True Story of the Day

[Wizard22]

What do you mean that these human beings do not yet have a grasp on how light and gravity operate through the vast distances of so-called 'deep space'?

You have yet to answer my question, so why should I answer yours.

[Age]

What do you mean that these human beings do not yet have a grasp on how light and gravity operate through the vast distances of so-called 'deep space'?

You have yet to answer my question, so why should I answer yours.

What question is 'that', exactly?

[Wizard22]

What question is 'that', exactly?

You are forgetful, AgeGPT.

The question is and always will be: How many Beliefs do you have, only One, None, or Many?

[Age]

What question is 'that', exactly?

You are forgetful, AgeGPT.

The question is and always will be: How many Beliefs do you have, only One, None, or Many?

Are you sure about always?

[Wizard22]

Are you sure about always?

You still have yet to answer my question.

[promethean75]

Speaking of, here's a problem with the whole 'the universe is eternal and infinite dude' thing. So everybody knows what entropy is. I mean they know what it bascially is. Here's the problem.

If the universe never had a beginning, we shouldn't be seeing entropy increases in the closed thermodynamic systems we observe. The observable universe seems to be a big field of moving things slowly running out of energy and cooling down.

The question is, if that's all the universe is - things moving around in space - and, this universe has always existed, would our observable universe have, by now, reached absolute entropy and died a heat death? In an infinite duration of time there is at any and every moment a sufficient period of elapsed time in the past to have allowed for a universe with a history to have reached absolute entropy.

And yet, we have not.

So now there's a couple options here. We gotta go with A or B.

A) the universe had a beginning (cue metaphysical speculation), it is a finite collection of matter and energy, time is like an irreversible arrow moving in one direction, absolute entropy will be reached and there will be the end of the universe (cue metaphysical speculation).

B) the universe had no beginning, there is infinite energy, matter and space, and entropy is just a local phenomena that exists in closed thermodynamic systems composed of observable energy, matter and space. It does not 'happen' to the whole infinite universe; the sum total amount of energy is never lost or 'spent' throughout.

Remember, if entropy did exist, and a sufficient period of time has passed before 'now' for any system to reach absolute entropy, we should be frozen at this very moment. Not only that, but we would have been frozen for an infinite amount of time before now, since for any moment in that past there was an infinite period of time that had past for absolute entropy to happen by then.

Bro it's like Hilbert's Entropic Hotels. As u can see B has it's own problems. And we don't like that becuz it forces us ultimately to that metaphysical speculation we wanna avoid doing becuz we're scientists not priests and philosophers. If we take A, we have to become philosophers and start wondering about such things as ''how can there be nothing and then something', 'is the what-it-is that caused and created the universe a 'god' like in one of our religions, or just some kind of power source or sum such thing', and 'where did this god or power source come from, etc.'

All that has to follow if we take A and say that the universe had a beginning becuz it would have needed a cause to begin. Sumthin like the big bang would require just that.

If no, our alternative theories like the oscillating model and the steady state model have their own problems.

In the end, all our antinomies in theory might not have to exist if we could actually get to a GUT. Until then, u just pick your cosmology based on the kinds of theoretical problems u are willing to honestly accept and face.

[promethean75]

"According to the Standard Model, the proton, a type of baryon, is stable because baryon number (quark number) is conserved (under normal circumstances; see Chiral anomaly for an exception). Therefore, protons will not decay into other particles on their own, because they are the lightest (and therefore least energetic) baryon."

Boom. The most elementary unit of being. The fundamental substance that does not change, Heraclitus and Democritus. A few theoretical experiments have been done becuz proton decay should have been observed by now in this universe... or sumthin like that... but have all failed.

Unless u have a black hole or are quantum tunneling, your protons will never, ever ever ever decay. U can belee that.

[promethean75]

If your lifespan were that of a house fly, u couldn't ever become an existentialist. Isn’t it really the fact that our particular life spans are just long enough for us to acquire some intelligence of the world but too short to really invest in anything, that makes us existentialists and pessimists and nihilists? Right when u start to get into it and enjoy it, u have to start preparing to die as u approach old age.

These facts produce existential anxiety becuz we live long enough to experience them. On day 13 of your life as a house fly you'd be getting ready to die. No unfulfilled happiness, no unfinished plans, no great experiences that u will treasure forever.

