Eise

Is that correct? The system earth-clock will have bigger mass, provided the energy for lifting the clock will come from a source outside the earth-clock sytem. No?

There is no 'killer' argument against solipsism, but there are a few considerations that make it a useless position. The 'outer reality' simply goes its own way, uninfluenced of what you would like it to be. So even if solipsism would be true, there is no difference in how 'the world' behaves. So you could just as well believe reality is 'out there' with the same kind of existence as you self. It is also an easier way to understand that other minds exist, and that scientific established facts are valid for everybody. As somebody once said: reality is that which stubbornly refuses to go away, how much you would like it to be different. Here is a funny quote from Bertrand Russell: I also must point you to a category error: you also experience your head with your senses, so it is in the outer world too. So what is in there also falls under the 'solipsist verdict'. The only thing a solipsist can say consistently is that the whole word is in his mind, and that only this mind exists.

OK, with the HUP as example: it is a limit of what we can know. But here the different interpretations already part: is it a limit because of our epistemology? is it an attribute of nature, i.e. what we are looking for (e.g exact momentum and position at the same time) does not exist below a certain limit? I remember, I was there too. No, that is just an intensional object. I hope you won't try to open that can of worms. Maybe you can make your point in a direct argument? Surely that was not my intent. One can never know if some new theoretical relationships are found, something like the interdependence of e0, u0 and c. But I simply think that wondering why the natural constants have the values they have is funny. Whatever constants and their values one finds, one should not wonder that they are consistent with our existence. In my understanding of the principle of least action, you still need the boundary conditions, i.e. initial and end values of your system.

This is really ducking the issue. That was 'First'. Read again and read 'Secondly'... Can you give examples of this? 'Conceivable', yes. But find empirical evidence for it? With causally disconnected universes? Yep, that is something different, especially if you look what conditions must all come together that life can develop, and strive for such a long time, that it can give rise to organisms that are conscious and do science. But properties are exactly descriptions of how objects can partake in causal relationships! We derive the properties from an object by the ways it can causally interact with other objects. (Oh, and I did not say 'material objects').

First, the hypothesis of the holographic universe and that we are some software implementation in a 'higher order' reality are not the same. Secondly, whatever the universe in a metaphysical sense is, the fact is that science as described by me in my OP works. Science's aim is to understand our universe, and in this 'our' the anthropic principle is already given. Unless some empirical evidence is found that we live on 'holographic surface' or in the mind/program of a 'meta-entity', I lay these hypothesis aside. And if some evidence would be found, then it becomes our universe. Fits under preconception 3. One could speak of two directions of explanations: Downwards: that is reductionism. We explain the 'macro behaviour' of objects from its parts Upwards: different objects that are in interaction can give rise to properties that the parts do not have. It may remind you of that, but it is not what I mean. I am not saying that we already know everything, which seemed to be the physical sentiment at the end of the 1800s. We see that we get at some epistemological limits. Quantum physics is 100 years old now, made an incredible progress during these years, but an interpretation of QM on which everybody agrees is not in sight. My position is that we might near such empirical limits also in other areas, like the the Big Bang (therefore I wrote 'At the moment it is the CMBR'). I am not sure if I understand the points you are making. Of course one can theoretically play around with other values of universal constants, but that is what it is: playing. We want to understand the universe as it is, so here, the constants must be as we found, otherwise we would not exist. Why would one wonder about that? A wonder would be that constants have other values, that would make life impossible, but still, here we are! And we even have no idea if the constants could have other values. How would we know that they can have other values in other bubble-universes in the inflationary multiverse, especially because they are causally disconnected? Similar for the superstring landscape. Sure. I think that is exactly what I am saying: we can only speak of causality if there are regularities. The success of physics speaks for itself. Well, maybe not. How would you know our universal constants are not also 'multiuniversal' constants, i.e. have the same values in every bubble universe, so the physics in every bubble is the same, just with different histories. But where is the empirical evidence that other universes exist anyway? Because we wonder about something that we should not wonder about at all? As said above, why wonder that we find universal constants that make life possible? Something else would be inconsistent from the beginning. Agree. I would call that the wet dream of a physicist. I cannot exclude such idea, but I think we are far, far away from that, to say the least. I would mean we can derive the existence of our universe from mathematics alone. Do you really think that is possible?

