The Crisis of Meaning

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

The dirty secret being that had WEF not existed, it would have made zero difference. It does serve as a great distraction though from the real cogs in the machine that do the heavy lifting: central banks and EU politicians who want to change the european neighborhood into a United States of Europe. Introducing the Euro was the brilliant first step to that end. The idea came from investment bankers like Goldman Sachs and Italian old gen politicians dreaming of another European Empire. Once again, just follow the money. One could add: the irrational dreams of megalomaniacs in politics.

One European PM seems to get it....'>......

[Parodite]

Yuval Noah Harari visits his parents 1


Parents

Of course, he first went to see his mother. She was always there for him and never had any qualms about his sexual orientation. With his father things were more complicated, but got smooth over the years. Keeping a greater distance helped too.

Spirit

Meditation brought great relief. Blurring the mind into a state of lowest resolution allowed him to see things not there, stimulating his creative powers. He came to understand that creativity is not so much a process of turning inwards, more like shutting down the world around you which causes daydreaming to take over.

This also convinced him there is no real “inside”; just the outside occupying different levels of available bandwidth. If you walk in the sunlight with your senses alert and engaging the things and people around you, the world is vibrant and on max bandwidth.

Then go inside a room with dimmed light, relax and close your eyes… but stay awake. The world quickly disappears which creates a sharp contrast between what-was a few minutes ago and what-is now. This intense contrast between HighRes–LowRes feels like a big void where all echoes are lost. There is nothing mystical or particularly valuable about this “void”; just the brain wondering where all that highres information went that was still there 5 minutes ago. The brain is wired to respond to contrasts, especially suddenly changing contrasts. Fear of predators in the dark.

Animals shut down quickly and go to sleep. They don’t have a particular interest in staying awake with eyes closed. Meditation is not on their menu. So why did humans start meditate and not just close their eyes when tired and let sleep do its natural job? What purpose or need does meditation serve?

A fair question that Yuval wanted to find the answer to by doing the experiment himself. Just meditate, endlessly. Resist the urge to fall asleep. Keep looking at nothing and listen to that deafening silence. Initially the brain hates it, getting restless and annoyed. “Where is the effing info?” Then the brain understands nothing is coming and slowly gives up. Goes to sleep and starts dreaming, but with those parts of the brain that convert events into memories still active, which is what is usually called "consciousness". You are then “aware of nothing” and actually “remember silence and nothingness”, but only as the absence of something.

Boredom

Being aware of nothing, Yuval observed, triggers another experience. When the brain is awake and ready for highres action, but nothing comes... it gets bored. You remember those moments when you were young, alone or with friends… and boredom takes over, usually briefly. Be bored a bit longer… and wait for it…………………. suddenly, from some place unknown, you know what you wanna do. You fall through boredom’s floor and launched back into action like a Superman.

However, if no healthy possibilities for action are available or blocked… a Supervillain with destructive behaviors emerges, usually of type bully or somebody paralized into a depression. You play and create, or destroy. Yuval figured that people who must destroy because they can’t create, can be helped with jobs like becoming demolition experts. Or MMA fighters destroying an opponent who wants the same. Reciprocal destruction as a door to creation. Self-flagellation/-mutilation the effort to whip yourself out of a depressive state.

Revelation

Yuval had this daydream during a deep meditative state. He was visiting his mother and father in a surreal environment that was super highres. Words cannot describe the taste and feel of such dreams. Being together meant more than the conversations they had, but only words can travel time and space to describe what happened. He figured that words are more like the pieces of stone chopped away to reveal a beautiful sculpture, or even a deeper truth. If words don't make you read between the lines they have no meaning.

[to be continued]

[Parodite]

Yuval Noah Harari visits his parents 2


Dreaming at the kitchen table

They were sitting at a kitchen table with comfortable chairs. Familiar objects occupying the space he knew so well and called home. The feeling of being in the right place with complete ease was so strong and overwhelming, that it became somewhat eerie.

The Critic

The voice that he recognized as "the critic" had something to say of course and warned him that "things are not always what they seem to be and can change into something completely different very fast and unannounced!". During good times it usually is "Yes, all very nice, but this won't last!" and during tough times with painful endings, you could count on the "I told you so!" being his favorite salt in your wounds.

Yuval likes the critic as a companion because it forces him to take nothing for granted, always think critically, remain curious and hungry for more. In this particular lucid dream however, the critic was more of a nuisance to him. Like somebody trying to explain the math in the wave patterns you can find in the music of J.S. Bach, while you are listening to your favorite piece of the Genius. That doesn't mix well.

