Phi for All

Oh, she likes Mr Stilly just fine. In fact, out of everyone involved in this thread, she likes me, the tree, and Callipygous, but Mrs Tilly doesn't like you or MigL or joigus or sethoflagos or swansont or the others. She told me she loves my teeth but not my smile.

Theory is the strongest explanation science has, so please don't say "just a theory". Also, you don't have a theory. Theory isn't guesswork or throwing something against the wall to see if it sticks. A theory has to explain a phenomenon based on observation and experimentation, and a good model of where it's applicable. Truth is definitely not a goal in science, since what is "true" is very subjective. You need to define "spirit", but it sounds like something tangible, so why don't we experience differences in our measurements when people are asleep? In the last 30 years or so, sleep studies have gained an enormous amount of data wrt what's going on when we sleep. None of it suggests any part of us is missing when we sleep. I think you've taken the "humans are like machines" analogy too far. We're NOT machines, we're biological animals with species-specific skills that seem special in comparison, but we still just use our abilities to adapt to wherever our environment happens to be. You're also mixing up religious terminology with science, requiring souls and "DNA types" (whatever that is). If you want to persuade anyone with this concept, you need more clarity. But our brains are electrochemical in nature, not electronic. Stress hormones like cortisol are responsible, not overheating. Analogies all break down at a certain point. If you want to learn more about biology, study biology, not computer science.

Multiple temporal dimensions causes some extreme problems with physics, from what I understand, based on this paper by Max Tegmark. Lots of instability and unpredictable outcomes.

Authoritarians and fascists are actively trying to rewrite history, and cast suspicion on mainstream science's explanations. What has happened with Big Oil denying climate change is now happening with anything that hampers wealthy agendas.

Moderator Note This isn't working for me. You spend too much time berating others that have more knowledge than you, you don't learn when corrected, and you seem more interested in making a point than learning. Nobody here is interested in anything other than discussing science with reasonable people. Your style denotes a bad faith attitude towards discussion. It needs to stop or we need you to leave. Up to you.

I missed the obvious part completely. So making man in god's image is interpreted in modern teachings as giving him a soul that can't be destroyed (I was also unaware that the Abrahamic god has a soul - who gave Him that?!), and an awareness of right and wrong? Again, I wasn't aware of this. I thought knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil were obtained when Adam and Eve ate the apple. Was that part of God's plan, is He claiming credit for giving the original humans His "likeness" in terms of moral awareness? Each time I've read the Bible, it was the snake who urges the humans to gain moral awareness by eating the apple, which made God angry enough to kick them out of Eden. To me, this is part of the weakness of religions. What was originally meant is allowed to change with the times so it's never wrong or out of touch. It's good for the religion, but bad for those taking it all on faith or trying to find reason in their beliefs. It reminds me of George Carlin's observation, that even though the Catholics decided they don't have to eat fish on Fridays, there are still people in Hell doing time on the meat rap. Other gods? He did command His followers to put no other gods before Him.

So, worthless then, in terms of discussion.

So, God's image has nothing to do with how He looks? In Hebrew, tselem (image) basically means representation, or copy, or shadow, something imitating the original.

There must be a distinction between "image" and "likeness" if you don't like a redundant god. Image seems straightforward, a visual depiction, to imply that this god looks like us. Likeness may imply characteristics other than sensory ones, such as character, behavior, and demeanor. We're supposed to share this god's joyfulness, patience, desire for peace, kindness, generosity, love, and compassion for others. Unfortunately, this god is no great mentor when it comes to responsibility and self-control, more aspects of its "likeness" we were allegedly created in.

No, Mrs Tilly likes supposedly but not probably or certainly. She does like too much, and also excess, but she doesn't like abundance.

Mrs Tilly likes resurrection but not necromancy. Happy Rabbit Egg Occasion, Missus Tilly!

Moved to Other Sciences.

