If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC
Joe Fisher: on 12/30/19 at 19:09pm UTC, wrote Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly...
Joe Fisher: on 12/30/19 at 0:23am UTC, wrote Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly...
Joe Fisher: on 12/29/19 at 22:58pm UTC, wrote Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page again contained this peculiar...
Joe Fisher: on 12/29/19 at 18:51pm UTC, wrote Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page again contained this peculiar...
Jason Wolfe: on 12/29/19 at 8:37am UTC, wrote The reality about how spacetime and gravity works is much more interesting...
Joe Fisher: on 12/28/19 at 19:04pm UTC, wrote Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page again contained this peculiar...
Joe Fisher: on 12/28/19 at 15:29pm UTC, wrote Dear FQXi.org Members, I am deeply sorry for continually posting pretty...
Joe Fisher: on 12/27/19 at 19:04pm UTC, wrote Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of...
Joe Fisher: on 12/30/19 at 19:09pm UTC, wrote Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly...
Joe Fisher: on 12/30/19 at 0:23am UTC, wrote Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly...
Joe Fisher: on 12/29/19 at 22:58pm UTC, wrote Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page again contained this peculiar...
Joe Fisher: on 12/29/19 at 18:51pm UTC, wrote Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page again contained this peculiar...
Jason Wolfe: on 12/29/19 at 8:37am UTC, wrote The reality about how spacetime and gravity works is much more interesting...
Joe Fisher: on 12/28/19 at 19:04pm UTC, wrote Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page again contained this peculiar...
Joe Fisher: on 12/28/19 at 15:29pm UTC, wrote Dear FQXi.org Members, I am deeply sorry for continually posting pretty...
Joe Fisher: on 12/27/19 at 19:04pm UTC, wrote Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of...
FQXi FORUM
April 4, 2020
Despite what physicists might say, the actual physics’ view is that the universe is like a perfect machine that is fuelled by number change: i.e. the equations of physics would indicate that an initial number change is the fuel that perfectly drives the universe forever afterwards. In this view, quantum mechanics might be seen, by some, as an anomaly that will be brought into line just as soon as the right equations are found.
The physics’ view is that initial number change is the perfect fuel that runs the universe ever after, and no number-change (i.e. fuel) top-ups are ever required. But what if top-ups are required in the form of quantum jumps of number? It seems more likely that the number jumps of quantum mechanics are the essential sources of change in the universe [1].
But what is causing quantum number jumps? Seemingly the only candidate is matter itself. So instead of the view of physicists and philosophers, including physicists Anthony Aguirre [2], Sean Carroll and Carlo Rovelli [3], of a numb, dumb matter that is ruled by laws, and where genuine free will [4] is an impossible anomaly, we come to the view that matter itself has the free will to “jump the numbers”, i.e. matter itself is driving change in the universe.
report post as inappropriate
The physics’ view is that initial number change is the perfect fuel that runs the universe ever after, and no number-change (i.e. fuel) top-ups are ever required. But what if top-ups are required in the form of quantum jumps of number? It seems more likely that the number jumps of quantum mechanics are the essential sources of change in the universe [1].
But what is causing quantum number jumps? Seemingly the only candidate is matter itself. So instead of the view of physicists and philosophers, including physicists Anthony Aguirre [2], Sean Carroll and Carlo Rovelli [3], of a numb, dumb matter that is ruled by laws, and where genuine free will [4] is an impossible anomaly, we come to the view that matter itself has the free will to “jump the numbers”, i.e. matter itself is driving change in the universe.
The above post was from me, Lorraine Ford.
Above post continued:
1. Note that time, energy, mass, and position etc, are in effect merely categories that can be represented by numbers; time, energy, mass, and position can’t themselves cause number change: a lot of people get confused by this issue. Similarly, law of nature relationships are merely relationships: they can’t cause number change.
2. Cosmological Koans, https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3261
3. First Things First: The Physics of Causality, https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/236
4. Free will: “The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate”, https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/free_will (Oxford dictionary)
report post as inappropriate
Above post continued:
1. Note that time, energy, mass, and position etc, are in effect merely categories that can be represented by numbers; time, energy, mass, and position can’t themselves cause number change: a lot of people get confused by this issue. Similarly, law of nature relationships are merely relationships: they can’t cause number change.
2. Cosmological Koans, https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3261
3. First Things First: The Physics of Causality, https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/236
4. Free will: “The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate”, https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/free_will (Oxford dictionary)
Hi Loraine,
I think free will is one of those paradoxes. You can either have free will, or you can control the consequences of your actions. You can't have both. As an example, you can commit the crime that would satisfy your desires, or you can control the consequences of your actions by controlling yourself, which feels like lack of freedom or lack of free will.
Jason
report post as inappropriate
I think free will is one of those paradoxes. You can either have free will, or you can control the consequences of your actions. You can't have both. As an example, you can commit the crime that would satisfy your desires, or you can control the consequences of your actions by controlling yourself, which feels like lack of freedom or lack of free will.
Jason
My view is that physicists are making this idea of time way harder than it needs to be. Specifically, my comments are:
1. I may not be understanding this correctly, but do physicists think that the equations of physics work fine when time runs backward and forward because they can put negative numbers in their equations and still get some result? To me, it seems like just because a person...
view entire post
1. I may not be understanding this correctly, but do physicists think that the equations of physics work fine when time runs backward and forward because they can put negative numbers in their equations and still get some result? To me, it seems like just because a person...
view entire post
I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that Sean Carroll prefers as a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics.
To illustrate the problem, let's do a gedankenexperiment:
Suppose that tomorrow i will go to the quantum laboratory and make a superposition experiment with two distinct possible outcomes. No matter what measurement outcome i will see tomorrow, my "clone" will the the complementary outcome.
My question now is: does this clone already exist today? If yes, in what sense does it exist already today?
If not, i must take the usual narrative of a branching universe seriously (for the sake of the argument) and infere that a whole universe is generated at the moment the wave function collapses.
The puzzle now is twofould, namely who was the original person in the lab and who is the clone. If i am the clone then i merely have a false memory about my past - i did not live that past but the original did live it. The clone therefore lives in a virtual reality equal to a boltzmann brain that believes its full blown memory about the past indicates that it lived it in the past.
If an infinitude of "original me's" has lived my life from birth to tomorrow (when i go into the lab and perform my experiment) and after the experiment one of those "original me's" is differentiated from me (by seeing the complementary measurement result), I have to ask in what sense it was *not" me before the measurement outcome took place. Are there an infinitude of identical universes stacked upon each other at every point in time? And last but not least - does the formalism of quantum mechanics indicate in any way that such an infinitude of identical "copies" is inherent in the superposition that will take place tomorrow?
I would be thankful for some enlightening answers.
report post as inappropriate
To illustrate the problem, let's do a gedankenexperiment:
Suppose that tomorrow i will go to the quantum laboratory and make a superposition experiment with two distinct possible outcomes. No matter what measurement outcome i will see tomorrow, my "clone" will the the complementary outcome.
My question now is: does this clone already exist today? If yes, in what sense does it exist already today?
If not, i must take the usual narrative of a branching universe seriously (for the sake of the argument) and infere that a whole universe is generated at the moment the wave function collapses.
The puzzle now is twofould, namely who was the original person in the lab and who is the clone. If i am the clone then i merely have a false memory about my past - i did not live that past but the original did live it. The clone therefore lives in a virtual reality equal to a boltzmann brain that believes its full blown memory about the past indicates that it lived it in the past.
If an infinitude of "original me's" has lived my life from birth to tomorrow (when i go into the lab and perform my experiment) and after the experiment one of those "original me's" is differentiated from me (by seeing the complementary measurement result), I have to ask in what sense it was *not" me before the measurement outcome took place. Are there an infinitude of identical universes stacked upon each other at every point in time? And last but not least - does the formalism of quantum mechanics indicate in any way that such an infinitude of identical "copies" is inherent in the superposition that will take place tomorrow?
I would be thankful for some enlightening answers.
"does the formalism of quantum mechanics indicate in any way that such an infinitude of identical "copies" is inherent in the superposition that will take place tomorrow?"
No. See my comments here
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
No. See my comments here
Rob McEachern
Robert,
You referred to "Philosophers On a Physics Experiment that *Suggests There’s No Such Thing As Objective Reality*”.
Academia and Quora Digest are bombarding me with offers that are also not welcome to me.
Well, I read the paper "‘Cantor on Infinity in Nature, Number, and the Divine Mind’".
However, should I also read "The influence of Spinoza’s concept of infinity on Cantor’s set theory", Achtner's "Perspectives on Infinity from History", "Spinoza's Metaphysics of Substancet", WITTGENSTEIN AND THE LABYRINTH OF ‘ACTUAL INFINITY’: THE CRITIQUE OF TRANSFINITE SET THEORY,"A Substance Consisting of an Infinity of Attributes: Spinoza on the Infinity of Attributes", a related Descartes, René paper "A Mathematical Interpretation of Spinoza's Ethics: Short preliminary remarks", "Perspectives - The Nature Of The Definiteness Of The Set-Theoretical Universe", "On Some Philosophical Aspects of the Background to Georg Cantor’s theory of sets", "Review of Pauline Phemister's Leibniz and the Natural World", "Leibnizian Continuity", "Monads Facing the Labyrinth of the Continuum", etc.?
No, having thoroughly studied what I see as irrelevant ideas of monism, I don't need Wittgenstein as to feel sympathy with Georg Cantor who might have understood being wrong with his AC and therefore ended up in a mad house.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
You referred to "Philosophers On a Physics Experiment that *Suggests There’s No Such Thing As Objective Reality*”.
Academia and Quora Digest are bombarding me with offers that are also not welcome to me.
Well, I read the paper "‘Cantor on Infinity in Nature, Number, and the Divine Mind’".
However, should I also read "The influence of Spinoza’s concept of infinity on Cantor’s set theory", Achtner's "Perspectives on Infinity from History", "Spinoza's Metaphysics of Substancet", WITTGENSTEIN AND THE LABYRINTH OF ‘ACTUAL INFINITY’: THE CRITIQUE OF TRANSFINITE SET THEORY,"A Substance Consisting of an Infinity of Attributes: Spinoza on the Infinity of Attributes", a related Descartes, René paper "A Mathematical Interpretation of Spinoza's Ethics: Short preliminary remarks", "Perspectives - The Nature Of The Definiteness Of The Set-Theoretical Universe", "On Some Philosophical Aspects of the Background to Georg Cantor’s theory of sets", "Review of Pauline Phemister's Leibniz and the Natural World", "Leibnizian Continuity", "Monads Facing the Labyrinth of the Continuum", etc.?
No, having thoroughly studied what I see as irrelevant ideas of monism, I don't need Wittgenstein as to feel sympathy with Georg Cantor who might have understood being wrong with his AC and therefore ended up in a mad house.
Eckard Blumschein
Eckard,
"You referred to..."
I was referring only to my final comments (in my browser, my link goes directly to my final comments, rather than the top of the web-page) in which I stated “the Fourier analysis will simply and automatically change the model-of-reality it creates, to perfectly match the ever changing observations” and the light that statement may shed on the correct interpretation of Everett’s Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM or the existence of an actual Multiverse.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
"You referred to..."
I was referring only to my final comments (in my browser, my link goes directly to my final comments, rather than the top of the web-page) in which I stated “the Fourier analysis will simply and automatically change the model-of-reality it creates, to perfectly match the ever changing observations” and the light that statement may shed on the correct interpretation of Everett’s Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM or the existence of an actual Multiverse.
Rob McEachern
Dear Reality Fans,
The real VISIBLE Universe never “started out.” Physicists have only ever proven that all real matter has a real VISIBLE surface. They have never proven that any invisible empty space has ever existed. Physicists have only ever ASSUMED that a void once existed and that there was a finite “early universe”. Physicists have only ever ASSUMED that there were three finite dimensions. Obviously, NATURE must have provided only one VISIBLE reality. The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years BEFORE Sean Carroll and Carlo Rovelli ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their unnatural guesswork concerning finite laws of invisible thermo-dynamics. There has only ever been and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERLALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
The real VISIBLE Universe never “started out.” Physicists have only ever proven that all real matter has a real VISIBLE surface. They have never proven that any invisible empty space has ever existed. Physicists have only ever ASSUMED that a void once existed and that there was a finite “early universe”. Physicists have only ever ASSUMED that there were three finite dimensions. Obviously, NATURE must have provided only one VISIBLE reality. The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years BEFORE Sean Carroll and Carlo Rovelli ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their unnatural guesswork concerning finite laws of invisible thermo-dynamics. There has only ever been and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERLALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
(Zeeya's note: Joe I've deleted the text of this post. It appears to be addressed to Nima Arkani Hamed, but there's no reason to think he's reading this thread.
Please stay on topic.)
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
report post as inappropriate
Please stay on topic.)
report post as inappropriate
"it gave him a way to define "meaningful information"—and that even slipperier idea, "meaning" itself."
But his definitions leave something to be desired. Here are some better ones
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
But his definitions leave something to be desired. Here are some better ones
Rob McEachern
These interviews of Carroll and Rovelli are both quite interesting since they show two very smart people with many related but very different narratives about the nature of reality. Narratives with measurement are what guide science and without measurements, there really is no role for science. However, narratives without measurement are what guide philosophy and there are philosophy is a perpetual discourse among many very smart people about the nature of physical reality.
“Every philosopher believes they are correct in disagreeing with every other philosopher and so only one philosopher could ever actually be correct.” Paul Skokowski.
Neither Carroll nor Rovelli acknowledge the unknowable precursors that result from quantum phase correlation and superposition, but both accept the notion that the universe changes and that outcomes all have precursors, i.e., cause and effect. However, they do not discuss the two very different kinds of changes that make up things that happen: First there is the very slow change of the universe due to gravity; Second, there are the very fast changes of atoms due to charge.
Black holes are endpoints of time and space, but black holes are still subject to the slow changes of universe matter and action. In mattertime, the universe pulse destiny is a single black hole and that destiny births the next antiverse/universe pulse. An antiverse expansion is the first half pulse that grows with antimatter precursors then a universe matter pulse decay is the
second half pulse.
report post as inappropriate
“Every philosopher believes they are correct in disagreeing with every other philosopher and so only one philosopher could ever actually be correct.” Paul Skokowski.
Neither Carroll nor Rovelli acknowledge the unknowable precursors that result from quantum phase correlation and superposition, but both accept the notion that the universe changes and that outcomes all have precursors, i.e., cause and effect. However, they do not discuss the two very different kinds of changes that make up things that happen: First there is the very slow change of the universe due to gravity; Second, there are the very fast changes of atoms due to charge.
Black holes are endpoints of time and space, but black holes are still subject to the slow changes of universe matter and action. In mattertime, the universe pulse destiny is a single black hole and that destiny births the next antiverse/universe pulse. An antiverse expansion is the first half pulse that grows with antimatter precursors then a universe matter pulse decay is the
second half pulse.
But the philosophers belief in the correctness of their disagreement could be wrong. E.g. Sometimes people are talking about the same things in different words. And so there need not be just one correct philosopher. I think the statement by Paul Skokowski is just a put down regarding philosophy; as if the explanation of things is unimportant. Is agreement without understanding, or the attempt to understand, better? I think not.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Georgina,
Please remember that: Cogito, ergo sum is (sic) a Latin philosophical
proposition by René Descartes usually translated into English as "I think,
therefore I am". The phrase originally appeared in French as je pense, donc je suis in his Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed. Wikipedia
René would have been closer to telling the truth had he averred: Je suppose que,
comme tout le monde sur la planète “I guess, just like everybody else on the
planet does.” All philosophers and theoretical physicists would come closer to telling
the truth if they would only preface all of their remarks with the term:
“I guess.” Professor Markus Mueller of the Vienna Institute for Quantum Optics
and Quantum Information has confirmed to me by email that all philosophers and theoretical physicists have always guessed about the real structure of the Universe. But he insists that he only makes “good” guesses, not arbitrary ones.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Please remember that: Cogito, ergo sum is (sic) a Latin philosophical
proposition by René Descartes usually translated into English as "I think,
therefore I am". The phrase originally appeared in French as je pense, donc je suis in his Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed. Wikipedia
René would have been closer to telling the truth had he averred: Je suppose que,
comme tout le monde sur la planète “I guess, just like everybody else on the
planet does.” All philosophers and theoretical physicists would come closer to telling
the truth if they would only preface all of their remarks with the term:
“I guess.” Professor Markus Mueller of the Vienna Institute for Quantum Optics
and Quantum Information has confirmed to me by email that all philosophers and theoretical physicists have always guessed about the real structure of the Universe. But he insists that he only makes “good” guesses, not arbitrary ones.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Does this mean all of your statements about reality will be prefaced with "I guess" from now on?
report post as inappropriate
Hi Kate, BTW re. your "Does drinking a glass of red wine with dinner make you live longer? Does it make cancer cells less likely to grow?". "In its Report on Carcinogens, the National Toxicology Program of the US Department of Health and Human Services lists consumption of alcoholic beverages as a known human carcinogen." https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a
lcohol/alcohol-fact-sheet
Worth knowing I think. However it may reduce likelihood of other stress related illnesses.
report post as inappropriate
lcohol/alcohol-fact-sheet
Worth knowing I think. However it may reduce likelihood of other stress related illnesses.
The 2019 FQXi conference [1] has pinned this article [2] to the top of its twitter page. The speakers and attendees have spent a lot of time trying to decide what life, agency and free will are, and whether they are compatible with current physics, or whether new physics is required.
But the topology of life, agency and free will is completely different to the topology of determinism:
…..Determinism means that laws of nature determine all outcomes for matter.
…..Agency/ free will means that matter itself determines some of its own outcomes. This is new physics only in the sense that it is a different view of matter.