Missing realities

Two things were missing in this homey kitchen: there was no water faucet attached to the sink. No running water apparently. He also realized that the room was lit without any distinguishable sources of light.

Outside pitch dark, no lamps inside. Of course you can paint a virtual kitchen with these surreal features, but he was surprised that a dream could do the same. Never did his dreams have unrealistic elements like this before.

Thoughts about dreams

Dreams, he concluded long ago, are often surprising, reshuffled combinations of truthful elements in time and space. He figured that dreams never lie; they just tell different stories with the same paint. This daydream was different according to his always present Critic and could clearly not be trusted! But the sensation of being completely safe and at home was so overwhelming, that it was not difficult to ignore Critic.

Yuval did not heed the warning Critic was trying to communicate. It would soon become clear what price he had to pay for that colossal mistake.

A company of 4

Mother Nature and Papa God sat at the table completely at ease too, as if this scene existed for eternity. His Mother welcomed him and the friend he brought. "So nice you brought your best friend Critic too, we love to talk to him!". His Father finally looked up, focusing on Critic and doing a polite welcome, gesturing him to take a seat. Both his parents started talking to Critic, asking questions and getting into a lively conversation with him. Yuval realized what an amazing friend Critic was.

At one point they even investigated Critic about their son Yuval, like "So what do you think of Yuval and his concerns about AI, is it legitimate? Does it do him any good? You also think AI will kill humanity?", "Can systems be intelligent without being conscious?" and so on.

About 5 hours later, Critic and Yuval’s parents were completely into each other. As if it was Critic who was the long lost son who finally returned home, not Yuval. He found himself just listening and observing, not participating. Bit by bit disappearing into the background, at the brink of vanishing completely. He had this one thought he remembered from school the times he was being bullied and wanted to be invisible: "When the world doesn't want to see you... just switch off the light."

One glass empty

He saw his parents filling all three glasses. His remained empty. The light that filled the room was not for him either, he realized. He felt like he actually was the darkness of the night outside. Nothing here for him. A light that can never be turned off is torture anyways. Without a hurry and unnoticed he just stood up and walked away. Standing outside, he glanced at the kitchen watching his parents and Critic, still having a good time conversing and laughing.

The Universe pressed heavy on his soul. Without a plan and much thought he just started walking. It didn’t matter to where, or why. The Universe felt indifferent and very pure. To not matter at all to anything or anybody... felt right. Not good or bad, just as-is. Casual and off hand, but also very alive and highres.

The end

Not much later Yuval woke up from this lucid dream at the kitchen table of his parents. His mother smiled saying: "Finally you are back among the living! What were you saying about being controlled by alien intelligences?? It sounded very interesting... We love how our favorite son critically evaluates the current evolutions of reality. Your Father is very impressed with your latest book especially, and wanted to talk to you about it but you just dozed away while talking! Come, drink some water, you will feel better!"

A new book

That better feeling of course never came. With Critic back in charge there was a good chance his next book would be about the failures and limitations of critical thought. Critic is the gateway friend always showing you the way back to darkness. There exists only one rational decision in life according to Yuval: Suicide by AI.

[Doc]

Meanings compete. For Harari meaning is reserved for those with power the idea of the "useless people" having self determination of their lives is meaningless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JF-wdgeJWw

CREEPY VIDEO Of Mark Zuckerberg Metaverse Suggests YOU WILL LIVE IN THE POD, YOU WILL EAT THE BUGS

[Parodite]

Meanings compete. For Harari meaning is reserved for those with power the idea of the "useless people" having self-determination of their lives is meaningless.

Indeed there is something Priestly about Harari.

Priests are like Elders; wise old people who "have been there and done that" giving good advice and support while being respected for it. In traditional less complex societies elders were listened to because if you want to learn how to hunt, or solve social issues.. you better get your advice and training from experienced hunters and people who managed, endured decades of social and psychological struggle, who understand the mechanics of a particular society. Now things just change too fast for the elderly to be able to help the young. They haven't been there and haven't done that.

When the experience of the elder is of no help to the young and the elderly are physically removed from their familial-tribal location, the role of the experienced and respected adviser is now vacant.

I believe "The death of God" can be survived relatively easy because He-She-It-They-LBTQ is a meta-physical Super-Elder and as such always available, to be re-invented on the spot if necessary. The loss of the earthly elder however... seems to me a much bigger price we pay.

