joigus

I have several issues with this statement, and other careless statements like this. Just to clarify, because the quoting function makes it look as if you said something, which you didn't. Again: I didn't say this. It's on the abstract. But thanks a lot for your reply, Markus. No ofence taken, @MigL. I know. Thanks for clarification. Good points here. I'll go over them more deeply as soon as I have the time. The moment you introduce matter travelling on background geometry you change the metric is a deep observation. Then, I also find an almost insurmountable amount of practical objections. Like accretion disks I mentioned. Perhaps also, the rigorous solution should include quantum mechanics, as @Kartazion suggests. From what I've read (in a hurry) by Markus, the only classically consistent solutions to me would be cyclic, so as not to have problems with causal paradoxes. But what about quantum mechanics then? Sorry I'm being so sketchy. Not much time.

Generally, I agree with you. In fact, I don't think time travel will ever be possible. My interpretation was that they claim to have provided a possible mechanism. Here's what I interpreted as the claim: So I was not being that generous, if you think about it. Not really. Hypothetical time travel uses curvature, and time dilation is a different thing altogether and does not require curvature. Perhaps someone can provide a more complete explanation. Well, spacetime from bits requires quantum mechanics and the holographic principle. Conjectural time travel is based on classical GR.

Scientists from the University of Queensland claim to have found a possible mechanism for time travel. Laypeople-level account: https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2020/09/young-physicist-squares-numbers’-time-travel The paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/aba4bc/pdf The abstract: The paper is highly mathematical, and I haven't found the time to take a more detailed look at this topic. I've just learnt about it. It seems that the key idea is to find plausible trajectories in phase-space for particles in the background geometry. That wasn't very informative. Sorry I can't say anything else significant right now. Any comments welcome. Edit: Whenever I think of these mathematical solutions, I can't help picturing the quite terrifying accretion disks of black holes... You know what I mean.

Electrons are not older than the universe. They are probably remnants of baryogenesis. So in that sense they're a tiny speck of time younger. Particles generally don't have distant information stored in them. That is a very rare condition. You must keep coherence for the entangled particles for very long distances to show such effect.

Yes, I realise. When I suggested that "what if" it wasn't in a strictly deterministic sense. When I said that, out of the top of my head, I pictured it like a series of arrows, conditioned in turn by the internal logic of the language. Plus also implications in the other direction (physical --> linguistic.) So I suppose the landscape would be pretty complicated. You tell me. But if we continue this conversation we may awaken the balrog of free will that lives in the depths of this forum.

Unfortunately, the pioneer (as I'm told), the scientist who discovered the CRISPR gene (totally irrelevant to the research, I assume) was left out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Mojica

Well... I didn't say exactly I believe it. I believe nothing. I just said "what if...?"

What if language/ideas is a self-organizing superstructure that's using us to build something we cannot intuit yet? I think that's very much what's happening, actually.

And you do well. Everyone is unbelievable. Can you believe yourself? Humans should stop believing each other and themselves. The sooner the better. Let alone God. A better world might result.

In my case, it had nothing to do with god; it was that the process of believing itself ground to a halt. I no longer believe anything.

Maybe it is.

Buddhism/Taoism have no faith, no concept of justice, it's a regression to where all concepts come from. It's observation helped by action, and action helped by observation. The fulcrum of all of it is that we all live under the illusion that "I" is some-thing. By continuous practice you get to see that "I" is no-thing. Compassion towards others is the only possible consequence of this realisation. Justice is more of a consequence than a goal in these traditions. So my qualms are over faith-based religions. I started the discussion with "religion" as synonymous of faith-based religion. Then I corrected myself. But I don't think that just any practice will get you to be at peace with the world, or with "yourself." It is no coincidence that most religions have a tradition of retreat, renounce, and observation. Faith and narratives play no role there.

That's historically (almost)* true, I think --the monotheistic concept of justice dispensing is probably later than the idea of karma. But karma is law of cause and effect (more akin to science's view of events.) So karma is more of an "ultimate" kind of idea, for me at least. Substituting the law of cause and effect for a conscious being that handles justice is the mistake humanity lapses into again and again. True --AFAIK. Science doesn't have a handle for that yet. But maybe some day. The scope of science excludes nothing. The Buddhist and Taoist traditions have a very good answer for that. Paraphrasing Bodhidharma: "My mind is troubled" "Bring me your mind and I will put it at ease" (something like that) * If we're talking about monotheism. Taoism and Buddhism are probably older.

I could hardly agree more. The only religious elements I've meant to reject here are faith, any concept of god, and any concept of permanent ethics. Rituals are alien to me, but I have nothing against them, and I recognize some value to them, for some people. I practice zen meditation and listen to dharma talks myself, and they're both of great value to me. If that's what religion boils down to, I have no problem with it.

