you know that Cantor considered this too?he identified the Absolute Infinite with God,and he considered his work on transfinite numbers to have been directly communicated to him by God, who had chosen Cantor to reveal them to the world.Lol so you speak about infinities,infinity,finite systems without really understand their real meanings.Don't be vanitious but learn more generally speaking.I can understand it's not easy to change a line of reasoning,but I am persuaded that you can do it,you seems smart,so please go farer,deeper in your analyses about Numbers,matters,energies,infinities,infinity,finite systems,constants.Friendly
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Oct. 4, 2019 @ 16:08 GMT
Dear Dr. Merali,
You saw fit to remove my comments because you deemed them inappropriate for this thread. Why then are you allowing Steve and Eckard to parrot unnatural codswallop that has nothing to do with supposedly finite causality?
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 4, 2019 @ 16:10 GMT
How to explain at Akademia the remarkable 3,003 Views and Paper Rank 2.1 for “Cantor on Infinity in Nature, Number, and the Divine Mind”? If I recall correctly, the paper by Anne Newstead was printed in a Catholic Journal.
To those who intend learning about confusion in fundamentals of mathematics, I recommend reading at least key papers by Katz and by Mückenheim, beginning with "Die Geschichte des Unendlichen", firth edition Augsburg 2004.
What about ethics by Leibniz, Feuerbach, and maybe Oskar B. too, I would like to vote for a completed ethics that includes the obligation to birth control as a part of reasonable limitation to destruction of the globe. Richard Dawkins and Greta Th. were cowards when they shied back from this consequence.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 5, 2019 @ 09:24 GMT
Hi,
Dear Joe ,yes of course and the next president of USA will be Mickey Mouse and the next director of UN Donald Duck,of course of course,and your visible surface is the key for all our unknowns,yes of course,thanks for all your nonsenses.
Dear Eckard,thanks for developping.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 6, 2019 @ 15:31 GMT
Hi Eckard,
I repeat ,please don t confound the religions and a kind of deterministic faith in a thing above our understanding.The religions have nothing to do with a real understanding with this infinite eternal potential ,consciounsess.You can tell us all what you want about maths,physics,numbers,infinities,infinity,finite series,that does not change the interpretation of a majority of thinkers,searchers...I am conscious that the sciences community is divided,but for me it is odd for people wanting to know what is matters energy transformation to not consider this main cause.How can we encircle,understand the codes,informations,encodings,diversities of matters...without this important parameter.You beleive that we come from nothing? that we are a result of a hazard,it seems so not possible,even nonsense.Regards
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 8, 2019 @ 12:10 GMT
One of the three recent Nobelists was chosen for his contribution supporting the belief in something first, a kind of creation.
While the two others illustrate how shaky guesses may be, I dislike the hope for finding some substitute for our globe. Instead, Kadin was perhaps correct in that we need global birth control and serios restrictions to consumptive economy.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 8, 2019 @ 12:56 GMT
Dear Eckard ,are you serious about the births? we don t lack of matters,energy nor space considering this universe.We can give water,food,energy,jobs,hopes to majority if the high spheres of power take their responsabilities.It is just that this world bank and UN aren t conscious of solutions where all wins.We can liberate the funds and industrialise our solar system and harmonise on Earth the interactions of ecosystems in improving this ecology.All wins,we don t need to check the economy and births or this or that,we must just open this sphere Earth to our universe with a wisdom,consciousness,freewill even,universal and altruistic for the well of all.The rest seems vain Eckard.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 8, 2019 @ 13:02 GMT
If they didn t exist these solutions,I could understand but they exist and are rational,objective,deterministic,logic because we have not limits about this space,these matters,this energy.The problem is just the unconscious governances.And if we insert the corruption,the Vanity,the stupidity,the power and this unconsciousness so we understand quickly our global problems.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 9, 2019 @ 04:24 GMT
"How many people the Earth can sustain at a comfortable standard of living is a function of technological development (as well as of how resources are distributed)" wrote Mick Bostrom in his Transhumanist FAQ 2.1 . Is this true for good or are there rational limits to the acceptable or even optimal number of humans from the global perspective of mankind?