Moved from Science News to Evolution. Each world would be different. Differing pressures on all species would change the life on each planet. Some worlds might lose their humans during the Ice Age, some might still have terror birds and sabre-tooths to deal with, still others would be in the path of a differing amount of huge meteors. It's almost guaranteed some of these worlds would evolve something we've never seen on this Earth. And always there is innovation with humans. Some of those worlds that made it to a certain technology level may have decided the air and water are too valuable to all life to mess around with, and invested instead in cleaner ways to do everything. Imagine what could be if a wealthy energy industry wasn't constantly trying to smother innovative competition!

Don't you think TFG is using the tariffs to pay for his tax cuts for the extremely wealthy, which he wants to make permanent so the tariffs can never be dropped? I don't buy the "he doesn't realize consumers pay for tariffs" bit, there's been too much controversy over it. He's screwing the taxpayers doubly, taking more from the middle and working classes in taxes AND raising the costs on goods we consume.

! Moderator Note This section is for mainstream physics. If you have a non-mainstream concept you want to discuss, we have a Speculations section. You'll still need evidence in support of whatever you're asserting. Thread closed.

I don't trust Iron Age writings any more than I trust what you say. Your reasoning is circular & ridiculous. So wrong. Don't ever try that argument here again. Preaching is against the rules.

You do if you want to make assertions about anything here, because we don't trust what you say just because you say it.

These "personal encounters" are the most suspect of all. The person who had the encounter is absolutely convinced of what happened, so is hardly an objective observer. I've had experiences where my senses were tested and I jumped to conclusions about what was really happening. At the time, I was convinced that what happened to me was exactly what it seemed to be. Inevitably, I found out what had actually happened and realized my imagination had taken over and convinced me that my "reality" had changed somehow. I've heard many stories of how folks met their gods, or Bigfoot, or a ghost, or some other supernatural encounter which they can't explain but are nevertheless convinced happened exactly as they remember it. I've never heard of anything that couldn't be explained without jumping the shark.

! Moderator Note Don't ever do this here again. You need to define how you're using several words, like "reality". Not a single scientific theory tries to describe "reality", so you need to clarify what you mean. You've made a ton of assertions you would need to support in this conversation (and it is a conversation, despite the soapboxy nature of the OP). There is a great deal to unpack, but if you could define some of your terms, perhaps provide some supportive evidence for the things you claim, it would help us understand where you're coming from. This is the philosophy section, but that doesn't mean your assertions can go unsupported.

Religious people ridicule mainstream science quite a bit. Theory isn't sacred to me, since it's only protected by evidence rather than ignorance. Still, I find it frustrating that many take an easier path based on faith rather than studying what is much more trustworthy. You, of course, have the ability to NOT attend performances that offend you, so you don't have a right to be offended just because they exist.

Please explain this process. How is the geometry "projected"?

! Moderator Note Please don't. The rules you agreed to when you joined prohibit soliciting members for commercial pursuits. Nobody is interested.

Many people think they're being honest when they tell you what they don't like about you. They "call it like they see it", and I often question whether that has any value at all. Faithfulness to myself, or another? Those often come into conflict, so which it "truer"? Keeping your promises can sometimes be unreasonable or even dangerous. Is there value in being rigid and unyielding? Aren't feelings connected to the mind? If the mind can play tricks to make us think something that isn't true, aren't the feelings connected? As an example, if my mind tells me the woman I see down the street is my wife, I'll definitely feel happiness based on what I see, until I get close enough to see it isn't really her. Then I'll feel disappointed that my mind made me think something that wasn't true.

"Reality" and "true" are two of the most subjective words that exist. Ask 100 people what is real or true and you'll get 100 different answers.

! Moderator Note We love you, too, but this style of posting isn't acceptable for discussion. You're all over the place, and don't seem to be able to focus on a single part of your concept in order to persuade us your ideas have merit. It seems mostly like numerology, which isn't science, and what's left is bizarre and disjointed. We are NOT a WAG forum, but we're happy to talk about them IF you have some structure and reason on your part, which you don't. We don't like videos much, since reading is SO much faster. When the videos are about a WAG, that's time we'll never get back. This needs to be closed since it's not fair to those who try to present reasoned speculations in this section while also following the rules. Please don't bring this up again, and if you post about another idea, please try to focus on a small part of it and find some evidence. If you know you're wrong and WAGging, we don't need to see it.