It's the taking part that counts. That must have been a day to remember. My list is: Ilya Prigogine (I fell asleep midway through the talk). Norman Ramsey Sheldon Glashow Serge Haroche Well, Hawking and Penrose worked together on singularities, if I remember correctly. They proved basically that real singularities must be hidden behind horizons (so-called cosmic censorship.) Then Hawking went on to work on entropy following research by Bekenstein. I can't help by wonder whether the Nobel Committee have not included Penrose as some kind of tribute to both, Hawking and Penrose. It's become extremely hard to get a Nobel Prize doing highly theoretical work. Do you mean MigL for Peace and Trump for Physics? MigL certainly is a nice chap. At some point he lost it. But he's done much more of great interest than his work on singularities. Twistors, combined with other ideas by Witten, have revolutionized theoretical physics. Unfortunately theory is much groping in the dark. He got convinced that gravitation produces the "collapse of the wave function." And he went where the buses don't run.

Breaking news: https://nationalpost.com/pmn/health-pmn/penrose-genzel-and-ghez-win-2020-nobel-prize-for-physics Much focus on gravitation lately. Will this be the era of gravity? Would Hawking have won the Nobel Prize had he been living today?

Just elaborating on what @mathematic and @swansont have said... It wouldn't even make much sense geometrically. An angle is naturally (more simply) expressed as a ratio of lengths (arc/radius). The sine itself is a ratio of lengths too. If you define x in cm it's as much as saying that there's one circle which is the mother of all circles. The 1-cm radius circle!! A 1-cm-radius circle is a French thing. Why should a circle be French? (There is a 1-m bar in Paris keeping this standard of length.)

Confirmation... I dodged that bullet. As well as matrimony. Last Rites don't seem likely. Anyway. I see I have more work than usual in this thread. @MigL, I promise to give due answer to your comments, and zaps' too. You guys deserve a good, respectful, intelligent answer. Maybe tomorrow. I'm tired today. As I tell my students: First think, then talk. Not the other way around.

I've also noticed the same pattern. Although I must confess there are exceptions. One of my best friends was very religious (Catholic Christian). He suffered from multiple sclerosis, was younger than me by five years, and died last May. He was always happy, very optimistic. I attended the requiem mass and I saw her widow. She looked quite upbeat too. They were more committed than average, I have to say. Yes, but in other thinking systems there are loopholes, you can argue your way out of them. And nobody's taught political thinking at 5. Come on. I suppose you mean things like politics, the "be a winner" ethos, I don't know. Is something like that what you mean? Ok. I see. Well. It's not the same. It should be obvious. Edit: Some of these things you mention are skin-deep. Others have powerful underlying reasons based on common sense. Others still are arguable, but not presented as mandatory.

First of all, you don't strike me as someone particularly worried about freedom of thought, as my main argument that from a very early age children are force-fed a system of belief seems to have gone through your conscience like neutrinos through a sheet of paper. Yes, I embolden certain words because they seem to be transparent to you. Is the etching of false beliefs and remorseful and hostile feelings in indelible words and concepts on the blank slate of a child's mind within your concept of freedom? Whose freedom? The kids'? The parents', who have in turn, more than likely, been brain-washed? Can that (and not mine) be considered an innocent way of emboldening (using your phrasing as an analogy) words and concepts? You seem to be very easily annoyed and very easily scared. Apparently the fact that millions upon millions of children have been taught (and still are in some parts of the world) that they will have to fight to the death what other people believe does not bother you at all. What scares you is that a teacher of science and maths like me can think this way, and make suggestions in a mature and intellectual context where I can be rebutted by adults like myself. Religion teachers, on the contrary, claim the right not to be rebutted. What scares you is what I think, not what I'm saying here; as I wouldn't dream of saying any of this to my class. You don't know me at all. How easily you assume that I, as a matter of course, do what only the people you seem to defend do (as a matter of course.) I've chosen the path of expressing my thinking and trying to argue, to explain to others what I think and why. You seem to have chosen the path of saying what you think of me. Well done. And please, stop soiling the word "freedom." It's too precious to me.

This is just a value judgement. I could say you're preaching with as much reason as you can say I am. I could say you are unconvincing. I could say you are not rigorous. Those would be value judgments, exactly as yours. Instead, what I will say is that you're the first person I know that can judge enthusiasm by looking at typed words. Nothing even remotely close to enthusiasm what I feel discussing this topic. And, please, don't be scared by me saying that certain people should be helped. The possibility or the arguable necessity of helping other people shouldn't scare you, as long as you think rationally. It does not surprise me at all that someone who is particularly lenient with faith-based religion declares fear. Faith-based religion lives on fear. What's scary is that many atheists have to live in fear or be extremely vulnerable because nobody will help them in their social milieu. That's scary.