When Marx was for a century successful in competition with Malthus, they both merely considered nutrition. However, isn't pollution human too?
Are billions of cars and overmuch vacation travels by flight and crusaders and other limitless laziness still really comfortable? Do you dream of living in cities each with a billion of citizen? Don't get me wrong. I too don't like the autist Greta and XR activists. However, I feel sympathetic with the rapidly growing number of young people who feel having no good perspective in particular so far in the notoriously politically unstable regions of Africa, Asia, and South America. When religions demanded to "be fertile and get more", they did perhaps derive doomsday speculations from correct observation of dead as element of life in nature while they couldn't imagine that the globe and the inhabitable part of universe are definitely finite and certainly causal, with or without a Big Bang or crunch.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 9, 2019 @ 15:08 GMT
My Salvatinian understanding of infinity is aware of many papers including Bolzano's paradoxes and Yitzhak Malamed's work on Parmenides and Spinoza.
When my credo causality led me to the necessity of stopping growth in the interest of the humans altogether, I feel that the view of XR is much to narrow. Perhaps I need not explaining that XR stands for Extinction Rebellion and focuses on manmade climate change. My intention is to rather correct ethics for the sake of survival.
This includes to overcome national, religious, and male egoisms by making in particular women aware of their chance and obligation. Every intelligent people should grasp that speaking in a metaphor she or he doesn't STAY like a car in the tailback but we altogether ARE the tailback unless we will get control over our animality. Unfortunately, the total number of most uneducated people goes on tending to rapidly increase worldwide. I see a crucial competition and hope those who don't see Boko a Haram will win in time.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 9, 2019 @ 15:19 GMT
By the way, the logo of XR looks perhaps by chance like the cones of past and future extending from minus infinity to plus infinity. ;)
This reminds me of a likewise funny cast in bronce logo of my Guericke university which was allegedly similar to that of the international gay association (?)and therefore, of course, removed. ;)
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 9, 2019 @ 16:03 GMT
Hi Eckard,
Like I have explained ,we cannot stop our evolution and its correlated technologies.It is well like that.The problem,foundamental is the lack of universal consciousness in the high spheres of power.I repeat it does not lack space,matters,energies.We have no limits Eckard,the only limits that I see is due to stupidities simply.
The pollution is unfortunally due too to this...
view entire post
Hi Eckard,
Like I have explained ,we cannot stop our evolution and its correlated technologies.It is well like that.The problem,foundamental is the lack of universal consciousness in the high spheres of power.I repeat it does not lack space,matters,energies.We have no limits Eckard,the only limits that I see is due to stupidities simply.
The pollution is unfortunally due too to this unconsciousness and we can solve it too.About this human psychology we know that many people don t understand this universe and its laws,so that explains the opulence,the individualism,the Vanity,the taste of money,the materialism and others stupid comportments.
About the Towns with billions of people,we can harmonise them correctly with a real ecological equilibrium,we can create Towns and buildings in inserting this ecology and harmonical ecosystems,the walls can be gaedens and like I said all can have a job,water,food,energy,hopes,money to catalyse the actual economical global system.Not necessary to extrapolate the socialism,marxism,capitalism ...it is the balance wich is important between them.
About the countries forgotten or not stable like in africa asia or others like in Yemen,it is still due to bad governances and unconscious people,that i all,that is why the UN must act and balance.
About the religions,they are human inventions and they imply for a majority better comportments but for a minority of illuminated several problems like the killers extremists muslisms killing people,like still today in germany,they are simply crazy people ,psychologically sick.
About the Big Bang and Big Crunch,they are assumptions,we aren t sure.Personaly in my theory of spherisation,I consider a spherical expansionmcorrelated with this Dark energy seen like an anti gravitational spherical push from the central biggest cosmological sphere.The mass increqasers in logic,so we can have on this irreversible entropical Arrow of time,an acceleration,decceleration towards the maximum spherical volume,and after maybe it is an assumption a contraction in the same logic towards the points of equilibrium.