The other issue is that the nature of life, agency and free will is only representable as (but not determined by) algorithms; the nature of life, agency and free will is not representable as equations and numbers alone. Yet there is no way that equations and numbers can transmogrify into algorithms. This is new physics only in the sense that the behaviour of matter needs to be represented by algorithms.
1. Mind Matters: Intelligence and Agency in the Physical World, 20-25 July 2019.
2. First Things First: The Physics of Causality, https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/236 .
report post as inappropriate
But the topology of life, agency and free will is completely different to the topology of determinism:
…..Determinism means that laws of nature determine all outcomes for matter.
…..Agency/ free will means that matter itself determines some of its own outcomes. This is new physics only in the sense that it is a different view of matter.
The other issue is that the nature of life, agency and free will is only representable as (but not determined by) algorithms; the nature of life, agency and free will is not representable as equations and numbers alone. Yet there is no way that equations and numbers can transmogrify into algorithms. This is new physics only in the sense that the behaviour of matter needs to be represented by algorithms.
1. Mind Matters: Intelligence and Agency in the Physical World, 20-25 July 2019.
2. First Things First: The Physics of Causality, https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/236 .
...however, it is not possible to know all of the precursors for agency/free will...otherwise, agency free will would also be determinate.
This is why quantum uncertainty plays a key role in agency/free will...
report post as inappropriate
This is why quantum uncertainty plays a key role in agency/free will...
I read Sean Carroll's piece in the New York Times. Very insightful. I would say we'll probably never have a complete theory of quantum mechanics because there is always more to know about different dimensions, or degrees of freedom. Quantum mechanics happens at 10 ^-35, but there are other degrees of freedom above and below this dimension. Sometimes when these dimensions interact, we have interesting things, like reverse causality in the transactional interpretation of QM. When the pilot wave or DeBroglie wave extends to infinity, QM kind of can't be complete. Descriptions of other dimensions are not static. Neither are relations between degrees of freedom.
report post as inappropriate
Dear David Vogner,
There will never be an unnatural published true humanly contrived finite theory of invisible quantum mechanics.
Joe Fisher, Knowing Realist
report post as inappropriate
There will never be an unnatural published true humanly contrived finite theory of invisible quantum mechanics.
Joe Fisher, Knowing Realist
Hi Joe,
I agree somewhat. I question some of the specific terms you use, like unnatural. I think what Von Neumann and the non-Copenhagen schools taught was that there was a natural, real aspect to QM wave functions. For Von Neumann, it was geometrical. We're beginning to see the confluence between physical properties and numerical properties, such as the interesting research out of Princeton last year about prime numbers being encoded in special crystals.
report post as inappropriate
I agree somewhat. I question some of the specific terms you use, like unnatural. I think what Von Neumann and the non-Copenhagen schools taught was that there was a natural, real aspect to QM wave functions. For Von Neumann, it was geometrical. We're beginning to see the confluence between physical properties and numerical properties, such as the interesting research out of Princeton last year about prime numbers being encoded in special crystals.
I have an idea for quantum gravity that would also be the physics of causality. I can also explain the physics constants: c, h and G. I was inspired by the idea by looking at several facets of physics that include: big bang cosmology, the derivation of special relativity, the spacetime interval, the spacetime continuum, quantum mechanics, and the Casimir effect. There can only be one...
view entire post
view entire post
Incidentally, causality is transmitted outward at the speed of light because these spacetime geometry wavefronts travel outward at the speed of light.
report post as inappropriate
(Zeeya's note: Joe I've deleted the text of this post. It appears to be addressed to Dr Kuhn, but there's no reason to think he's reading this thread.
Please stay on topic.)
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
report post as inappropriate
Please stay on topic.)
report post as inappropriate
You do believe the large Hadron collider has been slamming protons into each other, and measuring their byproducts, right?
report post as inappropriate
(Zeeya's note: Joe I've deleted the text of this post. It appears to be addressed to Nima Arkani Hamed, but there's no reason to think he's reading this thread.
Please stay on topic.)
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
report post as inappropriate
Please stay on topic.)
report post as inappropriate
Without subjectivity research, physics will become a new religion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvJIzBX5uAY
report post as inappropriate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvJIzBX5uAY
It am all very well for Professor Carroll to be awarded funds for adding to the vast amount of information about humanly contrived finite physical causality. Hundreds of physicists have also been awarded funds for writing about the same subject. However, the physicists have never been able to prove that empty curved space has ever existed. Credentialed physicists have only ever been able to prove that the real planet Earth (and all real matter) had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years BEFORE Professor Carroll ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his parroted unnatural guesswork concerning invisible physical causality. Obviously, NATURE could have only provided one VISIBLE form of reality and that the VISIBLE form of reality could never have contained dual components of space and matter. Nature did never have humanly projected finite causality.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher, Realist
After I had inserted the word causality into the Google Search Engine, a drop down list of ten items appeared: causality definition; causality models reasoning and inference; causality meaning; causality loop; causality collapser; causality correlation; causality game; causality synonym, and causality manipulation. After I had selected the word causality and depressed the Google Search button I was informed that the Google Search Engine had found About 16,000,000 results (0.52 seconds)
NATURE must have provided only ONE form of VISIBLE physical reality. The only true fact every credentialed physicist has ever proven was that the real planet Earth (and all matter) had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years BEFORE any information about invisible causality was ever published. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
NATURE must have provided only ONE form of VISIBLE physical reality. The only true fact every credentialed physicist has ever proven was that the real planet Earth (and all matter) had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years BEFORE any information about invisible causality was ever published. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Housewife intelligence is much more alive than the intelligence of the Ph.D. physicist. The development of science will happen by layman people. They still have a common sense which theoretical physics has lost long ago. Today science is lost in its own mental labyrinths. Today 5 years of Ph.D. is needed for things which my grandma knew it just by walking in the fields. Science has become a new religion. If you think differently, you are out, you are disbeliever, a dissident. Only alive housewife intelligence can push science forward.
attachments: Einsteins_Relativity_for_Housewives.pdf
report post as inappropriate
attachments: Einsteins_Relativity_for_Housewives.pdf
While cause and effect belong to reality as I understand it, systems, choice entropy, God, and all that seem rather to be something manmade.
Is there actually at all an immediately complete reality of elementary particles? My conjecture of reality as the most reasonable open framework is emancipating from creationism.
If determinism requires the unrealistic view of the world as limited system, may we then hope for "understanding" rather than accepting elapsing time of reality?
I go on criticizing non-causalities and generalized arbitrarily chosen references.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Is there actually at all an immediately complete reality of elementary particles? My conjecture of reality as the most reasonable open framework is emancipating from creationism.
If determinism requires the unrealistic view of the world as limited system, may we then hope for "understanding" rather than accepting elapsing time of reality?
I go on criticizing non-causalities and generalized arbitrarily chosen references.
Eckard Blumschein
Dear Eckard,
Recently published humanly contrived information concerning invisible cause and effect has absolutely nothing to do with naturally provided VISIBLE reality.
Joe Fisher, Natural Realist
report post as inappropriate
Recently published humanly contrived information concerning invisible cause and effect has absolutely nothing to do with naturally provided VISIBLE reality.
Joe Fisher, Natural Realist
Dear Joe,
Imagine a sponge with six visible surfaces each of 1 x 1 cm^2. Its inner surface is much larger than 1 cm^3. For several reasons, visibility is definitely not the only criterion of reality. Material things tend also to be audible, tangible, etc. real
Even a plan may come true as a real cause of a real effect.I mentioned Morgenthau's one as a horrible example. Conjectured existence of something we are calling reality is just the most reasonable logical opposite of a perhaps wrong attribution, in particular a belief or another premature explanation.
We both might hopefully agree on that it is often premature to accept a theory and its putative consequences as facts for good. Some physicists imagine a deterministic world ruled by generalized laws that are symmetrical in time. This is obviously unreal because these laws do certainly not completely correspond to the conjectured reality.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Imagine a sponge with six visible surfaces each of 1 x 1 cm^2. Its inner surface is much larger than 1 cm^3. For several reasons, visibility is definitely not the only criterion of reality. Material things tend also to be audible, tangible, etc. real
Even a plan may come true as a real cause of a real effect.I mentioned Morgenthau's one as a horrible example. Conjectured existence of something we are calling reality is just the most reasonable logical opposite of a perhaps wrong attribution, in particular a belief or another premature explanation.
We both might hopefully agree on that it is often premature to accept a theory and its putative consequences as facts for good. Some physicists imagine a deterministic world ruled by generalized laws that are symmetrical in time. This is obviously unreal because these laws do certainly not completely correspond to the conjectured reality.
Eckard Blumschein
Dear Eckard,
VISIBLE reality am not a theory. NATURAL VISIBLE REALITY am the only fact.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
VISIBLE reality am not a theory. NATURAL VISIBLE REALITY am the only fact.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Hi Eckard,Joe,
Well Joe you continue in telling us the same ironical conclusion. Please explain your conclusion because we understand Nothing. With your visible surface and am and this and that.What is the origin of your concclusion,philosophical,mathematical,physical.Please stop your non sense and explain because it's Simply stupid there ,really.It's for you that I say this me,you are odd Joe really and Don't answer,steve visible reality am the only fact,explain….
report post as inappropriate
Well Joe you continue in telling us the same ironical conclusion. Please explain your conclusion because we understand Nothing. With your visible surface and am and this and that.What is the origin of your concclusion,philosophical,mathematical,physical.Please stop your non sense and explain because it's Simply stupid there ,really.It's for you that I say this me,you are odd Joe really and Don't answer,steve visible reality am the only fact,explain….
LOL imagine Joe is I repeat Always am sphere an infinite spherical am reality ? you Don't find this odd you? am sphere visible spherical reality the only fact insn't it? lol me I want well but it's irritating and frustrating there
report post as inappropriate
Dear Steve,
Question: Am the Universe VISIBLE? Answer: Yes. Question: When did the universe become VISIBLE? Answer: The universe must ETERNALLY be VISIBLE. Question: Am unnatural published human guesswork about invisible finite good and evil and invisible finite quantum particles that could be in more than one invisible place at the same time, the least bit sensible? Answer: No. Question: When was all of this preposterous speculation published, and how much longer am it likely to be taught to children? Answer: It was published recently and it will continue to be taught to children for as long as ignorant priests and professors are employed.
Je Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Question: Am the Universe VISIBLE? Answer: Yes. Question: When did the universe become VISIBLE? Answer: The universe must ETERNALLY be VISIBLE. Question: Am unnatural published human guesswork about invisible finite good and evil and invisible finite quantum particles that could be in more than one invisible place at the same time, the least bit sensible? Answer: No. Question: When was all of this preposterous speculation published, and how much longer am it likely to be taught to children? Answer: It was published recently and it will continue to be taught to children for as long as ignorant priests and professors are employed.
Je Fisher, Realist
Hi Joe,
Thanks,you develop a little bit,it's better but you can still make better in inserting physics and maths.
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Thanks,you develop a little bit,it's better but you can still make better in inserting physics and maths.
Regards
Incidentally, In Sean Caroll's excellent speech, I stumbled about "a part of infinity".
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein
Hi Eckard,
I am curious,what is your philosophical idea about this infinity and infinities.Do you consider a main cause to our reality,like an Eternal infinite consciousness sending,creating codes informations,to build this universe? You can explain me with maths,numbers,physics .What is in resume the origin of our physicality.Regards
report post as inappropriate
I am curious,what is your philosophical idea about this infinity and infinities.Do you consider a main cause to our reality,like an Eternal infinite consciousness sending,creating codes informations,to build this universe? You can explain me with maths,numbers,physics .What is in resume the origin of our physicality.Regards
Dear Steve and Eckard,
When the finite word “infinity” was entered into the Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 818,000,000 results (0.74 seconds)” NATURE must have provided only ONE reality. The only true fact every physicist who has ever lived has been able to conclusively prove about the real physical universe was that the real planet Earth (and all matter) had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years BEFORE men ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing 818,000,000 finite results for the finite word “infinity.” There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE unified INFINITE VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by One form of non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
When the finite word “infinity” was entered into the Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 818,000,000 results (0.74 seconds)” NATURE must have provided only ONE reality. The only true fact every physicist who has ever lived has been able to conclusively prove about the real physical universe was that the real planet Earth (and all matter) had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years BEFORE men ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing 818,000,000 finite results for the finite word “infinity.” There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE unified INFINITE VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by One form of non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Hi Steve,
While I appreciate to some degree discussions about superfinitism by mathematicians like Katz, cf.
https://cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2017-November/020691.html ,
and I hesitated to completely swallow the superfinitist view of Mückenheim who argues against the infinitum absolutum, I got aware of confusion due to two quite different meanings: being infinite as a property, and Leibniz' relative infinity. With respect to physics, I rather perfer Salviati (Galileo).
Regards,
Rckard
report post as inappropriate
While I appreciate to some degree discussions about superfinitism by mathematicians like Katz, cf.
https://cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2017-November/020691.html ,
and I hesitated to completely swallow the superfinitist view of Mückenheim who argues against the infinitum absolutum, I got aware of confusion due to two quite different meanings: being infinite as a property, and Leibniz' relative infinity. With respect to physics, I rather perfer Salviati (Galileo).
Regards,
Rckard
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“I think science is humanity’s greatest cultural achievement, collectively. Having said that, there are limits that are always going to be present.”
British physician and neuroscientist Raymond Tallis discusses the limitations of science, including its failure to explain fundamental metaphysical questions like, "why is there something rather than nothing?" Watch other experts weight in: http://bit.ly/2nfw5cr
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and my own Facebook page:
When the FINITE question: "why is there something rather than nothing?" was entered into the Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 107,000 (supposedly FINITE) results (0.47 seconds)” Seeing that the Planet Earth had a visible surface for millions of years before Raymond Tallis ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing his unnatural supposedly FINITE guesswork concerning FINITE something and invisible nothing. Obviously, Nature could have only provided one sort of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
“I think science is humanity’s greatest cultural achievement, collectively. Having said that, there are limits that are always going to be present.”
British physician and neuroscientist Raymond Tallis discusses the limitations of science, including its failure to explain fundamental metaphysical questions like, "why is there something rather than nothing?" Watch other experts weight in: http://bit.ly/2nfw5cr
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and my own Facebook page:
When the FINITE question: "why is there something rather than nothing?" was entered into the Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 107,000 (supposedly FINITE) results (0.47 seconds)” Seeing that the Planet Earth had a visible surface for millions of years before Raymond Tallis ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing his unnatural supposedly FINITE guesswork concerning FINITE something and invisible nothing. Obviously, Nature could have only provided one sort of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
dear Joe,
please explain us differently.Philosophically,physically,mathematically.There we don4t understand nothing. Please explain the causes of your conclusion, it is odd there,we need more details to encircle what you mean,what you tell us.Invisible,visible,am,this and that,me I want well but your Words aren t sufficient simply.
report post as inappropriate
please explain us differently.Philosophically,physically,mathematically.There we don4t understand nothing. Please explain the causes of your conclusion, it is odd there,we need more details to encircle what you mean,what you tell us.Invisible,visible,am,this and that,me I want well but your Words aren t sufficient simply.
Steven.
Was there a real visible Earth surface millions of years ago?
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Was there a real visible Earth surface millions of years ago?
Joe Fisher, Realist
Steve,
Did humanly contrived supposedly FINITE mathematics and physics exist millions of years ago?
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Did humanly contrived supposedly FINITE mathematics and physics exist millions of years ago?
Joe Fisher, Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“Warren Brown talks about the God Module: the idea that there is a section of the brain responsible for religious experiences and that those experiences can be brought on by epileptic seizures. Brown argues that the term "God Module" is an overinterpretation. Can the entirety of religious experience be attributed to brain structure and chemistry?
Watch more interviews on evolutionary psychology and religion: http://bit.ly/2Ok867q”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the FINITE question: “Can the entirety of religious experience be attributed to brain structure and chemistry?” was entered into the Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 1,010,000 (supposedly different FINITE) results (1.01 seconds)” But Nature must have provided only one undifferentiated visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Normal Realist
post approved
“Warren Brown talks about the God Module: the idea that there is a section of the brain responsible for religious experiences and that those experiences can be brought on by epileptic seizures. Brown argues that the term "God Module" is an overinterpretation. Can the entirety of religious experience be attributed to brain structure and chemistry?
Watch more interviews on evolutionary psychology and religion: http://bit.ly/2Ok867q”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the FINITE question: “Can the entirety of religious experience be attributed to brain structure and chemistry?” was entered into the Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 1,010,000 (supposedly different FINITE) results (1.01 seconds)” But Nature must have provided only one undifferentiated visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Normal Realist
Hi Joe,well we have understood,let s go farer please.I have several questions.When I was 17 years old I searched answers to our universe.So I have read a Little bit of all,books of philosophy,the talmud,the bibble,the coran,the buddhism ,this and that.The best answers I must say were given by sciences,I have ranked a Little bit of all,the animals,the vegetals,the minerals,the Chemistry,the biology,the physics,the maths mainly.So in all humility we can discuss about all.So I repeat do you beleive in God,what is your personal faith.Me I beleive in this infinite eternal consciousness but with determinism,I am not religious because they are human inventions simply but I respect the persons having faith in their religions chosen.So tell me you are christian ? or others ? please explain me what you mean by your analyses,thanks
report post as inappropriate
Steve,
All science books supposedly provide myriad pieces of FINITE information. But Nature provided only one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
All science books supposedly provide myriad pieces of FINITE information. But Nature provided only one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Joe ,still you don t develop,it becomes crazy to Always repeat the same,are you conscious of that? We have understood Joe,so now explain why philosophically speaking.Is it a joke Joe? Your Words are nor relevant ,nor interesting,really,you have found nothing in fact.
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“Biologist Jeff Schloss discusses how evolutionary psychology has delivered supports both for and against religious cognition. He weighs in on the innate human disposition to belief in the supernatural. Is there justification for religious belief? And has evolutionary psychology led to certainty in theological debate or further ambiguity?