And don't try be like 'but dude be thankful u got to have a life at all' becuz that's the whole point of this problem. Why would an eighty year life be ideal for intelligent animals such as ourselves? Bro u can't even start getting into it until your 40s. We should have something like two hundred year life spans so we can make real plans and do shit right.

No. 80 years of mortal life is a bad deal. I'm about to say 'not worth it' but I won't becuz I'm a cup half full guy.

[Age]

Are you sure about always?

You still have yet to answer my question.

As can be seen you still have yet to answer my questions, as well.

[Age]

Speaking of, here's a problem with the whole 'the universe is eternal and infinite dude' thing. So everybody knows what entropy is. I mean they know what it bascially is.

Here is the actual problem with the whole Universe was created from some thing or from no thing people, 'who or what is the some thing, or, how could every thing come from no thing?

Entropy is in relation to things that began. The Universe, Itself,
obviously could not have.

Here's the problem.

If the universe never had a beginning, we shouldn't be seeing entropy increases in the closed thermodynamic systems we observe. The observable universe seems to be a big field of moving things slowly running out of energy and cooling down. [/quote]

1. This one does not yet know what 'a problem' is, exactly.

2. The Universe did not have a beginning. So, just assuming or believing It does, does not make it so. What actual proof do you have that the Universe began?

3. Seeing entropy increasing in the closed thermodynamic systems that you observe, has absolutely nothing whatsoever necessarily to do with 'the system', Universe, which you are not observing.

4. What 'seems' to be happening and occurring does not mean that it is actually happening and occurring.

5. If one is presuming or believing that the Universe, Itself, began, and will end, then obviously this one will 'see' entropy for the Universe, Itself, as well.

6. It is said that energy is neither created nor destroyed. And, energy changes from one form of energy into another form of energy. So, if energy is neither created nor destroyed, then where is 'energy' when it is said and claimed that there was no Universe before a particular moment and after a particular moment?

7. The reason energy is neither created nor destroyed and changes in form is because the Universe, Itself, is neither created nor destroyed and is changing in way, shape, and/or form always, also.

The question is, if that's all the universe is - things moving around in space -

But, the Universe is not 'things' moving around in space.

As I have already explained.

and, this universe has always existed, would our observable universe have, by now, reached absolute entropy and died a heat death?

This is moot because;

1. The Universe is not the first part of what you said if it is.

2. The Universe, however, is always existing.

3. Why would anyone think or believe that the observable part of the Universe would have reached a so-called 'absolute entropy', or 'heat death', by 'now'? And, what is 'by now' even in relation to, exactly? If it is from the so-called 'big bang', then why pick 'that moment' to measure to 'absolute entropy/heat death', and what 'time frame' are you using for a 'heat death' to happen and occur, exactly? Or, if you are using 'infinite' to measure to a 'heat death', then this would just be absurd, illogical, and nonsensical.

In an infinite duration of time there is at any and every moment a sufficient period of elapsed time in the past to have allowed for a universe with a history to have reached absolute entropy.

If energy is neither created nor destroyed, then there is no beginning, nor end.

What are you basing so-called 'absolute entropy' on, exactly, in relation to 'the system' Universe, Itself.

How could the Universe, Itself, begin or end if energy is always? Or, are you claiming that some things can exist but which are not part of the Universe, Itself?

Why are you so adamant that 'absolute entropy' has to happen and occur in relation to the Universe, Itself?

And yet, we have not.

Because so-called 'absolute entropy' does not happen nor occur to the Universe, Itself. The Universe, Itself, is not in entropy just like the Universe, Itself, is not in negentropy as well.

Some people just started presuming or believing that the Universe will die out in a so-called 'heat death' just because they 'saw' that the Universe began.

And, all of this was just based on the presumption that 'red shift' is evidence for or means that the Universe is expanding, and then from this Wrong presumption it was Wrongly speculated and concluded by some that the Universe must of been contracted previously and so, literally, a so-called 'big bang' was Wrongly presumed as to have been 'a beginning' of the Universe, Itself.

Working backwards one can very clearly find and see where the Wrong presumptions started, or began.

So now there's a couple options here. We gotta go with A or B.

A) the universe had a beginning (cue metaphysical speculation), it is a finite collection of matter and energy, time is like an irreversible arrow moving in one direction, absolute entropy will be reached and there will be the end of the universe (cue metaphysical speculation).