The young IT oriented crowd with a high-tech education who are all-in on AI seem to step into that vacant territory of the now extinct traditional elder. Believing they have special knowledge, important experience and therefor unique responsibilities... like that of a Priest who explains, warns, directs…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JF-wdgeJWw

CREEPY VIDEO Of Mark Zuckerberg Metaverse Suggests YOU WILL LIVE IN THE POD, YOU WILL EAT THE BUGS

Virtual elders Of course they try create/resurrect Meta-God again, but in their own image. Perhaps a bit disappointing.

[Doc]

Meanings compete. For Harari meaning is reserved for those with power the idea of the "useless people" having self-determination of their lives is meaningless.

Indeed there is something Priestly about Harari.

Priests are like Elders; wise old people who "have been there and done that" giving good advice and support while being respected for it. In traditional less complex societies elders were listened to because if you want to learn how to hunt, or solve social issues.. you better get your advice and training from experienced hunters and people who managed, endured decades of social and psychological struggle, who understand the mechanics of a particular society. Now things just change too fast for the elderly to be able to help the young. They haven't been there and haven't done that.

When the experience of the elder is of no help to the young and the elderly are physically removed from their familial-tribal location, the role of the experienced and respected adviser is now vacant.

I believe "The death of God" can be survived relatively easy because He-She-It-They-LBTQ is a meta-physical Super-Elder and as such always available, to be re-invented on the spot if necessary. The loss of the earthly elder however... seems to me a much bigger price we pay.

The young IT oriented crowd with a high-tech education who are all-in on AI seem to step into that vacant territory of the now extinct traditional elder. Believing they have special knowledge, important experience and therefor unique responsibilities... like that of a Priest who explains, warns, directs…

Hey they are college "educated" and they have the student debt to prove it. WHat do they need anymore wisdom than that for? More than the priest There are the cultural rules that go along with a higher judge above human frailty. The word "God" in English come from the word "good"

Look at Portland three years ago the state of Oregon basically legalized drug. The head of the 911 in Portland just told residents not to call 911 unless it was a life or death emergency, because there are so many drug Over doses that emergency services can not keep up. Millions upon millions have been spent in Portland for rehab to zero positive effect. But money typically does nothing to solve cultural problems. So that is no surprise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JF-wdgeJWw

CREEPY VIDEO Of Mark Zuckerberg Metaverse Suggests YOU WILL LIVE IN THE POD, YOU WILL EAT THE BUGS

Virtual elders Of course they try create/resurrect Meta-God again, but in their own image. Perhaps a bit disappointing.
[/quote]

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Karl Marx termed religion as the "opiate of the masses," a description that has been met with derision by atheists who condescend to the religious as mindless adherents who cling to primitive fiction.

But what Marx meant is that religion is medicine. It's ancient psychotherapy. Its main functional utility as a social institution has been to pass on a sense of shared meaning in life, as an antidote to the nihilistic decay of the spirit.

https://armageddonprose.substack.com/p/ ... he-current

[Parodite]

What You See and Feel is Not Reality | Dr. Donald Hoffman | EP 387 Air Jordan Peterson

This pushes far and close to the edge but then inevitable tumbles down from the slippery slope in a wild dance to maintain balance. A good example of how not to try solve the infamous hard problem. That caged monster now transported to another zoo to be examined, unraveled... but to no avail either. In some final act of desperation, once again "consciousness" is elevated to some magic core quality / essence of reality (read "God") where our individual conscious instances are but eyes that together make Reality-God know itself as Being. Hoffman insists going beyond space-time, it certainly is a cliff-hanger.

OMG

To me sentences like "what you see and feel is not reality" (or "artefacts" as Hoffman calls them) is like a self-aborting miscarriage. Such claims necessarily presuppose something to exist that is real from which then these non-real artefacts emerge. When somebody struggles already that hard with artefacts, I won't hold my breath and hear about the reality that would produce those artefacts. I'm fine with people who just say "I don't know and therefor believe".

Real and non-real are just different contrasting labels for the same mind-matter dichotomy that baffles the human mind for millennia already. Same is true for ideas like "we live in a simulation". Nothing new here, the old problem in a new coat that hopes to somehow bridge the explanatory gap. Won’t work.