Recently, I have been reading David Lindley’s The Dream Universe. A lot of thoughts went through my mind, during reading, and I tried to put them ‘on paper’. Any reaction is welcome! I am sometime astonished how the anthropic principle is used in modern physics. I think it is used upside-down. I find it funny how it only came up in the context of fine tuning, or as explanation of why the universe is as it is. Science aims to understand the world as it is: therefore, from the beginning, it is clear that it can only find a universe in which we find the conditions that makes our existence possible. So independent of how deep our understanding of the world around us is, we are guaranteed to find theories that show the possibility of our existence. That being said, I think there are (at least) 4 preconceptions that lie at the heart of the hard sciences: 1. Events are causally related. 2. Objects are defined by the causal role they can play in events. 3. The causal potentialities of objects can be explained by the causal behaviour of their parts. 4. The universe is a coherent unity, so a unifying theory of it should be possible: the universe cannot behave inconsistently. The question is, are these principles guaranteed to work endlessly? Or do we reach certain limits? In my opinion we are reaching these limits. Examples: 1. The electron is generally considered as a particle that has no parts. What an electron is can only be described by its possible causal relationships. 2. In quantum physics, for calculations a wave function is used, that in itself is not an observable. It only can be deduced from the statistics of repeating the same experiment over and over again. Applied on a single particle, it only gives us a probability distribution. There is no exact causal explanation for where the particle arrives. 3. The universe has an observational horizon. At the moment it is the CMBR. 4. With the known laws of physics, we can understand what could have happened after less than a second, but these laws break down at a shorter time. Given such limits, I think it makes no sense to wonder why the universe is so perfectly tuned for our existence. The fundamental constants have arisen in our descriptions of the possible causal relationships between objects; and the other way round, the objects that we suppose to exist do so, because we require descriptions in terms of causal relationships. To make exact predictions, we need mathematics, mathematics needs regularities, and causal relationships deliver regularities. Somehow I see a parallel with Douglas Adams' puddle: why should we be astonished that the universe fits to our existence? And instead of ‘explaining’ our universe, saying that there are are many more universes (string landscape, eternal inflation) by using the anthropological principle, I think it means we are closing in on the limits of what science can explain.

Hey! Never trust a fake philosoper. Never trust science news?

Not really. Yes, it is richer than most European countries, except maybe some Scandinavian countries. But in general you won't get some culture shock if you move from one country to the other. Some things nearly all European countries have, including Switzerland a state pension for employees obligatory additional pension saving programs social security for unemployed, and for elderly where the state pension is not enough obligatory health insurance different degrees of job protection, so no 'hire and fire' culture But we have free speech: no threatening of leftist or objective newspapers and TV- and radio stations as happens now under Trump. Political satire is not banned in (West-) European countries. There is no ban on scientific facts, as under Trump. If everything develops further as it does now in the USA, you will soon live under right wing dictatorship, and Europe is the last democratic bastion. Maybe until it also falls because of extremist right wing policies. Or Putin starts his war against Europe... Yes, there can be a maximum of one referendum day per 3 months. But that on itself does not make Switzerland the most democratic state, e.g. payments to political actors (referendum committees) may be done secretly, which is e.g. not allowed in Germany (see e.g. the CDU donations scandal), judges must be member of of political party, and even free press is partially threatened, by right wing parties.

I very much hope that this is not some script running. Otherwise it is, translated from a Dutch expression 'mopping with the tap open'. I hope you have some help. Wouldn't it be possible for some time not to accept new members?

Just curious: are all these acçounts from the same IP address?

Well, @linkey, I would propose you come here and visit me here in Switzerland, and look how it looks like the UdSSR... I also thought, you can look at a few European newspapers. I can only advise newspapers I really know. Translation shouldn't be a problem today. volkskrant.nl nrc.nl tagesanzeiger.ch nzz.ch You might get an impression.

And then so many new accounts... I feel sorry. A big thanks for keeping the forum as clean as possible. Just for the record: Who is online:

@Linkey Living in Europe, I can only tell you that it is complete bullshit what you are saying here about it. No idea what your sources are. I am afraid that even in Europe people can be elected that are totalitarian as well. You are interested in political science, as I see in your profile. Why don't you start reading serious text books about it? And thanks @CharonY for your patience to explain it all. @Linkey keeps on doing this: spouting some baseless prejudices about Europe, where he obviously knows nothing about how it is to live here. A big +1 Oh, and btw, years ago I was in Morristown, New Jersey, and was astonished about the bad infrastructure. It reminded me of my trip to Indonesia, even longer ago. Badly maintained streets, walk ways, buildings, the motorway from the airport to Morristown, etc. Just say'n, @Linkey .