About the infinity,the infinities,the finite systems,I have explained how I saw them.I respect your philosophical analyse,I just see differently.
About the climate,we are obliged to adapt us,and specialy for several parts of this Earth.For the births,no it is not acceptable,I have explained that we have the solutions,deterministic for all Lifes.
About the hormons,the vanity,the power,it is a big global problem indeed like the lack of education,this implies,explains an ocean of stupidities and odd thoughts.
About Boko Haram and all these extremists they must be stopped simply,they are dangerous and we cannoy accept this.In Belgium we have had many problems with these extremists and their manipulations,they are stupids and unconscious.Regards Eckard.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 10, 2019 @ 06:42 GMT
"we cannot stop our evolution and its correlated technologies". Hm, here I rather agree with Rovelli. Shouldn't we feel responsible for our future and steer us accordingly instead of behaving like ordinary consumers/animals? Even if there are no known limits to progress in science so far, the Earth and its physically reachable surrounding are definitely finite. Causality is not mushy at all. Humanity has left the safe brutal mechanisms of self-stabilization.
Spinoza was expelled from community for repeatedly uttering "Deus sive natura" (God or nature). Of course his "or" was not meant as the exclusive "either or" but in the equating sense of mutual exchangibility.
Let me check: Is conservation of nature the same as conservation of God?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 11, 2019 @ 06:07 GMT
"entropy to set time’s direction" ?? Isn't the 2nd law of thermodynamics only valid for closed systems? If I recall correctly, I learned this when I was freshman in Dresden.
I prefer accepting that there is first of all not entropy but causality which excludes negative elapsed time as there is no negative distance too. Maybe this view of mine is at odds with some monist philosophy by Parmenides, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Fourier, Cantor, and Einstein? While elapsed time has a natural point zero of reference, the usual scale of time requires an arbitrary choice.
Why not considering the possibility that elapsed time sets the direction of entropy change?
What is more puzzling to me is the unquestionable obseration of simultaneity between not causally related events. Here I am an agnostic.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 11, 2019 @ 12:13 GMT
Hi Eckard ,Have you understood the solutions that I have explained about the liberation of funds,the industrialisation of our solar system and the harmonisation on Earth on ecosystems and its interactions ? and this to give water,food,energy,jobs,hopes to all ? that will boost,catalyse the global economy and I repeat,ALL WINS without exception.I don t agree about your analyses about finite systems,I repeat still,it does not lack matters,space,energy.
For God and the nature they are correlated,you must understand this.
About the laws of theormodynaöics and heat,wer have an irreversible entropical Arrow of times and the finite systems aren t the problems.Riemann and Fourier d agree I beleive humbly like Cantor,not need to discourse about philosophy for that you know Eckard.
PS you can change about your agnosticism,see the truths simply.
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 11, 2019 @ 16:00 GMT
Steve, the topic was set by Carroll and Rovelli. While I didn't realize that they were dealing with your claim:"boost,catalyse the global economy ... ,ALL WINS", I feel challenged to reveal the basics of possibly serious logical fallacies.
What about so called creatures in nature, Darwinism tells us, that there is selection and never all species did win. Menkind is in a different situation. The most effective mechanisms of stabilization were (fortunately) excluded but (unfortunately) not yet substituted by responsible birth control and restricted exploitation of the finite nature. Well, it was e.g. possible to make agriculture more effective and feed at least 10 billion people by increasingly destroying not just forests but also rather irreversible poisoning of water, soil, etc. Can you imagine all people living with the same high consumption as I and perhaps you too?
I repeat my question: How many people does the mankind need? How to cope with the growing amount of waste in millenias to come? Trees don't grow endlessly. Why should mankind and its consumption get bigger and bigger?