Watch more interviews on evolutionary psychology and religion: http://bit.ly/2Ok867q”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the FINITE question: “Has evolutionary psychology led to certainty in theological debate or further ambiguity?” was entered into the Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 432,000 (supposedly differing FINITE) results (0.98 seconds)” When the FINITE question: “Has regular everyday psychology led to certainty in theological debate or further ambiguity?” was entered into the Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 607,000 (supposedly differing FINITE) results (0.94 seconds) Nature could have provided only one undifferentiated form of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Singular Realist
post approved
“Biologist Jeff Schloss discusses how evolutionary psychology has delivered supports both for and against religious cognition. He weighs in on the innate human disposition to belief in the supernatural. Is there justification for religious belief? And has evolutionary psychology led to certainty in theological debate or further ambiguity?
Watch more interviews on evolutionary psychology and religion: http://bit.ly/2Ok867q”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the FINITE question: “Has evolutionary psychology led to certainty in theological debate or further ambiguity?” was entered into the Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 432,000 (supposedly differing FINITE) results (0.98 seconds)” When the FINITE question: “Has regular everyday psychology led to certainty in theological debate or further ambiguity?” was entered into the Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 607,000 (supposedly differing FINITE) results (0.94 seconds) Nature could have provided only one undifferentiated form of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Singular Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“Philosopher J.L. Schellenberg warns against the fallacy of supposing you can move directly from what you know about the origin of a belief to a conclusion about whether or not that belief is true or false. However, knowing the origin of a belief can lead to increased skepticism. Does evolutionary psychology create doubt in religion by examining the origin of religious expereinces? Watch more interviews on evolutionary psychology and religion: http://bit.ly/2Ok867q”
I have posted this sensible remark at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the question: “Does (FINITE invisible) evolutionary psychology create (FINITE invisible) doubt in (FINITE invisible) religion by examining the (FINITE invisible) origin of (FINITE invisible) religious expereinces?(sic)” was entered into the Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 11,300,000 supposedly differing FINITE results (0.76 seconds)” When the question: “Does (FINITE invisible) pre-evolutionary psychology create (FINITE invisible) doubt in (FINITE invisible) religion by examining the (FINITE invisible) origin of (FINITE invisible) religious expereinces?” (sic) was entered into the Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 9,880,000 (supposedly differing FINITE) results (1.05 seconds)”Nature provided only one infinite visible reality.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
post approved
“Philosopher J.L. Schellenberg warns against the fallacy of supposing you can move directly from what you know about the origin of a belief to a conclusion about whether or not that belief is true or false. However, knowing the origin of a belief can lead to increased skepticism. Does evolutionary psychology create doubt in religion by examining the origin of religious expereinces? Watch more interviews on evolutionary psychology and religion: http://bit.ly/2Ok867q”
I have posted this sensible remark at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the question: “Does (FINITE invisible) evolutionary psychology create (FINITE invisible) doubt in (FINITE invisible) religion by examining the (FINITE invisible) origin of (FINITE invisible) religious expereinces?(sic)” was entered into the Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 11,300,000 supposedly differing FINITE results (0.76 seconds)” When the question: “Does (FINITE invisible) pre-evolutionary psychology create (FINITE invisible) doubt in (FINITE invisible) religion by examining the (FINITE invisible) origin of (FINITE invisible) religious expereinces?” (sic) was entered into the Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 9,880,000 (supposedly differing FINITE) results (1.05 seconds)”Nature provided only one infinite visible reality.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Yesterday’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“Does evolutionary psychology undermine religion? What function does religion serve in society? Watch acclaimed author Jared Diamond's full interview: http://bit.ly/2Mfo5B1”
I posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the FINITE question: “What FINITE invisible function does FINITE invisible Religion serve in a FINITE abstract society?” was entered into the Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 4,810,000 results (0.96 seconds)” But Nature could have only eternally devised one infinite visible reality. The only true fact every credentialed physicist has ever proven was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of real years before Jared Diamond and the other 4,810,000 humans ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural supposedly FINITE guesswork concerning the supposedly FINITE invisible effects of FINITE invisible religion on abstract societies. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Normal Realist
post approved
“Does evolutionary psychology undermine religion? What function does religion serve in society? Watch acclaimed author Jared Diamond's full interview: http://bit.ly/2Mfo5B1”
I posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the FINITE question: “What FINITE invisible function does FINITE invisible Religion serve in a FINITE abstract society?” was entered into the Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 4,810,000 results (0.96 seconds)” But Nature could have only eternally devised one infinite visible reality. The only true fact every credentialed physicist has ever proven was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of real years before Jared Diamond and the other 4,810,000 humans ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural supposedly FINITE guesswork concerning the supposedly FINITE invisible effects of FINITE invisible religion on abstract societies. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Normal Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“Theoretical physicist and cosmologist Alan H. Guth talks about one of the oldest questions: where did everything come from? What are the origins of our universe?
Watch the interview: http://bit.ly/33rEA3N”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and n the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “What are the origins of our universe?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 82,700,000 supposedly finite results” (0.84 (finite) seconds) But the visible universe provided by nature must have been infinite. The only true fact every credentialed physicist was ever able to prove was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface. Not one of them has ever been able to prove that there was any amount of curved or dead straight invisible space. One real visible universe could not possibly have had a single finite origin. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
“Theoretical physicist and cosmologist Alan H. Guth talks about one of the oldest questions: where did everything come from? What are the origins of our universe?
Watch the interview: http://bit.ly/33rEA3N”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and n the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “What are the origins of our universe?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 82,700,000 supposedly finite results” (0.84 (finite) seconds) But the visible universe provided by nature must have been infinite. The only true fact every credentialed physicist was ever able to prove was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface. Not one of them has ever been able to prove that there was any amount of curved or dead straight invisible space. One real visible universe could not possibly have had a single finite origin. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Today’s Closer to Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar assertion:
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“How did this whole universe thing begin? Cosmologist Laura Mersini-Houghton discusses the big bang theory, time, the multiverse, and the ultimate nature of the universe.
See more interviews about the origins of the...
view entire post
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“How did this whole universe thing begin? Cosmologist Laura Mersini-Houghton discusses the big bang theory, time, the multiverse, and the ultimate nature of the universe.
See more interviews about the origins of the...
view entire post
Joe,do you understand that the universe is finite like our series of particles coded and that we have constants and infinities too inside this physicality like tools ,and now philosophically speaking ,above ,beyond this physicality we have an infinite eternal consciousness and this infinity created this fionite physicality in sending codes ,informations to build this universe? so all what you tell us need details simply,we don t need courses about what is this infinity,the infinities like pi or others and the finite systems coded,DEVELOP PLEASE
report post as inappropriate
Steve,
What was a visible surface called 25 million years ago? Oh, that’s right, there was nobody around 25 million years ago to call anything.
Joe Fisher, Literate Realist
report post as inappropriate
What was a visible surface called 25 million years ago? Oh, that’s right, there was nobody around 25 million years ago to call anything.
Joe Fisher, Literate Realist
Joe, study a Little bit the evolution of this Earth,we have bones analysed with the carbon 14,we know the age of the Earth and its evolution in billions and millions years ,so please explain me what you mean because really I don t understand nothing.
report post as inappropriate
CAUSALITY :) I am going to create a group to convice this UN with Concrete global solutions,mainly the liberation of funds of this World Bank and the industiralisation with determinism of our solar system and a harmonisation on Earth of ecosystems and their interactions.We must give water,food,energy,jobs,hopes to the majority and our actual global system cannot reach the points of equilibrium.The persons in this team must be totally univeral and altruist and skilling in sciences without Vanity.We can do it with the good persons and the good solutions,we cannot accept this globality and for the next generations this stupid global system forgetting the universal foundamentals.
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“Scientists postulate that 73 percent of the universe is dark energy. What does that mean, how do we know that and what are the implications? Cosmologist John Peacock explains.
Watch more videos on dark energy: http://bit.ly/33DShgl”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “How much of the finite universe is finite dark energy?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 3,650,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.84 (finite) seconds) But if we ask ourselves what was the Universe made of millions of years ago before white scientific males made those 3,650,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.84 (finite) seconds) speculations? We have to rely on the one true fact every credentialed physicist has been able to prove. The Universe had a visible surface then and of course the Universe has a visible surface now. Obviously, Nature must have only provided one infinite visible surface and all human speculation about any possible finite invisible aspect of the universe am utter pretentious codswallop.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
“Scientists postulate that 73 percent of the universe is dark energy. What does that mean, how do we know that and what are the implications? Cosmologist John Peacock explains.
Watch more videos on dark energy: http://bit.ly/33DShgl”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “How much of the finite universe is finite dark energy?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 3,650,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.84 (finite) seconds) But if we ask ourselves what was the Universe made of millions of years ago before white scientific males made those 3,650,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.84 (finite) seconds) speculations? We have to rely on the one true fact every credentialed physicist has been able to prove. The Universe had a visible surface then and of course the Universe has a visible surface now. Obviously, Nature must have only provided one infinite visible surface and all human speculation about any possible finite invisible aspect of the universe am utter pretentious codswallop.
Joe Fisher, Realist
lol Joe,you are a phenomen in fact and the Word is weak.Can you please tell us more about your philosophical point of vue? please,please,PLEASE Joe my friend human of this Sphere :)
post approved
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“What are the origins of our universe? Laura Mersini-Houghton, cosmologist, discusses the beginnings of everything, including what we know, how we know it, and what we still have to learn. Watch the interview: http://bit.ly/2MQ097v”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Boar and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “How did everything begin?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, three finite items dropped down: how did everything begin? How did everything start from nothing, and how did everything start. After the finite How did everything start from nothing option was entered, it elicited: “About 528,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.84 (finite) seconds) But Nature could have provided only one infinite visible physical structure of the Universe. The only true fact every credentialed physicist has ever conclusively proven was that the real Universe had a real visible surface for millions of years before a single one of those 528,000,000 humans appeared on Earth and began publishing their unnatural repetitious guesswork concerning finite invisible phenomena. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to ever be one Naturally provided unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Complete Realist
post approved
“What are the origins of our universe? Laura Mersini-Houghton, cosmologist, discusses the beginnings of everything, including what we know, how we know it, and what we still have to learn. Watch the interview: http://bit.ly/2MQ097v”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Boar and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “How did everything begin?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, three finite items dropped down: how did everything begin? How did everything start from nothing, and how did everything start. After the finite How did everything start from nothing option was entered, it elicited: “About 528,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.84 (finite) seconds) But Nature could have provided only one infinite visible physical structure of the Universe. The only true fact every credentialed physicist has ever conclusively proven was that the real Universe had a real visible surface for millions of years before a single one of those 528,000,000 humans appeared on Earth and began publishing their unnatural repetitious guesswork concerning finite invisible phenomena. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to ever be one Naturally provided unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Complete Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“Don Page, theoretical physicist, discusses the origins of the universe from not only a physicist's persepctive, but also from a Christian point-of-view. How do God and the beginnings of the universe intersect? See more interviews about the origins of the universe: http://bit.ly/2nBzJhh”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “How do God and the beginnings of the universe intersect?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 8,190,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.69 (finite) seconds) But Nature could have only ever provided one form of a visible Universe. The only true fact every credentialed physicist has ever proven was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before Don Page or any of the 8,190,000 other humans who foolishly made finite repetitive guesses about an invisible white male god influencing the finite invisible commencement of an abstract universe. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist
post approved
“Don Page, theoretical physicist, discusses the origins of the universe from not only a physicist's persepctive, but also from a Christian point-of-view. How do God and the beginnings of the universe intersect? See more interviews about the origins of the universe: http://bit.ly/2nBzJhh”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “How do God and the beginnings of the universe intersect?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 8,190,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.69 (finite) seconds) But Nature could have only ever provided one form of a visible Universe. The only true fact every credentialed physicist has ever proven was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before Don Page or any of the 8,190,000 other humans who foolishly made finite repetitive guesses about an invisible white male god influencing the finite invisible commencement of an abstract universe. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“Teleological argument, aka the intelligent design argument, has been controversial for a very long time, dating back to Darwin. Paul Davies, theoretical physicist, gives his view on the various versions of teleological argument. Watch the full interview: http://bit.ly/2P1ZzGC”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “How many finite various versions of teleological argument have there ever been?” Was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 88,600,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.75 (finite) seconds) But Nature could have only devised one understandable version of a visible Universe. Credentialed physicists have only ever proven one true fact about the real physical structure of the Universe and it was that the real visible Universe had a real visible surface for millions of years before humans ever appeared on that single visible surface and began their unnatural finite repetitive guesswork concerning invisible contrived influences. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light. There am only one infinity. It am infinite in shape, size, hue, and duration.
This would be a good time for you to notify Dr. Kuhn of Closer To Truth and Dr. Zeeya Meralt of FQXi.org that I was right about Natural Visible Reality
Joe Fisher, Successful Realist
post approved
“Teleological argument, aka the intelligent design argument, has been controversial for a very long time, dating back to Darwin. Paul Davies, theoretical physicist, gives his view on the various versions of teleological argument. Watch the full interview: http://bit.ly/2P1ZzGC”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “How many finite various versions of teleological argument have there ever been?” Was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 88,600,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.75 (finite) seconds) But Nature could have only devised one understandable version of a visible Universe. Credentialed physicists have only ever proven one true fact about the real physical structure of the Universe and it was that the real visible Universe had a real visible surface for millions of years before humans ever appeared on that single visible surface and began their unnatural finite repetitive guesswork concerning invisible contrived influences. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light. There am only one infinity. It am infinite in shape, size, hue, and duration.
This would be a good time for you to notify Dr. Kuhn of Closer To Truth and Dr. Zeeya Meralt of FQXi.org that I was right about Natural Visible Reality
Joe Fisher, Successful Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“Teleological argument, or the intelligent design argument, argues in favor of the existence of God based on the apparent deliberate design of the universe. To argue from teleology is to state that the cosmos has meaning and purpose. Astronomer Owen Gingerich provides his perspective on the argument for God from teleology. Will it ever be possible to prove God deliberately designed the universe? Watch more interviews on the argument from teleology: http://bit.ly/2OTaiDf”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “Will it ever be possible to prove God deliberately designed the universe?” was entered tnto the finite Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 23,300,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.88 (finite) seconds) But Nature could have only provided one unquestionable visible infinite reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to ever be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Successful Realist
post approved
“Teleological argument, or the intelligent design argument, argues in favor of the existence of God based on the apparent deliberate design of the universe. To argue from teleology is to state that the cosmos has meaning and purpose. Astronomer Owen Gingerich provides his perspective on the argument for God from teleology. Will it ever be possible to prove God deliberately designed the universe? Watch more interviews on the argument from teleology: http://bit.ly/2OTaiDf”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “Will it ever be possible to prove God deliberately designed the universe?” was entered tnto the finite Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 23,300,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.88 (finite) seconds) But Nature could have only provided one unquestionable visible infinite reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to ever be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Successful Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“Teleological argument, also known as intelligent design, seeks to prove the existence of an intelligent creator using evidence from the physical world. Are the teleological argument and the argument from design different? How do the teleological argument relate to creationism and theistic evolution? Theologian William A. Dembski gives his point of view.
Watch more interviews on the argument from teleology: http://bit.ly/2OTaiDf”
I have posted this sensible remark at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “Are the teleological argument and the argument from design different?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 649,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.79 (finite) seconds) But Nature could have only provided one visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light. Although man has recently published millions of contrived supposedly finite bits of information about a finite invisible white male god who could remain invisible everywhere, or finite invisible quantum particles that could be in multiple invisible places at the same time, natural visible reality am the only true reality.
This would be a good time for you to notify Dr. Kuhn of Closer To Truth and Dr. Zeeya Meralt of FQXi.org that I was right about Natural Visible Reality
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
“Teleological argument, also known as intelligent design, seeks to prove the existence of an intelligent creator using evidence from the physical world. Are the teleological argument and the argument from design different? How do the teleological argument relate to creationism and theistic evolution? Theologian William A. Dembski gives his point of view.
Watch more interviews on the argument from teleology: http://bit.ly/2OTaiDf”
I have posted this sensible remark at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “Are the teleological argument and the argument from design different?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 649,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.79 (finite) seconds) But Nature could have only provided one visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light. Although man has recently published millions of contrived supposedly finite bits of information about a finite invisible white male god who could remain invisible everywhere, or finite invisible quantum particles that could be in multiple invisible places at the same time, natural visible reality am the only true reality.
This would be a good time for you to notify Dr. Kuhn of Closer To Truth and Dr. Zeeya Meralt of FQXi.org that I was right about Natural Visible Reality
Joe Fisher, Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
"We have something of a mental block when it comes to quantum mechanics, and we need a bit of quantum therapy to help get past it."In his new book, theoretical physicist and long-time CTT contributor Sean M. Carroll challenges scientists to pursue an understanding of quantum mechanics. Read an excerpt at CTT.com.
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “Is there such a thing as quantum therapy?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 50,400,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.60 (finite) seconds)” Which came first? One Natural infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that was always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light, or Sean Carroll’s unnatural silly repetitive guesswork concerning invisible finite quantum particles that have the capability of being in multiple invisible places simultaneously?
This would be a good time for you to notify Dr. Kuhn of Closer To Truth and Dr. Zeeya Meralt of FQXi.org that I was right about Natural Visible Reality
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
"We have something of a mental block when it comes to quantum mechanics, and we need a bit of quantum therapy to help get past it."In his new book, theoretical physicist and long-time CTT contributor Sean M. Carroll challenges scientists to pursue an understanding of quantum mechanics. Read an excerpt at CTT.com.