To comfort myself I have an antidote to the "what I see and feel is not reality”: Dr. Donald Hoffman and what he says are necessarily artefacts as well. A writing on the wall that says: "Don't take me too seriously, I am not real!" Maybe an alien of sorts, spitting magic math in my face as the only proof of his supposed existence.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Hmn...... gnosticism has entered the building........

[Doc]

We only see a small part of reality around us at any given time. Some can not rationalize reality any of the time. Some can rationalize some of reality some of the time. But no one can rationalize all of reality all of the time. That is the best our meager senses can do to help us rationalize what surrounds us. We exist, but no one really understands what existence means outside of a story we make up to tell ourselves what we perceive around us means to us. Hopefully that rationalization includes the tiger somewhat hidden in the brush in front of us.

We can rationalize beyond what we see to some extent and maybe get it right. At other times we see things we can not rationally explain. I remember a quote from someone at the MIT media center as I recall. "science has nothing to say about miracles and religion has nothing to say about science." But both science and miracles are part of our rationalization of reality.

There is a box sitting here near me. It has writing on it It is red and solid looking enough. But in reality it is mostly empty space. If I was a thinking neutron it would be an infinitesimally more dense place that I could probably pass through without even noticing. To us in reality it is an object in a mostly empty space, made of a huge amount of energy. Energy that makes it look solid in our rationalized world by the forces it exerts.

I can't speak for the rest of you, but I rationalize, therefore in some form I exist every bit as much as the universe around me exists.

[Parodite]

We only see a small part of reality around us at any given time. Some can not rationalize reality any of the time. Some can rationalize some of reality some of the time. But no one can rationalize all of reality all of the time.

Indeed. But words can be fun:

Question: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Answer: Because before there was something, there was also nothing that prevented something to come into being.

Or: You still need God to breathe fire into the equations.

I remember as kids I was with my nephew, we were looking into the night skies. He concluded: "Yes, everything is now explained except the Universe!" That was a koan-ish moment we had.

That is the best our meager senses can do to help us rationalize what surrounds us. We exist, but no one really understands what existence means outside of a story we make up to tell ourselves what we perceive around us means to us. Hopefully that rationalization includes the tiger somewhat hidden in the brush in front of us.

It seems to me whether we like it or not, the causal map that science has been able to draw for us (still under construction but somewhat at the fringes), is the most natural way of looking and operating in the world. Extensions of the senses, a toolbox.

The empirical mind of how-to and what-if seems to me a universal operator in the natural world. But we can't explain the ability to engineer with the same empirical mind that does the engineering; it would be a tautological explanation. We explain something in terms of other things, like y being a function of x, or c being the result of a+b.

We can rationalize beyond what we see to some extent and maybe get it right. At other times we see things we can not rationally explain. I remember a quote from someone at the MIT media center as I recall. "science has nothing to say about miracles and religion has nothing to say about science." But both science and miracles are part of our rationalization of reality.

We can explain a lot, but hardly ourselves. I also don't know what "a complete explanation" would look like.

There is a box sitting here near me. It has writing on it. It is red and solid looking enough. But in reality it is mostly empty space. If I was a thinking neutron it would be an infinitesimally more dense place that I could probably pass through without even noticing. To us in reality it is an object in a mostly empty space, made of a huge amount of energy. Energy that makes it look solid in our rationalized world by the forces it exerts.

I can't speak for the rest of you, but I rationalize, therefore in some form I exist every bit as much as the universe around me exists.

Maybe that famous empty space between particles is not empty at all, just hidden from view, not directly observable anyways because empirical data suggest that the world as-we-know-it is a representation of sorts generated by the brain. With the caveat that this also means that the physical brain as we know it, is equally a representation, ie of itself. To try imagine how/what reality is indepedent from these representations, is a bit "tough"

The original is hidden from view so I hereby declare Empty Space the foundation of reality.

[Doc]

We only see a small part of reality around us at any given time. Some can not rationalize reality any of the time. Some can rationalize some of reality some of the time. But no one can rationalize all of reality all of the time.

Indeed. But words can be fun:

Question: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Answer: Because before there was something, there was also nothing that prevented something to come into being.

Rather how could there even be a concept of "nothing" if there was not "something"?

Or: You still need God to breathe fire into the equations.

I remember as kids I was with my nephew, we were looking into the night skies. He concluded: "Yes, everything is now explained except the Universe!" That was a koan-ish moment we had.

That is the best our meager senses can do to help us rationalize what surrounds us. We exist, but no one really understands what existence means outside of a story we make up to tell ourselves what we perceive around us means to us. Hopefully that rationalization includes the tiger somewhat hidden in the brush in front of us.

