Thanks for the cryptic bullshit your highness

There. See above.

:up:

That's the whole point of the closure. Eternal intelligence need not be created. Only the non-intelligent stuff of the universe.

Most intersting! — Ms. Jane Marple

Once the creator gets the ball rolling - the first spark - the process is self-sustaining or self-rejuvenating (Phoenix). In a sense then, God didn't create this universe, directly that is. A question on where, in the chain of causation, does responsibility terminate, arises.

I am glad you agree that gods have nothing to do with this. — universeness

Don't you involve god(s) in your question? What difference does it make if you push creation back to an infinitely far away past?

That's the whole point of the closure. Eternal intelligence need not be created. Only the non-intelligent stuff of the universe. — Haglund

So perfect intelligence creates imperfect dumbness? Seems legit. :chin:

Something like that. They needed to create the right stuff. Particles and space to interact in. Can this stuff, evolving into intelligent life across the universe, create itself? Doesn't Gödel's incompleteness theorem apply here to the laws of physics, rendering it impossible to explain the laws by making use of the laws?

They needed to create the right stuff. Particles and space to interact in. Can this stuff, evolving into intelligent life across the universe, create itself? — Haglund

So perfect intelligence creates imperfect dumbness in order to create … some kind of half-arsed intelligence that exists to entropify. You’re really selling this one.

Doesn't Gödel's incompleteness theorem apply here to the laws of physics, rendering it impossible to explain the laws by making use of the laws? — Haglund

We can “explain” any law by appeal to the fact it survives the test of existing. There must be something about it that works, in the largest sense.

That something is usually a symmetry or invariance. Which makes sense. An invariance is something you just can’t seem to get rid of no matter how much you twist and turn.

So if you presume anything might be the case, you also know from the patterns of symmetry that not everything can in fact be the case.

This is not using a law to explain a law. It is reasoning about how a “law” - or unavoidable regularity - could even come to be.

So perfect intelligence creates imperfect dumbness in order to create … some kind of half-arsed intelligence that exists to entropify — apokrisis

:lol:

Yeah, something like that. But how else could they have done it? The evolution of life can get along only if the thermodynamics is not in equilibrium. They were very smart in designing the right particles or mechanism to let the right ones appear.

We can “explain” any law by appeal to the fact it survives the test of existing. There must be something about it that works, in the largest sense.

That something is usually a symmetry or invariance. Which makes sense. An invariance is something you just can’t seem to get rid of no matter how much you twist and turn. — apokrisis

That doesn't explain the very existence of particles, spacetime, or the invariances in them. That merely describes, which is not an explanation of them being there.

It can be explained by the imprint of a previous ending of a previous universe — Haglund

This is just the same as what Penrose is claiming. If you agree that the Universe oscillates between linear time frames of existence, then you agree with Penrose. You may disagree on the mechanisms involved but you agree on the results.

This is just the same as what Penrose is claiming. If you agree that the Universe oscillates between linear time frames of existence, then you agree with Penrose. You may disagree on the mechanisms involved but you agree on the results. — universeness

But the mechanism is different. I think every inflated universe backfires not within the current 3D universe, but, via a 4th space dimension through which only gravity propagates (all stuff is confined to only three dimensions), back to an origin in 4D, from where a new pair of 3D universes inflates into existence.

The creatures in heaven got it figured out damned well!

That doesn't explain the very existence of particles, spacetime, or the invariances in them. — Haglund

In what way does SU(3) fail to account for the structure of the strong force? Let’s start you on an easy one.

SU(3) accounts for the strong force. It's the question if S(2)×U(1) accounts for an electroweak force. But apart from this, where did the interacting particles that made us invent these symmetries come from?

Don't you involve god(s) in your question? What difference does it make if you push creation back to an infinitely far away past? — Haglund

Yes, I did but only to expose them as 'unlikey sources,' of our Universe.
The difference was explained by @apokrisis as well as me. The god posit gets pushed further and further back in its 'moment of spark.' It becomes less convincing that the god posited by any current religion has traction.