Being aware of apparent weakness in my argumentation, would like to give some explanations:
I used Boko in the sense of our (western) science and education and Haram as what Islamists are consindering a sin: Boko. Let's sin in this sense. I didn't refer to the group.
My strongest argument is the lack of a natural reference to our time scale.
I wonder if it is correct to overlook that Shannon's entropy is merely formally similar to Boltzmann's.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 12, 2019 @ 08:50 GMT
Hi Eckard, I have really difficulties to undertand your philosophical analyse about the finite systems and the infinity disponible.It is simple in fact,how can I convice you that we have the solutions and they are deterministic in considering that space ,matters and energy are infinite.The darwinism or the lamarckism or others aren t the problems but the global consciousness yes.The economy too is not a problem when we are governed by real universal altruists understand this universal truth.About forets,agriculture,ecology,pollution,environments,....be sure the solutions exist too,for your information,I am agronomist of formation and I know well in all humility what is the points of equilibrium for our global ecosystems,do you know the vegetal multiplication,the composting,the harmonisation of ecosystems with a correlated universal consciousness? if yes you can understand that we can solve globally speaking.Not need to discourse about a so evident truth you know Eckard.The consumption is not a problem and the irreversibility is not true for me,wer can solve them.About Boko and Shannon entropy or Boltzman,it is not a problem ,really.
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 14, 2019 @ 04:38 GMT
In Darwinism/Weismannism there is no first cause, just a causal chain. Well, all we entruists may hope and fight for global social consciousness including awareness of the unavoidability for the sake of humanity to control births and restrict consumption.
You Steve and typical Americans seem to share the overly optimistic belief of trusting in God creationists that there are no problems which cannot be solved: eat the putatively sweet cake and have it though.
July 29th was the international day after which the consumption already exceeded a declared for sustainable value in 2019. While the USA is blamed to be leading with 16.2 tons annually emitted carbondioxide per person, the values 8.7 for Germany and 7.4 for China are also irresponsibly high.
Reportedly, the 10 million city of Moscow already faces serious problems to dispose its waste, and now it plans to transport it 1,200 km far away. Is this a solution for good?
Worldwide the cities are getting larger and larger. The capital of China will perhaps be the first one in excess of 100 Million inhabitats.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 14, 2019 @ 07:59 GMT
Hi Eckard,you seems persuaded by your Words and thoughts.I don t understand how it is possible,really.I must insist on this too,don t take my for a creationist please,my theory of spherisation has nothing to do with these riligious things,so please respect this and my deterministic researchs.I repeat all the pat relevant thinkers like Einstein,Tesla,Maxwell,Galilei,Planck,Lorentz,Newton,Dirac,a
nd so more conisdered this infinite potential with DETERMINISM,are you conscious of this? you study the works of theser thinkers but you don t encircle the real meaning of their thoughts about matters energy transformations.How is it possible for a generalist? In fact you are too much focus on economy,you forget to insert these universal parameters simply showing us the truths about the real possible harmonisation and points of equilibrium.Forget your chains and insert this infinite potential Eckard you shall see these solutions so simple generally speaking,really.Forget too these economocal numbers,you know the econonomy can be harmonised too when we insert this said universal altruism for the governances.The problem I repeat is this lack of global consciousness for the high spheres of power and the responsabilities of the richest.Take care,we can discuss hours but the most important for me is to show you these truths and maybe to convice you in changing your points of vue.Friendly
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 15, 2019 @ 18:45 GMT
Steve,
Darwin contradicted to the view of Parmenides, ..., and Einstein by considering life material but "consciousness an epiphenomenon", cf.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6
736(08)61884-X/fulltext
"Darwin pioneered the materialistic approach to history—like Marx".
"darwinism provides a framework in which science is done. Since no framework is infinite, by definition, no framework is complete"
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 16, 2019 @ 10:00 GMT
Hello Eckard, thanks for sharing the link.
