T:___is a thing. |-(∃!{})⇒({}≡{})⇒({}={})⇒({}⇒{})⇒({}:{}⇒{})⇒(∃{} ⇒∃{} )⇒({}>>{})⇒({}∈{

[dogpet]

HumbleBeauty wrote

it is its own cause. as a process through time instead of being caused as an event in time

Or it could have been caused at a previous event in `time` therefore redundant.

[hertz vanrental]

Hobotronic2037 wrote

So then is time eternal? I don’t know how that’s possibly proveable. I feel like you’re using semantics strangely. A process is a series of events, no? Or is time itself what you mean by eternal as a framework? But could there exist something outside of time that we lack a framework to understand completely? Something beyond an event horizon? Such as before the Big Bang - before time existed.

Penrose and his co-workers, some time ago, threw a spanner in the works. They stated that time existed before the universe existed and, in some sense at least, albeit mathematically, time may well be eternal although what happens to time after the universe ceases to exist is an unknown.

Penrose et al is convinced that time existed before the universe existed because the mathematics allows it. Although specific points in time cannot be determined pre-universe, time differences can be. I must confess, I don't understand because, I fear, it is beyond my capabilities, but if Penrose et al say it is so, I am inclined to believe.

[HumbleBeauty]

dogpet wrote

If black pudding is a form of food and black pudding is used to create shit, then shit is a form of food.


But you know that already.

hertz say;

black pudding and shit IS food

not forms of food, but food itself

he even says food is a form of shit


whereas I say

food is not a form of black pudding nor a form of shit



so your argument is a strawman fallacy

[dogpet]

hertz vanrental wrote

Penrose and his co-workers, some time ago, threw a spanner in the works. They stated that time existed before the universe existed and, in some sense at least, albeit mathematically, time may well be eternal although what happens to time after the universe ceases to exist is an unknown.

Penrose et al is convinced that time existed before the universe existed because the mathematics allows it. Although specific points in time cannot be determined pre-universe, time differences can be. I must confess, I don't understand because, I fear, it is beyond my capabilities, but if Penrose et al say it is so, I am inclined to believe.

Could Penrose describe time, outside of time? Anyone can guess. I hold to the theory that future lifeforms went back & kicked things off. Suicide mission agreed, but the only way to their birth.

[dogpet]

dp

[HumbleBeauty]

Hobotronic2037 wrote

So then is time eternal? I don’t know how that’s possibly proveable. I feel like you’re using semantics strangely. A process is a series of events, no? Or is time itself what you mean by eternal as a framework? But could there exist something outside of time that we lack a framework to understand completely? Something beyond an event horizon? Such as before the Big Bang - before time existed.

I believe radiation existed below the quantum potential before the big bang

[dogpet]

HumbleBeauty wrote

hertz say;

black pudding and shit IS food

not forms of food, but food itself

he even says food is a form of shit

I don't care what she says.

whereas I say

food is not a form of black pudding nor a form of shit

Read again! Black pudding & shit would be a form of food.

so your argument is a strawman fallacy

Only if you're a bit thick.

[HumbleBeauty]

Hobotronic2037 wrote

Mars.

On another site someone with your same name defined God as this: “By God, I mean an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite pantheistic energy that is the generating and sustaining cause of that which exists.”

This sounds a lot like Spinoza’s god. My question about that has always been, why do you need it to be called god? Why the word “pantheistic?” And how could something bounded by a finite physical universe be “infinite?” Spoiler: It cannot. Plus, why would you have to complicate your definition by calling this energy a deity and assigning a theology - non-scientific terms by any measure? Why not just let it be energy?? So much about what you’re saying seems half baked.

Why is it so emotionally important for you to prove the existence of God?

that was me

energy is alive and is worthy of worship

energy has supraphysical properties, such as superluminal speed, negative refractive index, quantum entanglement, and >3 space local realism

[Smellyoldgit]

Penrose pulled his mathematical stuff together in Cycles of Time, which I slogged through whilst physically phucked earlier this year. The maths was largely way beyond my comprehension, so I have to bow to those that can grasp such stuff - but he offered the conjecture that our universe(s?) is cyclic. He understands that conjecture is unlikely to progress to a meaningful theory without evidence, so he concludes his book suggesting that previous black hole collisions would produce concentric gravitational ripples in the current universe which may be detectable.

He makes no effort to produce or develop a Grand Unified Theory of everything, where many other brainiacs are directing their efforts.

Me? - fuck it, I'll have another beer and tell Jesus to give himself a reacharound.

[dogpet]

HumbleBeauty wrote

energy is alive and is worthy of worship

Why bother? Can you please it?

[HumbleBeauty]

dogpet wrote

I don't care what she says.




Read again! Black pudding & shit would be a form of food.

Only if you're a bit thick.

well you can't argue without taking a position

so what do you say?

is energy a form of matter or is matter a form of energy?

[Smellyoldgit]

HumbleBeauty wrote

energy is alive

No it isn't.

and is worthy of worship

No it isn't - unless you're a weak-minded fool.

energy has supraphysical properties, such as superluminal speed, negative refractive index, quantum entanglement, and >3 space local realism

.... therefore?? .....

[HumbleBeauty]

dogpet wrote

Why bother? Can you please it?

you can live in harmony with it and gain some of it's power

[Hobotronic2037]

HumbleBeauty wrote

that was me

energy is alive and is worthy of worship

energy has supraphysical properties, such as superluminal speed, negative refractive index, quantum entanglement, and >3 space local realism

Why do you have the emotional need to worship energy?

[HumbleBeauty]

Smellyoldgit wrote

No it isn't.
No it isn't - unless you're a weak-minded fool.
.... therefore?? .....

every cause involves energy and every effect involves energy, therefore energy is self-causal, self-deterministic, or teleological

energy is not constrained by physical qualities