Unseen

Davis wrote:

So energy is a double concept. Energy AND matter only exist in our minds, TWO concepts, and it all depends on what centuries of appointed energy commentators have written on it (liberally borrowing better philosophers material)

That energy and matter are two different states of one thing is a fact. Concepts are not facts. That…[Read more]

Davis wrote:

Ehhhh Tom. Energy is just a concept.

According to Einstein, energy is mass and mass is energy. They are simply one thing in two different forms, much as space and time are not really two different things.

I guess I’m asking, does infinite time across infinite universes imply that a life (or anything else) will happen an infinite number of times as well?

What about the whole “Is there any such thing as a real infinity?” thing?

PopeBeanie wrote:

While hopelessly lost in those infinitudes, isn’t it safe to say we’ll never know the answer to questions like that? And… afterlife? Were you smoking something?

That’s why I said “some sort” in order to distinguish it from a God-bequeathed continuous and eternal life.

What would the difference be between another person being sentient and simply being a dazzlingly good simulation of sentience? A sort of human Turing experiment. One interpretation of the Turing test would be that a successful Turing Machine demonstrated that an acceptable simulation of a human respondent had been accomplished, no inner life required.

Of course, we come back to an age old question: Is there any such thing as an actual infinity.

At one time, some would have proffered space as an actual infinity, but that’s a rather old Newtonian notion of space. Einstein taught us that space isn’t a substance, like an ocean of water, that can exist on its own,but is related to (and in a sense…[Read more]

One answer: Maybe.

Q: In an infinite universe, does everything that’s possible have to happen somewhere?

_Robert_ wrote:

Another thing that I wanted to mention is that the relationships that we see in different areas of the natural world are analogous. Water in a raised tank is as electrical charge in a capacitor, a water valve is as a transistor, a necked-down pipe is like a resistor. The math is the constant. Math exists outside of the human brain…

[Read more]

Davis wrote:

Language comes naturally to us. The written word comes to us a lot sooner and more easily than advanced math. We learn it faster, retain it longer, make less mistakes with it and use it our whole lives. We can describe most of the universe as we know it through words, express ourselves through words…live every day with words. And y…

[Read more]

tom sarbeck wrote:

Nonsense, U. The guy’s opening words: “The universe is math.” Only by first studying math can he “know” that. He then “attaches” the limited math he knows to the limited universe he perceives. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

There’s no indication he took any math beyond what’s required to graduate from…[Read more]

He saw the world as math before he learned the math that could describe it.

Simon Paynton wrote:

“I see, so if the other party is suicidal, is it okay to agree to kill him, then kill him under the Golden Rule?” – the most likely thing to happen is that I already have been in that position myself, or one of my loved ones has, and therefore, I identify the stranger’s predicament with my own or my loved one’s. Obviously…

[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

Like the Golden Rule (which it is, basically, reworded somewhat), it depends upon the notion that “people are the same wherever you go,” that all people want or value the same things.

I think you’re missing the point of how the Golden Rule works. In using the Golden Rule, we somehow put our own self, or a…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

@unseen -“how about this example: “I want to start a beef cattle ranch.”” – if we process this situation using “my” formulation, Perfect Compassion, the answer would be, “go for it, but don’t build too many, because this would cause harm to the world.” (unnecessary harm.)

“…don’t build too many…” seems to miss the point b…[Read more]

The Categorical Imperative assumes three things: 1) you are a rational and logical being, 2) you are a dutiful person (if you conclude you should do something, you will have to do it), and 3) you have a pre-existing morality. Eliminate any one of these and it falls on its face.

Like the Golden Rule (which it is, basically, reworded somewhat), it…[Read more]

Given that ethical arguments are not arguments over a set of facts, but are essentially over conflicting attitudes or values, can there ultimately be a solution to ethical disputes? a “proof”?

Simon Paynton wrote:

If someone asks an atheist where we get our moral authority, we can say, in a world of people, it’s “the law of cause and effect”. If we do “this”, this happens; if we do “that”, that happens. Our primary value is the maximum flourishing and minimum harm available for each person. See how it all ties up?

That’s basically uti…[Read more]