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “Is there such a thing as quantum therapy?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 50,400,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.60 (finite) seconds)” Which came first? One Natural infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that was always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light, or Sean Carroll’s unnatural silly repetitive guesswork concerning invisible finite quantum particles that have the capability of being in multiple invisible places simultaneously?
This would be a good time for you to notify Dr. Kuhn of Closer To Truth and Dr. Zeeya Meralt of FQXi.org that I was right about Natural Visible Reality
Joe Fisher, Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“Theoretical physicist Paul Davies calls the universe "a package of marvels" that looks like it was designed. To argue from teleology, the intelligent design argument, is to claim that the cosmos has a purpose. What are the different versions of teleology and what support do they have?Watch more interviews on the argument from teleology: http://bit.ly/2OTaiDf”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: Is the Universe "a package of marvels?" was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 973 (supposedly finite) results (0.67 (finite) seconds)” The real Universe provided by Nature consists of one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that was always mostly illuminated by one infinite type of finite non-surface light.
This would be a good time for you to notify Dr. Kuhn of Closer To Truth and Dr. Zeeya Meralt of FQXi.org that I was right about Natural Visible Reality
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
“Theoretical physicist Paul Davies calls the universe "a package of marvels" that looks like it was designed. To argue from teleology, the intelligent design argument, is to claim that the cosmos has a purpose. What are the different versions of teleology and what support do they have?Watch more interviews on the argument from teleology: http://bit.ly/2OTaiDf”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: Is the Universe "a package of marvels?" was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 973 (supposedly finite) results (0.67 (finite) seconds)” The real Universe provided by Nature consists of one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that was always mostly illuminated by one infinite type of finite non-surface light.
This would be a good time for you to notify Dr. Kuhn of Closer To Truth and Dr. Zeeya Meralt of FQXi.org that I was right about Natural Visible Reality
Joe Fisher, Realist
Joe Fischer, Sorry I don't recall any interesting essay of you. Pretending to be a realist while endlessly pointing to teleology, Wigner's intelligent design argument, marvels that makes you feel great surprise or admiration, Paul Davies, Sean Carroll, etc. seem not to interest anybody, not even as maneuvers that intend distraction from relevant taboo questions.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein
Dear Eckard,
Could you please use a more understandable English language translator app? Or make your comment in your native language.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Could you please use a more understandable English language translator app? Or make your comment in your native language.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Joe Fisher,
I don't recall having read a valuable essay you contributed to a FQXi contest.
Please prove me wrong. All essays are still available.
I see you a pretender who just claims to be a realist,
because you are effectively just pointing to work by others who altogether more or less belong to a creationist i.e. monist view.
This includes but is not restricted to teleology, Wigner's "intelligen design argument", other marvels that make you feel great surprise or admiration, Paul Davies, Sean Carroll, etc.
These links you are giving seem not to be of interest to anybody. Even Parmenidians will perhaps not appreciate your maneuvers as mere distraction from tabooed but truly foundational in the sense of relevant for humanity questions.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
I don't recall having read a valuable essay you contributed to a FQXi contest.
Please prove me wrong. All essays are still available.
I see you a pretender who just claims to be a realist,
because you are effectively just pointing to work by others who altogether more or less belong to a creationist i.e. monist view.
This includes but is not restricted to teleology, Wigner's "intelligen design argument", other marvels that make you feel great surprise or admiration, Paul Davies, Sean Carroll, etc.
These links you are giving seem not to be of interest to anybody. Even Parmenidians will perhaps not appreciate your maneuvers as mere distraction from tabooed but truly foundational in the sense of relevant for humanity questions.
Eckard Blumschein
“Philosopher and CTT contributor John Schellenberg has two new books out: "Religion after Science: The Cultural Consequences of Religious Immaturity" and "Progressive Atheism: How Moral Evolution Changes the God Debate". ---About "Religion after Science":..See More”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “What are the Cultural Consequences of Religious Immaturity?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 4,590,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.68 (finite) seconds) When the finite question: “What are the Cultural Consequences of Religious Maturity?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 10,100,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.73 (finite) seconds) The only true fact every physicist has been able to prove was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before John Schellenberg ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing his unnatural silly guesswork about the finite attributions of an invisible white male god. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
This would be a good time for you to notify Dr. Kuhn of Closer To Truth and Dr. Zeeya Meralt of FQXi.org that I was right about Natural Visible Reality
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “What are the Cultural Consequences of Religious Immaturity?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 4,590,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.68 (finite) seconds) When the finite question: “What are the Cultural Consequences of Religious Maturity?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 10,100,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.73 (finite) seconds) The only true fact every physicist has been able to prove was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before John Schellenberg ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing his unnatural silly guesswork about the finite attributions of an invisible white male god. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
This would be a good time for you to notify Dr. Kuhn of Closer To Truth and Dr. Zeeya Meralt of FQXi.org that I was right about Natural Visible Reality
Joe Fisher, Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“The argument from design was dismissed after Darwin's findings. However, the teleological argument, or intelligent design, has re-emerged in modern theological debate. How has the argument from design changed over time? Is teleological argument still useful in religious debate? Jesuit priest, physicist, and philosopher Robert Spitzer shares his thoughts. Watch more interviews on the argument from teleology: http://bit.ly/2OTaiDf”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “How has the argument from design changed over time?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 184,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.77 (finite) seconds) Please just answer this finite question: Did the planet Earth have a visible surface 25 finite million years ago? If it did, that would be the clearest indication that there could only be one INFINITE visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface ETERNALLY occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Timeless Realist
post approved
“The argument from design was dismissed after Darwin's findings. However, the teleological argument, or intelligent design, has re-emerged in modern theological debate. How has the argument from design changed over time? Is teleological argument still useful in religious debate? Jesuit priest, physicist, and philosopher Robert Spitzer shares his thoughts. Watch more interviews on the argument from teleology: http://bit.ly/2OTaiDf”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “How has the argument from design changed over time?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 184,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.77 (finite) seconds) Please just answer this finite question: Did the planet Earth have a visible surface 25 finite million years ago? If it did, that would be the clearest indication that there could only be one INFINITE visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface ETERNALLY occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Timeless Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
"I'm very impressed by the congeniality of the physical universe for the formation of intelligent life." Watch Owen Gingerich's full interview: http://bit.ly/2OXxFLN
I have posted this wise comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “How many people have been impressed by the congeniality of the physical universe for the formation of intelligent life?" was submitted into the finite Google Search Engine, it yielded: “10 supposedly finite) results (0.82 (finite) seconds) When the finite question: “How many people have not been impressed by the congeniality of the physical universe for the formation of intelligent life?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 345,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.64 (finite) seconds) Nature provided only one visible reality that would be fully understood by all creatures that ever lived. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Impressive Realist
post approved
"I'm very impressed by the congeniality of the physical universe for the formation of intelligent life." Watch Owen Gingerich's full interview: http://bit.ly/2OXxFLN
I have posted this wise comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “How many people have been impressed by the congeniality of the physical universe for the formation of intelligent life?" was submitted into the finite Google Search Engine, it yielded: “10 supposedly finite) results (0.82 (finite) seconds) When the finite question: “How many people have not been impressed by the congeniality of the physical universe for the formation of intelligent life?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 345,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.64 (finite) seconds) Nature provided only one visible reality that would be fully understood by all creatures that ever lived. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Impressive Realist
Joe are you crazy? are you conscious of your stupidity ? if not please take meds because it is totaly irritating now.
report post as inappropriate
silahkan kunjungi blog saya di http://bandarcasinoresmi.com/ serta
http://bandarcasinoresmi.com/daftar-casino-online-terbaru/
post approved
http://bandarcasinoresmi.com/daftar-casino-online-terbaru/
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“Why is the universe so beautiful? "I see the same principles -very similar principles- between music and quantum field theory." Watch Stephon Alexander's full interview: http://bit.ly/2BJBzQK”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “Why is the universe so beautiful?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 194,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.52 (finite) seconds)” When the finite question: “Why is the universe so ugly?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 40,700,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.38 (finite) seconds) But Nature provided only one VISIBLE Universe. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.A singular INFINITY does not have any differing finite attributes.
Joe Fisher, Singular Realist
post approved
“Why is the universe so beautiful? "I see the same principles -very similar principles- between music and quantum field theory." Watch Stephon Alexander's full interview: http://bit.ly/2BJBzQK”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “Why is the universe so beautiful?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 194,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.52 (finite) seconds)” When the finite question: “Why is the universe so ugly?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 40,700,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.38 (finite) seconds) But Nature provided only one VISIBLE Universe. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.A singular INFINITY does not have any differing finite attributes.
Joe Fisher, Singular Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“What is beautiful? How do we decide what is beautiful? Theoretical physicist Fotini Markopoulou talks about the beauty of physics and mathematics, and finding beauty in limitations. Watch the interview series: http://bit.ly/33Ygm1n”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “What is beautiful?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 13,900,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.66 (finite) seconds)” Somewhat strange for a planet with a population of about 7 billion folks. When the finite question: “What is ugly?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 289,000,000 “supposedly finite” results (0.47 (finite) seconds) But the earth had a visible surface for millions of years before Fotini Markopoulou ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing her unnatural silly guesswork concerning finite comely invisible phenomena. Obviously, Nature could have provided only one infinite version of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
“What is beautiful? How do we decide what is beautiful? Theoretical physicist Fotini Markopoulou talks about the beauty of physics and mathematics, and finding beauty in limitations. Watch the interview series: http://bit.ly/33Ygm1n”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “What is beautiful?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 13,900,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.66 (finite) seconds)” Somewhat strange for a planet with a population of about 7 billion folks. When the finite question: “What is ugly?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 289,000,000 “supposedly finite” results (0.47 (finite) seconds) But the earth had a visible surface for millions of years before Fotini Markopoulou ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing her unnatural silly guesswork concerning finite comely invisible phenomena. Obviously, Nature could have provided only one infinite version of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“Can understanding beauty teach us something about reality? Denis Alexander discusses beauty in biology, the personal concept of beauty, and the elegance of experimentation. Is insight inherently beautiful? Watch the interview series: http://bit.ly/33Ygm1n”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook pafe:
After the finite question: “Is (invisible) insight inherently beautiful?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 3,690,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.59 (finite) seconds) After the finite question: “ Is (invisible) insight inherently ugly?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 2,130,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.50 (finite) seconds) But if humanly devised guesswork concerning finite dollops of invisible insight seems to be multitudinous, that would mean that there could only ever be one real INFINITE visible reality. Nature could have only produced that one INFINITE visible reality for it must have existed BEFORE men with finite invisible insight ever appeared on the planet Earth. There has only ever been, and there will only continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Wise Realist
post approved
“Can understanding beauty teach us something about reality? Denis Alexander discusses beauty in biology, the personal concept of beauty, and the elegance of experimentation. Is insight inherently beautiful? Watch the interview series: http://bit.ly/33Ygm1n”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook pafe:
After the finite question: “Is (invisible) insight inherently beautiful?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 3,690,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.59 (finite) seconds) After the finite question: “ Is (invisible) insight inherently ugly?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 2,130,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.50 (finite) seconds) But if humanly devised guesswork concerning finite dollops of invisible insight seems to be multitudinous, that would mean that there could only ever be one real INFINITE visible reality. Nature could have only produced that one INFINITE visible reality for it must have existed BEFORE men with finite invisible insight ever appeared on the planet Earth. There has only ever been, and there will only continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Wise Realist
Really Joe you are totally crazy you know ,take your meds please,you tell nothing of relevant and you repeat like you had found an important thing,it is not the case and it is irritating now,I ask me if you are conscious of your ignorance and your stupidity ,if not,really go see your doctor medecine because it is serious,you don t develop nothing and your Words are pure nonsense.
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“Why do we perceive nature as beautiful? What do we mean by beauty in the first place? How will the concept of beauty change in the future? Stephen Wolfram, CEO of Wolfram Research, shares his thoughts on the beauty of form, function, and nature.
Watch the interview series: http://bit.ly/33Ygm1n”
I instantly posted this truly sagacious comment at the website just moments after I had read it: When the finite question: “Why do (abstract) we perceive nature as beautiful?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 28,700,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.61 (finite) seconds) The only true fact about the physical structure of the real Universe every real physicist has been able to conclusively prove was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before Stephen Wolfram, ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing his unnatural silly guesswork concerning imaginary folk’s fanciful perceptions. Obviously, Nature could have only provided one sort of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
I also posted my comment on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page.
Joe Fisher, Perceived Realist
post approved
“Why do we perceive nature as beautiful? What do we mean by beauty in the first place? How will the concept of beauty change in the future? Stephen Wolfram, CEO of Wolfram Research, shares his thoughts on the beauty of form, function, and nature.
Watch the interview series: http://bit.ly/33Ygm1n”
I instantly posted this truly sagacious comment at the website just moments after I had read it: When the finite question: “Why do (abstract) we perceive nature as beautiful?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 28,700,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.61 (finite) seconds) The only true fact about the physical structure of the real Universe every real physicist has been able to conclusively prove was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before Stephen Wolfram, ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing his unnatural silly guesswork concerning imaginary folk’s fanciful perceptions. Obviously, Nature could have only provided one sort of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
I also posted my comment on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page.
Joe Fisher, Perceived Realist
:( stop now please ,it is irritating.You don t respect the people or what ? you have a problem really you know Joe,you are what? a creationist? your Words are relevant for nobody ,nor on Facebook,nor here,nor everywhere,nor for the Dr Khun,nor for dr,nor for the Phd or others,so stop ,are you crazy or what???
report post as inappropriate
Dear Steve,
You do not have to read my comments. There are dozens of topics at this website.
Joe Fisher
report post as inappropriate
You do not have to read my comments. There are dozens of topics at this website.
Joe Fisher
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
"We like people to be symmetrical but not too symmetrical. If somebody is exactly symmetrical, then somehow it isn't so beautiful anymore." Watch Freeman Dyson's full interview on the beauty and the universe: http://bit.ly/2Wflv2C”
I immediately posted this sagacious comment at the website moments after I had read it: When the finite question: “Do (abstract) we like (abstract) people to be symmetrical but not too symmetrical?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 1,720,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.73 (finite) seconds) But Nature provided only one visible reality that all real living creatures could deal with for all their lives. The only true fact every credentialed physicist has ever proven about the real structure of the Universe was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before Freeman Dyson ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing his unnatural silly guesswork concerning the frivolous finite expectations of imaginary folk. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light. I also posted my comment on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page.
Joe Fisher, Likeable Realist
post approved
"We like people to be symmetrical but not too symmetrical. If somebody is exactly symmetrical, then somehow it isn't so beautiful anymore." Watch Freeman Dyson's full interview on the beauty and the universe: http://bit.ly/2Wflv2C”
I immediately posted this sagacious comment at the website moments after I had read it: When the finite question: “Do (abstract) we like (abstract) people to be symmetrical but not too symmetrical?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 1,720,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.73 (finite) seconds) But Nature provided only one visible reality that all real living creatures could deal with for all their lives. The only true fact every credentialed physicist has ever proven about the real structure of the Universe was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before Freeman Dyson ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing his unnatural silly guesswork concerning the frivolous finite expectations of imaginary folk. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light. I also posted my comment on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page.
Joe Fisher, Likeable Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of supposedly finite information:
“The big question: why is there anything at all in the first place? Why not nothing? There's no easy or obvious answer, it seems. Luke Barnes, theoretical astrophysicist and cosmologist, discusses the potential reasons for why anything exists and where he sees God in the debate. Why do you think anything --us, our world, our cosmos-- exists?
Watch the interview series: http://bit.ly/36ixu4d”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “Why do you (invisibly) think anything – (abstract) us, our (abstract) world, our (abstract) cosmos-- exists?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 190,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.77 (finite) seconds) I do not invisibly think. I know for sure that the real planet Earth and all real matter has had a real visible surface for millions of real years before Luke Barnes ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing his unnatural silly supposedly finite parroted guesswork concerning his invisible human thought processes. Obviously, Nature could have only devised one universal form of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Singular Realist
report post as inappropriate
“The big question: why is there anything at all in the first place? Why not nothing? There's no easy or obvious answer, it seems. Luke Barnes, theoretical astrophysicist and cosmologist, discusses the potential reasons for why anything exists and where he sees God in the debate. Why do you think anything --us, our world, our cosmos-- exists?
Watch the interview series: http://bit.ly/36ixu4d”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “Why do you (invisibly) think anything – (abstract) us, our (abstract) world, our (abstract) cosmos-- exists?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 190,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.77 (finite) seconds) I do not invisibly think. I know for sure that the real planet Earth and all real matter has had a real visible surface for millions of real years before Luke Barnes ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing his unnatural silly supposedly finite parroted guesswork concerning his invisible human thought processes. Obviously, Nature could have only devised one universal form of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Singular Realist
Read well this Joe about God,A little bit of philosophy about our main cause of our reality ,it is so complex to encircle this main structure of God if I can say,I beleive strongly that we have two aethers,one luminiferous and one gravitational with the gravitational one like primordial essence,coded from this infinite eternal consciousness,in my model I consider like you know an universal sphere in optimisation and a central cosmological sphere sending these finite coded series of spheres permitting to create our spacetime and its topologies,geometries,matters and properties,so the photons are series coded too like a fuel permitting this electromagnetism,the life Death ,our heat and thermodynamics,like a fuel in fact.But they don t seem to be the main essence of our universe.I am happy that a team of scientists have proved that universe was a closed sphere.All this is very philosophical about the main cause of our reality inside this universe.I don t consider these strings,waves fields implying our particles but the opposite ,spherical particles implying the Waves,the relevance is that this can converge respecting tthe wave particle duality because I consider this gravitational aether with series finite of spheres where space disappears,because we have series the same than the cosmological number of spheres and we take a central sphere after we decrease the volumes aand increase the number with primes for example and so the space disappears and so we have a superfluid coded for this gravitational aether.These series from God are coded between the zero absolute and the planck temperature and God beyond is without space,time,matters,it is only pure infinite conscious energy,so this infinity needs to transform all this to imply our reality,that is why the cosmological spheres are like transformators,the luminiferous aether can be better understood with this gravitational one at my humble opinion.God has not only created photons and waves simply.
