Eise

Some great answers were already given. Yes, it might seem hard, but would you refuse to go to the movies, just because you know the movie will end? And that after a year you might not remember much of it? I could give an answer in a Buddhist spirit: first realise that everything is changing, and therefore also will come to an end. Secondly, realise that you, as an autonomous, independent object, do not exist. You are the sum of all your biological and biographical factors, which include decisions you made yourself. Thirdly, realise that you are not the only one: every conscious being is in this situation. If you can really feel this, it can increase your compassion with other beings. When you feel this, and can act accordingly, such questions will not bother you anymore. Read this comic for another view on this. I am glad to hear this from you.

Damned! Is that the only choice I have? Being a simulation or being delusional? What does that mean for the OP? Is he a simulation or is he delusional?

But then you have proved my point...

When you translate the word 'godsdienst' you get 'religion'. Obviously there is more 'godsdienst' in the Netherlands and Belgium. "Languages differ by differentiating differently"

To prolong a meaningless life?

Aren't delusions bugs?

Sometimes I see bugs. So we must live in a simulation.

I'll better refer to Wikipedia before I say something wrong... But my understanding is that the cosmologists suppose that dark energy is constant per volume. But as the universe expands, there is more and more dark energy, so the expansion rate of the universe increases. But there are people here that may know it much better.

Imagine 2 satellites orbiting the earth very close to each other. Do you have any problem with that? (You need Newton's laws to understand this.) Now imagine that one satellite is bigger than the other, but both still orbiting very close to the other. Do you have any problem with that? (You need Newton's laws to understand this.) Now assume the biggest one is hollow, and the smaller one is completely inside the other. Both are doing their own orbit, which happens to be the same. Do you have any problem with that? (You need Newton's laws to understand this.) So the smaller satellite is 'weightless' in relation to the big satellite: it does not bounce any wall of the bigger satellite. Do you have any problem with that? (You need Newton's laws to understand this.) Now suppose the bigger satellite is filled with air, and the smaller one is an astronaut... Do you have any problem with that? (You don't need Newton's laws to understand this.)

For some 20 years the answer would have been definitely 'no'. It was assumed that the expansion slowed down due to gravity. So this would have been the usual process of turning kinetic energy into potential energy in a gravitation field. The only question was if the kinetic energy was enough to let the universe expand forever, or that it would once contract again. But then it was discovered that the expansion is accelerating. This needs a source of energy, and as there is no explanation yet what it is, it is called 'dark energy'. This is still one of the greatest riddles in cosmology. You can't ignore its existing motion: the kinetic energy would be the source of the potential energy. The sum of kinetic and potential energy stays the same. But the gravitational attraction between Andromeda and the Galaxy is stronger than the expansion of the universe (at the moment!). In fact, we are moving to each other, and we will eventually collide. Well, once set in motion, there is no energy source needed for an object to move away from a gravitational centre. Just throw a ball in the air, and as soon as it has left your hand it moves on without any energy source. You gave it the initial kinetic energy, and if the energy would suffice the ball would leave the earth forever. So if we take instead of Andromeda a galaxy that is billions of light years away, its movement away could be explained by the the initial big bang. However, this movement should slow down due to gravity, and as said above, it doesn't.

Vacuum does not suck. Gas under pressure pushes away. Think about it. Maybe you find the answer yourself now.

Don't forget birds! And octopii!

I remember that his thread started with a very basic misunderstanding of Ivylove of what the wave function is. Now he argues that whatever interpretations of QM are false based on an old work of Schrödinger. And then we get this: Time to put this thread into trash.

And if that does not exist, i.e. there is always the groundstate of certain Quantum fields? Does it make sense to speak of absolute nothingness, except as some very abstract idea?

This is either a contradiction, or you are using two different meanings of the word 'nothing'. I think the word 'vacuum' is pretty clear: there is no matter in a vacuum. You introduced the concept of absolute nothingness. If you do not know what that is your statements are... eh.. vacuous.

