The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[Enthetan]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

That last line seems like a very plausible theory! The people were at low ebb when Hitler assumed power. Not only was the worldwide depression at its lowest ebb but Germany was saddled with huge reparation payments and runaway inflation was running rampant within Germany. The existing palladium, perhaps the Kaiser's Palace, had been gotten rid of along with the Kaiser himself and some sort of new palladium was needed to give the German people assurance that they had a bright future. Slick talking Hitler, knew how to use these circumstances to his advantage and win over enough support to become Chancellor and then anointed himself Fuhrer - definitely at least a substitute for the old palladium. Yes most followed him like sheep all the way over the cliff>
Lakey

Part of it was also from the Communists. There was an active Communist presence in Germany, assisted by Russia. The Reds would march through the city, and threaten strikes and violence to get what they wanted (mainly higher wages for union members, their main constituency). The Nazis were the only group who seemed willing to get into the streets and fight it out with the Reds.

Keep in mind that western Russia and Ukraine had a sizable population of ethnic Germans, who had been invited to immigrate there in the days of Catherine the Great. I would imagine that word of what was happening (including the Ukrainian Terror Famine) would get back to their distant relatives back in Germany, and it was enough to scare them.

Also, keep in mind that Germany had experienced a short Communist revolution in 1919 ( the Spartacist Uprising), and had seen a bloody Communist revolution in neighboring Hungary, led by Bela Kun. The German middle-class was understandably frightened of what could happen, and were thus willing to turn to anybody who demonstrated he would fight the Communists. Even if he DID wear a funny mustache.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Okay, I'll go with "a valuable thinker"

On the post where you responded that God is a faith or a belief so that you could not respond further on the question of whether or not God existed inside or outside of this universe, it seems to me that your faith and beliefs, of which God is one, would be inside this universe where you dwell. Also, if God existed outside of this universe, that would be a sort of admission that something did exist outside of this universe and that would tend to clash with your earlier statement. For example, if beings go to heaven for good works and/or faith in God, their souls would be taken to a heaven outside of this universe and that is out of sync with your earlier statements.

That doesn't align well with the beliefs which you stated in reply to one of my recent posts.

Lakey

Since God is beyond human comprehension, all I was stating is that how that all works would be speculative on my part. I doubt God would lack the ability to exist outside of physics since he had to create it to begin with. But what existed outside of the universes would be God. Anything created that exists would be part of physics and reality and that includes metaphysical realms. So I don't see the logical problem. God can be in or out. It's really not fruitful for me to try and logically figure it all out since it is not logical, logic being a human faculty or a finite faculty within the world. We cannot get outside of the world to either see God or to see how logic works outside of the physics of things. We can't verify a thing. So that is why I didn't say more. Because from the finite empirical logical perspective it is not logical, not factual, and not real. This makes it impossible to argue from a human standpoint. I can say I believe it and experience metaphysical things but that is as far as I can go.

Thus for all practical purposes, we have infinite dimensions in physics, I think, universes or worlds, filled with beings interacting, aware or not aware in different degrees, none of them having created universes or worlds but all capable in varying degrees according to the "Carmelo Bigness Factor" to transform reality. Transform as opposed to create. This is my opinion, in response. Someone else may see it differently. Thus the game is metaphorically an infinite loop in a way, a Möbius strip. I used the word metaphorically. Just for its appearance of infinity of surface. The games go on and on, the worlds go on and on.

 

[Enthetan]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Two favorite sayings:

"I am doing the best that I can."

"You don't know what I am going through."


There was a third saying but I forgot what it is. Maybe Giz knows.

"Shit happens when you party naked" ?

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I just can't win! I reply to a line which used the word OT and then am chastised for using it in my reply. On this one, I didn't want to say that he was a great scientist because you did not consider him a scientist. Instead I wanted to include a generalized all inclusive descriptive. I was just looking for some bland phrase to describe him which would offend no one and I did not succeed in doing even that. I don't necessarily think that, I was just looking for a phrase to finish my post.