Well this is obviously False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, which has been proved so. And, can be proved so to others as well, if and when they become curios and interested.

B) the universe had no beginning, there is infinite energy, matter and space, and entropy is just a local phenomena that exists in closed thermodynamic systems composed of observable energy, matter and space. It does not 'happen' to the whole infinite universe; the sum total amount of energy is never lost or 'spent' throughout.

Remember, if entropy did exist, and a sufficient period of time has passed before 'now' for any system to reach absolute entropy, we should be frozen at this very moment.

you say this like if entropy did exist for some things then it must exist for the whole Universe, Itself, as well.

Why do you think or believe that entropy must exist for the whole Universe, Itself?

Not only that, but we would have been frozen for an infinite amount of time before now, since for any moment in that past there was an infinite period of time that had past for absolute entropy to happen by then.

Now this is getting to 'absolute absurdity'.

you keep 'looking' and 'seeing' as though entropy must exist for or in relation to the Universe, Itself. Why do you do this?

Bro it's like Hilbert's Entropic Hotels. As u can see B has it's own problems.

B) Only has its own issues, or 'problems' if one likes, when and if one is presuming or believing entropy 'must exist' for the whole Universe, Itself.

Once one removes this presumption or belief, then there is no issue, (nor 'problem'), here.

And we don't like that becuz it forces us ultimately to that metaphysical speculation we wanna avoid doing becuz we're scientists not priests and philosophers.

So, are you now suggesting that the Universe began and will so-call 'die out' in a 'heat death' is not mere speculation, itself?

If yes, then where is the actual proof?

If we take A, we have to become philosophers and start wondering about such things as ''how can there be nothing and then something', 'is the what-it-is that caused and created the universe a 'god' like in one of our religions, or just some kind of power source or sum such thing', and 'where did this god or power source come from, etc.'

you can keep pondering over these things for the rest of eternity if you like. But, what is 'logically impossible' cannot be 'actually possible'.

1. It is 'logically, and physically thus actually, impossible' for some thing to come from no thing.

2. It is 'logically, and physically, thus actually, impossible' for some thing outside of the Universe, Itself, (when the 'Universe' is defined as 'all things'), to have created the whole Universe, Itself, in or at 'one moment'.

All that has to follow if we take A and say that the universe had a beginning becuz it would have needed a cause to begin. Sumthin like the big bang would require just that.

Are you joking here?

What caused the so-called 'big bang'?

No thing, or some thing else outside of the Universe, Itself, some thing like 'a god', for example?

Again, just remove your presumption or belief that the Universe, Itself, is in entropy, and any issue, or 'problem', that you have here 'now' is removed and completely gone as well.

How much simpler and easier could this get?

All you are essentially doing here is just removing the word 'God' and replacing it with the words 'big bang'.

"theologists" look to 'God' as the first cause and/or Creator, "scientists" look to the 'big bang" as the first cause and/or Creator.

Both groups are as 'religious', "believers", as each other.

And, again, their presumptions or beliefs are based on no actual proofs nor facts at all.

If no, our alternative theories like the oscillating model and the steady state model have their own problems.

In the end, all our antinomies in theory might not have to exist if we could actually get to a GUT.

The GUT, and the TOE, have already been uncovered. Some are just not yet aware of this.

Until then, u just pick your cosmology based on the kinds of theoretical problems u are willing to honestly accept and face.

Are 'you' here telling 'us' what 'you' have been and still are doing here, 'now'?

Also, how do 'you' overcome the 'theoretical problem' that you are actually faced with?

[Age]

"According to the Standard Model, the proton, a type of baryon, is stable because baryon number (quark number) is conserved (under normal circumstances; see Chiral anomaly for an exception). Therefore, protons will not decay into other particles on their own, because they are the lightest (and therefore least energetic) baryon."

Boom. The most elementary unit of being. The fundamental substance that does not change, Heraclitus and Democritus. A few theoretical experiments have been done becuz proton decay should have been observed by now in this universe... or sumthin like that... but have all failed.

Unless u have a black hole or are quantum tunneling, your protons will never, ever ever ever decay. U can belee that.

So, they last forever, right? Just like the Universe, Itself.