If I were asked to invent a narrative to bring consolation to dying people, I'm certain I would come up with a better story than the possibility that they will go to a place of eternal suffering if everything is not in order in their past life. I did find out, AAMOF: I've seen someone very close to me die in fear because of religion, so I do know the effect on the mind when you're about to die and you're a Catholic. Thank science for morphine, because that's what brought her peace, not religion. The fear in her eyes because she thought it was a punishment from heaven is something I won't forget for as long as I live. @jajrussel Religious people preach, not atheists. Atheists argue --or they should. Atheists call on theists to prove their point, and theists always fail. There is a whole mind, intention, and tradition of difference. @Trurl As to Michio Kaku, well if he said that, he's wrong about it: I don't have a god, not because I can prove it doesn't exist. I don't have a teapot orbiting around the Sun either --Russell. The onus is on the people who say something supernatural is our maker and has a plan for us. I'm sorry. We're a grown up species, whatever that means. But for a start, it must mean that we're only answerable to ourselves and have to make sense of this newly acquired responsibility. If we mismanage the world, it's our home we will destroy; if we mismanage ourselves, it's we who will suffer the consequences. Welcome to the era of reality-based ethics. It is for us to develop standards of action so that no misdeeds are done with science, or politics, or medicine, or education as an excuse (trying to answer to @zapatos). Welcome to the era of grown-up primates!

No possible comparison with business, medicine or politics, although there are bad apples in every quarter, and some systems of power and influence are rotten to the core. Every faith-based religion does set about to possess your mind from the very beginning of your life. There can be no other reason why children are not given an option. And children are not given such an option, you will agree, I'm sure. It's not like you turn 15 and they tell you: "Would you like to join the faith of our ancestors? You are only too obviously not free to make your choice. There is no choice. Nobody enjoys such a luxury within their family religion. Parents aren't fully aware of what they're doing, @zapatos. I know. They do what they think is best for their kids, of course. Mine did too. They think it's the only option. Why? Because nobody let them choose when they were children either. I used a superlative, and you're damping it with a counter-acting superlative. I said most religions are like that. Maybe I was too sweeping with my statement. I should have said faith-based religions. But then you've said you don't see a smidgeon of evidence for it. Really? Not a smidgeon? How about hundreds of millions of children being brain-washed and kept in ignorance, and not being allowed to chose? Is history not an evidence? Is the present geo-social-and-political situation not evidence enough? Is the fact that only in countries where social movements and critical thinking haven't still gathered enough momentum the only ones that remain as theocracies? Where a chiefly religious law-and-order system can have your hands cut for stealing, have you hanged or imprisoned for expressing your thoughts, or have a woman stoned to death for being raped? It's very nice and solacing the scene that you've depicted with the choir and the church. I can sympathize with it to an extent. Similar images remind me of my parents, happy days of my life long past. But I don't forget for a moment when I was 15 and declared at home that I was not to attend mass any more, and the kind of menacing messages I received, camouflaged as sheer disbelief, from some members of my family. I can't forget how I was insulted for doubting the real presence of Christ in the sacramental bread when I was about 13 by a priest who happened to be my Religion teacher. I also like beautiful and quiet churches, Bach religious cantatas, etc. But I can equally appreciate and be led to the same levels of reflection by the contemplation of Islamic gardens, Buddhist temples and Jewish chants, or the poetry in the Bible. They're all beautiful and inspiring, but that has nothing to do with ethics and freedom. They were meant to inspire and elevate people's minds when they were written, built or composed, and so they still are, even centuries after we have rid ourselves of the tragic context in which they appeared --although not totally. Religion gives you a cultural background, be it a song or a funny hat. I'm not against that. Everybody can wear the hat that they please for all I care.

Religion is not "what makes you feel good about yourself." I don't remember a single instance in my life when the religious principles that they foisted upon me made me feel the least good about myself. Quite the contrary. In the Christian religion in particular, it's quite ironic: God made the universe with you in mind, but you are constantly reminded that you are worthless. This case is completely different. Sex and sexual inclinations are not taught. Religion is. If you go back to what I said, it's really "people who want to get out of it need help and advice with...", rather than what you seem to imply. Forceful mutilation, mind programming to instill fear, hate, guilt, immediate obedience without question to unchecked-by-objective-observers religious authorities, who in many cases are only answerable to their own religious authorities. Arranged marriages for underage girls, obligation to kill others and die if necessary to protect or advance your own religion, persecution of other faiths --in some cases--. Social isolation or even imprisonment or severe physical punishment if you don't abide by the rules. Keeping children from being aware of similar circumstances in other religions, so that they more easily assume their condition as "natural" or inevitable. There are possibly hundreds more reasons. None of us comes out looking pretty here, no matter what our culture is. All of this carefully installed in children's minds year after year. As I said, psychological abuse beyond any doubt.

No. For starters, I had nothing specific in mind... 🏸 What I'm saying is very different. It's about offering advice to people who want to get out. Don't forget most religion is psychological abuse. (IMO.)