Yes, I did but only to expose them as 'unlikey sources,' of our Universe.
The difference was explained by apokrisis as well as me. The god posit gets pushed further and further back in its 'moment of spark.' It becomes less convincing that the god posited by any current religion has traction. — universeness

You don't push gods back by placing them in an infinite past. They still have created it.

unlikey sources,' — universeness

You not likey likey god? :lol:

SU(3) accounts for the strong force. It's the question if S(2)×U(1) accounts for an electroweak force. But apart from this, where did the interacting particles that made us invent these symmetries come from? — Haglund

In what way did we invent the symmetry? That’s like saying we invented circles.

SU(3) wasn’t constructed to fit the strong force. The structure of the strong force was found to be explained by the logic of this permutation symmetry.

So again, how does the symmetry fail to account for the structure of the interactions?

Are you wanting to claim that the two structures just happen to look alike rather than that a mathematical argument about a necessary regularity was found to shape an actually observed regularity?

The creatures in heaven got it figured out damned well! — Haglund

You offer science-based commentary then you raise the incompatible flag above at the end. In my opinion you further demote your gods. It seems to me that god has been moving in the same direction as the Earth-centered Universe or in the direction of the human race since Carl Sagan's great demotions.
The god you describe does not even qualify for omni status and is not even singular. You present these gods are some kind of early failed civilisation that used to exist somewhere you label heaven?
The stories of Hans Christian Anderson are more convincing as facts and he had the advantage of having christ and Christian in his name, showing he was a qualified creator of fables.

SU(3) wasn’t constructed to fit the strong force. The structure of the strong force was found to be explained by the logic of this permutation symmetry. — apokrisis

It could have been U(3). But why is the trace 1? Because we made it. And no color singlet for gluon-antigluon pairs exist. But why they exist in the first place,?

So again, how does the symmetry fail to account for the structure of the interactions? — apokrisis

It doesn't fail to account. But like I said, SU(2)×U(1) accounts too but doesn't show what's going on really. And apart from accounting, SU(3) doesn't explain why it's there in the first place.

The stories of Hans Christian Anderson are more convincing as facts — universeness

:lol:

Do you believe in the asininuous donkey shitting gold pieces? Could be...

You offer science-based commentary then you raise the incompatible flag above at the end — universeness

Ah! I see what your primal fear is now. You fear there is more than the universe...

It doesn't fail to account. — Haglund

Great. So step two. Could your divine creating intelligences have chosen the maths of symmetry to have been different? Could they have arranged things so that there were six or seven Platonic solids rather than five?

If you think a creator is not bound by some general principle of holistic self consistency - the principle that explains the emergence of invariances - then let’s hear how that might work.

Do you believe in the asininuous donkey shitting gold pieces? Could be... — Haglund

Hey! don't be so disrespectful towards a god going to the toilet!

Ah! I see what your primal fear is now. You fear there is more than the universe.. — Haglund

Nope, my main primal fear is that the price of certain single malt whisky might get too high for the contents of my sporran!

Of course they are bound. To copy heaven and life in it, they had to come up with and create particles and space in such a way that if the were let free all god creatures in heaven showed up in the universe. Which means precisely the (macroscopically) 3D space (rotation degrees equalling translation degrees), an extra dimension to let it expand in, and the right kinds of particles to let it all happen. The right coupling strengths for mass and large scale interactions.

Nope, my main primal fear is that the price of certain single malt whisky might get too high for the contents of my sporran! — universeness

For which the donkey with the Golden Coin Donkey god would come in handy!

For which the donkey with the Golden Coin Donkey god would come in handy! — Haglund

Typical non-existent god, never around when you need one.

Just kneel and pray at your bed before going to sleep. That donkey will come around...

Just kneel and pray at your bed before going to sleep. That donkey will come around.. — Haglund

Nah! Rather than praying to non-existent dead donkey gods, I will just continue to try to oust the capitalist profit hoarders and insist that prices are reduced or pensions increased.
I hope the next time you hurt yourself you get cured through prayer and you don't get all 'hypocritical' and visit a doctor! :lol:
Oh sorry! Its not good that I laugh at my own attempts at humour. :joke:

Ha! Believe it or not (speaking of which), a small barking female creature pulled my arm last night. "Zzzack!" I gitta use my other arm now. Damned! But it will heal. Don't need no doctor (I can't stand my doctor! She refused to help me when I truly needed her. "Oath of Hippocrates..." $#@$%%$#!!!!!