The philosophy is a complex topic and these thinkers were relevant.It is in fact not easy to see clear in all this puzzle about the human psychology,the determinism,the consciousness.We have so many parameters to take into account,the education,the Environments,the encodings,the psychology,the freewill,the deterministic Learnings,the consciousness,the intelligence,the minds,the genetic,the evolution,this and that...complex is a weak Word lol Darwin maybe has forgotten that consciousness evolves and so that competition considering this evolution can be harmonised towards the synergies and this foundamebtal complementarity between Lifes,so we return at this opening to our universe where we don t lack öatters,space,energy.We cannot consider only this finite sphere Earth if I can say knowing our potential.Friendly
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 16, 2019 @ 17:30 GMT
Steve,
As mandatory precondition of my promotion almost half a century ago, I had to learn a bit of English which proved very valuable to me and to study Marxist philosophy which made me curious. A lexicon of philosophy led me to what seems to you a huge amount of mutual contradictions. Meanwhile, I distrust in monisms, creationism, and the like. Future data are not measurable in advance, Following Descartes, Fourier still failed to restrict his analyse to integration just over the past. Heaviside introduced the trick that has been fooling us up to now.
When will physicists accept a Popperian open World?
Will humanity in time include the insight that educated people are obliged by their own reason to stop consumption and unlimited growth of population?
Objections?
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 16, 2019 @ 17:54 GMT
Eckard,Like I said I respect your philosophical analyses.I agree with some points of vue about the creationism mainly. But I insist about the fact that we can have faith and be superdeterministic about these universal laws,axioms,algorythms.Marx was a relevant thinker but he was a past thinker and at this present we have others parameters to take into account.For me you know the money,arms and weapons and borders are things totally dedicated to disappear,but at this moment we are obliged to consider these parameters like the economy.About this global economical system I beleive strongly that it is this consciousness wich is important in the governances and so the capitalism and this socialism can be harmonised and can reach the points of equilibrium for the well of all considering this altruistic consciousness.Of course the superconsumption is stupid like the opulence ,the materialism or others.It is still just due to a lack of consciousness and maybe education,this universal education shows us truths about this space,these matters disponible and the energy.I don t agree with the limitation of births,it is not an universal parameter.But considering our actual global system I can understand your ideas about these problems.But we can solve Eckard,we have the solutions to do it like I have explained you.All conscious person understands that we have serious global problems and that we must take quickly our responsabilities.The real question is "but what do the high spheres of power"??? are we governed by unconscious? or is it a problem of corruption and fear? or due to a lack of skillings? ...In all case it is odd ,this planet needs to be reassured in fact and we must act generally speaking in correlation with these said universal truths.Friendly
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Oct. 16, 2019 @ 19:13 GMT
Eckard,
One Objection. Don't blame Fourier: his
original series is always integrated over an interval of finite length. Furthermore, that interval is purely mathematical and has, in and of itself, no physical significance, such as referring to either an interval of "space" or an interval of "time". The later must be introduced as a premise, in physics, not math, which in effect, declares that the math is sufficient to accurately represent, whatever the physicist has assumed that it is
supposed to be representing, about the real, physical world. The difficulties that you are pointing-out, all arise when the intervals are extended to infinity, and exotic mathematical notions, such as imaginary numbers, are introduced, and the physicist (not the mathematician) is
then required to also specify, by premise,
exactly what such things are supposed to be representing, in the
real world, as opposed to some
idealistic vision of the real world.
The devil is in the details - and the premises.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 17, 2019 @ 09:38 GMT
Hi Rob,Eckards,
Dear Rob,it is well said all this indeed.Friendly
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 18, 2019 @ 11:02 GMT
Robert,
While Carroll and Rovelli are looking for an explanation of causality, I only intend explaining non-causalities. I agree with you that Fourier/Heaviside analysis lacks restrictions. Those who intend explaining causality may be motivated by the hope for something irrational. I am aware of being unwelcome as I also am when supporting Kadin's view on unlimited population growth.
By the way, are you interested in historical details concerning Fourier and FT?