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of supposedly finite information:
"Our universe appearing out of nothing does not violate any kind of conservation of energy, or something like this." Astrophysicist Mario Livio shares his thoughts on the complicated topic of why anything exists at all.” Watch the interview series: http://bit.ly/36ixu4d
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXI.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “Does (abstract) our (abstract) universe appearing out of (abstract) nothing violate any kind of (abstract) conservation of (abstract invisible) energy?" was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 3,100,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.89 (finite) seconds) Only real visible surface could ever appear. The only truth every physicist who has ever lived has been able to prove was that the real planet Earth and all real matter has had a real visible surface for millions of years before Mario Livio ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing his unnatural silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning invisible energy. Obviously, Nature could have only provided one sort of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
"Our universe appearing out of nothing does not violate any kind of conservation of energy, or something like this." Astrophysicist Mario Livio shares his thoughts on the complicated topic of why anything exists at all.” Watch the interview series: http://bit.ly/36ixu4d
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXI.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “Does (abstract) our (abstract) universe appearing out of (abstract) nothing violate any kind of (abstract) conservation of (abstract invisible) energy?" was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 3,100,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.89 (finite) seconds) Only real visible surface could ever appear. The only truth every physicist who has ever lived has been able to prove was that the real planet Earth and all real matter has had a real visible surface for millions of years before Mario Livio ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing his unnatural silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning invisible energy. Obviously, Nature could have only provided one sort of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
No Joe you are false,There has not only this, and there will not continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am not always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
It is total nonsense because you Think that we have only photons and thatr god is linked with you with your am,it is total nonsense,today closer to truth,Joe is still false.
report post as inappropriate
It is total nonsense because you Think that we have only photons and thatr god is linked with you with your am,it is total nonsense,today closer to truth,Joe is still false.
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of supposedly finite information:
“Why is there something instead of nothing? Why does anything exist at all? Tim Maudlin, philosopher of science, clarifies his position on this key metaphysical question and explains the difficulties with finding an answer. Do you think trying to understand why anything exists is a worthwhile pursuit?” Watch the interview series: http://bit.ly/36ixu4d
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “Do you (invisibly) think trying to understand why anything exists is a worthwhile pursuit?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 188,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.82 (finite) seconds) I have never invisibly thought in my lifetime. I have always known for certain that the only true fact every credentialed physicist has ever proven about the real structure of the real Universe was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before Tim Maudlin ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing his unnatural silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning his invisible thoughts about nothing. Obviously, Nature could have only provided one sort of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
“Why is there something instead of nothing? Why does anything exist at all? Tim Maudlin, philosopher of science, clarifies his position on this key metaphysical question and explains the difficulties with finding an answer. Do you think trying to understand why anything exists is a worthwhile pursuit?” Watch the interview series: http://bit.ly/36ixu4d
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “Do you (invisibly) think trying to understand why anything exists is a worthwhile pursuit?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 188,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.82 (finite) seconds) I have never invisibly thought in my lifetime. I have always known for certain that the only true fact every credentialed physicist has ever proven about the real structure of the real Universe was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before Tim Maudlin ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing his unnatural silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning his invisible thoughts about nothing. Obviously, Nature could have only provided one sort of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of supposedly finite information:
"That thing you just pointed to to explain the existence of everything, why does it exist?"
Watch Tim Maudlin's full interview on why there is anything at all: http://bit.ly/2JE96Qz
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “why there is anything at all?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 3,760,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.50 (finite) seconds)” But Nature could have only ever provided one sort of visible reality. Natural visible realty must be INFINITE, because only one INFINITY has ever existed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
"That thing you just pointed to to explain the existence of everything, why does it exist?"
Watch Tim Maudlin's full interview on why there is anything at all: http://bit.ly/2JE96Qz
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “why there is anything at all?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 3,760,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.50 (finite) seconds)” But Nature could have only ever provided one sort of visible reality. Natural visible realty must be INFINITE, because only one INFINITY has ever existed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of supposedly finite information:
“When the finite question: “How do you know God?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 949,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.54 (finite) seconds)” When the finite question: “How does God know you?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 10,400 (supposedly finite) results (0.48 finite) seconds)”
I know for a stone cold certainty that there has never been an invisible god. Every physicist who has ever lived has only been able to prove one true fact about the physical state of the Universe and it was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before Nancey Murphy recently appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing her unnatural silly guesswork concerning an invisible deity. Obviously, Nature could have only provided one version of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Reverberating Realist
post approved
“When the finite question: “How do you know God?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 949,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.54 (finite) seconds)” When the finite question: “How does God know you?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 10,400 (supposedly finite) results (0.48 finite) seconds)”
I know for a stone cold certainty that there has never been an invisible god. Every physicist who has ever lived has only been able to prove one true fact about the physical state of the Universe and it was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before Nancey Murphy recently appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing her unnatural silly guesswork concerning an invisible deity. Obviously, Nature could have only provided one version of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Reverberating Realist
Re."To explain why time only flows in one direction, physicists often invoke the one law without a rewind button: the second law of thermodynamics."(from the article.) The problem within classical mechanics of time reversibility is use of Newtonian time;"stretching from eternity to eternity" Sir Issac Newton. Not only does it permit time reversibility but temporal paradoxes. The problem within Relativity of time reversibility and temporal paradoxes is using space-time, the space of seen things as if it is enduring space-time of existing beable things. Instead existence, independent of observation, should be considered uni-temporal, the same and only time everywhere. Parts of existence are not at different times. There is no time reversibility as to go in reverse the entire change of configuration of existence would have to be stopped and put in reverse.
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of supposedly finite information:
“How do you know what you know about divine beings? How do you know God exists? How do you know God doesn't exist? Nancey Murphy, philosopher and theologian at Fuller Theological Seminary, provides a Christian and academic perspective on theological epistemology.” Watch the full series: http://bit.ly/2CsGbv4
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: How do you know (an invisible) God exists?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 120,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.55 (finite) seconds)” When the finite question: “How do you know (an invisible) God doesn't exist?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 138,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.80 (finite) seconds)” But Nature could have provided only one INFINITE visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Fearless Realist
post approved
“How do you know what you know about divine beings? How do you know God exists? How do you know God doesn't exist? Nancey Murphy, philosopher and theologian at Fuller Theological Seminary, provides a Christian and academic perspective on theological epistemology.” Watch the full series: http://bit.ly/2CsGbv4
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: How do you know (an invisible) God exists?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 120,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.55 (finite) seconds)” When the finite question: “How do you know (an invisible) God doesn't exist?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 138,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.80 (finite) seconds)” But Nature could have provided only one INFINITE visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Fearless Realist
BY "seen things" I mean observation products ( with the appearance of material things) generated by the observer. Which could be an organism or a device or technological system or sensitive material.
Existence being uni-temporal, the pattern remains simultaneous whether the entropy of its constituent parts is increasing or decreasing. It is only the spatial arrangement of the configuration of existence that is altering. Erosion and deposition of silt can be happening simultaneously in different parts of the same river The engine cylinder of one car on a road can be compressing while another cylinder in another car is simultaneously being driven to expand because of the explosive combustion of the petrol within. Only what is, is materially real. Former material configurations different to the pattern at uni-temporal now have been superseded, so don't exist.
report post as inappropriate
Existence being uni-temporal, the pattern remains simultaneous whether the entropy of its constituent parts is increasing or decreasing. It is only the spatial arrangement of the configuration of existence that is altering. Erosion and deposition of silt can be happening simultaneously in different parts of the same river The engine cylinder of one car on a road can be compressing while another cylinder in another car is simultaneously being driven to expand because of the explosive combustion of the petrol within. Only what is, is materially real. Former material configurations different to the pattern at uni-temporal now have been superseded, so don't exist.
Uni-temporal configuration of the entirety of existence, continually changing provides 'uni-directional' sequential foundational time. Each different configuration of the entirety of existence is a different time. There being no material past prevents Grandfather type paradox. EMr emitted or reflected from material objects, received by an observer, provides information used to form new and unique observation products. Signal transmission delay due to the non infinite speed of light allows the phenomenon of non simultaneity of observed events as seen by different observers at different locations and uni-temporal Nows. Cause and effect is happening to material reality across the sequence of uni-temporal Nows (the configurations of the entirety of material reality). However, the seen order of events depends upon the order of EMr signal receipt.
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of supposedly finite information:
“Does God exist? What are they like? How do we know? Is belief in God justified? Meghan Sullivan, Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame, talks about the history of "God" in language, and how we talk about God.” Watch the full series: http://bit.ly/2CsGbv4
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “Is belief in (an invisible) God justified?” had been entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 114,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.55 (finite) seconds)” But Nature only provided a visible reality. The only true fact every credentialed physicist was ever able to prove was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before those 114 million folks ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted guesswork concerning an invisible deity. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Ex-Top Fan Realist
report post as inappropriate
“Does God exist? What are they like? How do we know? Is belief in God justified? Meghan Sullivan, Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame, talks about the history of "God" in language, and how we talk about God.” Watch the full series: http://bit.ly/2CsGbv4
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “Is belief in (an invisible) God justified?” had been entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 114,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.55 (finite) seconds)” But Nature only provided a visible reality. The only true fact every credentialed physicist was ever able to prove was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before those 114 million folks ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted guesswork concerning an invisible deity. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Ex-Top Fan Realist
Hi Joe,
Is a belief in God justified? The very best that science can say is that (1) our universe is too fine tuned to be an accident, 1 part in 10^10^128 is identically zero. A universe that is fine tuned for stable chemistry is impossible by accident. Second, science cannot explain how a prokaryote can form, how life can start "by accident"; that is impossible as well. Third, science cannot explain consciousness, cannot duplicate it, and has a very terrible understanding of human nature when compared to how the Bible describes human nature.
Jason
report post as inappropriate
Is a belief in God justified? The very best that science can say is that (1) our universe is too fine tuned to be an accident, 1 part in 10^10^128 is identically zero. A universe that is fine tuned for stable chemistry is impossible by accident. Second, science cannot explain how a prokaryote can form, how life can start "by accident"; that is impossible as well. Third, science cannot explain consciousness, cannot duplicate it, and has a very terrible understanding of human nature when compared to how the Bible describes human nature.
Jason
Does anybody here think that the big bang is scientific proof that an anti-entropy force exists?
report post as inappropriate
The physics community has enough evidence to announce that the universe and life, are intelligently designed. Does anyone disagree?
report post as inappropriate
Steven Wolfram has shown, with his cellular automata, that highly complex patterns can sometimes develop from simple reiterative processes.
report post as inappropriate
I don't think Steven Wolfram knows the difference between a pattern, and a process.
Look at ice crystals. All you have to do is remove heat from water or molten rock, and the atoms/molecules slow down into a lattice arrangement. That's easy.
But creating life is a process. It's more like a self assembly factory. Step 1: you need materials. You need about 120 elements called the periodic table. If your outcome if a periodic table of elements, then you need to get protons to fuse together (fusion). So you need a strong force to overcome the repulsion between two protons. It has to be stronger than the coulomb force, or the protons won't fuse into a nucleus. How are you going to make nuclei? You're going to use a nuclear furnace. If the strong force is too strong, then all the energy that is released during fusion will be given off during the big bang. You need these nuclear furnaces (called stars) to burn for billions of years. This is engineering!
Do atheists think that factories are accidents?
report post as inappropriate
Look at ice crystals. All you have to do is remove heat from water or molten rock, and the atoms/molecules slow down into a lattice arrangement. That's easy.
But creating life is a process. It's more like a self assembly factory. Step 1: you need materials. You need about 120 elements called the periodic table. If your outcome if a periodic table of elements, then you need to get protons to fuse together (fusion). So you need a strong force to overcome the repulsion between two protons. It has to be stronger than the coulomb force, or the protons won't fuse into a nucleus. How are you going to make nuclei? You're going to use a nuclear furnace. If the strong force is too strong, then all the energy that is released during fusion will be given off during the big bang. You need these nuclear furnaces (called stars) to burn for billions of years. This is engineering!
Do atheists think that factories are accidents?
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of supposedly finite information:
“If we apply epistemology to God, what can we say about how we can know God, if God exists? We can believe in God, but is such belief justified? How to apply the principles of epistemology to knowledge of God and belief in God? What would make belief in God justified, true belief? Bas C. van Fraassen, Professor of Philosophy at San Francisco State University and Princeton University, discusses how we can know God.
Watch the full series: http://bit.ly/2CsGbv4”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “If we apply epistemology to (an invisible) God, what can we say about how we can know God, if (an invisible) God exists?” was submitted into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 12,900,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.92 (finite) seconds)” But every credentialed physicist who has ever lived has only ever been able to prove that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years BEFORE those 13.9 million folks appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural preposterous parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning an invisible deity. All written language consists of finite millions of combinations of alphabetical and numerical symbols. But the real Universe must only consist of only one VISIBLE physical structure. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Once Known for being a Diamond Top Fan Realist
report post as inappropriate
“If we apply epistemology to God, what can we say about how we can know God, if God exists? We can believe in God, but is such belief justified? How to apply the principles of epistemology to knowledge of God and belief in God? What would make belief in God justified, true belief? Bas C. van Fraassen, Professor of Philosophy at San Francisco State University and Princeton University, discusses how we can know God.
Watch the full series: http://bit.ly/2CsGbv4”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “If we apply epistemology to (an invisible) God, what can we say about how we can know God, if (an invisible) God exists?” was submitted into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 12,900,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.92 (finite) seconds)” But every credentialed physicist who has ever lived has only ever been able to prove that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years BEFORE those 13.9 million folks appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural preposterous parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning an invisible deity. All written language consists of finite millions of combinations of alphabetical and numerical symbols. But the real Universe must only consist of only one VISIBLE physical structure. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Once Known for being a Diamond Top Fan Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of supposedly finite information:
"How can it be that these descriptions of [God] could have the same meaning through this really long period of time and transmission?"Watch Meghan Sullivan's full interview on Theological Epistemology: http://bit.ly/32A1KEE
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: "How can it be that these (finite) descriptions of [an invisible white male God] could have the same (finite) meaning through this really (finite) long period of time and (finite) transmission?" was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 116,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (1.58 (finite) seconds)” But every credentialed physicist has only ever been able to prove that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before any of those 116 million folks ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural utterly silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning an invisible white male god. Obviously, Nature must have been responsible for providing only one form of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface ETERNALLY occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Former Diamond Top Fan Realist
report post as inappropriate
"How can it be that these descriptions of [God] could have the same meaning through this really long period of time and transmission?"Watch Meghan Sullivan's full interview on Theological Epistemology: http://bit.ly/32A1KEE
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: "How can it be that these (finite) descriptions of [an invisible white male God] could have the same (finite) meaning through this really (finite) long period of time and (finite) transmission?" was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 116,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (1.58 (finite) seconds)” But every credentialed physicist has only ever been able to prove that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before any of those 116 million folks ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural utterly silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning an invisible white male god. Obviously, Nature must have been responsible for providing only one form of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface ETERNALLY occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Former Diamond Top Fan Realist
Joe,
I can make a very logical argument that life, biological cells, starting with a big bang, looks more like a factory, it looks like a set of processes that were carefully thought out before implemented.
You might question that God is a white man. In my opinion, I think God is a Jew! LOL
report post as inappropriate
I can make a very logical argument that life, biological cells, starting with a big bang, looks more like a factory, it looks like a set of processes that were carefully thought out before implemented.
You might question that God is a white man. In my opinion, I think God is a Jew! LOL
Jason,
You can only unnaturally make an infinite number of finite written arguments about any finite subject, visible or invisible, factual or fictional, you wish. But the only truth that has ever been proven was that there has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE unified VISIBLE INFINITE surface ETERNALLY occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
You can only unnaturally make an infinite number of finite written arguments about any finite subject, visible or invisible, factual or fictional, you wish. But the only truth that has ever been proven was that there has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE unified VISIBLE INFINITE surface ETERNALLY occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Joe,
What you are saying sounds like mathematics. But mathematics doesn't make things exist.
What I'm saying is that biological existence looks like an end process of a factory. The big bang looks like the beginning process of a factory. Factories don't happen by accidental.
Jason,
Factory worker
report post as inappropriate
What you are saying sounds like mathematics. But mathematics doesn't make things exist.
What I'm saying is that biological existence looks like an end process of a factory. The big bang looks like the beginning process of a factory. Factories don't happen by accidental.
Jason,
Factory worker
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of supposedly finite information:
“We tend to think of the Abrahamic God as all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good. If God exists, what restraints do these characteristics put on divine freedom, if any? If God is all-powerful, can they have any limitations at all? Philosophy of the Christian Religion professor Brian Leftow talks about the limits of God.
Watch the series: http://bit.ly/2CLyqQO”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “We tend to think of the Abrahamic God as all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good. If God exists, what restraints do these characteristics put on divine freedom, if any?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 46,200 (supposedly finite) results (1.01 (finite) seconds)” All written questions are always finite and this always causes an INFINITE number of written finite answers. But Nature could have only ever provided one INFINITE visible reality. The only true fact every credentialed physicist has ever conclusively proven was that the real planet Earth and all real matter has had a real visible surface for millions of years before Brian Leftow and the other 46,199 predominantly white male folks appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted finite guesswork about an invisible white male god. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface ETERNALLY occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
“We tend to think of the Abrahamic God as all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good. If God exists, what restraints do these characteristics put on divine freedom, if any? If God is all-powerful, can they have any limitations at all? Philosophy of the Christian Religion professor Brian Leftow talks about the limits of God.
