Phi for All

Observing what goes on in the universe isn't inspiring for everyone, I get it. With a god, you get to make it up, so it can be as deeply meaningful as you want. Very deep, very meaningful. Infinitely so, if you choose.

Smart means a LOT when it comes to personal beliefs. It seems like the ones most closely held are the most fragile and sacred, unable to withstand the light of scrutiny. Those types of beliefs don't seem smart at all to me. They wither when challenged, and are only fed by unquestioning faith. I think Einstein was too smart to believe in miracles. The cosmos itself is so incredibly awe-inspiring that just being part of it naturally is enough, and we don't need supernatural entities to explain anything.

Dave has been on holiday, and today he's back and will have a chance to take a look at this, see if we can't make it right.

! Moderator Note The problem isn't that we can't understand it. The problem is that you can't explain it using existing physics. You can't persuade anyone that your idea is valid. It makes sense only to you. It's not science. There are plenty of places on the web that don't require the rigor that we do when speculating. Why don't you go to one of those places? We're always going to ask you to give more support to your ideas than you seem willing to. Do this again and you lose access to your account. You've been warned many times, and never learn. Change is good.

Ah, OK. Cheap dig, then. Got it. Thanks for the generalizations. You so great.

And some can do both. Curb your prejudice, please.

Does your model say this, or do you? A good model is based on reliable observations and should SHOW how the explanation is formulated with as little assumption as possible. I don't think you can model something from before our observational abilities begin. You aren't modeling, you're guessing.

On the whole, this has been my experience. The vertical morality bothers me a great deal as well, judging others to place yourself above them.

! Moderator Note If you want to post this again in Speculations, feel free but know that we'll need supporting evidence, not this "one way to think about it" approach. We need more rigor in the mainstream sections. Also this: ! Moderator Note If you're looping time travel and God and evil into this, you need some extra evidence in support. As is, this can't stay in Classical Physics.

It seems clear now that he didn't expect to win. He was counting on losing to Clinton, so he and Steve Bannon could start their own media empire based on the outrage of a stolen election. He and his people knew nothing about protecting the nation. His son-in-law asked the outgoing Obama administration how many of them would be staying on. They had zero clues about how difficult the job was, and how the process requires knowledgeable people at every level. And it sounds like Project 2025 favors loyalty over capabilities, so no real changes there. Dismantling a democracy takes time, even if you have a good portion of the country helping you with all the hate.

! Moderator Note Let's not do this ever again, making threads about members. We have a process in place. Report posts that break the rules or inhibit the spirit of discussion.

On a science discussion forum, an extraordinary claim needs some extraordinary evidence to support it, so I'd definitely ask you for some.

Is that the point? I usually reject the premise that you hold all the philosophical answers and we're simply asking you the wrong questions.

So good to know! Meanwhile, Harris' running mate hasn't been chosen, so I'm going to continue discussing her options. Brace yourself, I may be critical.

! Moderator Note Speculation is NOT pretending. You need some way to support your proposals, otherwise it's just guessing, which can be fun but isn't science.

I disagree. The time to question the candidates is ALWAYS before they become candidates. I hope this is the case. It would help distinguish him from Vance, who is obviously changing his tune strictly because his new stance benefits him better.

Is gravity allegedly common to all these universes, or does each have it's own unique distribution of mass, fundamental laws, etc? Could a gravitational wave act as a signal from this universe to another?

I'd hate to think my stance is too nuanced for you to understand, but if you read it again you'll see I referred to populists, but didn't label a person that way. I know it doesn't fit with the narrative you're spinning, but I simply don't know, without digging further, whether Shapiro's change of heart about a two-state solution is genuine enough to help change policy. He used to think there was only one solution for Israel, but now says Netanyahu is a bad leader. In a country where there is a constitutional separation of church and state, I don't want elected officials quoting the Bible at me, not even Josh and the Torah. So I have concerns about Harris' VP pick, and they go far beyond the labels you're focused on. As iNow said, whoever Harris picks will have the support of the Dems and many Independents too. Sorry if you think I'm labeling, but now is the time to voice preferences and concerns, before the VP is actually chosen.

Who did that? Was it someone in this thread? Seems silly, since even many Israelis don't support those methods. Bernie is a Jew but never a Zionist. Shapiro has expressed Zionist leanings in the past, but now says he's changed. My concern is that populists often change their stance when the winds change.

The problem with this stance (and I've held it myself) is that we can view any classification or pattern as a label. Labels themselves are actually very helpful things. I'll bet you're a big fan of labels when they're appropriate, such as when a woman in a bar lets you know she's gay, or when a co-worker mentions they're Italian on their mother's side. It's when the labels are stretched to cover what they were never meant to that causes problems. As long as one doesn't assume a bunch of inappropriate aspects because of the label (generalizing about gay people or Italian people), labels are just pattern identifiers. I think the labels you're talking about are the ones the media keeps pushing, the single words that they let everyone define however they want. Most hot button issues are dealt with this way, with abortion, immigration, conservative, liberal, all defined in sometimes completely opposite ways. That feels differently to me, like it's been engineered by spin doctors to make us all look at "the other side" and see only craziness.

How are you using the term "proof"? There really is no proof in science. You can disprove something by showing it to be false, but you can't show that something is absolutely true and therefore proven. We use theory instead so we always keep testing and asking questions. There are no "answers" as much as there are best supported explanations. Formal proofs are for philosophy and maths, and so is logic. What you think of as logic in science is reasoning. If you want proofs, you need to use the methodology.

This POV raises a lot of red flags with me. It's exactly what some American oligarch heavily invested in arms manufacturing would say to me so Shapiro keeps the supply chain open to Israel. The outcome is very important, but this is also the time when the unscrupulous take advantage of populous fervor. I don't want to be blinded by the bigotry and hate to the point where I trade one set of manipulators for a similar set. I've made several points here that you ignore in order to label me. We used your technique wrt Clinton, and we got TFG. Address that instead of standing on the same old soapbox.

Typical behavior for those who aren't populists. Stop being critical and you get trumped on. But it was doubtful he could beat Slump after the debate. It doesn't matter how much better he is as POTUS if he can't do better than break even against someone so odious. Absolutely. Compromise with the DNC gave us Clinton. And there ARE better choices for VP pick if you're looking past just beating Slump.

I think you've fallen into another pop-sci definition trap regarding logic. Logical arguments in philosophy are very formal. Check it out here and tell me you can't take a rigorous approach philosophically: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/argument/ Theory isn't what you come up with in the shower one morning, and philosophy isn't just thinking about stuff. Methodology helps us reduce our subjective influence and provides a framework that produces trustworthy explanations rather than guesswork and wishful thinking.

Kelly has been advocating for Israel to use guided munitions against Hamas to avoid all the civilian casualties, and Israel clearly wants fewer Palestinians overall so they ignore him. Bet a dollar Netanyahu pressed Harris through Biden to choose Shapiro.