tar

dimreeper, well thanks, I think But do I exhibit qualities that you wish to eliminate from your being? Regards, TAR Phi, Higher taxes on the uber wealthy means the uber wealthy lose their stuff. Stuff they accumulated by working, or providing a rare skill or talent, or taking a risk, or having a good idea or otherwise providing value to others. They have already given to society. You want to take twice. Regards, TAR

in pure economic philosophical terms one has to create value, do something of value for someone else, in order to get something of value in return nobody deserves getting something of value for nothing

And, in terms of being on a team. I am hated by anyone that hates the U.S. and thinks the U.S. is the Great Satan. The killer raged against the ways of Americans. My team. I suffer the hatred of the guy because I take and pay interest, because I tolerate gays, because I have statues of my , because I look at porn, because I smoked cigarettes, because I let my wife walk around by herself without covering her face and hair with makeup on...or whatever personal freedoms I allow and support and exercise and fight to maintain and protect, because I am an American. If I am hated because I support the Zionists and the gays, and Hollywood and Wall Street and Corporate America, I am hated because I am me. dimreeper, I have been a careful stepper. Always considering the other guy or girl's position. But in terms of deserving, I am one of those who figures you sleep in the bed you make. I deserve what I have because I studied and worked and served and saved and maintained and strived to make it so. My house was not mine, before I bought it. But once I bought it, I deserved it, and I did not step on anybody to get it. I paid a fair price, and continue to pay high taxes and interest and such. I deserve it, because I earned it. Equally deserving people have also earned what they have. Those that have less did not earn as much, or squandered their income on drugs or sex or jewelry or something. What is your criteria for being deserving of something that belongs to someone else? Regards, TAR

Phi, I overthink stuff, and I take more resources from this Earth, in food and minerals, and water and wood and such than does the average human. I have driven over a million miles in my life and flown here and there on airplanes. I have exceeded and will exceed the equally portioned rations that a communist system would offer me. I have more space, more freedom, more stuff than the majority of the population of the Earth, that has less than me and have used fewer resources. The distance between me and the yacht guy is one of degree, not of a different kind. If I am to be listed amongst the elite of the Earth, a member of the middle class of the richest nation on Earth, any desire to redistribute wealth would be not in my favor. You would be advocating using what I have in the manner of your choosing. My stuff is not your stuff to give out, and the same goes for the yacht guy's stuff. If you think you have rights to his stuff, you likewise think you have rights to my stuff. Hate him, and you hate me. Regards, TAR

plus we don't know how Neanderthals said goodbye to their dead cremation, like on a Viking funeral pyre, could turn recognizable skulls to fragments of bone and ashes or they could have been crushed to powder and slurry and consumed for all we know, or fed to the fishes or bears or tossed into the sea or we might find the whole population of Neanderthals that lived in the Tigris/Euphrates area all neatly lined up and mummified in secret hidden sealed off limestone caverns, yet to be discovered

depth of quirk I have not been thusly admonished before. but it is useful for the discussion to be thusly admonished because it still exhibits a desire on dimreeeper's part to isolate that quirk from his being the point of hating what I fear is to let Phi know I would not be pleased with him taking my stuff so that he does not take it, knowing that it would displease me, if he did

Phi, What would you have me do for the people in India. Not buy leather goods and deprive them of their livelihood? Regards, TAR

What I mean by that, is I don't think I get to live in my house in the suburbs of NYC much longer, since I don't currently have a job and my wife recently got laid off. We are OK because we worked and saved all our lives, and can probably arrange selling the house, and moving to a place with lower taxes and can probably live a comfortable retirement...but probably not without working some more and learning some more to be productive. But I would "hate" to have my stuff and my retirement funds taken away and given to someone else, because Phi thinks I am selfish and greedy and have too much.

