Phi for All

I think ethically every woman should want to allow a man to have more than just that initial input. I think women should think hard about allowing a man to help with the decision if he is willing and committed, even if it is a decision to abort. And I think women are better off with a committed partner in raising children. But I think ultimately it should be their choice because it's their body. And men have so many more options than women do, so it's not like it's ever going to be an equal decision.

That would make it a little harder, I suppose.

I think you may have found a humor singularity, because the jokes this creates approach infinity. Viagra is made from redwood trees, right?

So it would be more accurate to say that time allows motion to happen as you describe above, but doesn't cause motion as stupidnewton suggests, wouldn't it?

I'm very, very sorry you see it this way. I'm not really in a position where being PC is of any relevance to me. I have nothing to prove. I'm rather now in a phase of questioning the foundations of why we do certain ruinous things, like try to interfere between a person and their own body. I'm not really calling for a major change here; it's a matter of life and death, and in the end, if I want to be free to choose my own death and whether it's to have meaning or not, it's going to be my decision, influenced by those I love, but mine solely. I simply think a woman should have that right as well. I'm not the one who might die during pregnancy.

In my experience, this might sound good but it always ends poorly. There is no universal truth for all people, except that we need to breathe, we need to eat, we need water, and we need shelter. "True reality" is a commodity controlled by the opinions of a few. "True reality" that "imposes rules that we should follow" is just more religion. I don't think a united, peaceful world also has to be homogenous and singularly purposed. I think it's in our best interest to take advantage of the diversity of perspective various cultures offer. Maybe all we need to make universal is the food, shelter, water, and breathable air. Without those worries, everyone will have time for school!

That's introducing some major non-evidenced forces at work to explain something we can much more easily attribute to the huge diversity of plant life on Earth and our insane pattern-recognition skills. We can't help comparing things to each other, it's a large part of how we assemble data to form information. You'd need some evidence for these super-intelligent beings. Is it assumed they're smart enough to avoid our observation? That makes them equivalent to god(s), so no evidence possible there. A motive might help you piece together a valid argument. What does making these plants look like familiar things accomplish? Does it make us spare the plants so they can thrive? If so, then evolution is a much simpler explanation than super intelligent aliens. Does it make us eat the plants, or use them more specifically? That might be a path that could yield some supportive evidence. But I hope you'll see that the observations you've made support your concept, but don't confirm it. They aren't a confirmation of anything.

I keep thinking about being a free person. And this is the conclusion I keep coming back to. The choice is the woman's to make. I know it sounds equitable for men and women to share in decisions regarding childbirth, but in the end, the man's part in the biological process is negligible compared to the woman's. After insemination, she's entirely capable of bringing the child into the world by herself. And she's the one taking all the major risks. The way to make this fair and equitable is to give women this power that's rightfully theirs. It's their body that will play host, that will pay the costs in terms of health, that will risk death to bring life. If they want help, if they want to include the father in the decision-making process, that should be viewed as the honor and privilege it really is. Men who would be fathers should strive to be the type of man a woman would gladly include in such life and death decisions.

! Moderator Note I've hidden a post with another speculative addition. Please don't hijack someone else's thread with speculative guesswork, even if it's a speculative thread.

! Moderator Note Theoretical Physics isn't the place for your hypothesis. If you have a question about mainstream theory, post it here. For your own ideas, please support them in Speculations. This isn't supported well enough for Speculations, btw. You need some evidence.

I'm never using the kind of math where dimensions outside normal spacetime become relevant, so when someone talks about how many Ds a perspective has, I always assume they're talking about spatial, plus one temporal. This might not be best practice.

If you're using the tesseract as a 4D example, then the fourth axis is a spatial one. Time is the temporal dimension.

Time is a temporal dimension, the other three are spatial. Using the four together, we have a system for plotting events in our universe. Given x, y, z, and t coordinates, we can predict a meeting between you and I on a certain floor of a certain building in a certain city on a certain planet, etc. If we follow the same rules for a fourth spatial dimension, starting with a 3D cube you move 90 degrees away from every point on the cube. Not sure how useful that is.

I, for one, was trying to dissuade you from believing this type of discussion had any meaning, since it doesn't have to embrace reality much more than occasionally. I have failed. Happy Holidays!

