Search FQXi


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.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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 12/5/19 at 19:43pm UTC, wrote Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly...

Joe Fisher: on 12/5/19 at 16:02pm UTC, wrote Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly...

Joe Fisher: on 12/4/19 at 16:06pm UTC, wrote Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly...

Jason Wolfe: on 12/4/19 at 14:28pm UTC, wrote The foundation of physics, the simplest mechanism available that could...

Jason Wolfe: on 12/4/19 at 13:59pm UTC, wrote You're doing it all wrong. Not just you. The whole physics community is...

Joe Fisher: on 12/3/19 at 21:31pm UTC, wrote Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly...

Joe Fisher: on 11/30/19 at 22:18pm UTC, wrote Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly...

Joe Fisher: on 11/29/19 at 20:49pm UTC, wrote Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly...



FQXi FORUM
December 6, 2019

ARTICLE: First Things First: The Physics of Causality [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Anonymous wrote on Jul. 16, 2019 @ 23:14 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jul. 16, 2019 @ 23:17 GMT
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)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Nov. 15, 2019 @ 11:59 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 17, 2019 @ 02:36 GMT
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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Roger Granet replied on Jul. 17, 2019 @ 02:37 GMT
By the way, this post was from Roger.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jul. 17, 2019 @ 05:53 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 21, 2019 @ 16:21 GMT
"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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 16, 2019 @ 17:05 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Oct. 16, 2019 @ 21:02 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Jul. 18, 2019 @ 15:51 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Jul. 19, 2019 @ 15:56 GMT
(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.)

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Jul. 21, 2019 @ 13:23 GMT
"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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Jul. 23, 2019 @ 05:10 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 23, 2019 @ 06:46 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Jul. 23, 2019 @ 15:43 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 23, 2019 @ 22:56 GMT
Does this mean all of your statements about reality will be prefaced with "I guess" from now on?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jul. 23, 2019 @ 06:30 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jul. 23, 2019 @ 22:41 GMT
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 .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 26, 2019 @ 15:40 GMT
...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...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


David Vognar wrote on Sep. 7, 2019 @ 23:29 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Sep. 8, 2019 @ 16:06 GMT
Dear David Vogner,

There will never be an unnatural published true humanly contrived finite theory of invisible quantum mechanics.

Joe Fisher, Knowing Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

David Vognar replied on Sep. 8, 2019 @ 16:52 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 19, 2019 @ 09:14 GMT
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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 19, 2019 @ 09:19 GMT
Incidentally, causality is transmitted outward at the speed of light because these spacetime geometry wavefronts travel outward at the speed of light.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Sep. 19, 2019 @ 16:14 GMT
(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.)

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 20, 2019 @ 00:20 GMT
You do believe the large Hadron collider has been slamming protons into each other, and measuring their byproducts, right?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Sep. 20, 2019 @ 15:31 GMT
(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.)

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 21, 2019 @ 18:55 GMT
Without subjectivity research, physics will become a new religion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvJIzBX5uAY

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Sep. 21, 2019 @ 21:35 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 24, 2019 @ 21:10 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 25, 2019 @ 08:00 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Sep. 25, 2019 @ 15:23 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 25, 2019 @ 16:47 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Sep. 27, 2019 @ 15:47 GMT
Dear Eckard,

VISIBLE reality am not a theory. NATURAL VISIBLE REALITY am the only fact.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 27, 2019 @ 16:46 GMT
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….

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 27, 2019 @ 16:50 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Sep. 28, 2019 @ 13:31 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 29, 2019 @ 15:32 GMT
Hi Joe,

Thanks,you develop a little bit,it's better but you can still make better in inserting physics and maths.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 1, 2019 @ 10:23 GMT
Incidentally, In Sean Caroll's excellent speech, I stumbled about "a part of infinity".

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 1, 2019 @ 10:50 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Oct. 1, 2019 @ 16:23 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 1, 2019 @ 16:26 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 17, 2019 @ 14:32 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Nov. 4, 2019 @ 15:45 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of supposedly FINITE information:

"Whether they're something as ordinary as a cicada or whether they're something as esoteric as a quantum whatever that produces a universe, "why does anything at all exist" is still something that needs to be attacked in very different terms."

Watch Luke Barnes's full "Why Is There Anything At All?" interview:http://bit.ly/2NsYtBl

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 does (abstract) anything at all exist” was submitted to the finite Google Search Engine without the finite question mark, it elicited: “About 292,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.64 (finite) seconds)” When the finite question was submitted with the finite question mark, it yielded: “About 312,000,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.42 (finite) seconds)” But every physicist that has ever lived has only ever proven that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of real years before Luke Barnes ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing his (supposedly finite) unnatural silly parroted guesswork concerning imaginary cicadas and invisible quantum particles. Obviously, Nature could have only provided one type 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. Scientists should know that the more finite they try to make their surroundings, the more destruction they will cause.

Joe Fisher, Light Hearted Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 5, 2019 @ 15:52 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 6, 2019 @ 10:39 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Nov. 6, 2019 @ 15:49 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 6, 2019 @ 18:27 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 8, 2019 @ 15:45 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 8, 2019 @ 21:43 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 12, 2019 @ 09:59 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 12, 2019 @ 22:07 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 13, 2019 @ 03:25 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 13, 2019 @ 04:43 GMT
Maybe I should mention the experience of reality that is not just vision but the product of processing inputs to the various sense organs. The order of experience of the various sensations depends upon the order of processing of the inputs received, which is most strongly correlated with order of receipt. Brains have some control over the processing which can be temporally adjusted, such has to give synchronicity of visual and auditory information; (David Eagleman has done research into this.) Or the stimulus might not be processed into conscious experience if the subconscious mind considers it unimportant to the organism, or less important than other stimuli. The order can vary between individuals as order of receipt of the stimuli depends upon proximity to the sources. This is different from the immutable temporal order of material happenings.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 14, 2019 @ 15:48 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Nov. 15, 2019 @ 10:38 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Nov. 15, 2019 @ 09:45 GMT
Does anybody here think that the big bang is scientific proof that an anti-entropy force exists?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Nov. 15, 2019 @ 14:22 GMT
The physics community has enough evidence to announce that the universe and life, are intelligently designed. Does anyone disagree?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 15, 2019 @ 20:37 GMT
I disagree. Its not the domain of physics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 15, 2019 @ 21:22 GMT
Steven Wolfram has shown, with his cellular automata, that highly complex patterns can sometimes develop from simple reiterative processes.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Nov. 15, 2019 @ 21:56 GMT
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?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 15, 2019 @ 16:50 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 15, 2019 @ 16:51 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Nov. 15, 2019 @ 22:01 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Nov. 16, 2019 @ 16:17 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Nov. 16, 2019 @ 21:05 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 18, 2019 @ 19:33 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 19, 2019 @ 19:24 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 22, 2019 @ 15:55 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Nov. 22, 2019 @ 18:01 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Nov. 24, 2019 @ 16:11 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Nov. 25, 2019 @ 01:25 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 26, 2019 @ 21:05 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 27, 2019 @ 20:06 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Nov. 28, 2019 @ 11:51 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Nov. 28, 2019 @ 20:45 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 29, 2019 @ 20:49 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Nov. 30, 2019 @ 22:18 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Dec. 3, 2019 @ 21:31 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Dec. 4, 2019 @ 13:59 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Dec. 4, 2019 @ 14:28 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Dec. 4, 2019 @ 16:06 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Dec. 5, 2019 @ 19:43 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.