FreeWill

It is absolut selfish...some level of selfishness is necessary but this idea is not aligned with reality. I reject the idea of solophism. Isn't it a mental state to believe in something like that? It is external 9.9999......9% and internal 0.00....01% which internal is actually part of the overall = 1.0...0! We are almost NOTHING without reality itself. You just have to realize it. You are what you know. A human can not know everything.

The same thought appeared to me as well. It seems to me as Energy impacted by Mass rather than mass impanct spacetime itself. I think the path of any observed physical entity (length of the distance covered) is impacted by mass. Because of mass, the path of anything is longer and its velocity slower than it would be without the impact of the mass of the Universe. The expansion of Space and Time has an absolutely straight line. Anything in it has a path of a para(hyper)bol. Providing fundamentally Energy and a place to BE. Itsel CAN NOT BE IMPACETED!

I would add up the currently observable values of Energy and Matter up ( with the exchange rate counted if that would be possible) Then why the red shift?

Isn't space(time) is the fundamental frame of reference? I understand and agree that yet we can not say how big space(time) could be exactly. If I would know the frame of reference could I add Energy up? It is the same space(time) continuum it can not go anywhere! True a lot of mass and energy impacted the photon on the path to Us and the circumstances of recognition is different as well but spacetime is the same (the photon could arrive to Us)

Does the amount of Energy and Matter changed by time or is it the same amount since forever?

How did Energy and Matter appear and how are they initially loaded into the system? What is the reason that they are present and they do not disappear without a trace?

I am 999.99..9% sure that reality did not begin with the time we know. I expect that the Universe is way bigger than we can yet observe or imagine. Energy and matter are from somewhere. I think they are a consequence of a process which I expect to be the expansion of the initial inertial frame: SpaceTime. (Could we say that the resistance of spacetime is 0?) Currently, the Universe is not uniformly full of matter. Interstellar/intergalactic space vs Back whole/center of a galaxy.

Difficult to determine. What is against it? What was the BB then? Not an explosion, rather a singular event from a point. (evolution of empty space-time with a certain rate for example). Note please, that calling the event the Big Bang suggest an explosion (radical radial expansion).

Dolusioned, manipulated and exploited It is a perfect example, bit disgusted to watch...

What are the signs of inconsistencies with the current models, of a system which has center and boundaries? I think actually everything has a physical center, if we can recognize and determine its boundaries. My bad, thanks for the correction! What is the dimension of a point?

Yet we can not say this as a fact. I would expect a symmetric development though if the start is 1D. True. Swansont expressed it already. Do you think time is linear?

Time is positively forward pointing since the first moment from the center of the universe Center of the universe: 1D point (empty space-time, a plank unit) at the first moment of reality Does this mean that Time is a linear, forward pointing vector?

Almost. + responding, based on the gathered, processed and eventually validated data. (Maybe that is what you are missing?)

What is is good that it seems to be possible even we can not absolutely execute it yet. It seems to me as an absolutely balanced system from the subatomic structure until the general structure of the universe. Yet we do not understand wherefrom Energy and Matter is originating so obviously it is difficult to recognize the exact functions the system is acting upon. Relativity just needs a fine tuning (apply it within mathematics?) to become absolute reality.

It is an evolution my friend from Nothing to Everything (as far as I understood). Such an omnipotent entity you describe at the beginning of Time is impossible. The Will of Existence, the second smallest value after Nothing, the Basic Information creating and setting the functions of reality, the first information from the laws on Nature...maybe. Note that 1D(a point of information about space and time) at t0, will be everything in proportion to nothing, even it is just the sense on nothing: empty Space(Time)= basic information. 0 Note that every upcoming moment or point of space and time would have the informational connection with that first value at t0. God for me at t0=0 (basic information) God for me today is: every Energy, matter, and information in space(time). 1. Nature.

I think it is not so clear as according to wiki: In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations Sensation is an animal's, including humans', detection of external or internal stimulation. (e.g., eyes detecting light waves, ears detecting sound waves). I think gathered information is based on reality even the individual has subjective perception. An AI can have billions of IoT devices providing data, while can register and analyze billions of peoples perception of a scenario which gives the possibility to a factual recognition of a scenario. I do not really understand what you wanna say with this, but here is a thought about objectivity. Wiki: Subjectivity: Some information, idea, situation, or physical thing considered true only from the perspective of a subject or subjects. Objectivity in science is an attempt to uncover truths about the natural world by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs. Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. AI can have every information to analyze about a scenario, including the perception of the AI, as well as the involved human individual sensations and perceptions, which means since the source of the same information is multiple, objectivity can be an option.

This is the beauty of it. Reality: the past and the present. To experience and learn the past and the present, gives trust in Nature, while gives a firm belief that there is Future and one day we can have every question answered. We already answered so many of them. I think, I can firmly believe, that our scientific understanding will continue to develop, and at the end of the road we will have the possibility to answer Every question (including the ones religious people interested at).

Delusion I think this is not true if we consider your opening post and the title of the thread.

We can not discuss the topic. Your opinion is ok, your reasoning must be true without evidence and there is no space to discuss because you kill any other opinion with a straw men. (You do not understand the word)...

I feel I can not discuss faith in a tread is about (religious) faith...

Not absolutely true. Deleted.

This sounds more like delusion to me. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/delusion delusion: belief in something that is not true delusion (American English): something a person believes and wants to be true, when it is actually not true

Why would it be an oxymoron? I know you think sentience requires subjective unconsciousness, but I think just because You think like that, objective sentience of AI's or humans is not prohibited or unachievable.

This I could say it to you. Honestly, I do not understand why you try to participate when you have almost nothing to say. Finally, we could have a discussion about the topic rather than scoffing with the meaning of words which you are clearly not aware of yourself. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/faith Faith: great trust or confidence in something or someone Faith in American English: a high degree of trust or confidence in something or someone https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trust Trust: to believe that someone is good and honest and will not harm you, or that something is safe and reliable: Trust: the belief that you can trust someone or something I think I know the meaning of the words and looks like it is supported to use them to explain one another. (i.e synonymic) I do not see that by the Cambridge Dictionaries definition, faith cannot exist if there is evidence.