Phi for All

! Moderator Note Sounds like one of us would have to do a lot of work to keep this thread open.

Found them, made them up, discovered how they behave, IT'S ALL THE SAME! Stop playing semantics.

OK. I make a BIG distinction between practices that are less than optimal and need improvement, and those that are just wrong. Eating a chicken doesn't compare with, say, racial intolerance to me. One seems definitely more not-right. Perhaps if we can fix our intolerance for fellow humans, it will help us transition away from such reliance on the animal husbandry that allowed us to flourish as a species.

! Moderator Note Can you post it here, please? Rules require nobody has to click links or watch videos in order to participate.

Humans. Again, in the context of this discussion, humans. You really need to make the distinction between "human science based on observation and experimentation of the universe" and "the way the universe behaves". The former is all made up by humans, the latter seems to hold true no matter where you are (as far as we've observed). Let me put it this way. Before we needed numbers to describe the way planets orbited the sun, we needed numbers to tell how many sheep were in our flock. We had to invent new names for higher numbers as we needed them. Did the concept of those numbers exist before we named them? Sure, there were that many trees in a forest, or shells we found on the beach. But arithmetic didn't exist until we invented it. Does that make sense to you?

Thanks for clipping what I said before quoting me. It tells me a lot. You really are when you make these claims about animal husbandry in general, after we've (tried to) establish that current methods aren't sustainable or ethical. Aren't you saying there's no ethical way to keep animals for food, since it's all cages and prisons? I'll start another thread to talk about the pet prison system, and all the unethical treatment by billions of wardens suppressing freedom all over the world.

We definitely created the laws and equations. The maths allow us to quantize what we observe in nature (aka "what has always been"), using a language of numbers and symbols that didn't exist until we came up with it. We used languages of words to describe the laws we observed in nature. Stumbled across? How about we observed and wondered, then devised accurate ways to describe and explain what our senses and reason were telling us about "what has always been"?

But our best model of the universe, Lambda Cold Dark Matter, shows that the early universe was ONLY material. It shows that it took a while before the universe was big enough for space BETWEEN matter to appear. The early universe was NOT empty of all material, the exact opposite in fact. It was jam-packed. You have it backwards, you know, that's your keystone. The laws and equations are based on what we observe had been created, not the other way around. We observed and experimented and predicted, and then created ways to make our observations meaningful, and mathematics to explain and quantize them.

Are you arguing that animals would choose non-existence instead? Otherwise this is just a cheap shot using Misleading Vividness. We all know conditions should be better, but I find this argument specious and pointless. You absolutely CAN'T know their lives are shortened since they're more likely to die at a young age in the wild, and sheltering animals from other predators isn't exactly prison either. I have examples where humans have less freedom, even outside real prisons.

Can you SHOW any of this, rather than just repeat the assertions? And I think you're misusing "objective" in several instances where you combine "objective" the adjective with "objective" the noun and try to justify it. Then you really screw it up by using "object" as a verb. How can a binary treatment be "foundational" to mathematics when we had robust maths long before we started using binary languages for computers? Please don't just claim it's this way, persuade us, show us why you believe this, using evidence we can all agree with.

It still doesn't tell us about whether the universe came about "from nothing". Perhaps that's the problem, assuming there was nothing, then something? Also, Intelligent Design has been famously debunked, so if they're calling their whole page that, I wouldn't take it too seriously. Most of those folks think the universe is only about 6000 years old.

This is exactly as meaningful as numerology. You're assigning importance for a modern word by using an ancient language that has no correlation. It's exactly as meaningful as translating "Th-E-O-Ry" into Klingon and finding out it means "Battle-Fight-Scream-Stronghold". We observe that they're always present, and things don't change significantly when we aren't observing. Always there? We don't know, can't know at this point.

Most of the posts are old at EVERY forum.

It doesn't matter if you avoid the singularity. The density and heat of the early universe destroyed any evidence of what might have happened "before", as swansont said. If I give you a puddle of molten steel and tell you it used to be a forged item, how would you go about figuring out what it used to be? Is there anything about the molten metal that could tell you whether it used to be a sledgehammer or part of a car frame or a manhole cover? You can guess all you want, but you can't know what that steel used to be because melting it destroys all the evidence. In the early universe? Why?

You're becoming even more vague after 13 pages of this. Fundamental? The universe did just fine for billions of years without life. Life is just better at absorbing and dissipating heat from the sun. I suggest you drop using the words "fabric of the universe". It's been proven to derail many people trying to understand various scientific principles. I'm still assuming you're here to learn something. So, we should pay attention to how "reality" makes you "feel"? And you don't think machines and living people can be interconnected? What's wrong with machines? Have you never driven a really well-made automobile? Have you never watched someone compete at basketball from a wheelchair? I think you suffer from "man isn't natural" syndrome. You seem to think we aren't part of the nature we observe.

If you let them shenan once, they'll shenan again!

Oh, Otto.

I can't help drawing a parallel between the stories I'm hearing about TFG supporters who are happy he's going after Obamacare, as long as he leaves the ACA alone, and all the misinformation surrounding DEI. People in democracies in general are in favor of initiatives aimed at supporting people from all walks of life, that try to be just and fair with everybody, and allow everyone a seat at the table when it comes to important decisions that affect them, yet many of those same people have been told it's bad when you call it DEI.

More deflection. NOBODY made it personal until you started ignoring or trying to sidestep established science. You were corrected, ignored it again, tried to quote some articles that you thought supported your stance but didn't, and in general kept implying that science was falling down in its job without actually supporting that with evidence. Normally, when posts start attacking another member, it's after several pages of crackpot behavior, and it's a sign to staff that a thread probably needs to be closed. You didn't start this thread, but we've tried to give you every benefit of the doubt, and allowed you to continue NOT explaining why your concepts have merit. We've been attacking your ideas, and you've been claiming the attacks are unjustified because you're just quoting other people. But you're the one using those quotes to argue for things other members have shown to be false, or just wrong-headed. I'll warn everyone not to attack the person who has the idea, but you keep insisting these aren't your ideas, and you keep failing to support them when questioned.

I disagree. There seems to be a certain threshold of knowledge and understanding that critical thinking skills require. Once past that threshold, no matter what you've been taught, you can reason your way through fallacious arguments and unsupportable beliefs. I think the Amish leadership knows this, and they don't want their children attending schools that might teach them these skills.

Still don't know why you insist nobody is enquiring about other areas. And abiogenesis is a process of development. We don't know exactly how it happened back then with primordial ingredients, but we know it's one of the strongest possibilities we have. Even if Earth was seeded from somewhere else with the building blocks for living organisms, those had to have come from inorganic matter at some point. We know the early universe was NOT hospitable to our kind of life.

Sitting on the fence, shouting that something's wrong, not sure what. Not a skeptic's stance. How long are you going to stick with "might shape our approach"? It's pretty weak but you seem to think it's important.

! Moderator Note Next time, lose the bolded Title case and it will seem less like you're soapboxing. Also, this is a discussion site, so blog posts like this trying to preach at people aren't appreciated. Science is also a plus.

You need something that likes to stick to both garlic and hot potato. I'd go with Parmesan cheese.

How is looking at war as a disease helpful in understanding how to combat it? Is this eventually going to end with some kind of "immunization"? We can avoid analogy. We're led to war these days for profit, backed by an impoverished citizenry who've been made fearful by their leaders. Figure out how to stop our leaders from profiting from war and war becomes too costly for everyone.