Watch the series: http://bit.ly/2CLyqQO”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “We tend to think of the Abrahamic God as all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good. If God exists, what restraints do these characteristics put on divine freedom, if any?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 46,200 (supposedly finite) results (1.01 (finite) seconds)” All written questions are always finite and this always causes an INFINITE number of written finite answers. But Nature could have only ever provided one INFINITE visible reality. The only true fact every credentialed physicist has ever conclusively proven was that the real planet Earth and all real matter has had a real visible surface for millions of years before Brian Leftow and the other 46,199 predominantly white male folks appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted finite guesswork about an invisible white male god. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface ETERNALLY occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of supposedly finite information:
“Are the characteristics of God, all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful, in conflict with each other? If God is all-powerful, can God sin and make mistakes? Katherin Rogers, philosopher, explains the Anselmian view of the limitations on God's freedom.
Watch the series: http://bit.ly/2CLyqQO”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “Are the characteristics of God, all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful, in conflict with each other?” had been entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 47,700,000 (supposedly finite) results (1.24 (finite) seconds) But Nature could have only provided one infinite visible reality. Every credentialed physicist who has ever lived has only been able to prove one physical fact about the real visible Universe, and that was the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before Katherin Rogers and the other 47 million and 699,001 mostly white male folks appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning an invisible white male god. All written information needs to be finite in length, in depth, and in duration. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface ETERNALLY occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fusher, Everlasting Realist
report post as inappropriate
“Are the characteristics of God, all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful, in conflict with each other? If God is all-powerful, can God sin and make mistakes? Katherin Rogers, philosopher, explains the Anselmian view of the limitations on God's freedom.
Watch the series: http://bit.ly/2CLyqQO”
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “Are the characteristics of God, all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful, in conflict with each other?” had been entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 47,700,000 (supposedly finite) results (1.24 (finite) seconds) But Nature could have only provided one infinite visible reality. Every credentialed physicist who has ever lived has only been able to prove one physical fact about the real visible Universe, and that was the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before Katherin Rogers and the other 47 million and 699,001 mostly white male folks appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning an invisible white male god. All written information needs to be finite in length, in depth, and in duration. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface ETERNALLY occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fusher, Everlasting Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of supposedly finite information:
“To assess the limits of God's freedom is to probe the essence of what it means for a Supreme Being to exist. Assuming God created the cosmos, it would seem that nothing can limit God's freedom. But some things, like making 3+4=8 are logically impossible, and other things, like torturing babies, contradict God's goodness. Must God's freedom be diminished? Hugh McCann, a professor of philosophy at Texas A&M University, explores the issue. Watch more interviews like this: http://bit.ly/2NPCru1
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community page and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “what (does) it mean for a(n invisible) Supreme Being to exist?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 13,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (1.00 (finite) seconds) But ONE real Universe could have only ONE real visible appearance. The only true fact every real credentialed visible physicist has ever proven was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of real years before the visible Hugh McCann and the other 12 million and 999,999 visible mostly white males appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted finite guesswork concerning an invisible white male god. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
“To assess the limits of God's freedom is to probe the essence of what it means for a Supreme Being to exist. Assuming God created the cosmos, it would seem that nothing can limit God's freedom. But some things, like making 3+4=8 are logically impossible, and other things, like torturing babies, contradict God's goodness. Must God's freedom be diminished? Hugh McCann, a professor of philosophy at Texas A&M University, explores the issue. Watch more interviews like this: http://bit.ly/2NPCru1
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community page and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “what (does) it mean for a(n invisible) Supreme Being to exist?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 13,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (1.00 (finite) seconds) But ONE real Universe could have only ONE real visible appearance. The only true fact every real credentialed visible physicist has ever proven was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of real years before the visible Hugh McCann and the other 12 million and 999,999 visible mostly white males appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted finite guesswork concerning an invisible white male god. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
There are two facts that have been established. First, the universe is Intelligently Designed by virtue of the physics constants being impossible to achieve by accident; odds of 1 in 10^10^148 are truly impossible. Second, God loves us. There are so many near death experiences where God, beings of light (angels?) have shown love to us; even when we've been bad. Modernists might question the whole "spare the rod, spoil the child" teaching, but an argument can be made that God follows that teaching whether we like it or not. The unavoidable truth and fact is that God loves us, even if God inspires fear in us. God is not required to live by our modern values.
The best that we human beings can ever hope to do is to use our free will to take care of one another, and make our outpost, out physical civilization as comfortable and safe for ourselves and our children, as best we can.
report post as inappropriate
The best that we human beings can ever hope to do is to use our free will to take care of one another, and make our outpost, out physical civilization as comfortable and safe for ourselves and our children, as best we can.
Dear Jason,
INFINITE Natural visible reality has to be ETERNAL. Although white male physicists and philosophers like to relentlessly publish supposedly finite information about invisible influences, they only prove how unnaturally ignorant they are.
Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist
report post as inappropriate
INFINITE Natural visible reality has to be ETERNAL. Although white male physicists and philosophers like to relentlessly publish supposedly finite information about invisible influences, they only prove how unnaturally ignorant they are.
Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist
I don't like to buy into the dogma of liberalism, white privilege and all that animosity towards men that is taught in our universities. I like to look at facts and data. The near death experience experiences are a collection of data that can help us understand how we are expected to live our lives.
I don't feel like it's my place to tell you how it says to live "your" life. I will only comment from my personal opinion, that those who are liberals have misunderstood the role of Christianity and religion. Religion is not about telling you or me or anyone that they should go out and kill other people or enslave them. Religion is about creating a community where you and I and other people can feel like they share a common heritage, a common set of values.
It really does look to me, and I might even make the argument as such, that we are souls who have (re)incarnated into this physical world that is built upon invisible quanta made of time-energy (action); that act like mathematics. But when we leave our body (possibly in death) our soul is freed to with God, in LOVE. The evidence of NDE's tells us, very consistently, that death is not what atheists and liberals think it is.
Jason
report post as inappropriate
I don't feel like it's my place to tell you how it says to live "your" life. I will only comment from my personal opinion, that those who are liberals have misunderstood the role of Christianity and religion. Religion is not about telling you or me or anyone that they should go out and kill other people or enslave them. Religion is about creating a community where you and I and other people can feel like they share a common heritage, a common set of values.
It really does look to me, and I might even make the argument as such, that we are souls who have (re)incarnated into this physical world that is built upon invisible quanta made of time-energy (action); that act like mathematics. But when we leave our body (possibly in death) our soul is freed to with God, in LOVE. The evidence of NDE's tells us, very consistently, that death is not what atheists and liberals think it is.
Jason
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of supposedly finite information:
“Extra dimensions—beyond length, width, height—seem like the stuff of science fiction. What would extra dimensions be like? Is time the fourth dimension? Does string theory require ten or eleven dimensions? Could deep reality be so strange? And, anyway, why would we care? Princeton theoretical physicist Nima Arkani-Hamed discusses the possibility of extra dimensions.” Watch the full interview series: http://bit.ly/2rnCjJn
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on he FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “What would extra dimensions be like?” had been inserted into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 248,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.65 ( finite) seconds)” But Nature could have only provided ONE visible reality. The ONE fact that every visible physicist who has ever lived was able to prove was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had ONE real visible surface for millions of years before visible Nima Arkani-Hamed and the those other visible 247 million 999,999 folks ever appeared on that ONE real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted guesswork concerning finite invisible dimensions. Nature provided only ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
“Extra dimensions—beyond length, width, height—seem like the stuff of science fiction. What would extra dimensions be like? Is time the fourth dimension? Does string theory require ten or eleven dimensions? Could deep reality be so strange? And, anyway, why would we care? Princeton theoretical physicist Nima Arkani-Hamed discusses the possibility of extra dimensions.” Watch the full interview series: http://bit.ly/2rnCjJn
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on he FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “What would extra dimensions be like?” had been inserted into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 248,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.65 ( finite) seconds)” But Nature could have only provided ONE visible reality. The ONE fact that every visible physicist who has ever lived was able to prove was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had ONE real visible surface for millions of years before visible Nima Arkani-Hamed and the those other visible 247 million 999,999 folks ever appeared on that ONE real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted guesswork concerning finite invisible dimensions. Nature provided only ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of supposedly finite information:
“How many dimensions are there? How can we begin to understand the concept of extra dimensions? Lisa Randall, theoretical physicist and a leading expert on particle physics and cosmology, talks about the ideas and physics of extra dimensions.
Watch the interview series:” http://bit.ly/2rnCjJn
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “How can we begin to understand the concept of extra dimensions?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 140,000,000 (supposedly finite) results 0.73 (finite) seconds. However, one has to realize that the only true fact every visible physicist who has ever lived has been able to prove was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before the visible Lisa Randall and those other 139 million and 999,999 visible folks ever appeared on that visible surface and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted, supposedly finite, guesswork concerning invisible dimensions. Obviously, Nature must have provided only ONE visible physical reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
“How many dimensions are there? How can we begin to understand the concept of extra dimensions? Lisa Randall, theoretical physicist and a leading expert on particle physics and cosmology, talks about the ideas and physics of extra dimensions.
Watch the interview series:” http://bit.ly/2rnCjJn
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “How can we begin to understand the concept of extra dimensions?” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 140,000,000 (supposedly finite) results 0.73 (finite) seconds. However, one has to realize that the only true fact every visible physicist who has ever lived has been able to prove was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before the visible Lisa Randall and those other 139 million and 999,999 visible folks ever appeared on that visible surface and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted, supposedly finite, guesswork concerning invisible dimensions. Obviously, Nature must have provided only ONE visible physical reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Theorists are obsessed with superstrings and blackholes. But reality offers quantum entanglement with no explanation of gravity. It's as if nature is telling us: Hey, why worry about strings when you have me to experiment on?
Physicists are skeptical of gravity manipulation. But consider a system of two quantum entangled photons. Newtonian gravity says that the force between two masses separated by distance r is given by F = GMm/r^2. How many steps would you have to glean to go from Newtonian gravity to gravity manipulation? I count 3 leaps of intuition.
1. The effective mass of a photon is m = hf/c^2. So two entangled photons do have mass, therefore, there is a tiny acceleration field between them.
2. Space does what mass tells it to according to the Einstein equations. However, that doesn't mean we can't manipulate the entanglement between two photons to get back something that looks like a gravity field.
3. We control the entangled photons p1 and p2. Photons can travel along a fiber optic cable. In theory, we could align the optical fiber along the radii of a spinning disk. Then, we could centrifuge the p1 photon along the blueshift direction and centrifuge the p2 photon along the redshift direction. It would be similar to storing gravitational potential energy between the two entangled photons.
Physicists are prepared to wait a thousand years for someone to prove this mathematically. But the experiment, while challenging and sophisticated, would be easier to perform.
report post as inappropriate
Physicists are skeptical of gravity manipulation. But consider a system of two quantum entangled photons. Newtonian gravity says that the force between two masses separated by distance r is given by F = GMm/r^2. How many steps would you have to glean to go from Newtonian gravity to gravity manipulation? I count 3 leaps of intuition.
1. The effective mass of a photon is m = hf/c^2. So two entangled photons do have mass, therefore, there is a tiny acceleration field between them.
2. Space does what mass tells it to according to the Einstein equations. However, that doesn't mean we can't manipulate the entanglement between two photons to get back something that looks like a gravity field.
3. We control the entangled photons p1 and p2. Photons can travel along a fiber optic cable. In theory, we could align the optical fiber along the radii of a spinning disk. Then, we could centrifuge the p1 photon along the blueshift direction and centrifuge the p2 photon along the redshift direction. It would be similar to storing gravitational potential energy between the two entangled photons.
Physicists are prepared to wait a thousand years for someone to prove this mathematically. But the experiment, while challenging and sophisticated, would be easier to perform.
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of supposedly finite information:
“Extra dimensions sound like the stuff of science fiction. What evidence is there for extra dimensions? What is Twister Theory and how does it relate to extra dimensions? Sir Roger Penrose, mathematical physicist and philosopher, shares his thoughts on extra dimensions.” Watch the full interview series: http://bit.ly/2rnCjJn
I have posted this srnsible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “What evidence is there for extra dimensions?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 135,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.60 (finite) seconds)” But the only real physical evidence of reality that every credentialed visible physicist has ever found was that the real planet Earth and all real solid, liquid, and vaporous matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before the visible Roger Penrose and all of those visible 134 million and 999,999 folks ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning invisible dimensions. It am physically impossible to prove that any invisible dimension could exist. Obviously, only Nature could have provided that ONE visible reality that existed before the advent of mankind, and that will exist long after mankind has ceased to exist. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
“Extra dimensions sound like the stuff of science fiction. What evidence is there for extra dimensions? What is Twister Theory and how does it relate to extra dimensions? Sir Roger Penrose, mathematical physicist and philosopher, shares his thoughts on extra dimensions.” Watch the full interview series: http://bit.ly/2rnCjJn
I have posted this srnsible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “What evidence is there for extra dimensions?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 135,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.60 (finite) seconds)” But the only real physical evidence of reality that every credentialed visible physicist has ever found was that the real planet Earth and all real solid, liquid, and vaporous matter had a real visible surface for millions of years before the visible Roger Penrose and all of those visible 134 million and 999,999 folks ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning invisible dimensions. It am physically impossible to prove that any invisible dimension could exist. Obviously, only Nature could have provided that ONE visible reality that existed before the advent of mankind, and that will exist long after mankind has ceased to exist. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
“What is a dimension in the first place? How do we understand extra dimensions? Do particles in extra dimensions behave differently? How many dimensions are there? Theoretical physicist Juan Martín Maldacena discusses the concept of additional dimensions.”Watch the full interview series: http://bit.ly/2rnCjJn
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “What is a dimension in the first place?” had been submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 252,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.68 (finite) seconds)” And after the finite question: “What was a dimension in the last place?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 220,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.77 (finite) seconds)” But every visible credentialed physicist has only ever been able to prove that all solid, liquid and vaporous matter had ONE real visible surface. That being the case, ONE visible surface could only appear in ONE dimension. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
“What is a dimension in the first place? How do we understand extra dimensions? Do particles in extra dimensions behave differently? How many dimensions are there? Theoretical physicist Juan Martín Maldacena discusses the concept of additional dimensions.”Watch the full interview series: http://bit.ly/2rnCjJn
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “What is a dimension in the first place?” had been submitted to the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 252,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.68 (finite) seconds)” And after the finite question: “What was a dimension in the last place?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 220,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.77 (finite) seconds)” But every visible credentialed physicist has only ever been able to prove that all solid, liquid and vaporous matter had ONE real visible surface. That being the case, ONE visible surface could only appear in ONE dimension. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
“What is the consensus on extra dimensions? What are our best supports for extra dimensions? David J. Gross, particle physicist and string theorist, shares his thoughts.”
Watch the full interview series: http://bit.ly/2rnCjJn
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my very own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “What is the consensus on extra dimensions?” was submitted into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 24,200,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.52 (finite) seconds)” And after the finite question: “What are our best supports for extra dimensions?” was entered into the same finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 221,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.69 (finite) seconds)” And when the finite question: “What are our worst supports for extra dimensions?” wae entered into the finite Google Search Engine it elicited: “About 20,900,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.79 (finite) seconds)” But as Nature provided only ONE sort of visible reality, it logically follows that that Natural visible reality could only transpire in ONE visible dimension. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
“What is the consensus on extra dimensions? What are our best supports for extra dimensions? David J. Gross, particle physicist and string theorist, shares his thoughts.”
Watch the full interview series: http://bit.ly/2rnCjJn
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my very own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “What is the consensus on extra dimensions?” was submitted into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 24,200,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.52 (finite) seconds)” And after the finite question: “What are our best supports for extra dimensions?” was entered into the same finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 221,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.69 (finite) seconds)” And when the finite question: “What are our worst supports for extra dimensions?” wae entered into the finite Google Search Engine it elicited: “About 20,900,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.79 (finite) seconds)” But as Nature provided only ONE sort of visible reality, it logically follows that that Natural visible reality could only transpire in ONE visible dimension. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
"Quantum information obeys qualitatively different rules then we're used to."
Theoretical computer scientist Scott Aaronson discusses the ways in which quantum mechanics is challenging our perception of the nature of information.
Watch more interview series on the nature of information: http://bit.ly/33M9pAe
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “What are the ways in which quantum mechanics is challenging our perception of the nature of information?” was submitted into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 13,300,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.75 (finite) seconds) But Nature provided only ONE visible reality for millions of years before Scott Aaronson and those 12 million and 300 thousand 299 folks ever appeared on the planet Earth and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning invisible quantum particles. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
"Quantum information obeys qualitatively different rules then we're used to."
Theoretical computer scientist Scott Aaronson discusses the ways in which quantum mechanics is challenging our perception of the nature of information.
Watch more interview series on the nature of information: http://bit.ly/33M9pAe
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “What are the ways in which quantum mechanics is challenging our perception of the nature of information?” was submitted into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 13,300,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.75 (finite) seconds) But Nature provided only ONE visible reality for millions of years before Scott Aaronson and those 12 million and 300 thousand 299 folks ever appeared on the planet Earth and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning invisible quantum particles. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
You're doing it all wrong. Not just you. The whole physics community is completely missing what's causing physics to work, and the nature of consciousness.
Best wishes,
Jason Wolfe
report post as inappropriate
Best wishes,
Jason Wolfe
The foundation of physics, the simplest mechanism available that could explain everything, QM, GR, standard model particles, it will really surprise you all, if you haven't already guessed it. Quantum gravity is at hand.