Beautiful song. Interesting, considering Phi's solution that John and Oko filmed that in a huge spacious white room apparently a mansion with grounds. If it was filmed on the filthy streets of some overpopulated slum in India with barefoot and hungry hoards wandering about, the sentiment would not seem as possible or as beautiful. I saw a piece the other day about the Ganges River and how it is polluted and stinks from the filth of millions including Chromium used in the production of leather goods for sale in the West. 8 billion people can not fit in John and Oko's dream room.

oh but on the other hand, since the discussion is about there being something other than here and now, and other than "my" universe, it is central to the discussion

dimreeper, But if we hate those who hate gays, because our relative is gay and we hate those who hate our relatives, are we hating appropriately or inappropriately? Earlier someone said hate Is hate. I am thinking hating is something more along the line of what disarray said concerning putting a certain quality out, and assigning this quality to the people you put out. Out of what is the clue I am trying to follow here. I am thinking in terms of the first second and third person, and thinking in terms of friends and enemies, and thinking in terms of those on your team and those on the rival team. Boston fans hate the Yankees. I hate Boston fans that hate the Yankees because I am a Yankee fan. Both teams are athletes with mothers and fathers and families and arms and legs and brains and emotions and uniforms and such, to where hating the one team and loving the other is not sensible. Yet we all do this team thing, this enemy thing. Hilary is proud that she is enemy of the Republicans, the drug companies and the Iranians. Yet she hates haters. What if you are an Iranian, a Republican and work for a drug company. Should you love Hilary, hate her or what? Hate must have a survival benefit, must be a way we have of teaming up and fighting wars against evil stuff we don't want to be associated with. Things that would destroy us, that we instead destroy in order to survive. Regards, TAR Phi hates selfish greedy people. I suppose the funny thing about hating the hater is similar to fighting for a lasting Peace.

So, must one renounce their humanness in order to be a scientist? I have thought about this, and have noticed that however objective you wish to be, you can never take that last step and sever your relationship to yourself. In this both the scientist and the Eastern religion's loser of oneself is thwarted by definition. You can never not be you, because once you achieve that, it is you that did it.

hum, and what is the point of science, to be impractical? Memammal, I like to think about science. I read this board, I muse about gravity and electrons and vast times and immense places. But I have noticed we are insulated from the beginning and the end of the universe by this same vast time, and insulated from the majority of the universe, by Immense distances. Being scientific and mathematical you can model the whole place in analogies and formulae, but you are just as insulated from it all, as I am. Neither of us can get outside it and look at it as an object. There will always be the subjective human experience, because that is ALL we have, the either of us, to work with. We cannot transcend the situation, and act as if being human is not important, crucial and the central aspect to our existence. Because being human is the only thing we have, the only point of view we can experience. Regards, TAR

.d​​​isarray, ​I am opposite the who cares thought. I am, as Memammal suggests operating on the basis of I care, and we care, and we have no evidence that anybody other than our forefathers and foremothers ever did care. We are the center of the universe, in that the rest is in all directions from here. And we are in the center of time, as that we exist in the present, and the past came before, and the future comes after. And we are in the center scalewise, as there are things many multiples of 10 times smaller than us, and many multiples of 10 larger than us. And the universe is noticeable to me because it is arriving at this point of focus which is TAR, now, and here. Not other places, not other times. Here and now. And my here and now is also yours, within a couple thousand miles and a fraction of a second. So the fact that we exist, as we do, differenciates us from the block universe. That there are other places and other times is true, but not materially important. The closer to here and now, in time and distance the more pertinent. The further from here and now in time and distance, the less pertinent. Taking a godlike stance, as is required if one is to consider reality a static block of time and space is mentally possible, but not practical. The only practical stance is to view the place from the human point of view, including our common a priori understanding of space and time. Other viewpoints are conceivable, but not notably helpful. So yes Memammal I am at the center of the universe, and you live in my neighborhood. Regards, TAR

Phi, I have been thinking along the lines of what Disarray says about one projecting the qualaties one does not want in oneself onto the other, the hated one. In this regard, if the killer hated gays, it was because he did not want to see that quality in himself. Why he would not want to see that quality in himself is obviouly related to his religion, and therefore his religion could be blamed for the hatred...but where I think that is what we should be talking about, you are talking about income inequality, which I do not think, in this case was a driving force. I saw the pictures of the guy's apartment, torn apart by the investigators, and they had plenty of stuff. Toys and clothes and objects of all sorts. And the computers and such were probably taken as evidence and not in the picture. Regards, TAR