It seems to me whether we like it or not, the causal map that science has been able to draw for us (still under construction but somewhat at the fringes), is the most natural way of looking and operating in the world. Extensions of the senses, a toolbox.

The empirical mind of how-to and what-if seems to me a universal operator in the natural world. But we can't explain the ability to engineer with the same empirical mind that does the engineering; it would be a tautological explanation. We explain something in terms of other things, like y being a function of x, or c being the result of a+b.

We can rationalize beyond what we see to some extent and maybe get it right. At other times we see things we can not rationally explain. I remember a quote from someone at the MIT media center as I recall. "science has nothing to say about miracles and religion has nothing to say about science." But both science and miracles are part of our rationalization of reality.

We can explain a lot, but hardly ourselves. I also don't know what "a complete explanation" would look like.

There is a box sitting here near me. It has writing on it. It is red and solid looking enough. But in reality it is mostly empty space. If I was a thinking neutron it would be an infinitesimally more dense place that I could probably pass through without even noticing. To us in reality it is an object in a mostly empty space, made of a huge amount of energy. Energy that makes it look solid in our rationalized world by the forces it exerts.

I can't speak for the rest of you, but I rationalize, therefore in some form I exist every bit as much as the universe around me exists.

Maybe that famous empty space between particles is not empty at all, just hidden from view, not directly observable anyways because empirical data suggest that the world as-we-know-it is a representation of sorts generated by the brain. With the caveat that this also means that the physical brain as we know it, is equally a representation, ie of itself. To try imagine how/what reality is indepedent from these representations, is a bit "tough"

The original is hidden from view so I hereby declare Empty Space the foundation of reality.

Oh yeah the "Brain" More pointedly the strings for branes theory. Perhaps spun from straw...On the way to see the wizard. Strings for Branes plus the science equivalent of a timid Clark Kent - Gravity. "What's that below our feet? Its a worm !! Its a ground hog !! No its super gravity !!" Stronger than a super galactic cluster. Faster than a speeding electron. Able to leap 11 dimensions in a single bound."


So yes there is much more we can't see than we can see. But you don't have to call it "Nothing" or even "empty" just "undefined"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4CsY5B3BoI

Have We Really Found The Theory Of Everything?

[Nonc Hilaire]

So yes there is much more we can't see than we can see. But you don't have to call it "Nothing" or even "empty" just "undefined"

‘Nothing’ is an asymptote that defines the boundaries of what is knowable.

‘Nothing’ is often a necessary construct for rational thinking. Logic is uncommon, so reason is how most thinking gets thunk.

[Doc]

So yes there is much more we can't see than we can see. But you don't have to call it "Nothing" or even "empty" just "undefined"

‘Nothing’ is an asymptote that defines the boundaries of what is knowable.

‘Nothing’ is often a necessary construct for rational thinking. Logic is uncommon, so reason is how most thinking gets thunk.

The senses send information to the brain. The brain being a smart guy rationalizes stories to explain what its senses are telling it. Science is the art of making those rationalizations fit reality as much as humanly possible. "nothing" by its inherent definition cannot not exist without something to bound it. "nothing" is not an island unto itself. It is the absence of something. Even if that "something" is a mere observation of "nothing" Therefore proving the Heisenberg interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

IE Schrodinger's "Nothing/Something cat" Put a cat in a box with a mechanism has a 50% chance of being in one "nothing or something". Making the "nothing Cat" turn into something 50% of the time when it is first observed. and thus be defined. Along with a 50% chance it will be a "Something cat" The "Nothing/Something" Cat" will be undefined until it is observed. The same would apply to the Mechanism.

Once the contents of the box is observed to be "Nothing or Something" It is one or the other. If it is "Nothing" and the box is again then observed at a later time there will still be "nothing" If the observation is "Something" Then the box is closed at the next observation the odds would be reset to 50/50.
Therefore logically it can only be concluded that there are three possible solutions:
1) There was *never* absolutely "nothing"
IE The universe always existed in some form or another. Or to Paraphrase Feynman "its something all the way down." and the Dice are rigged.
2) We live in a simulation which is really just saying the same thing in a different way. And what would you call "our" creator
3) Our theories and beliefs "Aren't even wrong"
4)The entire Universe is Schrodinger's Cat just waiting for an observer.

Two of these four lead to a supreme being and the last is waiting for one.