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Oct. 18, 2019 @ 13:54 GMT
Eckard,
I do have an interest in the history, but not as much as I used to: I cannot change history, but I can at least try to change the future. So now, I have become more interested in trying to get people to understand that there is more than one way to "interpret" Fourier analysis and Quantum Physics, and that a "superposition", is the least appropriate interpretation as applied to physics, because it is inherently acausal, such as when one must integrate over a future, which does not yet exist (unless it can be
perfectly predicted - which is why it actually does work in
some cases, like an idealized, harmonic oscillator). However, if one thinks of it as a filter-bank, and employs filters of finite-length, that delay the output, then there is no integration over non-existent futures and no problem with acausality.
I also believe that over-population is the biggest problem in the world today. The world would be much better off, if the population was 10% of its present size. So, I've done my part - I don't have any children. If more people could say the same, the world would be in better shape than it presently is.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 28, 2019 @ 10:20 GMT
Robert,
From the perspective of humanity, two or less children per woman are best. I regerett that insightful people like you have on average less kids while stupid ones tend to have much too many. While I see Alan Kadin correct, the "Nobel" price was recently awarded to someone else also of Harvard. The necessary amended ethics is still far away.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Oct. 28, 2019 @ 14:19 GMT
Eckard,
Personally, I believe that the "stupid ones" are mostly the result of "poor nurture" rather than "poor nature"; thus, physicists have been
taught to believe in stupid concepts (indoctrinated, may be a better word to describe what occurred), like the supposed weirdness of quantum reality. They were not born with such stupid ideas; stupid ideas evolve, like life itself. But it is time to drive both "quantum weirdness" and human over-population into extinction. I hope to have a greater impact on the former, than I will ever be able to have on the latter.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 28, 2019 @ 18:17 GMT
Robert,
In nature, trees don't grow endlessly. The absolutely sure dead of any individual is perhaps a most important precondition of ongoing life. What you called indoctrinaton is based on tenets that were causally solid and reasonable for groups of humans. Meanwhile, the unreasonable humanism of humans endangers humanity as a whole.
If there was a responsible common God for all people, he was obliged for the sake of the entity of his creatures to remind all people together of their deliberately ignored responsibility: Do partially abandon in the sense of fundamentally modify the traditional ethics that leads to endless economical/physical/material growth, needless over-population, and destruction of nature.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Oct. 28, 2019 @ 19:26 GMT
Eckard,
The faulty tenet in quantum theory, was never "causally solid". The tenet that identical particles are
perfectly identical, has no basis in reality at all. It was simply an idealistic fantasy, pulled out of thin air, that has now been so long forgotten, that physicists have even forgotten that it
was just a naive assumption, and not an established fact.
I do not believe that there is any entity, god or human, taking responsibility for all people. That is precisely the problem; each group/tribe/nation is mostly just interested in taking care of itself at the expense of everything else; consolidating all the benefits, while dispersing all the costs. So, when the winds carry one group's pollution across a border, it becomes some other group's problem. But that only works while the other groups remain so few in number and so far away, that they seldom disrupt each other - a condition which no longer exists.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 29, 2019 @ 18:21 GMT
Robert,
I will tell you later the surprizing key result of my effort to find out the decisive cause for acausalities with Fourier transformation.
What about consequences for the infamóus "shut up and calculate", you might judge yourself. I am not an expert in quantum theory and also not in set theory. Nonetheless, I am convinced having strong arguments, and I feel supported by those with similar professional background as you.
As already Lessing did not, I too don't believe in a God who is common and responsible to all people. I merely see the increasing necessity for humans altogether getting aware of their common responsibility. Kadin doesn't deserve to be ignored. I contempt an Ajatollah and a Groefaz who demanded woman to have at least four children. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights will prove useless if we altogether cannot balance it by adding decisive obligations and restrictions. In other words, Strict easoning compels me to question some very basics of traditional ethics.
Nutrition produced by means of cyanobacteria cannot solve the problem of a not yet adult menkind.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
hide replies