What is the whole meaning?

Vacuum?

Krauss says somewhere that 'nothing' is unstable. And if absolute nothingness does not exist, cannot exist? Why would you bother about it? 'Fields, fields, everywhere, but no particle in sight'.

I think this is just where culture comes in. When a child grows up, it does so in its 'natural environment', i.e. everything it encounters is just a part of its world. It gets used to to it by guidance of parents (first) and then other teachers and peers. But I think there is no formal distinction between a child growing up in the stone age, learning what it can eat, how to find the way in the woods, how to hunt etc., and a modern day child: only the contents differ. Now this 'wild child' has also no idea how strawberries grow, but it is enough to know that he can eat the berries, as for us it is not needed to know how a car works, as long as we can drive it. So one could say, culture is our natural environment. Well I think our minds are superior (which does not mean other minds do no suffer just as we do!). But it is only partially because of our biological constitution. Minds are just as much formed by culture. The way we assign free will, responsibility, knowledge, identification with our bodies, thoughts and feelings, is greatly influenced by the culture in which we grow up. But that means also, that this 'superior mind' is also a cultural artifact, and most people do not greatly contribute to this 'superiority'. So, yes, no reason for anyone to feel bigheaded... Newton in a letter to Robert Hooke:

Just my 2 cents: I do not think there is a contradiction between instinct and consciousness. Instinct might exist without consciousness in lower animals, but I am even not sure about that. On the other side, many human actions are also driven by instinct, but they may well be very conscious of what they are doing, but maybe not why they are doing it. I see the main difference between human an non-human animals in the flexibility of the brain, i.e. experiences we have greatly affect the brain. And of course, of many experiences we are conscious, and can also consciously reflect on them ('I should have taken only one beer.'). Much of the sources of experience are also of cultural nature, i.e. we learn from our parents, friends, books, science... I assume culture can only exist when a big part of the brain can be affected, and is not already fixed by instincts; so it will only exist in higher animals.

That is nonsense. In a dream you might discuss with other people too, but those people are produced in your mind. They could even harm you in your dream! There is no rigid argument against solipsism. There is also no rigid argument in favour of solipsism. I think a better question would be what difference it would make for me. I personally think that if you go really into the matter, you will realise there is no practical difference. Philosophy can in some cases show the uselessness of a question. The question about solipsism is such a one in my opinion. But some philosophers might not agree with me...

I suggest you read this. This picture more or less says it all: First picture is the wave function for several energies, second its square, i.e. the probability distribution, third the energy levels. As you see the probability distribution is always >= 0, and total chance for every of the three distributions is 1. Clear? PS See also here.

It can't. But the wave function can. Just calculate the wave function, multiply it with its complex conjugate, and voila, you have your probability distribution.

I think in this simple sentence lies the obvious truth. It is very difficult to nourish yourself healthy with a pure vegan diet. But it is surely not necessary to eat so much animal food as we are consuming. There are too many problems with so many people eating so much animal food as we do: too much meat is not healthy local environmental pollution due to superfluous manure, and its counterpart: loss of minerals and jungles in e.g. soja producing countries waste of resources: 1 kilo of meat costs about 8 kilo vegetable food, and many times the amount of water than when we would eat vegetables, corn, rice etc directly cows produce methane which is a strong greenhouse gas misuse of antibiotics, hormones etc. animal suffering in industrial livestock farming It is not black of white: close to vegan would be best for all: human and non-human animals... As for the topic: a vegan diet would help against world hunger, but there are surely many more factors that cause it, like stopping food waste and fair distribution of food amongst all people are just as important.

For what it is worth, if I remember correctly: there were no empirical differences between Poincaré and Einstein about relativity. But Poincaré still held to the idea that there was some 'real time', even if it was empirically impossible what the 'absolute time frame' was. Einsteins basic assumptions were less, and simpler.