[Parodite]

So yes there is much more we can't see than we can see. But you don't have to call it "Nothing" or even "empty" just "undefined"

‘Nothing’ is an asymptote that defines the boundaries of what is knowable.

‘Nothing’ is often a necessary construct for rational thinking. Logic is uncommon, so reason is how most thinking gets thunk.

The senses send information to the brain. The brain being a smart guy rationalizes stories to explain what its senses are telling it. Science is the art of making those rationalizations fit reality as much as humanly possible. "nothing" by its inherent definition cannot not exist without something to bound it. "nothing" is not an island unto itself. It is the absence of something. Even if that "something" is a mere observation of "nothing" Therefore proving the Heisenberg interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

I'm uncertain about Heisenberg (pun intended), but yes.

IE Schrodinger's "Nothing/Something cat" Put a cat in a box with a mechanism has a 50% chance of being in one "nothing or something". Making the "nothing Cat" turn into something 50% of the time when it is first observed. and thus be defined. Along with a 50% chance it will be a "Something cat" The "Nothing/Something" Cat" will be undefined until it is observed. The same would apply to the Mechanism.

Schrodinger’s cat thought experiment tried to show the absurdity of thinking of a cat before it is observed as both dead and alive.

An easy way out of this is assuming that the cat emerged only during measurement. Before measurement there was no cat: it was something else, that could change into a cat but also other outcomes are possible like a rat or dog, depending on the type of measurement being done.

Our observing of the moon has very little effect on the moon, in the quantum realm however observing-measuring means severely disturbing what you try to observe and measure. Like dropping a bomb on a house in the effort of trying to see how it is constructed and how many people lived there. You have to reconstruct reality from rubble.

Double slit experiments I envision in a similar way: a gigantic dam of concrete and steel with two very narrow slits is erected in an atmosphere of quantum winds and fluctuations, meant to catch and detect very small quick-silvery shoals of extremely tiny fish that are beamed through that atmosphere to the double slit wall.

The shoal or swarm is the format known to exist: to extract one single fish and shoot one at a time with measured intervals at the two slits gives strange measurement outcomes. First you get a pattern one would expect from billiard balls but after enough rounds the typical wave interference pattern appears again.

This is often used to illustrate the idea of wave-particle duality. Seems to me that "particles" are more like interference nodes of energy distributions that change following wave patterns. The concept of a singular particle is useful to calculate and analyze but has no clear correspondence in physical reality. Probably because the brain is wired to only see patterns that persist over long enough time to be ID-ed.

To take the smallest piece from a swarm and consider it an independent fish that swims through one of the slits doesn't seem to represent what is happening at all.

If you consider the atmosphere in the experimental setup plus all the N-particle classical objects in it as one system, "strange things" may not be so strange at all. You just have to let go of the particle as a fundamental building block. Particles are useful mathematical constructs to describe and predict things in a limited domain of validity, ie the classical domain where N-particle objects are pretty big.

But I'm speculating above my pay grade.

Once the contents of the box is observed to be "Nothing or Something" It is one or the other. If it is "Nothing" and the box is again then observed at a later time there will still be "nothing" If the observation is "Something" Then the box is closed at the next observation the odds would be reset to 50/50.
Therefore logically it can only be concluded that there are three possible solutions:
1) There was *never* absolutely "nothing"
IE The universe always existed in some form or another. Or to Paraphrase Feynman "its something all the way down." and the Dice are rigged.
2) We live in a simulation which is really just saying the same thing in a different way. And what would you call "our" creator
3) Our theories and beliefs "Aren't even wrong"
4)The entire Universe is Schrodinger's Cat just waiting for an observer.

Two of these four lead to a supreme being and the last is waiting for one.

It looks like the Supreme Being keeps trying to put his creation into a box and send it with FedEx to his faithful customers. It appears every box fails at containing it, so the Great Gift that explains everything never arrives.

[Parodite]

The effects of nothing when you expect something or something else

Animals React to Magic!

[Doc]

So yes there is much more we can't see than we can see. But you don't have to call it "Nothing" or even "empty" just "undefined"

‘Nothing’ is an asymptote that defines the boundaries of what is knowable.

‘Nothing’ is often a necessary construct for rational thinking. Logic is uncommon, so reason is how most thinking gets thunk.