"The fact that his work is still remember today and that he still has resurgences stands as mute testimony to the fact that Freud's works were........."
Help me out here since I am unable to come up with the right word or phrase at the end of my sentence.
Lakey

Dear Lakey, You were not chastised. I just felt you went a wee too far in his praises.
I think it is ok if you feel those more extensive praises are warranted.

If its any consolation, philosophers NEVER agree on the minutiae of anything. So take heart.

It is not that I am right and you are wrong.
It's that we have slightly different opinions and we are going back and forth expressing them.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Lakey, your question that I had trouble answering seems to be answered by the first page of Gardner's Relativity Explosion using a though experiment. In the night everything, down to the electrons, gets bigger including oneself. Would there be any way, within the system, to notice the change? No. There would be no way to detect that one had changed size.

From within this physics we inhabit I think that it is equally hard to detect certain 'effects' and truths.

In a way it is meaningless if the answer is yes or not as to how the world came to be if we ask it from a mechanical physical or logical point of view. It's here and we live in it. I think that we as human beings, through our emotional connections, style our lives according to what we each find meaningful. We have a limited scope to piece that out but we authentically attempt to do it. I would assume the Carmelo Bigness Factor as I called it before takes into account, needs, Emotional IQ, something he wrote about before.....and that in building or assembling or transforming a world, that emotional IQ leads the way.....
It's here where the bigness factor can really take off..... since that emotional IQ is what lets everything get BIG. (I like that emotional IQ thing myself.....and it is really NEAT, much better than OT levels in terms of side effects....)

The existential response is to live life well, authentically, without resentment.

All this logical arguing is basically not important. Nothing I have ever written on the forum matters. What matters is that love and connection with people, the bigness factor.

All the logic is fun, it's an activity, but it has its place and its place is not that important for me. I enjoy it and I have training in it. It passes the time (and gets Apollo stats up). (Ahem on both.) But in the end what rules is the emotional life and the whole network of bigness. The bigness network!

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Here I think is the ultimate phrasing of reality.....which I think fits well with both emotional IQ and the Bigness Factor:

"Only in the contemplation of beauty is human life worth living."
(Plato, Symposium, 211d)

(in the end, for me, Plato trumps other philosophies.....)

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Lakey, your comments make me want to share this excerpt from a very good living philosopher....Nehamas. He wrote a lovely little book worth reading, called The Art of Living. he teaches philosophy at Princeton. I've never met him but have some of his books. He wrote:

"The Art of Living was in part an effort to show that philosophy is not only a theoretical discipline but also a discipline of the self, a way of life - what the Greeks called a prohairesis tou biou. Some who practice philosophy in that manner are universalists: they believe a single mode of life is good for all, and offer arguments designed to convince everyone to live that way. Protreptic philosophers agree with universalists that there is one best way to live but give no arguments to prove it; they only issue to others an invitation to live as they advocate. Finally, individualists display particular lives as singular achievements, and hope to inspire others by inciting them to develop their own, different ways of life for themselves. Protreptics and universalists see life as an effort to discover the nature we share with everyone else and live accordingly; individualists, instead, emphasize our differences from one another and point out that admirable people are always those who became something that had never been accomplished before."

I hope I lean to the third camp, those labeled 'individualists'. And this would explain why I could never espouse a universal tech. Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and beauty is what makes life worth living....

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Great post, Maria!! This is really well written and explains some of your major beliefs very well. Until your art career takes off, have you ever considered writing up your own tech. It could be called Cuervology!
Lakey

I don't think of art as a career, so I doubt it can take off. (Check back in a few years and you will see this 'doubt' in better clarity). It's possible that someone will will want to buy or have my art. If so, that is great.

But I doubt it will be a career. This is no criticism of myself or of you! Anyway, I primarily do my art for my own pleasure. I am very avant garde in my thinking so unfortunately I don't believe in works or careers. I believe that art is not a work, but beauty which I follow and weave along with (the best I can if at all.) But beauty is all about the eye that perceives...so perhaps what I conceive of and do as art will not appear as beautiful to another.....so it goes.

As such, it is all out of my control. Most likely I will not have a career ever (lol) but just to give myself hope, I will say maybe I will have a career. But by then I will be somewhere else. LOL.