You've taken some data (relativity has no preferential frame of reference), that was turned into information (in general relativity, you can use the math to make a frame of reference stationary), and turned it into misinformation (the Earth could be the center of the universe). As I mentioned before (and you ignored), if you put Earth in a fixed position, the orbits of the planets and sun look crazy impossible. Even early astronomers noted this. When the sun is at the center of our system, the orbits make sense, and physics isn't violated. You think you're doing something special, that your way of looking at a problem is untainted by the evils of modern education, and that your intuition is capable of solving problems that takes others years of study. You believe you are capable of thinking outside the box without knowing much about what's inside. It's a bit delusional. You didn't study science in school for some reason, but now feel an affinity towards it, and think you see glimpses of understanding when you read popular science articles, and that empowers you to feel like maybe you didn't need all that studying anyway. You can hold your own with people who did study, because your brain works differently. It doesn't need all the knowledge, because you can leap from conclusion to conclusion without the tedious study, experimentation, research, trial, error, methodology, and critical thinking. You can intuitively leap ahead and wait for the scientists to catch up to your conclusions. I encourage you to learn, and keep thinking, but you might want to stop rambling, stay away from "truth", and study the gray areas a bit harder. Critical thinking and the scientific method are better than rambling, the best supported explanations are far more trustworthy than anybody's "truth", and coloring in the gray areas is the most obvious reason for existence there is.

Very well put. It's like insisting we figure out how to leap over the forest while ignoring a map that shows a path through it.

"Sorry, the issue is that I need one of you detectives to investigate my claims that we exist in a simulation." "What evidence do you have to support these claims?" "None at all, but I suspect I'm right." "Without evidence, you could claim anything you want. Which makes the claims meaningless without it." "My claim is possible, therefore it should be considered." "Without evidence, you have no claim. Without extraordinary evidence, you have no extraordinary claim."

Not making this about geocentrism, I'm more trying to show you that where you're coming from is a position you have to hold in the face of multiple intellectual obstacles. You've been filling in the gaps in your understanding of relativity with god, and it sounds like you cherry-pick your information to fit your concepts, which is foolish in the extreme. You insist on putting an unnecessary and unobservable god in the middle of necessary and observable phenomena. This bastardized pseudo-scientific, quasi-religious approach creates more questions than answers, and produces nothing trustworthy as far as explanations. It has no predictability. To go back to the geocentrism momentarily, you should look at our own system's orbits if the Earth was at the center. They're insane, they make no sense. Put the sun in the center though, and all the orbits make nice, smooth, predictable, reality-based ellipses.

Think about what you're saying here. You're saying it's more likely that, out of all the trillions of massive bodies in the universe, ours just happens to be the center of all of it? You're also throwing out all the actual evidence that says there is no center to the universe, as well as all the science we have that the Earth orbits the sun, which in turn orbits a galactic center. Occam's Razor. I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

On the one hand, we have your idea that somehow we lost knowledge (those who had it died before passing it along?) (it was somehow struck from the memories of every human?) (it was such a great idea it was destroyed for some reason?) that we once had about some things, including our god and his purpose for us, which would arguably be the most important thing we could ever know. On the other hand, we have reality telling us we don't seem to have lost anything super important, and still see no evidence of god(s). Occam's Razor might be a good tool to apply here. Also, the popular theme I meant is the Atlantis story, where we somehow had a more powerful yet simpler technology than anything around today, and we lived in harmony with nature until we deviated from that path, busted something, and sunk into the ocean. Now, of course, we MUST remember what was lost or we'll end up like the Atlanteans. What else in our (actual) history is like that? Where else have we made something better in our earlier history than what we have now? Technology doesn't really work that way.

It's a popular theme, but are there any real-life examples of knowledge we used to have but no longer possess? I'm not talking about the arguments from incredulity where you can't imagine how the pyramids were built, so you assume that knowledge was somehow lost. I'm talking about quantifiable processes that we can no longer reproduce because we somehow "lost" the knowledge of how to do it.

Given that we have no evidence for a god(s), and given that you think this knowledge would have been unquestionable if it existed, isn't it more likely that it never existed?

We have none to support one's existence. It isn't that there is no God, it's that there's no evidence for one. Basing these beliefs on incredulous feelings is probably exactly how these religions were formed in the first place. "The next village over got flooded, but we're safe. I can't believe there isn't a magic sky god watching over us!"

Are you saying that you know they don't know? How does that work? All ideas with no evidence are unsupported, and therefore equal. No religion has presented evidence that can't be refuted, so any stories about a creator are equally unsupported, whether they come from "them" or you.

There's room for capitalism and peace, imo. There's nothing wrong about finding gold for yourself. I just think you'd be more likely (everyone would be more likely) to find that gold if we were supported in our education to the highest degree.