My documentaries, the documentaries that I recommend

@Leadfoot,

Nop, sorry you are incorrect. As time slows to infinity closer to the the first so called nanoseconds on the Big-Bang you never get to a starting point. In fact the whole idea of a truly starting point makes no sense if time had to start it would never start. And yes this is not debated in public because it is an embarrassment. You see this is the difference between those who quote authority and those who inform themselves but then think about what they read or listen.

Obviously on the second point I don't need to explain you hopefully why an entity outside time HAS NO MENTAL LIFE.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Quote:

In fact the whole idea of a truly starting point makes no sense if time had to start it would never start. And yes this is not debated in public because it is an embarrassment.

Although I happen to agree with the physicists on 'the beginning' of time, it is not because of them I believe in their authority. I accept the evidence which happens to agree with logic and physics. If there was an infinite amount of what we know as 'time', all matter would have decayed 'long ago'. Even fermions have half lives.

How does your theory account for this? And again, I am assuming that we are accepting the basic tenants of physics here, please tell me now if that is not the case. If this is to be a theological discussion, that too is OK, but I have to know on what foundation we are working on.

As for no time not allowing for living at all, consider quantum computers. They compute extremely complex problems virtually instantaneously. In effect, they compute without needing time. This obviously shows that some kind of mental/computing activity is possible in times absence.

In other news, I got my new PC running and MSFS 2020 downloaded. Now all I need is to score an RTX 3080 graphics card.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

No no, you missed the context. Gravity as per general relativity affects Time not just speed. See what happens on the event horizon of a black hole, specially to information. Time can slow down a lot but not stop completely. The metaphor of a Big-Bang that was an absolute beginning is no longer hold by the vast majority of the scientific community, while useful it is and always was a metaphor. Today it is commonly accepted that while the Big-Bang was the "start" of our current "Aeon" it was not the start of everything. Among many other dissidents Penrose the Nobel Physics laureate of 2020 is one such example. You can find them not just on the Penrose awkward account but in String Theory, Everett's Many Worlds and in other groups.

0 Replies

People have a hard time with really abstract ideas...
...one does not move Motion out of motion. Motion as a phenomena does not move. X is X!
In the same vain Time as a phenomena exists and within it everything moves although in relative terms, but Time as a property is motionless. The ontology of phenomena as Space and Time entails that their existence contradicts what they seem to be doing. Time is Timeless as there is no other timing to Time, and Space is Spaceless as there is no other space on which Space fits.
Again on the same vain, mind is Mindless and Nothingness is nothing!...
There is no outside of everything!
A God in the true sense of the word is a monolith! Anything more tangible and mundane is a demi-god and thus contingent and incomplete! It doesn't matter if the "Demi-God" is a Snail compared to a microbe, or a Dog compared to the snail, a Human compared to the dog, or an AGI or Superorganism compared to a human. Such creatures with specific POV's and modes of experiencing are still far removed from the real deal, the monolith of all that can ever be which IS already! ULTIMISM is bigger than any talking walking acting phony god!

0 Replies

If you want to play ball with the big boys you don't do Science you do Philosophy! Most great scientists do it, and the ones who don't fall in language traps capable of making a rock laugh its azz off!
Science can be done by any well trained monkey capable of following the method. Science is super useful in context but ultimately at a deep deep level it explains nothing!
One can try and make a Jacobin French revolution against Philosophy and true intellectuals but ultimately its doomed to fall flat on its azz. Philosophy has formally 3000 years of History behind it and many more informally. It still will be here long after tomorrow even if a dark age is to come again. Science in many regards behaves like a young strong teenager that can pull some leverage. It works a lot but often has no direction!

Please note, gosh I have to explain everything, that I am not denigrating or diminishing Science. On the contrary by establishing its boundaries and scope I am giving it the tools to not stretch and chew more than it really can do. I spend countless hours getting up to pace with the latest on scientific data everyday. But guess what I take the data and think about it in long digestions of pure thought! I do, to the best of my limited monkey ability, Philosophy!

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Quote:

Please note, gosh I have to explain everything, that I am not denigrating or diminishing Science. On the contrary by establishing its boundaries and scope I am giving it the tools to not stretch and chew more than it really can do.

It looks to me that you are doing just the opposite.

You are giving science carte blanche to make up entire universes out of nothing and without any evidence. The only reason Everett et al rejects the Big Bang as the beginning is because of the philosophical/theological implications. Science readily admits that all its actual tools are useless before 10^ -36 seconds after the Big Bang.

Harvard’s physics dept. position is this:

Quote:

Near a black hole, the slowing of time is extreme. From the viewpoint of an observer outside the black hole, time stops. .

Even if we concede that it only slows down to a point where we can’t measure it, the point remains the time is malleable and therefore is no obstacle to proposing a God outside of time. If we are going to assert entire unknown universes, I can assert completely different dimensions of time for a God to be in while being outside of ours.

But OK, I hear you saying you want to stay in the realm of philosophy. I assume your philosophy allows for other universes from what you’ve said above.. Doing that gives anyone equal justification for claiming virtually anything. I could say - God is in one of those other universes, where time is different.
I’d be making up crap but no more than your assertions about what a God 'has to be'. How does this get us anywhere?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

First mistake, I didn't defend Everett Many Worlds is the right or the wrong position.
Second, I talked about it regarding an alternative to a start among other theories en passent.
Third, you can have many worlds only with this Universe just the same, you can even have cyclic models like Penrose exemplifies with his CCC. Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. Fourth the classical models about the Big-Bang can't get past the first nanoseconds...Physics as we know it breaks. So nobody have yet explained the" start".
...yes you got right the obvious part from OUR standpoint in the event horizon of a black hole time almost stops! Whatever is going on inside with matter doesn't seem to stop as per Hawking's radiation the thing cant take a gazillion years to evaporate but will.