michel123456, You are right the site is dated like 10 to 14 thousand years ago if I remember right so we are missing like 14 thousand years, but the whole body of work of when civilizations did this or that and what capabilities various bands of folk had at various times is not without bias toward us as "the peak" of evolution, and some work was done by people with Adam and Eve in mind. And some work was done with Lucy in mind. Not much work was done with the thought that we were playing second fiddle to a smarter crew. And up until Gobekli Tepe we thought civilization just went back 4 or 5 thousand years. So I am allowing for a fudge factor of thousands of years where some Neanderthals could have been around where we thought they had gone extinct and where a handful that would not leave a large fossil record, could have ruled for thousands of years, the precursors of modern humans, that left the fossil records. Add to that, the thought that under the hypothesis there may have been a conscious effort to erase Neanderthal remains from the scene, the fossil record could be misread, in terms of the timing of Neanderthal extinction. I recall that from time to time we find individuals of a previously thought extinct species roaming, or swimming or flying about. Regards, TAR I just had read as well something about a stone cutting culture that went back many 10s of thousands of years. I don't recall the name or place or timing, but most times we try to figure these things we try to fit the development into our cultural history. We can think a little differently if we consider the possibility that a civilization or many that existed on this planet was not an early example of our civilization, but later examples of somebody else's that were terminated. along with the people involved. That is, we think of Neanderthals as apes that we are better than. What if they were our masters. The fossil records could be read with a different idea in mind and perhaps the timing would work out. Regards, TAR

Memammal, So what are you saying. That according to the block universe idea there is more reality where we have not yet emerged, and where we ceased to exist, so percentage wise we don't exist that much? If we were created alone, that is, with no siblings, and as a species are the only conscious beings in this solar system, this galaxy this universe, and potentially the only such creatures in all the multiverses and all the cosmos and all of reality at all scales and places and times, in any dimension you might figure is available, then this particular time and place is significantly different than all the block universe put together, and this reality, with its places and past present and future, is what really matters. Regards. TAR

And back then we still had not completely sorted out the Neanderthal thing. Cleansing could have been a condition. Just thought that perhaps these are not "our" sites at all but Neanderthal sites, that we buried when we eliminated them. I read that Neanderthals had larger brains than us. Maybe we were their slaves and built the place with our labor under their direction, and then at some point revolted, killed them, and buried their monuments, that we did not understand, anyway, Maybe got rid of the evidence of their civilization, tools, language, art and technology as well. Wiki's article on Neanderthal says their cranial capacity was 1600 cubic centimeters compared to the average modern human range of 1250-1400.

CharonY, Absolutely important to discern the killer's feelings about gays, and being gay. Separate completely from the politics. Regards, TAR

I was interesting finding out what we knew of the psychology of hate so I put it in the phychology section the current political climate is an example of human psychology, and in particular the mindset of the Orlando killer where when and how we became tolerant is not as important as the fact that we are

CharonY, The religions do not agree. Although the scriptures of the old Testament fueled both the New Testament and the Koran, the New Testament allows for compassion and forgiveness in manners that the Koran does not. Under Sharia law one should stone an adulterer and ISIS throws gays off of buildings based on "being right" in the eyes of Allah. In Christianity Christ washes the feet of the outcasts. Christian charity and tolerance is a hallmark of our nation, because it is steeped in the Judeo/Christian tradition. And my point here, is about hate as a corrective emotion, that guides members of society in a direction where they will be loved and trusted and depended upon by others, and that guides people away from behavior that would hurt the group. And as such, being gay here is allowed and being gay in Raqqa is not allowed. Regards, TAR The Orlando killer had an internal conflict and hated himself, in my estimation. Calling his murders a hate crime against gays and linking his heart with the heart of an American Christian fundamentalist is not accurate. There is a lot more love apparent from the pulpits in the Methodist and Baptist and other Protestant churches I have attended, than is apparently coming from this guy's Mosque.

what is happening on Earth is not immediately true to Mars as such, a simple gas law, including an area of space that includes both the Earth and Alpha Centuri is somewhat of a mixed metaphor Mermammal, I understand that I cannot do the dimension drops and replacements in my mind that you can do. But I would argue that what ​additional mental capabilities that you have to my abilities does not change reality a whit. What is true will remain true, with or without our involvement, or understanding of it. Regards, TAR

