empleat Posted January 14, 2021 Author Posted January 14, 2021 Just now, swansont said: No, I ignored it. I’ve only been addressing physics misconceptions. Why do you even answer then? If you are not gonna answer the question? If anything in theory could be done to avoid this...
swansont Posted January 14, 2021 Posted January 14, 2021 1 minute ago, empleat said: Why do you even answer then? If you are not gonna answer the question? If anything in theory could be done to avoid this... I did answer questions. And I stayed silent on areas I don’t feel comfortable answering. You have more, higher-quality information than you did before, which should hypothetically get you closer to whatever answers you’re seeking, and somehow you’re blaming me for that help?
empleat Posted January 14, 2021 Author Posted January 14, 2021 1 minute ago, swansont said: I did answer questions. And I stayed silent on areas I don’t feel comfortable answering. You have more, higher-quality information than you did before, which should hypothetically get you closer to whatever answers you’re seeking, and somehow you’re blaming me for that help? I am not blaming you! Why do you think that? You misunderstood me whole time. Since not I am expert in Physics: I asked, if there is anything remotely, which can be done to avoid this. So now you are saying, you don't feel comfortable answering this. I didn't mean su..... I meant, anything except that which can be done. So that mean there is nothing you know of? I am of course glad for answering other questions. Which alone doesn't answer fully my question. -1
Bufofrog Posted January 14, 2021 Posted January 14, 2021 1 hour ago, empleat said: If anything in theory could be done to avoid this... Humans are inconsequential on a universal scale. An Aardvark has about the same chance of affect the course of the universe as we have. Don't worry, be happy. 1
empleat Posted January 14, 2021 Author Posted January 14, 2021 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Bufofrog said: Humans are inconsequential on a universal scale. An Aardvark has about the same chance of affect the course of the universe as we have. Don't worry, be happy. I wasn't talking changing things on the universal scale. If you could change yourself to energy e.g. which seems not possible. Perphaps you wouldn't have to experience time. Not sure if energy does. I was talking about things of sorts. I realize there is probably like 0.00000...% chance of escape. Edited January 14, 2021 by empleat
Bufofrog Posted January 14, 2021 Posted January 14, 2021 7 minutes ago, empleat said: If you could change yourself to energy e.g. which seems not possible. I agree 7 minutes ago, empleat said: Perphaps you wouldn't have to experience time. Why in the world wouldn't you want to experience time? 9 minutes ago, empleat said: I realize there is probably like 0.00000...% chance of escape. Escape what?
empleat Posted January 14, 2021 Author Posted January 14, 2021 1 minute ago, Bufofrog said: Why in the world wouldn't you want to experience time? To avoid the Eternal Return! 1 minute ago, Bufofrog said: Escape what? I guess you should read 1st post, but it is very depressive, you probably don't want to! -1
Bufofrog Posted January 14, 2021 Posted January 14, 2021 15 minutes ago, empleat said: To avoid the Eternal Return! That's just something you made up. 16 minutes ago, empleat said: I guess you should read 1st post, but it is very depressive, you probably don't want to! No problem, it is just more stuff you made up. Making up stuff to worry about seems like a waste of time. Sorry you are depressed, but I have been around enough depressed people to know this discussion will go no where. You will feel better, it just takes time so hang in there. Adios...
empleat Posted January 14, 2021 Author Posted January 14, 2021 1 minute ago, Bufofrog said: That's just something you made up. No problem, it is just more stuff you made up. Making up stuff to worry about seems like a waste of time. Sorry you are depressed, but I have been around enough depressed people to know this discussion will go no where. You will feel better, it just takes time so hang in there. Adios... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce ... I did not made that up. Are you kidding? I said, we don't know if it is true, or not. It can be possibly true...
beecee Posted January 14, 2021 Posted January 14, 2021 7 hours ago, swansont said: Nuclear binding energy is a deficit of energy - energy that has already been released. It increases in exothermic reactions. Also, energy does not hold things together. It’s the strong nuclear interaction (force) that holds nucleons together. Of course!
Phi for All Posted January 14, 2021 Posted January 14, 2021 2 hours ago, empleat said: I said, we don't know if it is true, or not. It can be possibly true... ... and then you agonized about how to stop it because it's inevitable. Oh, and you pointed out several times how LOGICAL this all was. I don't think you think about what you write before you write it. That's how fear works, in a way. 3 hours ago, empleat said: I am not blaming you! Why do you think that? Because you wrote this: 3 hours ago, empleat said: Why do you even answer then? If you are not gonna answer the question? swansont corrected your physics misconceptions. It was YOUR JOB to relate that to your fears, not his. Why doesn't it make a difference to you that you've misunderstood so many things? Why do you persist on imaging the worst?