Now, you have made a mock-up of my arguments because you don't like them, but have you answer how a God with the traditional powers as a mind can be outside time? No! Sooo, please do that or be gone!

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I believe the core of your misunderstanding is about what living biological matter is. You apparently believe it is “a localized bag of nucleic acids.

See there you go wxtending what othrs have said and xtending it inorrectly. What I stated was hat APPWARED in xhemical fosils maybe a BILLION years or more a fter first C based layered compounds in Australia and Greendland.
My argument is wntirly based upon 1 thing (two actually) did RNA help in the origin of life or did life originateRNA??. Youv really gotten fixated on on small aspect of life to either the denial or Ignoring of all the others.

.Im out of town and am not in possession of several sources of information . imply a model being developed and run at STonyBrook is based on Protein folding experiments donw in the 80's and the modep proposes that protein chains SPONTANOUSLY grew long nough to support life's debut about 4 Billion years ago, it was all done by catalysis and of the 20 functional amino acid groups can be seen to be divisible byjust two groups that autoctalyzed and became "foldamers" It was a small actual percentage of the total functional groups but once starting "it was like lighting a forest fire" (Which is the way we see deposits of fossil archea and bacteria).

Im up at a zinc mine in N Pa and Ill be back tomorrow with ome mor stuff to challenge your belief system.

I suggest we carry this out as a PM discussion and not garble up another thread which has a valid life of its on.
Nuff

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I believe the core of your misunderstanding is about what living biological matter is. You apparently believe it is “a localized bag of nucleic acids.

See there you go wxtending what othrs have said and xtending it inorrectly. What I stated was hat APPWARED in xhemical fosils maybe a BILLION years or more a fter first C based layered compounds in Australia and Greendland.
My argument is wntirly based upon 1 thing (two actually) did RNA help in the origin of life or did life originateRNA??. Youv really gotten fixated on on small aspect of life to either the denial or Ignoring of all the others.

.Im out of town and am not in possession of several sources of information . imply a model being developed and run at STonyBrook is based on Protein folding experiments donw in the 80's and the modep proposes that protein chains SPONTANOUSLY grew long nough to support life's debut about 4 Billion years ago, it was all done by catalysis and of the 20 functional amino acid groups can be seen to be divisible byjust two groups that autoctalyzed and became "foldamers" It was a small actual percentage of the total functional groups but once starting "it was like lighting a forest fire" (Which is the way we see deposits of fossil archea and bacteria).

Im up at a zinc mine in N Pa and Ill be back tomorrow with ome mor stuff to challenge your belief system.

I suggest we carry this out as a PM discussion and not garble up another thread which has a valid life of its on.
Nuff

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

And to compare a polar bubble of (?) to a cell membrane? You might as well say the Hindenburg (or life) emerged from a soap bubble.

.

I suggest in the meantime you do some scudding up on polymers. In nature polymers can be developed in open desrt pools of layers like a SMITH ISLAND CAKE

0 Replies

Can you picture God talking to himself in advance knowing what he is going to say next because he is omniscient?
Or what we will do next because he is present in the future?
And how can any of this work without a "meta" time into God owns being?
Did God chose his own characteristics properties? No!
Can God quit being God? No!
Can God do anything other then what he dims perfect? No!
Did God already do what to us will be done in the future? Yes!

...what to say...the entire idea that God could be a mind is worse then a children's play!
Abstruse, absurd, let's say it for what it really is, dumb indeed period!

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

..

Quote:

.what to say...the entire idea that God could be a mind is worse then a children's play!
Abstruse, absurd, let's say it for what it really is, dumb indeed period!

Well, i guess that settles it.

I will not be tempted to take your offer to discuss it seriously again.
Go pedal your assertions to someone else.

0 Replies

One more to show the endless sea of contradictions about God and Free Will this time around:

0 Replies

I have to wonder why you would consider the opinion or conclusions of someone, or anyone, who thought they had no choice about what to think.

By their own admission, their conclusions are of no value, their evidence is worthless, because if what they say is true, they would believe/'know' the same thing regardless of observation or evidence.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Fallacious conclusion. Who told you free will has anything to do with being able to consider and process data better or worse? One can be more apt or inapt to analyse sets of data in specific areas without having any free will.
Now one thing that I give for granted is that personal merit or faulting is not warranted!
You either are lucky to be born with the set of tools and right environment to flourish or not!
I know that Americans in particular are culturally more attached to the righteous notion of personal merit or faulting than other countries, instead of looking at society as a whole on which everyone has a role to play...it is all about winners and losers, a black and white dichotomy and cacophony right? That would explain a lot regarding recent events...

1 Reply

On the misconception of western tradition immortal souls:

0 Replies

Back to other topics:

0 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Quote:

Who told you free will has anything to do with being able to consider and process data better or worse? One can be more apt or inapt to analyse sets of data in specific areas without having any free will.

Ok, moving on from theology...

Without free will I don’t see how any 'processing of data' is possible. If you have no choice in the outcome, the analysis is superfluous. You might as well skip it if you have no choice about the outcome.

That would explain a lot about so many A2K posts...

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

You really don't understand "God" as Nature à la Spinoza do ya? There is nothing to correct with a "choice" because nothing is wrong nor any potentials need be left out!
The entire way on which and in which you and your ecosystem "live" is perfect!
Being encompasses everything including the illusion of a potential choice which never was to be actual but justified your computing process in accordance with the parameters that you could take into account.
Politicians of Philosophy call it Soft Determinism, but to me it seems pretty hardcore!

PS - A POV from X,Y,Z in spacetime is never an error, just a limited yet perfectly justified perspective!

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

God? I was talking about free will.

1 Reply

My documentaries, the documentaries that I recommend

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know