Well yes in a way. Any change anywhere in the universe creates a new configuration, that has never happened before and will never repeat itself exactly. The key to understanding my way of looking at it, is that what you see happening is one aspect of the arrangement and the actual arrangement can not be seen but has to be extrapolated. As such, one's model of the actual universe has to be constantly updated to be accurate, but one cannot experimentally verify such a model because it is, though actual, only available to the imagination. The senses on the other hand, experience the latent image of what has already actually occurred, but that is the real component of the universe. So it seems contradictory to say it, but the actual configuration of the universe is only available to the imagination, and the image of the universe is the only one available to the senses. But the actual image is available to each position in the universe so regularly and fittingly, that it is the image of the entire universe, arriving at a single point continually, that is existence and that is the universe. Atoms do not need to be conscious, to be observers. As soon as they are hit by a photon, the electron physically responds. The event has been witnessed and is manifest. Hawking's paper was summarized by a paragraph that basically put warping space enough for time travel in the area of science fiction. Possible, but possible only if tremendous advances in our ability to manipulate huge energies and masses occurs. And even then, the paradoxes introduced preclude it from being possible. Time travel is still out. I have been thinking, since I joined this board, that the inability to join general relativity and special relativity and quantum physics into one coherent theory, is the incomplete techniques of making unified shifts of scale and position. That is what is happening at one corner of a sugar cube is not immediately true to the other corner.

Memammal, I will read the link, But I have some books downstairs that I have read years ago that had the thoughts of Einstein, Hawking, Heisenberg, Sagan and others. I actually received a letter from Hawking (or one of his aides) responding to a thought of mine, correcting me on thinking that the big bang was in a certain direction from here, as we were at the location of the big bang when it happened. So I would like to respond before reading the link, and might additionally respond afterward. You say that one should recognize that if they are moving in relation to another observer, they will not agree on the time of an event. This is actually the least of the problem of relative experience. The actual problem is when you are experiencing the event, and my contention, as a believer in presentism is that everyone and everything, every atom and photon, every creature and object, whether conscious or not, is happening, is extant, is manifest, NOW. As such the rest of the universe is arriving at a particular point now, even though at a location far away they are experiencing a different set of events. In both cases, here and there there are no events experiencable that did not happen yet. Past events at C can arrive at A and be in A's past, years before they present themselves to B. This has to do with light speed and lag time, and the only difference that motion would make, in my characterization of the place is upon the wavelength of light received from the event. If two bodies are moving toward each other and exchanging information, say sending off some light from a hydrogen atom's electrons changing energy level, the particular familiar line will be blue shifted in both cases. If the bodies are a light year apart, the event, the electron changing orbit, would have occurred 1 year ago. This idea assumes that the entire universe is happening now, once, this way, one time in this configuration, never to be like this again, as photons are spewing about and wavelengths of light from radio to gamma are on their way somewhere, from somewhere, and bodies and black holes are growing and shrinking and moving about to where it pwould be physically impossible to ever reproduce the pattern, the total pattern, exactly, ever again. As I say, the spherical half shell of photons, released from the match I held up when I was 13 is currently existing, in the universe approximately 49 lyrs from here, centered on the location of the Earth in the Milky Way 49 years ago. The universe remembers what it did, in this way, and as each point in the universe sees the rest as it arrives, each atom in the place has been releasing photons for billions of years and thusly each has announced itself to the rest, or that volume within a billion to13.8 billion lyrs, continually since the other location received the first light from the first. This is not a static situation, but one completely reliant on the opposite to be the case. A static block universe does not "work", does not "exist". Regards, TAR

DrP, I was, in asking the question, after a better understanding of hate. The positive aspects of hate. The challenge you make to the faithful, to release the lies and deal with the truth, in this day and age, carried with it a disgust, a disbelief that people in this day and age would hold to ancient falsehoods. This is not a negative desire on your part, it is a wish to pull the whole group into a better situation, one that deals with reality, takes the best of how to live together from ancient teachings, and discards the unworkable lies. But this is the aspect of hate that I am interested in exploring. The look a mother gives the child when the child is about to do the wrong thing. The anger and whack on the butt that comes when the child is behaving improperly. The disgust we show to killers and liars and cheats and purveyors of injustice. We hate, I think, when the other does it wrong, in order to make the other aware that they are doing it wrong, so that they will do it right, and keep faith with the rest of the group. In this, it is incorrect to hate haters, as if with less hate there will be more love, because the hate is not a bad thing in itself that needs to be removed. It is the action that creates the disgust that needs to be stopped in order for the morals and morays and rules of the group to be enforced by "the look" in the eyes of the other people in the group that notice a transgression. Regards, TAR Complicated these days, when morays change, and behavior, like homosexuality, that used to get a stern look from others, now is "allowed" and the people that give the stern look get a stern look for giving the stern look. And particularly important to understand when two traditions, like Christianity and Islam, disagree on something like homosexuality, in terms of who should receive "the look". Just noticed that the transgressions I listed toward which we show disgust were closely related to, if not purely taken from, the Ten Commandments.