MigL Posted January 14, 2021 Posted January 14, 2021 Suck it up, buttercup ! You are going to die, along with the rest of the universe, in a 'heat death', where even protons have ( possibly ) decayed, and there is no more useable energy left for any processes to happen … … In several billion billion billion billion years. ( and quit using the 'reveal' button, it's annoying )
iNow Posted January 14, 2021 Posted January 14, 2021 Basically the same thing you've been told on every other forum where you've been posting this for weeks... 1
empleat Posted January 14, 2021 Author Posted January 14, 2021 2 minutes ago, iNow said: Basically the same thing you've been told on every other forum where you've been posting this for weeks... Oh and now I am posting on other forums too? Only account I have on scienceforums - is this account. I registered since 2018 and I don't exactly post much here as you can see... Maybe I asked once/twice on chemicalforums about something and maybe I created account on scienceforums.com. I don't think I ever used it. And site said: account with this name not found! Now who is paranoid? Woah someone else had same thought, it must be one person. Because thought is just wrong. Because I have Phd in physics and you don't therefore everything you say is wrong... Instead trying to have a constructive discussion... I must say you are so arrogant! It is like in high school in here. I posted in other thread and one guy disagreed. So he went to my other thread instantly, while that topic was on top months... And from long discussion, he cherry picks one thing, which wasn't even incorrect. And catches me by my word... Seemed personal... Because science is largely social and about seeming reputation, instead of getting to truth. You find in history many brilliant people, which were arrogant and didn't care about truth! Only about their ego... Like Newton... https://medium.com/@mtobis/who-decides-what-is-true-b6d9057489cd BTW free will is illusion you did nothing... Quote Albert Einstein in Mein Glaubensbekenntnis (August 1932): "I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer E.g. Inflation was criticized by co-author: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/?sh=581a72acb45e He and other scientists called others uncritical believers! MigL: said: it will be heat death, while it is a most accepted theory. We don't know that on 100% !!! Now who is not logical? Some astrophysicists - Ethan Siegel no-one heard about said: Quote No, Roger Penrose, We See No Evidence Of A ‘Universe Before The Big Bang’ https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/10/08/no-roger-penrose-we-see-no-evidence-of-a-universe-before-the-big-bang/?sh=34d676bd7a0f About which no one heard about BTW... Why would he even say this? Penrose can do what the heck he wants... And science should be not about mass opinion, but about finding the truth and logic and critical thinking, divergent thinking etc. Same science is not engaging in proof... So why would he have to stick to Inflation? If he thinks, there is a better explanation, or perhaps little variety wouldn't hurt. Who knows... Einstein: Quote "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein. I am extremely logical person, while I don't have Phd from physics (never claimed so BTW). I see how things are! That is not to say I know everything, but I never claimed I do! I know enough, that I know: I don't know anything... But we simply don't know, if Eternal Return is true or not... Someone else tells me that fear is behind my claims and it is not logical, while he didn't even read what I was saying... BTW I have Asperger, I don't include emotions into my thinking: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532317/#:~:text=In typical individuals%2C alexithymia was,fear%2C disgust%2C and anger. As example: Quote Those with ASD did not rely on emotion judgments when judging moral acceptability You are coping hard right now, perhaps even without realizing it... There are multiple studies, which linked positive illusions to well being and depression to seeing things more clearly. Even while depression can make people see the opposite. Depends on a person and situation! https://aeon.co/essays/the-voice-of-sadness-is-censored-as-sick-what-if-its-sane Also logical fallacy would be, just because I am much less knowledgeable at some areas, then you. Like it would mean, that a fact is not a fact... You are exactly type of people, which try to shun some argument based on something like that. I don't have to know everything about physics and still can be right in this case. Two things aren't exclusive. You don't need to be Einstein in physics, to know something from physics is x way. I bet people from other areas of science found out something from your area, you didn't know about... You see: I don't give crap" about being true, or ego, or anything. Only about finding the truth! I didn't claim anything, except: that Eternal Return may be possible and we don't know that for a fact, that it is possible, or it is not!!! And that's literally