I am addressing an arrogant sophist who make ups accusations and projects them on others just to hear his voice — Nickolasgaspar

Maybe you should stop staring at your own reflection in the mirror!

Ego dragon, bovine manure? If anyone offers cinstructive comments it's universeness! Not sure about you... — Hillary

-And how would you know mr Hillary???
You are unable to understand how we define a Default Position or why all claims come with a burden.
Do you really believe that your reasoning is a credible source of judgments?
If yes pls demonstrate one of your existential claims.

To be honest I am not sure about your ontology... — Nickolasgaspar

Don't worry about my ontology, Nickolas. She sleeps safe under the bed. We just gave her a meal and later I take her for a walk...

You are unable to understand how we define a Default Position or why all claims come with a burden. — Nickolasgaspar

My Default Position is different from yours. My default position is a heavenly etetrnal universe, and next to it the material copy of it, in which heavenly life repeats eternally in periodic big bangs.

No, that's not what I said. I said that he answers only things he can answer and are not suggesting something else and better. I have sent him five emails now and Im done with him. He's not really interested in truth, as you call it. Just in promoting his own ideas, which are false.i dont think he likes it I pointed him out. — Hillary

5 is a lot, maybe he considered that 'pestering,' under the netiquette guidelines.
Maybe you are correct and he didn't want to promote your idea as it was contrary to his.
Maybe but maybe not, perhaps his reasons were less sinister than that.
Do you think Mr Harari would react well to 5 emails in succession?
Don't get so annoyed at these people, you get a lot of pleasure out of your pursuit of scientific truth regardless of those currently at the top of the science community, dont you?

If yes pls demonstrate one of your existential claims. — Nickolasgaspar

Okay, one last try. In my Default Position, the very existence of the material universe is proof of the heavenly universe, because they come in a duo package.

I said I am not sure....not that I am interested in knowing.

-My Default Position is different from yours.
lol....hahahahaha obviously, but your is just a position NOT a position that we arrive from the Null hypothesis...so remove the default Mr hillary!

-"My default position is a heavenly etetrnal universe, and next to it the material copy of it, in which heavenly life repeats eternally in periodic big bangs. "
-Yes your position is that you believe in magical claims you are unable to objectively demonstrate as true. I already know that and I don't ask that.
My question is simple. How a full grown up individual with access to education can still hold medieval age beliefs without any objective verification.

I didn't sent them one after another. I sent them spread over long time. Ill show you one:

Hi Sean Carroll! I was discussing on the philosophy forum. I'm writing about a cosmological model which tries to explain dark energy, particle/antiparticle asymmetry, mass generations, the nature of spacetime, etc. I think massless preons exist which make up quarks and leptons. Not as pointlike particles but as 6d structures of which three are curled up in Planck-sized circles (like circles on a cilinder). Their bindings in triplets creates massive quarks and leptons. In 3d they seem pointlike. Our universe contains equal numbers of both. 


The thing I wanna ask you about. If the universe consists of two infinite 4d spaces, divided by a Planck-sized wormhole (like the center of a torus, the torus being open on the outside), could it be two 3d universes are pushed into real existence from a virtual state? Like Hawking radiation? Could all matter (except gravity) be confined to 3d while expanding in a negatively curved 4d space (the Gaussian curvature on the mouth of a torus is negative). Maybe our universe is, together with a mirror universe (antiprotons, antineutrons, positrons, and antineutrinos) expanding from a central tiny mouth, and when the both have accelerated away to infinity, the stage is set for a new inflation around the mouth, and two 3d universes are spat out, which again expand to infinity, etcetera. Is there an argument that reasons against this? Thanks in advance!


Pestering?

Okay, one last try. In my Default Position, the very existence of the material universe is proof of the heavenly universe, because they come in a duo package. — Hillary

That is a false equivalence . The existence of a material universe CAN ONLY BE USED AS EVIDENCE for the existence of a MATERIAL UNIVERSE.
The qualifier "heavenly" in front of the word universe obviously introduces some qualities that YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE as possible and true.
CAN you do that or you are just good in playing with words?