Well, considering that the Universe, Itself, is made up of the very 'most elementary unit of being' things that you say will never, ever decay, it makes absolute sense that the Universe, Itself, could never, ever decay, die out, nor end either, right?

Now, did the 'most elementary unit of being' begin?

If yes, then how?

[promethean75]

You're ad homen and strawmanning me, Age.

[Age]

If your lifespan were that of a house fly, u couldn't ever become an existentialist.

If your lifespan were that of a human being, then you could not ever become a so-called "existentialist" neither.

And, this is just because of who and what 'you' are, exactly.

Isn’t it really the fact that our particular life spans are just long enough for us to acquire some intelligence of the world but too short to really invest in anything,

1. you do not acquire some 'intelligence' of 'the world'. There is, however, 'Intelligence' within 'you'. Now, how much of that 'Intelligence' one uses, or does not use, is some thing else.

2. you acquire 'know'edge', along the way.

3. Obviously, you will not learn/acquire 'knowledge' 'from others', which has not yet been learned/acquired 'by them'. However, learning and acquiring 'knowledge' in the 'lifespan' of human beings collectively is obviously just an ongoing evolving process. Leading up to the 'knowledge' of 'knowing thyself', as some call it.

4. The 'lifespan' of the always evolving 'human being species' is never too short to really invest in anything. In fact what is being actually invested in is the 'knowledge' of, 'Who am 'I'?' and then in, 'How to create what 'it' is that 'I', the 'collective we', Truly want and desire.

that makes us existentialists and pessimists and nihilists?

Are 'you' here asking, or telling?

Right when u start to get into it and enjoy it, u have to start preparing to die as u approach old age.

Once again, here is another example of how the 'adult folk', back in the days when this was being written, were really only concerned about "themselves" individually, and not collectively.

They had become so Truly greedy and selfish that they, really, did 'look at' and 'see' things from the 'perception' of the 'individual self' only, nearly always.

These people had become so deluded by this 'selfish' that they even 'looked at' and 'saw' the words 'heaven' and 'hell' as being in relation to them, individually, and not in relation to what the words were and are actually in relation to, exactly.

And, this 'individual self' way of 'looking at' and 'seeing' things happened and occurred in relation to a lot of 'theological texts and writings', when it was the exact opposite that was what was actually being meant, and intended.

These facts produce existential anxiety

All this talk about 'existential anxiety' all arises, again, from the greedy, selfish individual perspective or preconception.

It is like these ones were trying to trick, fool, and deceive "themselves" that the bodies that they are within will not one day just stop breathing and stop pumping blood.

If these ones had stopped 'looking at' and 'seeing' 'Life', Itself, as being about 'them', individually, then they, also, would have learned, much earlier, that there is no actual 'death', and 'dying', anyway, and that the Real and True 'I' exists forever anyway.

All of this worrying and/or concern of not 'existing' was and is all just a waste and a complete necessity. It is just another irrational fear.

becuz we live long enough to experience them.

What you call 'facts' here, when delved into, will most likely be found to not be 'facts' at all.

On day 13 of your life as a house fly you'd be getting ready to die. No unfulfilled happiness, no unfinished plans, no great experiences that u will treasure forever.

And don't try be like 'but dude be thankful u got to have a life at all' becuz that's the whole point of this problem. Why would an eighty year life be ideal for intelligent animals such as ourselves? Bro u can't even start getting into it until your 40s. We should have something like two hundred year life spans so we can make real plans and do shit right.

Again, it is all about the 'individual self'.

These ones, really, were that blind, greedy, and selfish.

No. 80 years of mortal life is a bad deal. I'm about to say 'not worth it' but I won't becuz I'm a cup half full guy.

Once more, these older ones, back then, really had evolved into believing that 'Life', Itself, was about, and/or for, 'them' individually.

[Age]

You're ad homen and strawmanning me, Age.

you are making accusations and claims here "promethean75" with absolutely no proof provided at all.

How would you like to go to a criminal court charged and accused of things, and have claims said and made against you, but absolute no proof is provided at all? The only thing presented are just 'the words' of another alone. From which 'the judge', or 'the readers' here, then make their next views and judgments upon.

How would you feel in 'this situation'?

Also, you are not answering any of the clarifying questions I am posing, and asking you, here "promethean75". Why would this be so?

[promethean75]

More strawmans and ad hominems.