it. And see how you acted? You showed your true colors... You don't have to worry, I won't be posting here anyways, since it is just bunch of charlatans here... I don't agree, you bring out random accusations, or say it is fear. Instead of constructive discussion... I don't really even care. But seeing this simply leaves sore feeling in my mouth. And then people say: people with ASD are anti-social. But we see things closer to how they truly are and don't come to definitive conclusions, if we don't know it is true, or not... And because we understand human behavior in a theory and see what people do to each other... Not to say I blame you about every single thing. But part of scientific community is really like that! So maybe listen to your fellow scientists, if they bring out a controversial theory, because at the end of a day, who cares if in scientific circles it is deemed correct/incorrect. Many people, which were slandered, showed to be correct later... -2
iNow Posted January 14, 2021 Posted January 14, 2021 Okie dokie 11 minutes ago, empleat said: I have Asperger, I don't include emotions into my thinking: The evidence rather strongly implies otherwise
Markus Hanke Posted January 15, 2021 Posted January 15, 2021 12 hours ago, empleat said: but it is very depressive, you probably don't want to! I have studied GR in some detail, so I am aware of all these possible scenarios; by personality I also tend to be a “natural worrier” who easily gets anxious even over minor things and life events. In addition, I am an Aspie too. Yet I feel no sense of depression, worry or anxiety over the possibility of a cyclical cosmology. Furthermore, you need to remember that the observational evidence we have at the moment is much more consistent with other global topologies, and not a cyclical universe. I believe you when you say that you yourself might find such an idea depressing, but remember that this does not imply that others necessarily relate to the concept in the same way. Most of us here understand the notion of a cyclical cosmology well enough, but don’t find it depressing. 9 hours ago, empleat said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer I find that people often tend to miss the salient point of Schopenhauer’s philosophy - he did not advocate despair, depression, or absolute nihilism. The main point he was trying to make was about acceptance. It is strictly necessary to fully understand and acknowledge the inherent limitations of the human condition - such as the impossibility to permanently satisfy desires and craving, and the futility of constant strife towards some ideal utopia -, but then it is also necessary to accept them for what they are, and thus arrive at a position of peaceful coexistence with those limitations. Philosophical pessimism does not imply despair and meaninglessness. And of course, philosophical pessimism is only one possible life philosophy, which is by no means shared by everyone. 3
iNow Posted January 15, 2021 Posted January 15, 2021 7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said: I find that people often tend to miss the salient point of Schopenhauer’s philosophy - he did not advocate despair, depression, or absolute nihilism. The main point he was trying to make was about acceptance. It is strictly necessary to fully understand and acknowledge the inherent limitations of the human condition - such as the impossibility to permanently satisfy desires and craving, and the futility of constant strife towards some ideal utopia -, but then it is also necessary to accept them for what they are, and thus arrive at a position of peaceful coexistence with those limitations. Philosophical pessimism does not imply despair and meaninglessness. What a noble truth that is. QFT
dimreepr Posted January 15, 2021 Posted January 15, 2021 7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said: I find that people often tend to miss the salient point of Schopenhauer’s philosophy - he did not advocate despair, depression, or absolute nihilism. The main point he was trying to make was about acceptance. It is strictly necessary to fully understand and acknowledge the inherent limitations of the human condition - such as the impossibility to permanently satisfy desires and craving, and the futility of constant strife towards some ideal utopia -, but then it is also necessary to accept them for what they are, and thus arrive at a position of peaceful coexistence with those limitations. Philosophical pessimism does not imply despair and meaninglessness. And of course, philosophical pessimism is only one possible life philosophy, which is by no means shared by everyone. If we can't forgive our brothers/sisters, how can we accept ourselves? Utopia is a place we can find, if only we can be content with who we are... The perfect place is at peace with itself. Most worms are happy to be worms... I just wish I had your eloquence, Markus... 1
Phi for All Posted January 15, 2021 Posted January 15, 2021 11 minutes ago, dimreepr said: I just wish I had your eloquence, Markus... Oh, me too.