Well, that is more or less true for every important scientific insight or technology. It may change the way we see ourselves and the world around us, or extend our technical capabilities and therefore also changes our society. AI is just the latest jump in our technological capabilities. But you seem to suggest that AI is conscious. That is, to say the least, disputable (and even more that the universe as a whole is conscious). When we still do not know how consciousness arises in the brain. it is next to impossible to state that AI programs are conscious. AI comes to John Doe in the form of LLMs. But these are based on statistical language processing, which I think is only a tiny part of how human brains work. I would suggest that 'spiritual developers' do not develop new technology at all, knowing that humanity is not mature enough to make correct use of these technologies. As Einstein put it: 'we live in an age of perfection of means and confusion of goals'. In my own words: we have developed mighty technologies, but our moral development is lagging much behind. We are not morally equipped to make wise use of (new) technology. That said, I would say there is no spiritual science. Science, per definition, is what can be empirically checked. Spirituality for me is not how the world is, but what stance you take over how you think the world is. So there are spiritual corners in next to every religion, and there are spiritual scientists too. Not because they study a spiritual reality, but because they see science against the background of our human world, the meaning of our individual lives, and our responsibility for our fellow humans and all other animals. Just think about, e.g. Carl Sagan's 'pale blue dot'. And I by studying science, philosophy, and practicing Zen. So what?

What is the methodology of religion? Can you add some examples from different religions, like Christianity and Buddhism? Well, it seems quite obvious to me what science can do: do research in questions that can be empirically answered. (We leave out mathematics here...). So what is left for religion? E.G. Ethics, Aesthetics, meaningfulness, etc. These are important topics, and in my opinion, not empirical. But they can all be done without religion. Or not?

Yep. I think Bart Ehrman was already mentioned in this thread. Eg. How Jesus Became God:

Perhaps. But I will look at the mathematics before I look at who wrote it. And yes, I've read stuff by Kip Thorne. But obviously not everything... From Wikipedia: Maybe look it up in MTW? One of the advantages that is also mentioned is that the concepts of flat spacetime paradigm is closer to QED, and so might help to unify the standard model with gravity. But that is still speculative. Of course you know what you are talking about! But I assume Kip Thorne is too. And no, I only studied physics as subsidiary subject. Well, that is consistent with your idea that spacetime really is curved: because predictions are correct, it is the real description of reality with the respective calculation methods. One can use the Schrödinger equation for (probability) predictions in QM, so the wave function is real, which automatically leads to MWI. But as you of course know, the empirical content of MWI is not different from other interpretations. That's why it is called an interpretation. And the same might be valid for GR's curved spacetime.

Yes, it is. So what? I see Kip Thorne as an authority. Don't you agree? (Standard text book on Gravity, one of of scientific minds behind LIGO.) That is obvious for me now. No. Search further. (Or ask ChatGPT...) Yep. That is an empirical fact. Stop being angry. Read Thorne, I would say. I would say Matrix mechanics and Wave Mechanics would be a better example.

A bad comparison. The jet is moving faster through the medium, but it is not the medium itself being faster than the speed of sound, air in this case. Ehhm... You know that we do not notice relativity effects in daily life, don't you? And also the speed of sound in the chassis of the car is much too high that you would ever notice this effect. But you would notice if you had a kilometer long iron bar. You are using daily experiences to understand empirically proven, but not intuitive scientific theories.

Well, he wouldn't write a whole chapter about it, if it were not true, would he? As said before, some calculations are easier using the 'flat space'. E.g. he mentions calculations about gravitational waves produced by neutron stars orbiting each other. So is spacetime really curved? The question has no empirical relevance.

Spacetime is not a location. And an explanation where the laws of nature come from suggests an explanatory model that the laws of nature already applies to the universe itself. What would that be? Meta laws? Laws that determine what the laws of nature are? Even if this was moved to philosophy, this is just bad philosophy. Let's wait until (some) physicists seem to have find empirical evidence for the multiverse. I don't believe that at all.

The absolute limit, yes. But you could go lower, by stating that mechanical information never can go faster than the speed of sound in the material we are working with. Maybe it helps tar to understand it... maybe not.

Hmmm... Kip Thorne has a whole chapter in Black Holes and Time Warps wherein he states that we can't really know if spacetime is really curved. In his epigraph to chapter 11 "What is Reality", he writes: (his new lines) Other citation from that chapter: His suggestion is that some calculations are easier in one paradigm, and others in the other. As a philosopher I can only say that he is misusing Kuhn's concept of 'paradigm' slightly. A paradigm is not just another interpretation of empirically equivalent theories. Oops, just saw that MigL already made that point.

As they still have...

M-M type experiments measure length differences using interference of light. What is the connection with the J.s or Joule/s or whatever of 'a' particle? As your question stands, it is either not specific enough, or nonsensical, as the previous reactions show.