The senses send information to the brain. The brain being a smart guy rationalizes stories to explain what its senses are telling it. Science is the art of making those rationalizations fit reality as much as humanly possible. "nothing" by its inherent definition cannot not exist without something to bound it. "nothing" is not an island unto itself. It is the absence of something. Even if that "something" is a mere observation of "nothing" Therefore proving the Heisenberg interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

I'm uncertain about Heisenberg (pun intended), but yes.

IE Schrodinger's "Nothing/Something cat" Put a cat in a box with a mechanism has a 50% chance of being in one "nothing or something". Making the "nothing Cat" turn into something 50% of the time when it is first observed. and thus be defined. Along with a 50% chance it will be a "Something cat" The "Nothing/Something" Cat" will be undefined until it is observed. The same would apply to the Mechanism.

Schrodinger’s cat thought experiment tried to show the absurdity of thinking of a cat before it is observed as both dead and alive.

An easy way out of this is assuming that the cat emerged only during measurement. Before measurement there was no cat: it was something else, that could change into a cat but also other outcomes are possible like a rat or dog, depending on the type of measurement being done.

Our observing of the moon has very little effect on the moon, in the quantum realm however observing-measuring means severely disturbing what you try to observe and measure. Like dropping a bomb on a house in the effort of trying to see how it is constructed and how many people lived there. You have to reconstruct reality from rubble.

Double slit experiments I envision in a similar way: a gigantic dam of concrete and steel with two very narrow slits is erected in an atmosphere of quantum winds and fluctuations, meant to catch and detect very small quick-silvery shoals of extremely tiny fish that are beamed through that atmosphere to the double slit wall.

The shoal or swarm is the format known to exist: to extract one single fish and shoot one at a time with measured intervals at the two slits gives strange measurement outcomes. First you get a pattern one would expect from billiard balls but after enough rounds the typical wave interference pattern appears again.

This is often used to illustrate the idea of wave-particle duality. Seems to me that "particles" are more like interference nodes of energy distributions that change following wave patterns. The concept of a singular particle is useful to calculate and analyze but has no clear correspondence in physical reality. Probably because the brain is wired to only see patterns that persist over long enough time to be ID-ed.

I think you are describing pilot wave theory here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory

To take the smallest piece from a swarm and consider it an independent fish that swims through one of the slits doesn't seem to represent what is happening at all.

If you consider the atmosphere in the experimental setup plus all the N-particle classical objects in it as one system, "strange things" may not be so strange at all. You just have to let go of the particle as a fundamental building block. Particles are useful mathematical constructs to describe and predict things in a limited domain of validity, ie the classical domain where N-particle objects are pretty big.

Quarks are virtual. They pop into and out of existence all the time. Like a swarm.

But I'm speculating above my pay grade.

Aren't we all

Once the contents of the box is observed to be "Nothing or Something" It is one or the other. If it is "Nothing" and the box is again then observed at a later time there will still be "nothing" If the observation is "Something" Then the box is closed at the next observation the odds would be reset to 50/50.
Therefore logically it can only be concluded that there are four possible solutions:
1) There was *never* absolutely "nothing"
IE The universe always existed in some form or another. Or to Paraphrase Feynman "its something all the way down." and the Dice are rigged.
2) We live in a simulation which is really just saying the same thing in a different way. And what would you call "our" creator
3) Our theories and beliefs "Aren't even wrong"
4)The entire Universe is Schrodinger's Cat just waiting for an observer.

Two of these four lead to a supreme being and the last is waiting for one.

It looks like the Supreme Being keeps trying to put his creation into a box and send it with FedEx to his faithful customers. It appears every box fails at containing it, so the Great Gift that explains everything never arrives.

I forgot to mention the fifth possibility.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how- ... wtab-en-us

How Do I Know I’m Not the Only Conscious Being in the Universe?

The solipsism problem, also called the problem of other minds, lurks at the heart of science, philosophy, religion, the arts and the human condition.

In that case not are only particles virtual but so is everything else in the Universe besides myself. If that is the case, then never mind, as I was just talking to myself.

The only thing I am certain of is it is always something. Something all the way down.

[Parodite]

I forgot to mention the fifth possibility.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how- ... wtab-en-us

How Do I Know I’m Not the Only Conscious Being in the Universe?

The solipsism problem, also called the problem of other minds, lurks at the heart of science, philosophy, religion, the arts and the human condition.

In that case not are only particles virtual but so is everything else in the Universe besides myself. If that is the case, then never mind, as I was just talking to myself.

The only thing I am certain of is it is always something. Something all the way down.