You call everything I say against science playing. Tell me, what about ghost particles? — Hillary

Well, its a descriptive nonscientific term used for the benefit of the public, is that what you are asking me about? Their use of the term ghost or are you asking me about my opinion on the validity of the science behind ghost particles?

That is a false equivalence . The existence of a material universe CAN ONLY BE USED AS EVIDENCE for the existence of a MATERIAL UNIVERSE. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes! You got that very right. With or in the material universe you can't prove or disprove the eternal heavenly realm. For you it's a fantasy, for me an improvable reality giving reason and meaning to my material dancing. You're still in denial, or school took it away from you.

Ego dragon, bovine manure? If anyone offers cinstructive comments it's universeness! Not sure about you... — Hillary

:smile: :up: Thanks Hillary!

Well, its a descriptive nonscientific term used for the benefit of the public, — universeness

No. Its not for the public. They are found in qft books. What are they?

Ghosts in physics

lol....that must be a new low for you...but then again moving your finger to others while falsify accusing them of things just to hear your voice is right there.

Look here:

In the terminology of quantum field theory, a ghost, ghost field, ghost particle, or gauge ghost is an unphysical state in a gauge theory. Ghosts are necessary to keep gauge invariance in theories where the local fields exceed a number of physical degrees of freedom.

If a given theory is self-consistent by the introduction of ghosts, these states are labeled "good". Good ghosts are virtual particles that are introduced for regularization, like Faddeev–Popov ghosts. Otherwise, "bad" ghosts admit undesired non-virtual states in a theory, like Pauli–Villars ghosts that introduce particles with negative kinetic energy.

Unphysical states...

Well that seems a great deal to ask about!
I assume he allocates a certain amount of time to answer a single question in his monthly podcast.
Perhaps he felt he could not do your question justice within the allocated time.
Maybe he had other reasons I don't know but I would suggest that none of his reasons would be invoked by any personal bias against you or your hypothesis. I can't claim I know that for sure but if he is like that then yeah, forget him and try to communicate a little more with Mr Harari.

.that must be a new low for you...but then again moving your finger to others while falsify accusing them of things just to hear your voice is right there. — Nickolasgaspar

Universeness is atheist, just like you. But his calibers are above yours. Shall I post or shall I not...?




Maybe. But Carroll too believes in a mirror universe, but going to the other side of time zero.

No. Its not for the public. They are found in qft books. What are they? — Hillary

Its the public who they are trying to sell the books to.
Neutrinos are often called ghost particles because they pass through us and the Earth etc.
Like a ghost can, it's just meaningless emotive terminology.
neutrinos are also sometime called WIMP as they might be Weakly Interacting Massive Particles.
WIMP is also used in Computing, Windows, Icons, Pointer, Menus. Just convenient labels.

The neutrino is not what is meant. Jn the popular press, yes. But not in qft. I had to learn them while studying qft, and neutrinos are not involved. For example, the Goldstone boson is such a ghost. No one has seen one. It's a fantasy thought to exist!

-"

With or in the material universe you can't prove or disprove the eternal heavenly realm. — Hillary

-lol so why accepting it? Aren't you interested in avoiding potentially wrong claims?
You don't really care the truth value of what you believe?

-"For you it's a fantasy,"
-Lol I never said that! what's wrong with you two and your strawmen?
For me is an irrational belief that isn't supported from objective facts.
Are you able to distinguish the difference of rejecting a claim as irrational and rejecting it as a fantasy or wrong?

-"

for me an improvable reality giving reason and meaning to my material dancing — Hillary

"
-I get it, but why don't you keep it to yourself but you force it on others as true and a fact?

You're still in denial, or school took it away from you. — Hillary

-lol in denial of what.......of the fact that you accept an improvable reality because it is comforting for you? This is what I am telling you from day one Hillary! lol


Why would you ever accuse others being in denial because they demand higher standards for suspiciously comforting claims????