dimreepr Posted January 16, 2021 Posted January 16, 2021 Thanks Mig, I had money on you saying that. 😊 1
empleat Posted April 2, 2021 Author Posted April 2, 2021 (edited) On 1/14/2021 at 11:06 PM, iNow said: The evidence rather strongly implies otherwise Wait what? The statement: our lives possibly repeat forever, or all permutations of everything possible! I said, we don't know that for sure. But we also can't refute it! What is emotional on that?! It is the truth. You ignored everything - I was saying and started to strawman me and ignored all proof I posted, I bet you didn't even read it... I even provided sources for my claims LOL, e.g. that people with ASD don't include emotions into their reasoning. You didn't even challenge it and skipped to strawman LOL. Sure I feel emotions and at the end I decide always based on emotions - Elon Musk say Neocortex is trying to accommodate Limbic System most of the time. And scientists say we decide at the end always based on emotions! https://bigthink.com/experts-corner/decisions-are-emotional-not-logical-the-neuroscience-behind-decision-making But I don't include emotions into my reasoning. I give example: I may care about someone, or feel with people. But I can think of them objectively without being biased by emotions. Not many people can do that! I though scienceforums would be different, there can be always dishonest people, but didn't realize even people with many posts would be like that! It is honestly my bad, that I put to much respect towards scientists from watching TV shows! I don't follow any scientists in IRL, or care about scientific circles. I was naive, science is: mainly about reputation, not about objective facts! Some theory is accepted, just because some elite in high scientific circles chosen to believe it... Science is very social - I read. More proof - about elitism in math circles: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00680-y I couldn't help myself, more proof - that I Am right... Also do you realize that people are talented in many different areas and because it is beneficial for survival of the race! I don't care who is the person, I will listen to his idea. And judge validity of his statements based on them and not based on a person... In science someone may have a brilliant idea and just, because he is not a celebrity, or doesn't have connections - no one cares... There were brilliant people in medieval age and just because they didn't have status, they worked in fields... Another example: woman in science, man like some boss would usually laugh at their ideas, or not didn't even care... At this point you are giving more proof to support my claims... On 1/15/2021 at 8:05 AM, Markus Hanke said: I find that people often tend to miss the salient point of Schopenhauer’s philosophy - he did not advocate despair, depression, or absolute nihilism. I mentioned Shoppenhauer only because Einstein was quoting his position on Free Will. And that he sees it same! Quote Furthermore, you need to remember that the observational evidence we have at the moment is much more consistent with other global topologies, and not a cyclical universe. Yeah, but as other people said. Our existence is just blip on timescale of the Universe. We know nothing! Also I Am troubled by idea, we could be in a simulation! There were even devised practical experiments to test it, they just weren't carried out yet! Because it is not feasible yet! It was on Bigthink, but error 404 for some reason: https://www.indiatimes.com/technology/science-and-future/physicist-hong-qin-ai-algorithm-could-prove-our-reality-is-just-a-simulation-535379.html 2nd link: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.00058 I honestly don't understand how anyone cannot have depression, it feels to me as logical state of mind. We evolved millions years to survive (not that would be point of evolution, it is random) and to do what is meaningful for our lives! Now we have realized it is all pointless - big joke! I am 99.9% sure Free Will is illusion. And we could be in simulation, or re-live same/different lives over and over! Also there is great deal of suffering and inequality, coronavirus made it only worse! Now corporations want to create their own state, with their own municipal goverment LOL! https://www.marketwatch.com/story/in-nevada-desert-blockchains-llc-aims-to-be-its-own-municipal-government-01613252864 If this will pass, it will be literal corporatocracy!!! In 50 years we will be all slaves to some rich assholes. Well do you still not have depression? When I see what happens in the world and everything is just zero-sum game in the end. Altruism is selfish. Everything annoying me literally every second! Edited April 2, 2021 by empleat
zapatos Posted April 2, 2021 Posted April 2, 2021 22 minutes ago, empleat said: science is: mainly about reputation, not about objective facts! Some theory is accepted, just because some elite in high scientific circles chosen to believe it... The evidence rather strongly implies otherwise.
empleat Posted April 2, 2021 Author Posted April 2, 2021 (edited) 27 minutes ago, zapatos said: The evidence rather strongly implies otherwise. Yet you quote no sources, or you don't give any arguments xDD If evidence strongly implies otherwise, there should be no problem to link strong proof right? Also depends on a definition, if you take what science should be, or like some definition of science: of what generally scientists agree upon that science should be, than yes. But in reality this differs drastically! Like everything: it can be used for power, or status, or politics etc. And scientists are people like everyone else (with emotions, egos etc.) So it will depend on people doing science! And to publish your studies you need verification from scientific circles and reputation, to get resources and move-on in your career. But if someone prominent say you study is bad, it may get ignored by other scientists and you won't accomplish anything... What about this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/?sh=581a72acb45e Or this: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00680-y These literally say the opposite! Many skilled scientists are not getting positions, which they do deserve based on their skills! So that means they are not getting recognition, or don't have connections, aren't popular, perhaps because other scientists dislike them: https://www.grunge.com/95824/geniuses-actually-terrible-people/ What about Isac he didn't come with some idea and stole it and tried to delete Leibnitz (or who it was) from the existence! How is this about objective facts and not about reputation, or status? He literally wanted to ruin another scientist, maybe because envy, or hate... And claim his studies as his own... Next: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/10/08/no-roger-penrose-we-see-no-evidence-of-a-universe-before-the-big-bang/#315ae5de7a0f Some no one said Roger Penrose is wasting his time- can't find it anymore. Here you go climate scientist says: way knowledge is established to be deemed as true is not always logical:https://medium.com/@mtobis/who-decides-what-is-true-b6d9057489cd Edited April 2, 2021 by empleat
zapatos Posted April 2, 2021 Posted April 2, 2021 45 minutes ago, empleat said: And scientists are people like everyone else (with emotions, egos etc.) Why would you say that?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now