The solipsism problem and hard problem of consciousness sort of are two sides of the same coin. I will do a coin flip soon and while it is still spinning in the air, before it collapses on a hard surface and we measure either a head or tail outcome. Probably the jury will allways be out.

My working theory of all mysteries for which we don't seem to ever find "satisfactory explanations" is that nature plays magical tricks, produces rabbits out of magic hats using misdirection, distraction, propaganda and framing. If for instance you were brainwashed believing you ought to be able to smell the color blue... you have a serious hard problem.

Solipsism and consciousness probably won't get solved because we don't even know what the problem is. Something makes us believe it is a problem where in fact there is none. Why something looks like a problem while reality apparently disagrees... is the domain of the magician. The answer is the problem, the question the solution.

Will see what Tim Maudlin has to say.

[Parodite]

Why I am now a Christian

[Nonc Hilaire]

Why I am now a Christian

A nice piece. Christianity and Islam are both rooted in Judaism. Islam is a bit vague and basic imo, and has more social conventions.

The lay author isn’t a theologian, but the need for God is real even for atheists. God is a useful concept to sort out what you CAN not know from what you DO not know.

[noddy]

god as a symbol for my team, a unifier for the western world - that shits just clickbait fantasy for reglious people and wont be happening.

Hirsi Aali is just reverting to her upbringing comfort zones, moving past her reactionary stage and returning to what makes sense to her., which is nice.

God is a useful concept to sort out what you CAN not know from what you DO not know.

while the angry new atheist types surely need this mental short circuit, put them in theology class and they end up angry self righteous fundies anyway.

some personalities just take everything to its literal extremes and thats how it ends up for them.

I really cant see the west unifying on anything that isnt an extreme shock to the system, even then, probably not.

we are already 90% of the way to becoming the Arabs - petty little tribes of squabblers, lost in a world of conspiracy and blame on external forces.

the last 10% is just time.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

I don't know Ms.Ali's full story but from the quotes I've seen, it just sounds like the 'Catholic Atheism' of a Maurras.

For me, it highlights something that seems clearer now in hindsight- the movement was really about unleashing aggressive social bullies and putting the church back under the thumb of secular authority.

[Parodite]

I seems to me the jury will be out for a while (forever most likely) if a "God is dead" society of atheists, agnostics, I-don't-Careians, is able to sustain itself over many generations. The claim that they won't is a bit premature and presumptuous however.

When I look at the track record of different religious societies and how they relate among each other and to non-religious people, it is hard to conclude that religion is purely a force for good. In general it just adds and amplifies our tribal nature and tendencies, with the usual in-group out-group mechanism doing its daily job. It also functions as an organizing force in society, which could be argued is a positive. It also ankers people psychologically who need it.

There are people who claim that real communism has never been tried, so if only we really reaaally tried and follow that marvel of the communist recipe.. world peace would break out. The silliness of that argument has been demonstrated over and over.

It however seems to be applicable to any and all prescriptions that supposedly help us out: if only we were all Christians of-a-certain- type, Muslims of type a-b-c-, atheist-agnostic humanists with minimum IQ of 125, or all just practiced Buddhism... I mean REALLY practiced it... most of our problems will be solved and the brotherhood of man surely erupts on the scene! Right?

Since I tend look through the filters of biology, none of those favored/advised prescriptions seem to make much of a difference; on average we will always behave like the monkeys we are, with ups and downs.

The only recipe that can be said to be a net positive IMO, is the secular church-state separation as it developed in the West. Ayaan can now safely be a Christian and why not. Life is too short to not do what you need.

[noddy]

all get turned to jaded nihilists in the face of globalist modernity, their are no thoughts that provide immunity.

atheists, deists, theists, traditional or conservative - the birth rates are plummeting and the kids are dropping out.

ive long felt our little brains, their egos and their love , are designed around 100's and 1000's of us - we get away with millions pre electronics and mass migration because your actual world was still only the former.

now its billions, all the time, everywhere.

the Indians are possibly the only people used to this lavender and the jury is out even on them.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

I wanted to clarify my post. I wasn't intending it as a judgement of good or bad, but my observation is that motive turned out to be an attack and proscription on notions of debt-forgiveness- a very provocative thing in itself.

For the longest time I thought it was just about jettisoning original, ancestral sin from the cultural ambience but instead, we have more of it than ever. The protest wasn't to rid us of superstitious notions but a complaint that the accounting books weren't precise enough and too geared towards compartmentalization and not subject to politicalization & utilization.