joigus

If you allow me a to maintain my analogy a little longer; if the tumor is not malignant, it may just result in giving you an awesome tattoo that distinguishes you from the boring un-tattooed atheists. You are not enslaved and you keep your cool religious gear. What's not to like? I don't see mindfulness or the like as a variation; rather, as a much healthier substitute. But that's just how I view it.

I think religion is very much like a skin tumor. It's there for a reason different entirely from what humans need or wish. You get it or not more or less likely depending on your exposure to "the light" as much as on how strong your defense system is, and it can become just a quirk or turn into melanoma. But, as any other self-maintaining, replicating process in Nature, it couldn't care less about what you really want or need. It grows because it can. If you're lucky enough to weed it out, you can concentrate on the much more interesting problem of where it comes from and why it sticks in so many minds (some of them, curiously enough, anything but stupid,) or why it took the form it did in the particular part of the world where you were raised. Why the Bible took the form it did, I think can be understood largely in terms of history and archaeology.

Wrong forum, perhaps? 🤣

Very good summary. And very good point. +1

Maybe an interesting book (I haven't read but I've heard about) in that regard could be Misquoting Jesus. When you take a religion to a different geographical region there are bound to be changes. That's what happened to Christianism: Sabbath --> Sunday (Apollo's cult by Constantine required that change;) drop circumcision and kosher, etc. I'm sure the Zoroastrians who wrote the Vedas were forced to similar changes when they passed from places like Kazakhstan to northern India.

Interesting. +1 Does Yanchilin's theory predict deviations from GR?

There seems to be an insurmountable time gap with either John the Baptist or Jesus as possibilities. Lawrence Shiffman has argued very eloquently against that hypothesis IMO. His arguments rest on archaic Hebrew calligraphy, rather than 14C. He's convinced me, anyway, that it couldn't possibly have been anybody during the Roman invasion, but someone pre-dating that, during a Greek invasion scenario. Which makes it even more interesting along the lines that you're suggesting, because it would mean that religious leaders of small flocks fleeing Jerusalem's central authority and establishing a new brand of Judaism in the desert already was a relatively common phenomenon 100 years before. As you said: Leaders for time of hardship. This line of inquiry resonates with me, at least, because I think it's far more important to understand the appearance of religions based on the culture and the historical background than actually give a name or a biography, or finding the missing piece of the cross.

Agree. Spot-on observation too. +1. As the Dead Sea Scrools seem to reveal Christ-like figures were already starting to appear (the Teacher of Righteousness) near the Dead Sea already 100 years before Christianity. Those were definitely times of distress for the Jews too.

It has been pointed out by Daniel Dennett that oral traditions become relatively reliable in preserving the fidelity of the message once the priestly class becomes numerous enough, society is more stable, and the chants and recitations acquire a form similar to what multiplexing is in Von Neumann's architecture of modern computers. The Brahmins playing the role of the neuron or the integrated circuit element. The Vedas have been recited for millennia by many generations of Brahmin after the Arians settled in northern India and Pakistan. IMO this multiplexing, helped by social stability, must contribute to the stability of the message too --whatever the initial amount of nonsense or altered-sense "bits" is in the initial message. But neither form is immune to the possibility of further additions, re-editings, and the like. Interesting case in point, what @Eise mentions: The Bible. It is well known today that the virgin birth of Jesus from Mary is a translation mistake from Hebrew to Greek that got stuck on the Septuagint. After that, the mis-translation was propagated with a high degree of fidelity. (Remember: multi-plexing and relatively high social stability for the priestly class.) But mis-translation it was. "Almah," the word for "young woman" was translated as "parthenos" (Greek for "virgin"), while the Hebrew "betulah" (the real word for "virgin") appears nowhere in the original, as corroborated against the Dead Sea Scrolls by numerous scholars. But the origins of the Vedas are shrouded in mystery. We do know that this kind of culture came from a people in distress, coming from the Andronovo region and in migration, because the course of their main rivers had changed (the Greek-Russian archaeologist Viktor Sarianidi has made extensive excavations of the area.) That is the time when the oldest Vedas could have been more susceptible to change IMO. Following the Vedas we learn that they fought battles against the peoples already living in northern India and Pakistan. Did they lose some of their first documents and decide to re-write them in their minds or in texts? We don't know, or I don't know if we know.

If not word by word, this is exactly what I was going to say argument by argument, but in the last moment refrained from doing so. You got epsilon naught and mu naught completely wrong. They don't mean anything in and of themselves. One or the other can be re-absorbed in the system of electric units. The only thing that really has an invariant meaning is their product, \[\epsilon_{0}\mu_{0}=c^{-2}\] You really must go back to basics and learn EM. Pun unintended, but comes in handy.