Your sentences, accusations, claims and arguments are a hot mesh mate!
Are you really 35 and did you really go to school because your reasoning appear to be that of a 13yo.

To make that statement, one must be already living. Because one is living, the part of the statement saying "to never exist" becomes just a supposition or wishful thinking. The living is reality, and non existence is a supposition. Is reality better or more meaningful than the emotional supposition?

lol....that must be a new low for you...but then again moving your finger to others while falsify accusing them of things just to hear your voice is right there — Nickolasgaspar

So much for your big loud "YOU ARE DONE," gasbag gaspar. You deflate more and more.
You will insist on staring into the mirror. Take a wee lesson from the theists. Pride is a deadly sin.
Wash it off your face and your mirror will reflect something less offensive.
Learn how to be less of an arrogant *****.

Universeness is atheist, just like you. But his calibers are above yours. Shall I post or shall I not...? — Hillary

again lets assume that the caliber of this arrogant pretentious demagogue is above me....HOW would you know??? lol
Because he trolls you and your social cues don't allow you to see it?

In the terminology of quantum field theory, a ghost, ghost field, ghost particle, or gauge ghost is an unphysical state in a gauge theory. Ghosts are necessary to keep gauge invariance in theories where the local fields exceed a number of physical degrees of freedom.

If a given theory is self-consistent by the introduction of ghosts, these states are labeled "good". Good ghosts are virtual particles that are introduced for regularization, like Faddeev–Popov ghosts. Otherwise, "bad" ghosts admit undesired non-virtual states in a theory, like Pauli–Villars ghosts that introduce particles with negative kinetic energy.

Unphysical states. — Hillary

Your physics knowledge is beyond mine in this area. I have only associated the term ghost particle with neutrinos. I would need to study the details behind the content of what you typed here.
Maybe someone else on the forum has the physics to debate you on what you are talking about here.
I know a little about virtual particle exchanges during interactions but not the detailed quantum mechanics involved. I have never heard of Faddeev-Popov ghosts.

@Nickolasgaspar types words like a petulant child, please don't waste your energy defending me to him. I really appreciate your attempt but he is not even a minor itch.

again lets assume that the caliber of this arrogant pretentious demagogue is above me....HOW would you know??? — Nickolasgaspar

I know because I had many conversations with him before. And he has a completely different attitude than yours. Discussing with him gives a good feeling. You try to put yourself above others. You are a good classic philosopher, no doubt. Sticking to the true schematics of the western philosopher, and all that. You insist on proof. Uni does too, but at least he tries to look into the things I believe in, the gods, that is. The only thing gods do is giving a reason for the universe. And we just gotta live to find out what heavenly life is about. And taking care of paradise. Science creates chaos in paradise and the apple bitten by Eve was probably the apple of scientific knowledge.

Too late... I just saw it now...

Too late... I just saw it now.. — Hillary

Yeah, he is fully cooked I think. Not worth your energy investment.
It's very hard for someone so chiseled to see their own shorfalls.
I have learned to be aware of most of mine, I think and I try to admit to them and combat them.
Even the theists know the dangers of being perfect or even claiming to be. Humans will crucify you!

Even the theists know the dangers of being perfect or even claiming to be. Humans will crucify you! — universeness

If Christ really existed, that could have been the reason! Too perfect. Too good to be true. Did Christ have a Jesus complex?

To me, it seems absurd to make the comparison between existence and nonexistence as a characteristic of an individual in the first place as nonexistence isn't a quality something can have, nor is it something we can meaningfully evaluate comparatively. — ratgambling

I agree on this one, if we're just going by human subjectivity then we can't possibly compare existence vs. non-existence.

I think experience can lead us -- should lead us -- to conclude that existence per se is actually amazing. From a scientific perspective it's incredibly complex and from a personal perspective there's all types of different ways to experience it along with countless different environments. Find one that suits you. My basic starting point is Genesis where God says that life/existence is good but I understand that not everyone accepts that. I think you're right that purely rationally speaking we have no ways to compare between the two.