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
“What is more fundamental: matter or information? Theoretical physicist Paul Davies wonders whether we "can treat [information] as the primary stuff out of which the physical world is build."Watch more experts weigh in here: http://bit.ly/33M9pAe
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “What is more fundamental: matter or information?” had been entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 246,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.59 (finite) seconds)” But the only true fact every visible credentialed physicist has ever been able to prove was that all real solid, liquid and vaporous matter has always had a real visible surface. The real planet Earth had a real visible surface for millions of real years before the visible Paul Davies, and all of those other 245 million 999,999 visible folks ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning invisible white male consciousness. ONE real Universe could only have ONE physical characteristic: There has only ever been, and there will only ever be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
“What is more fundamental: matter or information? Theoretical physicist Paul Davies wonders whether we "can treat [information] as the primary stuff out of which the physical world is build."Watch more experts weigh in here: http://bit.ly/33M9pAe
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “What is more fundamental: matter or information?” had been entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 246,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.59 (finite) seconds)” But the only true fact every visible credentialed physicist has ever been able to prove was that all real solid, liquid and vaporous matter has always had a real visible surface. The real planet Earth had a real visible surface for millions of real years before the visible Paul Davies, and all of those other 245 million 999,999 visible folks ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning invisible white male consciousness. ONE real Universe could only have ONE physical characteristic: There has only ever been, and there will only ever be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
"Both the description of the physical world and the description of consciousness is mathematical structure." Neuroscientist Giulio Tononi discusses the nature of information.
Watch other experts weigh in here: http://bit.ly/33M9pAe
I have posted this sensible comment at the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “Are both the description of the physical world and the description of consciousness mathematical structure?" had been submitted into the finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 30,500,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.91 (finite) seconds)” But supposedly finite white male consciousness am invisible. Nature made sure that the ONE physical structure of the real Universe would always be VISIBLE. The only true fact every visible credentialed physicist was ever able to prove was that the real planet Earth and all solid, liquid and vapor had a real visible surface for millions of years before the visible Giulio Tononi, and every one of those visible other 30 million 499,999 folks ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural SILLY parroted guesswork concerning supposedly finite white male invisible consciousness. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be ONE unified visible INFINITE surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
post approved
"Both the description of the physical world and the description of consciousness is mathematical structure." Neuroscientist Giulio Tononi discusses the nature of information.
Watch other experts weigh in here: http://bit.ly/33M9pAe
I have posted this sensible comment at the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “Are both the description of the physical world and the description of consciousness mathematical structure?" had been submitted into the finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 30,500,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.91 (finite) seconds)” But supposedly finite white male consciousness am invisible. Nature made sure that the ONE physical structure of the real Universe would always be VISIBLE. The only true fact every visible credentialed physicist was ever able to prove was that the real planet Earth and all solid, liquid and vapor had a real visible surface for millions of years before the visible Giulio Tononi, and every one of those visible other 30 million 499,999 folks ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural SILLY parroted guesswork concerning supposedly finite white male invisible consciousness. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be ONE unified visible INFINITE surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
“Information is a common word but has technical meanings so important that our entire world depends on them. What are the kinds of information? How about the scientific definitions of information? How does information figure in the fabric of the world?”
Quantum physicist Seth Lloyd weighs in. Watch other experts explore the nature of information here: http://bit.ly/33M9pAe
I have posted this sensible comment at the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “How does information figure in the fabric of the world?” had been entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 176,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.68 (finite) seconds)” But every visible credentialed physicist who has ever lived has only been able to prove that the real world (and all real matter) had a real visible surface for millions of real years before the visible Seth Lloyd and all of those other 175 million and 999,999 visible folks ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural STUPID parroted guesswork concerning invisible global fabrics. Nature provided only ONE visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be ONE unified visible INFINITE surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
“Information is a common word but has technical meanings so important that our entire world depends on them. What are the kinds of information? How about the scientific definitions of information? How does information figure in the fabric of the world?”
Quantum physicist Seth Lloyd weighs in. Watch other experts explore the nature of information here: http://bit.ly/33M9pAe
I have posted this sensible comment at the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “How does information figure in the fabric of the world?” had been entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 176,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.68 (finite) seconds)” But every visible credentialed physicist who has ever lived has only been able to prove that the real world (and all real matter) had a real visible surface for millions of real years before the visible Seth Lloyd and all of those other 175 million and 999,999 visible folks ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural STUPID parroted guesswork concerning invisible global fabrics. Nature provided only ONE visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be ONE unified visible INFINITE surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
“Could we one day use quantum money? Theoretical computer scientist Scott Aaronson of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) discusses the possible implications of quantum information.” Watch the interview here: http://bit.ly/34T1zG5
I have posted this sensible comment at the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “What are the possible implications of quantum information?” had been fed into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 219,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.63 (finite) seconds) But Nature did not provide a multitude of possible realities. The ONE true fact the visible Aaronson could ever be able to prove with his visible quantum computer would definitely be that matter has ONE visible surface. ONE visibility could not be temporary. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
“Could we one day use quantum money? Theoretical computer scientist Scott Aaronson of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) discusses the possible implications of quantum information.” Watch the interview here: http://bit.ly/34T1zG5
I have posted this sensible comment at the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “What are the possible implications of quantum information?” had been fed into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 219,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.63 (finite) seconds) But Nature did not provide a multitude of possible realities. The ONE true fact the visible Aaronson could ever be able to prove with his visible quantum computer would definitely be that matter has ONE visible surface. ONE visibility could not be temporary. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
“Information is a common word but has technical meanings so important that our entire world depends on them. What are the kinds of information? How about the scientific definitions of information? How does information figure in the fabric of the world?
Cognitive psychologist Peter Tse weighs in.”Watch other interviews on this topic: http://bit.ly/33M9pAe
I have posted this sensible comment at the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “What are the kinds of information?” had been submitted into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 579,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.70 (finite) seconds) But Nature only produced ONE visible reality. All written information am supposedly finite in meaning and duration. Therefore, ONE visible reality MUST be INFINITE in scope and duration. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
“Information is a common word but has technical meanings so important that our entire world depends on them. What are the kinds of information? How about the scientific definitions of information? How does information figure in the fabric of the world?
Cognitive psychologist Peter Tse weighs in.”Watch other interviews on this topic: http://bit.ly/33M9pAe
I have posted this sensible comment at the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “What are the kinds of information?” had been submitted into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 579,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.70 (finite) seconds) But Nature only produced ONE visible reality. All written information am supposedly finite in meaning and duration. Therefore, ONE visible reality MUST be INFINITE in scope and duration. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
“Seth Lloyd, a professor of mechanical engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), discusses the nature of information.”
Watch the interview here: http://bit.ly/33UrtIe
I have posted this timely sensible comment at the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “What is nature of information?” had been submitted into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 4,920,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.53 (finite) seconds)” But Nature only provided ONE visible reality, therefore, the ONE visible reality that Nature provided must be INFINITE. There has only ever been ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Ignored Realist
report post as inappropriate
“Seth Lloyd, a professor of mechanical engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), discusses the nature of information.”
Watch the interview here: http://bit.ly/33UrtIe
I have posted this timely sensible comment at the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “What is nature of information?” had been submitted into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 4,920,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.53 (finite) seconds)” But Nature only provided ONE visible reality, therefore, the ONE visible reality that Nature provided must be INFINITE. There has only ever been ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Ignored Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
'Non-duality' claims that the only ultimate reality is consciousness, and that everything else is derived from consciousness. There is only one-ness. Hong Kong Polytechnic University professor Gino Yu discusses the nature of non-duality.
See the full interview series: http://bit.ly/2DTqGN6
I have taken the trouble to post this sensible comment at the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “What is the nature of non-duality?” had been entered into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 25,700,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.66 (finite) seconds)” But Nature only provided ONE visible reality. After the finite question: “What is the nature of Nature?” Had been submitted into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 5,680,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.72 (finite) seconds)” ONE Nature could only permanently provide ONE visible reality ONCE. There has only ever been ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
'Non-duality' claims that the only ultimate reality is consciousness, and that everything else is derived from consciousness. There is only one-ness. Hong Kong Polytechnic University professor Gino Yu discusses the nature of non-duality.
See the full interview series: http://bit.ly/2DTqGN6
I have taken the trouble to post this sensible comment at the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “What is the nature of non-duality?” had been entered into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 25,700,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.66 (finite) seconds)” But Nature only provided ONE visible reality. After the finite question: “What is the nature of Nature?” Had been submitted into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 5,680,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.72 (finite) seconds)” ONE Nature could only permanently provide ONE visible reality ONCE. There has only ever been ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
“What is Non-Duality?” Watch the full series: http://bit.ly/2Po7j4c
I have posted this appropriate sensible comment at the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “What is non-duality?” had been entered into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 23,600,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.73 (finite) seconds)”After the finite question: “What was duality?” had been submitted into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 24,800,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.78 (finite) seconds)” Please bear in mind that Nature only created ONE visible reality. That ONE visible reality existed for millions of years before visible Professor Yu and those other 23 million 599,999 visible folks ever appeared and started publishing their unnatural silly parroted guesswork concerning invisible physical non-dualities. There has only ever been ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Ignored Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
“What is Non-Duality?” Watch the full series: http://bit.ly/2Po7j4c
I have posted this appropriate sensible comment at the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “What is non-duality?” had been entered into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 23,600,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.73 (finite) seconds)”After the finite question: “What was duality?” had been submitted into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 24,800,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.78 (finite) seconds)” Please bear in mind that Nature only created ONE visible reality. That ONE visible reality existed for millions of years before visible Professor Yu and those other 23 million 599,999 visible folks ever appeared and started publishing their unnatural silly parroted guesswork concerning invisible physical non-dualities. There has only ever been ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Ignored Visible Realist
Hi Joe, what is mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light. Please could you develop and explain the real meaning Joe ? Illuminated means light, and you say by one infinite light that is finite and also not a surface (or border) - it all seems nonsensical...
report post as inappropriate
Dear Steve,
You keep asking finite questions. Nature provided ONE visible reality BEFORE any human beings appeared and started publishing finite questions. It logically follows that Natural Visible Reality MUST be INFINITE. Although human beings have finite-sized eyes and are capable of looking through finite-sized telescopes and microscopes, as there am only ONE Infinite visible surface, they will only ever see some visible surface. In order for the INFINITE visible surface to be seen, it must be finitely illuminated by ONE sort of finite NON-SURFACE light. Have you left Belgium yet? I holidayed in Bruges when I was about 15 years old.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
You keep asking finite questions. Nature provided ONE visible reality BEFORE any human beings appeared and started publishing finite questions. It logically follows that Natural Visible Reality MUST be INFINITE. Although human beings have finite-sized eyes and are capable of looking through finite-sized telescopes and microscopes, as there am only ONE Infinite visible surface, they will only ever see some visible surface. In order for the INFINITE visible surface to be seen, it must be finitely illuminated by ONE sort of finite NON-SURFACE light. Have you left Belgium yet? I holidayed in Bruges when I was about 15 years old.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
it's been a long time.... Anyone about causality? The universe is a logical system. This means it can only be made of one type of stuff and logically accepts only one type of cause. Then, find only one example of each ... and you have your answer for the ID of the stuff and of the cause. To this end, I give you, once more, my favorite quote from physicist Bil Unruh;
‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place... “ arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993
So, the stuff is Time and the cause is time flowing unequably from place to place.
I am working on another demo involving EM induction ... so I don't have to quote Unruh all the time .. and will be quoting myself :-)
Marcel,
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place... “ arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993
So, the stuff is Time and the cause is time flowing unequably from place to place.
I am working on another demo involving EM induction ... so I don't have to quote Unruh all the time .. and will be quoting myself :-)
Marcel,
I call them Planck action quanta because their first manifested physics constant is the Planck constant with units joule-seconds. Planck quantum expand at the speed of light, spherical-ly. I'm trying to explain the invariance of c, the nature of time, quantum states of position, momentum, spin, and the foundation of physics. Also causality.
report post as inappropriate
Jason; very interesting. documents. website ??
I have:
- stuff/substance: dynamic spontaneous process w spherical expansion
- the Planck is a range of rates within which the stuff will operate logically with each other. i.e. stuff with different Planck value belong to different universe.
- rate of time process is the variable.
So, dynamic stuff with one property h, one variable 1/t:
- spontaneous and generating process = explosive = spherical exp
Some of it in very short..
report post as inappropriate
I have:
- stuff/substance: dynamic spontaneous process w spherical expansion
- the Planck is a range of rates within which the stuff will operate logically with each other. i.e. stuff with different Planck value belong to different universe.
- rate of time process is the variable.
So, dynamic stuff with one property h, one variable 1/t:
- spontaneous and generating process = explosive = spherical exp
Some of it in very short..
Hi Marcel-Marie,
No website. But it's something to work on.
These Planck action quanta, with radius of R=ct, are an unlimited quantity, constantly expanding from a point everywhere in spacetime, since the big bang. They will replace the Copenhagen and many world interpretation of quantum mechanics because, as they expand, they collide with particulate matter and naturally become the...
view entire post
No website. But it's something to work on.
These Planck action quanta, with radius of R=ct, are an unlimited quantity, constantly expanding from a point everywhere in spacetime, since the big bang. They will replace the Copenhagen and many world interpretation of quantum mechanics because, as they expand, they collide with particulate matter and naturally become the...
view entire post
On December 17, 2019, I received the attached email concerning “Does God exist outside of time? Could God be eternal? For God to be eternal, God would exist outside of time, would not experience time's flow. God would have no past, present or future. As Boethius said in the 6th Century, "Eternity, then, is the whole, simultaneous and perfect possession of boundless life." God's relationship to time helps assess God's existence and discern God's essence.
Featuring Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, and Eleonore Stump, this interview series explores God's relationship to time.”
But the Closer To Truth Facebook page has not been updated. It still features Professor Yu’s codswallop about non-duality.
It is difficult enough to make my pithy comments about your Facebook published material, but if you have become tired of them, kindly inform me so that I can spend more time cautiously twiddling and sucking both of my thumbs..
Incidentally, when the finite question: “Does God exist outside of time?” was submitted into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 106,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.47 (finite) seconds)” And when the finite question: “Could God be eternal?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 98,200,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.65 (finite) seconds)”
A massive amount of finite information temporarily exists about a supposed invisible white male god, but Nature only provided ONE visible reality. There has only ever been ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
Featuring Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, and Eleonore Stump, this interview series explores God's relationship to time.”
But the Closer To Truth Facebook page has not been updated. It still features Professor Yu’s codswallop about non-duality.
It is difficult enough to make my pithy comments about your Facebook published material, but if you have become tired of them, kindly inform me so that I can spend more time cautiously twiddling and sucking both of my thumbs..
Incidentally, when the finite question: “Does God exist outside of time?” was submitted into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 106,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.47 (finite) seconds)” And when the finite question: “Could God be eternal?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 98,200,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.65 (finite) seconds)”
A massive amount of finite information temporarily exists about a supposed invisible white male god, but Nature only provided ONE visible reality. There has only ever been ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that was always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
In my opinion, you're not supposed to write an equation for God. God, the Father, is this omnipotent intelligence that created the universe. Love and supplication, awe. Reverence, holiness, ...
As to how God creates time, I think there are Planck action quanta that have all the physics constants written into them. I call them PAQeons. PAQeons have time and quantum states built together. Particles attack to quantum states and are therefore subject to the time given by the eternal supply of PAQeons.
report post as inappropriate
As to how God creates time, I think there are Planck action quanta that have all the physics constants written into them. I call them PAQeons. PAQeons have time and quantum states built together. Particles attack to quantum states and are therefore subject to the time given by the eternal supply of PAQeons.
Jason, any idea how it all started?
report post as inappropriate
I always thought that metaphysics was a much more reasonable source for the big bang, then all the intellectual craziness of the physics community with their big bangs caused by black holes and universes from nothing. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Creator-God used a metaphysical-Astral realm to design this universe and set it up before "Letting their be light". Engineers design their products in a virtual environment. Why wouldn't God?
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason,
After the finite question: “Was real metaphysics a much more reasonable source for the big bang?” was submitted into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 2,290,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.68 (finite) seconds) Nature provided only ONE INFINITE ETERNAL visible reality.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
After the finite question: “Was real metaphysics a much more reasonable source for the big bang?” was submitted into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 2,290,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.68 (finite) seconds) Nature provided only ONE INFINITE ETERNAL visible reality.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
“Scientists say our consciousness is the product of our brains, with purposes set by evolutionary fitness. Theologians believe our consciousness reflects the God who created it, with majestic purpose of eternal life. Mystics hold my consciousness is a drop in the ocean of cosmic consciousness, with cycles and return. For sure, consciousness is a test case. Marilyn Schlitz, research scientist and medical anthropologist, discusses.”
Watch the series: http://bit.ly/2s5z89n
I have posted this pithy comment on the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “Is (invisible white male) consciousness the product of (white male) brains, with purposes set by (invisible) evolutionary fitness?” had been submitted into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 2,330,000 (supposedly finite) results (1.26 (finite) seconds) But Nature only provided ONE visible reality, therefore, there has only ever been ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated by ONE INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
“Scientists say our consciousness is the product of our brains, with purposes set by evolutionary fitness. Theologians believe our consciousness reflects the God who created it, with majestic purpose of eternal life. Mystics hold my consciousness is a drop in the ocean of cosmic consciousness, with cycles and return. For sure, consciousness is a test case. Marilyn Schlitz, research scientist and medical anthropologist, discusses.”
Watch the series: http://bit.ly/2s5z89n
I have posted this pithy comment on the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “Is (invisible white male) consciousness the product of (white male) brains, with purposes set by (invisible) evolutionary fitness?” had been submitted into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 2,330,000 (supposedly finite) results (1.26 (finite) seconds) But Nature only provided ONE visible reality, therefore, there has only ever been ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated by ONE INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
“Consciousness is what we can know best and explain least. Before we can explain it, we must first define It. How do we do so? Stuart Hameroff, physician and researcher at
The University of Arizonagives us his best definition.”