Actually, \[\alpha\overset{{\scriptstyle \textrm{def}}}{=}\frac{e^{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}\hbar c}\] is a definition, not an equation. Definitions are not equations. Before there was an h bar there was no alpha, and electric charge could not be expressed as a dimensionless number. In the CGS Lorentz-Heaviside system of electric units this is obvious, and it had the dimensions of M1/2L3/2T-1. You might as well "determine" pi from "your equation." You're going in circles. A minimum baggage of history of physics is necessary in order not to say nonsense. There's much more nonsense in what you say, but time is limited.

Yanchilin, Yanshmilin. Haven't we been over this before? c2 or phi. You need more variables!!!

Thank you. Well, I was just pointing out some mistyping. With a new theory, it's never just "a look." That's one problem. You must monitor the time you spend on ideas, own or from others. The premises alone tell me it's not gonna be worth my time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_(programming_language) There may be newer/better more mandatory things. It's been a while for me. From Strange's reply I guess my answer is pretty outdated.

Google search: Did you mean: "V. Yanchi In" "quantum theory of gravity" No results containing all your search terms were found. Your search - "V. Yanchinin" "quantum theory of gravity" - did not match any documents. Suggestions: Make sure that all words are spelled correctly. Try different keywords. Try more general keywords. Try fewer keywords.

My guess would be cerebrorum malleus.

Yes, that's true. It's a theorem. You can't argue with a theorem.

I don't understand. I quoted directly from your post before your last one. Yes, sorry. "That" is this: I never said that the whole point of thermodynamics is to model what a box of gas is going to do. That's what I thought you were pointing at. But thermodynamics is certainly powerful and sometimes you can predict behaviours in processes, define and measure coefficients, etc. Nevertheless, sometimes when I start reading through the forum I'm a bit tired and there's a danger for me to misinterpret. And I don't see criticism --of ideas-- as a bad thing. And as to the 'salt and pepper' I'm afraid I did it again. Now I understand what you meant, and that would be a good analogy for the runes IMO. You --unwillingly, of course-- had me looking for 'salt-and-pepper' idiom definitions at some point. LOL Here. That's what I said. Any comments, further qualifications or criticism welcome.

I never said that. Thermodynamics is about much more than that, of course. There are reversible processes, irreversible ones, and different interesting coefficients we've talked about before. But a gas is a good example to start talking about to illustrate its power and generality. I must confess, @studiot, that I wasn't following your arguments in this particular post as closely as I follow them in other posts, as I was following the OP's. And that's because the OP was rather lengthy already. I haven't been even able to follow all the details about the runes and the states based on them either --maybe lack of time and tiredness among other things. I thought I understood more or less what the OP was trying to do and tried to warn them as to what I called the "subtle misconceptions" in their approach. I thought it was an honest attempt at understanding the subtle concepts underlying the formalism. Any of your 'salt and pepper' explanations are welcome on my part. And even the ginger and lemon tea ones.

Nothing is pre-nothing here. It's gone full circle a few times already. But please keep going. I'm planning on getting myself a really good GR monograph by copying and pasting Markus' detailed explanations.

Exactly! Have you heard of Boltzmann brains? Well, I haven't shown you that your idea is wrong. I haven't shown you much, AAMOF. I've argued to you, I think, it's not plausible if you take it seriously to make a model of what a gas in a box is going to actually do. I've argued from general concepts derived from what I know. But there are qualifications to be made in cosmology. I would have to think about them deep and hard, or maybe have some expert in cosmology tell us what they think. The universe is not a boring place most of the time we are given to watch it because, in the case of the Earth, it's governed by fluxes of energy, coming in, and going out. Open systems like those are not Poincaré recurrences. They are the kind of systems that can hold something like life. There are very interesting models of systems which undergo self-organization under those conditions. But the universe is not like a closed box which thermalizes after some time. And I don't think the universe as a whole satisfies Poincaré recurrences. That's what I meant when I said, So if you don't like a universe that will thermally die, who knows, maybe that's not gonna happen and you (or some version of you in some far far away future or in some far far away cluster of the multiverse, is having that expectation fulfilled. Does that help? Maybe the universe repeats itself geometrically, by some periodicity condition. There may be many possibilities. They're going on. For example, some of the molecules I'm breathing now will be gasped by the last breathing creature that will live on Earth, and others were inhaled by the 1st breathing creature that lived on Earth. But I'm none the wiser. Yet, if the temperature goes up one degree, I will notice. Nice conversation.

