Most intersting! — Ms. Jane Marple
I am glad you agree that gods have nothing to do with this. — universeness
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
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
So perfect intelligence creates imperfect dumbness in order to create … some kind of half-arsed intelligence that exists to entropify — apokrisis
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
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. — 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? — 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. — universeness
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
The creatures in heaven got it figured out damned well! — Haglund
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
So again, how does the symmetry fail to account for the structure of the interactions? — apokrisis
The stories of Hans Christian Anderson are more convincing as facts — universeness
You offer science-based commentary then you raise the incompatible flag above at the end — universeness
It doesn't fail to account. — Haglund
Do you believe in the asininuous donkey shitting gold pieces? Could be... — Haglund
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! — universeness
For which the donkey with the Golden Coin Donkey god would come in handy! — Haglund
Just kneel and pray at your bed before going to sleep. That donkey will come around.. — Haglund
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.