Watch more videos on the definition of consciousness: http://bit.ly/2EOP1o4
I have posted this remarkably sensible comment on the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “Is (invisible white male) Consciousness what (white males) can know best and explain least?” Had been submitted into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 224,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.68 (finite) seconds) But Nature must have provided only ONE visible reality. Every credentialed visible white male physicist and every visible living creature has only ever been able to prove that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface. Nature made sure that there would only ever be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
“Consciousness is what we can know best and explain least. Before we can explain it, we must first define It. How do we do so? Stuart Hameroff, physician and researcher at
The University of Arizonagives us his best definition.”
Watch more videos on the definition of consciousness: http://bit.ly/2EOP1o4
I have posted this remarkably sensible comment on the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “Is (invisible white male) Consciousness what (white males) can know best and explain least?” Had been submitted into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 224,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.68 (finite) seconds) But Nature must have provided only ONE visible reality. Every credentialed visible white male physicist and every visible living creature has only ever been able to prove that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface. Nature made sure that there would only ever be ONE unified INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
“"God is eternal, meaning that god is not in time at all."
Watch Greg Ganssle's interview on God's eternity: http://bit.ly/2rnsA63
I have posted this sagacious comment at the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “Is (the invisible white male god) eternal, meaning that (the invisible white male) god is not in time at all?” had been submitted into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 15,800,000 (Supposedly finite) results (0.70 (finite) seconds)” But Nature only provided ONE VISIBLE REALITY that existed long before any visible white men ever appeared on Earth and began publishing their unnatural silly supposedly finite guesswork concerning an invisible white male god. It logically follows that only ONE VISIBLE REALITY could ever possibly be ETERNAL. There has only ever been ONE unified INFINITE visible surface ETERNALLY occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
“"God is eternal, meaning that god is not in time at all."
Watch Greg Ganssle's interview on God's eternity: http://bit.ly/2rnsA63
I have posted this sagacious comment at the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “Is (the invisible white male god) eternal, meaning that (the invisible white male) god is not in time at all?” had been submitted into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 15,800,000 (Supposedly finite) results (0.70 (finite) seconds)” But Nature only provided ONE VISIBLE REALITY that existed long before any visible white men ever appeared on Earth and began publishing their unnatural silly supposedly finite guesswork concerning an invisible white male god. It logically follows that only ONE VISIBLE REALITY could ever possibly be ETERNAL. There has only ever been ONE unified INFINITE visible surface ETERNALLY occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
'Non-Duality' is a particular philosophy, related to Eastern philosophy and religion, that privileges the mental over the physical. It is the claim that the only ultimate reality is derived from consciousness. Jeffery Martin, director of the Center for the Study of Non-Symbolic Consciousness, explains the non-duality label. Watch the full interview series: http://bit.ly/2YlpR9g
I have posted this sensible symbolic comment at the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “Is the only ultimate reality derived from (invisible) consciousness?” had been submitted into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 15,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.60 (finite) seconds) But Nature provided only ONE VISIBLE REALITY that has existed long before any visible men ever appeared on the visible Earth and began publishing their unnatural silly supposedly finite guesswork concerning invisible human consciousness. There has only ever been ONE INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated bt ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
'Non-Duality' is a particular philosophy, related to Eastern philosophy and religion, that privileges the mental over the physical. It is the claim that the only ultimate reality is derived from consciousness. Jeffery Martin, director of the Center for the Study of Non-Symbolic Consciousness, explains the non-duality label. Watch the full interview series: http://bit.ly/2YlpR9g
I have posted this sensible symbolic comment at the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “Is the only ultimate reality derived from (invisible) consciousness?” had been submitted into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 15,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.60 (finite) seconds) But Nature provided only ONE VISIBLE REALITY that has existed long before any visible men ever appeared on the visible Earth and began publishing their unnatural silly supposedly finite guesswork concerning invisible human consciousness. There has only ever been ONE INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated bt ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
"If your consciousness was completely independent of anything else, there's on (sic) reason to be certain of it." Philosopher Simon Blackburn explains the trouble with defining consciousness.
Watch other videos on consciousness: http://bit.ly/2EOP1o4
I have posted this sensible comment at the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “Can you be certain that your (invisible) consciousness was completely independent of anything else?” was inserted into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 45,400,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.83 (finite) seconds) But Nature only provided ONE VISIBLE REALITY that existed for millions of years BEFORE any visible men ever appeared on the visible planet Earth and began publishing their unnatural silly supposedly finite guesswork concerning invisible consciousness. There has only ever been ONE INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated by ONE INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
"If your consciousness was completely independent of anything else, there's on (sic) reason to be certain of it." Philosopher Simon Blackburn explains the trouble with defining consciousness.
Watch other videos on consciousness: http://bit.ly/2EOP1o4
I have posted this sensible comment at the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “Can you be certain that your (invisible) consciousness was completely independent of anything else?” was inserted into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 45,400,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.83 (finite) seconds) But Nature only provided ONE VISIBLE REALITY that existed for millions of years BEFORE any visible men ever appeared on the visible planet Earth and began publishing their unnatural silly supposedly finite guesswork concerning invisible consciousness. There has only ever been ONE INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated by ONE INFINITE sort of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Dear Dr. Kuhn,
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“For Peter Lynds, a self-taught physicist without a degree, developing a potential solution to Zeno's Paradox proved easier than convincing the academic elite to take him seriously.
"Underlying my attitude was the radical belief that those with a university position and a Ph.D. don’t hold 100% ownership of good new ideas about how the world works."
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
I am a self-taut (thinking makes me tense) realist without a degree and I know NATURE must have devised only one VISIBLE reality. The only truth the white male physicists have ever proven was that the real planet Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years before Peter Lynds ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork about finite abstract paradoxes. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single solitary unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. I know for a fact that all of the white male PhD Diploma holders who have ever lived have never really wanted to know anything about the real VISIBLE Universe.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
“For Peter Lynds, a self-taught physicist without a degree, developing a potential solution to Zeno's Paradox proved easier than convincing the academic elite to take him seriously.
"Underlying my attitude was the radical belief that those with a university position and a Ph.D. don’t hold 100% ownership of good new ideas about how the world works."
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
I am a self-taut (thinking makes me tense) realist without a degree and I know NATURE must have devised only one VISIBLE reality. The only truth the white male physicists have ever proven was that the real planet Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years before Peter Lynds ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork about finite abstract paradoxes. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one single solitary unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. I know for a fact that all of the white male PhD Diploma holders who have ever lived have never really wanted to know anything about the real VISIBLE Universe.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:
"We have something of a mental block when it comes to quantum mechanics, and we need a bit of quantum therapy to help get past it."In his new book, theoretical physicist and long-time CTT contributor Sean M. Carroll challenges scientists to pursue an understanding of quantum mechanics. Read an excerpt at CTT.com.
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “Is there such a thing as quantum therapy?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 50,400,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.60 (finite) seconds)” Which came first? One Natural infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that was always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light, or Sean Carroll’s unnatural silly repetitive guesswork concerning invisible finite quantum particles that have the capability of being in multiple invisible places simultaneously?
This would be a good time for you to notify Dr. Kuhn of Closer To Truth and Dr. Zeeya Meralt of FQXi.org that I was right about Natural Visible Reality
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
"We have something of a mental block when it comes to quantum mechanics, and we need a bit of quantum therapy to help get past it."In his new book, theoretical physicist and long-time CTT contributor Sean M. Carroll challenges scientists to pursue an understanding of quantum mechanics. Read an excerpt at CTT.com.
I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When the finite question: “Is there such a thing as quantum therapy?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 50,400,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.60 (finite) seconds)” Which came first? One Natural infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that was always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light, or Sean Carroll’s unnatural silly repetitive guesswork concerning invisible finite quantum particles that have the capability of being in multiple invisible places simultaneously?
This would be a good time for you to notify Dr. Kuhn of Closer To Truth and Dr. Zeeya Meralt of FQXi.org that I was right about Natural Visible Reality
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear FQXi.org Members,
I am deeply sorry for continually posting pretty much the same comment about how Nature must have provided only ONE visible reality. I had thought that if I was wrong about that, most of the esteemed members would have pointed it out to me. I did not expect any members would react so angrily. I did not expect the Administrators to declare my comments to be SPAM and to disable my email account so that I could not log in and repeat posting my sensible comments.
Joe Fisher, Contrite Realist.
report post as inappropriate
I am deeply sorry for continually posting pretty much the same comment about how Nature must have provided only ONE visible reality. I had thought that if I was wrong about that, most of the esteemed members would have pointed it out to me. I did not expect any members would react so angrily. I did not expect the Administrators to declare my comments to be SPAM and to disable my email account so that I could not log in and repeat posting my sensible comments.
Joe Fisher, Contrite Realist.
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page again contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
“Watch Simon Blackburn's interview on defining consciousness: http://bit.ly/2SgbiTE”
I have posted this alluring sensible comment on the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When queried with the finite question ”What does finite invisible human consciousness really consist of?” the visible finite Google Search Engine produced: “About 4,110,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.73 (finite) seconds)” But Nature devised only ONE VISIBLE REALITY that has existed for millions of years BEFORE visible Simon Blackburn and any visible human beings ever appeared on visible Earth and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning invisible human consciousness. It would be physically impossible for Nature to devise a different visible reality after visible Simon Blackburn or any other visible human beings appeared than the VISIBLE reality that existed BEFORE visible Simon Blackburn or any other visible human beings showed up. Nature provided ONE INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
“Watch Simon Blackburn's interview on defining consciousness: http://bit.ly/2SgbiTE”
I have posted this alluring sensible comment on the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When queried with the finite question ”What does finite invisible human consciousness really consist of?” the visible finite Google Search Engine produced: “About 4,110,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.73 (finite) seconds)” But Nature devised only ONE VISIBLE REALITY that has existed for millions of years BEFORE visible Simon Blackburn and any visible human beings ever appeared on visible Earth and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning invisible human consciousness. It would be physically impossible for Nature to devise a different visible reality after visible Simon Blackburn or any other visible human beings appeared than the VISIBLE reality that existed BEFORE visible Simon Blackburn or any other visible human beings showed up. Nature provided ONE INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
The reality about how spacetime and gravity works is much more interesting than what you kind folks are working on.
report post as inappropriate
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page again contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
“What is God's eternity?” Watch Eleonore Stump's interview: http://bit.ly/2LvsMHs
I have posted this more sensible comment on the CTT websie and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When queried with the finite question: “What is the (invisible white male) God's eternity?” the visible finite Google Search Engine produced: “About 18,800,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.57 (finite) seconds)” But Nature devised only ONE VISIBLE REALITY that has existed for millions of years BEFORE visible Eleonore Stump and any visible human beings ever appeared on visible Earth and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning any invisible white male god. It would be physically impossible for Nature to devise a different visible reality after visible Eleonore Stump or any other visible human beings appeared than the VISIBLE reality that existed BEFORE visible Eleonore Stump or any other visible human beings showed up. Nature provided ONE INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
“What is God's eternity?” Watch Eleonore Stump's interview: http://bit.ly/2LvsMHs
I have posted this more sensible comment on the CTT websie and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
When queried with the finite question: “What is the (invisible white male) God's eternity?” the visible finite Google Search Engine produced: “About 18,800,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.57 (finite) seconds)” But Nature devised only ONE VISIBLE REALITY that has existed for millions of years BEFORE visible Eleonore Stump and any visible human beings ever appeared on visible Earth and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning any invisible white male god. It would be physically impossible for Nature to devise a different visible reality after visible Eleonore Stump or any other visible human beings appeared than the VISIBLE reality that existed BEFORE visible Eleonore Stump or any other visible human beings showed up. Nature provided ONE INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page again contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
“If God is considered "eternal", then how do they interact with our understanding of time? Could they know the future?” Physicist Russell Stannard shares his opinion. Watch the series: http://bit.ly/2LvteW7
I have posted this far more sensible comment on the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
Right after the finite question: “If the invisible white male god is considered by white males to be "eternal", then how does the white male god interact with the white male’s understanding of time?” had been entered into the visible infinite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 8,990,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.95 (finite) seconds) But Nature devised only ONE VISIBLE REALITY that has existed for millions of years BEFORE visible Russell Stannard or any visible male of any hue ever appeared on visible Earth and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning any invisible white male god. It would be physically impossible for Nature to devise a different visible reality after visible Russell Stannard or any other visible human males of any hue appeared than the VISIBLE reality that existed BEFORE visible Russell Stannard and all other visible human males of any hue showed up. Nature provided ONE INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
“If God is considered "eternal", then how do they interact with our understanding of time? Could they know the future?” Physicist Russell Stannard shares his opinion. Watch the series: http://bit.ly/2LvteW7
I have posted this far more sensible comment on the CTT website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
Right after the finite question: “If the invisible white male god is considered by white males to be "eternal", then how does the white male god interact with the white male’s understanding of time?” had been entered into the visible infinite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 8,990,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.95 (finite) seconds) But Nature devised only ONE VISIBLE REALITY that has existed for millions of years BEFORE visible Russell Stannard or any visible male of any hue ever appeared on visible Earth and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning any invisible white male god. It would be physically impossible for Nature to devise a different visible reality after visible Russell Stannard or any other visible human males of any hue appeared than the VISIBLE reality that existed BEFORE visible Russell Stannard and all other visible human males of any hue showed up. Nature provided ONE INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
"If you want to understand consciousness, the last thing you want to be is a neuroscientist."
Before we understand consciousness, we must first define it. Deepak Chopra gives us his definition. Watch other videos on consciousness: http://bit.ly/2EOP1o4
I have posted this reasonable comment on the CTT Facebook website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite statement: “Before we understand (invisible) consciousness, we must first define it.” Had been entered into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 206,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.84 (finite) seconds) The first website listed referred to a Scientific America article that proclaimed: “There Is No Such Thing as Conscious Thought
Philosopher Peter Carruthers insists that conscious thought, judgment and volition are illusions. They arise from processes of which we are forever unaware.” But Nature devised only ONE VISIBLE REALITY that has existed for millions of years BEFORE visible Deepak Chopra and visible Peter Carruthers ever appeared on visible Earth and began publishing their unnatural silly supposedly finite conflicting guesswork concerning any invisible human consciousness. It would be physically impossible for Nature to devise a different visible reality after visible Deepak Chopra and visible Peter Carruthers appeared than the VISIBLE reality that existed BEFORE visible Deepak Chopra and visible Peter Carruthers showed up. Nature provided ONE INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
"If you want to understand consciousness, the last thing you want to be is a neuroscientist."
Before we understand consciousness, we must first define it. Deepak Chopra gives us his definition. Watch other videos on consciousness: http://bit.ly/2EOP1o4
I have posted this reasonable comment on the CTT Facebook website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite statement: “Before we understand (invisible) consciousness, we must first define it.” Had been entered into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 206,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.84 (finite) seconds) The first website listed referred to a Scientific America article that proclaimed: “There Is No Such Thing as Conscious Thought
Philosopher Peter Carruthers insists that conscious thought, judgment and volition are illusions. They arise from processes of which we are forever unaware.” But Nature devised only ONE VISIBLE REALITY that has existed for millions of years BEFORE visible Deepak Chopra and visible Peter Carruthers ever appeared on visible Earth and began publishing their unnatural silly supposedly finite conflicting guesswork concerning any invisible human consciousness. It would be physically impossible for Nature to devise a different visible reality after visible Deepak Chopra and visible Peter Carruthers appeared than the VISIBLE reality that existed BEFORE visible Deepak Chopra and visible Peter Carruthers showed up. Nature provided ONE INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly finite announcement:
“Is the Christian concept of God a timeless God? Do they age? If they exist within time, then they must be growing older with it. Or are they apart from time?” William Lane Craig, philosopher and theologian, discusses God and what being "eternal" means. Watch the interview series: http://bit.ly/2LvteW7
I have carefully put this sensible comment on the CTT Facebook website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “Is the (white male) Christian concept of (an invisible white male) God a timeless God?” had been inserted into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 3,830,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.63 (finite) seconds) But Nature devised only ONE VISIBLE REALITY that has existed for millions of years BEFORE visible William Lane Craig and any of those 3,829,999 visible human beings ever appeared on visible Earth and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning any invisible white male god. It would be physically impossible for Nature to devise a different visible reality after visible William Lane Craig or any of those other 3,829,999 visible human beings appeared than the VISIBLE reality that existed BEFORE visible William Lane Craig or any other visible human beings showed up. Nature provided ONE INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
report post as inappropriate
“Is the Christian concept of God a timeless God? Do they age? If they exist within time, then they must be growing older with it. Or are they apart from time?” William Lane Craig, philosopher and theologian, discusses God and what being "eternal" means. Watch the interview series: http://bit.ly/2LvteW7
I have carefully put this sensible comment on the CTT Facebook website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:
After the finite question: “Is the (white male) Christian concept of (an invisible white male) God a timeless God?” had been inserted into the visible finite Google Search Engine, it produced: “About 3,830,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.63 (finite) seconds) But Nature devised only ONE VISIBLE REALITY that has existed for millions of years BEFORE visible William Lane Craig and any of those 3,829,999 visible human beings ever appeared on visible Earth and began publishing their unnatural silly parroted supposedly finite guesswork concerning any invisible white male god. It would be physically impossible for Nature to devise a different visible reality after visible William Lane Craig or any of those other 3,829,999 visible human beings appeared than the VISIBLE reality that existed BEFORE visible William Lane Craig or any other visible human beings showed up. Nature provided ONE INFINITE visible surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated by ONE INFINITE form of finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Visible Realist
Login or create account to post reply or comment.