A big part of the problem may be rooted in muffled racist attitudes in sectors of society, economic inequality factors, political unwillingness to face certain facts, political convenience and who knows what else political or socioeconomic. Most everyone of you know much more than I do about this problem, and I'm more than willing to take a sit and learn. But, from my humble experience in the inner cities and the like, I can tell there is a regular profile of teenagers who want to make it into the police force in cities where the living is not easy. Quite a considerable number of the boys I've met who just wanted to become a policeman whatever the cost fell into the category of frustrated, misfits, racist, etc. types who would do anything for some adrenaline rush, doesn't matter whether it's one side or the other of law enforcing. I'm not saying that's the driving factor, but I think it's definitely a factor to be considered. As long as these people are not carefully monitored, we will have a problem no matter what side of the world we are. Maybe the US has a bigger problem because of the Second Amendment. But there are factors other than political, that's all I'm saying.

OK. Maybe so, but I see at least three problems with your strategy. 1st) It's not about how I define macrostates based on arbitrary assumptions such that the number of macrostates always overwhelms the number of microstates. Microstates for any reasonable definition of them are vastly more than macrostates. That kind of reasoning in science is called ad hoc, and I'm sure you know why it's not a useful avenue. Besides, what do these macrostates mean? How do they play in the general structure of known physics? 2nd) Macroscopic distinctions in physics always have to be measured. In the case of pressure, temperature or volume, it's through pressure gauges, thermometers and length scales marked up in the container. How do you measure your runes? 3rd) I've been talking about macroscopic distinctions with no further qualifications, but the truth is physics only permits you to apply the laws of statistical mechanics in a reasonable way that allows you to subdivide the system in a so-called canonical/macrocanonical ensemble, and get to something like the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, when you consider quantities whose balances between the cells of the canonical system can be reasoned about in terms of local exchange. IOW: quantities that satisfy local conservation laws. That narrows down the list essentially to energy, number of entities (mass, moles, molecules,) angular momentum, linear momentum, or things directly related with energy, charge conservation and rotation, like magnetic moments, etc. I'm sorry but, no matter how interesting runes are in your theoretical mind, and they may be from a POV of pure intelectual exercise, nature doesn't care about them. Runes, and other fantastically complicated to define --and fantastically irrelevant-- quantities are probably created and destroyed every nanosecond without being transferred anywhere near where they are formed. There's no exchange of runes. There's no local conservation of runes. There's no equipartition for runes. There's no near T=0 freezing of the rune DOF. And I even see more severe problems with QM, in which most observables you can write down are really incompatible. That's probably why runes don't appear in the laws of statistical mechanics. As to time-stopping, it was only meant as an intuitive phrasing. From the macroscopic POV, times does disappear from the problem once equilibrium is reached. Period. If you're not convinced, try to sit down in front of a gas at room temperature and see how much you have to wait for a rune to appear, or AAMOF for anything noticeable to happen, and how long it takes for it to disappear after you've waited several Earth life's worth of time for it to appear. That's a simple enough experiment to conduct. And there are some more things, but in due time.

Things to say, but very little time now. My entropy must be acting up. A whole new ballgame, both with the two molecules and with the universe. For completely different reasons. One is very small N (number of DOF,) and the other the possibility of frustrated thermalization due to cosmological parameters. Maybe we should get @Mordred interested in the discussion. Very interesting case for quantum systems near T=0, probably done to death by the experts but interesting to discuss nonetheless, and see if we learn something from discussion. Talk to you later. Very stimulating conversation.

Here I think you're being persuaded by a subtle misconception. When entropy has reached a maximum, the system has undergone total thermalization and nothing statistical depends on time. Things keep changing, but only microscopically. All the physical parameters are fixed at their average value. Any changes will manifest themselves in second order effects or fluctuations. If temperature is high, the system will be very efficient at erasing these deviations from equilibrium very quickly. Some months ago, I developed a picture meant to illustrate these concepts, only for educational purposes, and inspired by some musings due to physicist Tony Zee, that temperature is some kind of inverse relaxation time for the system, or proportional to it. It probably overlaps with formalism that other people have developed, because in physics it's very difficult to come up with anything that's really original and new. So in your initial OP, there is already a problem, and I should have detected it right away had I been cleverer. Namely: Will entropy be low much of the time? There is no time in entropy. Entropy kills time. That's its job description. I have a perception that we're faced with entropy at the surface of a black hole, because something is killing time there too! But those are just speculations. Although I very much like your post. Those are very intelligent questions. +1 I hope that helps.