I don't care to succeed or to fail. I do care if some, one, specific, human likes something.

Art, real art, is not able to conform to a universal mold, anymore than philosophy should try to. I don't really think in that sense that I have 'major beliefs'. If anything I have experiences. That is all I have. Art works are just images, beautiful I hope....that is all.

And from what I can see, others have much more interesting experiences than mine....and therefore might have insights I cannot access.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Since God is beyond human comprehension, all I was stating is that how that all works would be speculative on my part. I doubt God would lack the ability to exist outside of physics since he had to create it to begin with. But what existed outside of the universes would be God. Anything created that exists would be part of physics and reality and that includes metaphysical realms. So I don't see the logical problem. God can be in or out. It's really not fruitful for me to try and logically figure it all out since it is not logical, logic being a human faculty or a finite faculty within the world. We cannot get outside of the world to either see God or to see how logic works outside of the physics of things. We can't verify a thing. So that is why I didn't say more. Because from the finite empirical logical perspective it is not logical, not factual, and not real. This makes it impossible to argue from a human standpoint. I can say I believe it and experience metaphysical things but that is as far as I can go.

Thus for all practical purposes, we have infinite dimensions in physics, I think, universes or worlds, filled with beings interacting, aware or not aware in different degrees, none of them having created universes or worlds but all capable in varying degrees according to the "Carmelo Bigness Factor" to transform reality. Transform as opposed to create. This is my opinion, in response. Someone else may see it differently. Thus the game is metaphorically an infinite loop in a way, a Möbius strip. I used the word metaphorically. Just for its appearance of infinity of surface. The games go on and on, the worlds go on and on.

Basically, you have presented a consistent model above. All known things are physical and are created by God and the laws of physics apply. You project a physical universe of infinite size and beyond that there is only God and it matter not whether God is in or out of the physical universe because we would only be speculating and can never really know for sure so it doesn't really matter one way or the other. That is my interpretation of your answer above. In effect, I believe you have built a sort of cocoon, a comfort zone of what can ever be known and can never be known.

I want to remind you of the parallel universes which you brought up a few days ago. How do those fit into your model. Obviously they had to be created by God too so each of them must be inifinite in extent and then moment in time persists in our branch of the parallel universes and all other branches, so you are implying infinities upon infinities. What about the connections between parallel universes. Do they also follow the laws of physics. It would seem to me that while someone was in a connection tube between two parallel universe, the normal laws of spacetime would be overridden and would not apply because time jumps could be made, or spacetime jumps to be more exact would be possible from going from one parallel universe to another. Perhaps in 30 minutes, a traveler could journey either forward or backwards several light years in space time How would this type of thing figure into the physical universe.

I don't believe in infinite space, or more accurately spacetime. There is no way to go straight in our 4 dimensional space time and just keep going forever. What will most likely happen is that the space time is curved and we will eventually end up back at our starting point. Then the question arises that if a 4 dimensional spacetime curves, what does it curve into? It seems like it must curve in a 4 space plus time as opposed to our 3 space plus time. In other words a 5th dimension, and so forth.

Don' get me wrong, I like your model, it is good logical thinking but I' just playing devil' advocate.

One other point as regards not believing in time. In Newtonian physics there are three spatial dimensions plus an independent variable called time. In relativity, time is linked to the 3 spatial dimension and is not totally independent of them so it is dubbed a 4th dimension and the 3 dimensional dimensions plus time transform into a 4 dimensional space time with time being one of the 4 dimensions.

You seem to be equating that with no time but that is not the case. You can say that time has taken on some characteristics of the three space dimensions but that works two ways. It can equally be said that the three dimensions of space have also taken on some of the characteristics of time. In 4 space we have three spatial dimension each of which has taken on a time component plus one non spatial dimension which has taken on some spacial component. Still the location of an object is defined by its 3 spatial locations and its time location. In a local area such as all of planet Earth, not much changes between the Newtonian system and the Relativity system. Only when objects are moving at very high speeds relative to one another does the concept of spacetime introduce large changes in measurements pf sizes and locations of objects in space and time as compared tp spacetime.

In everyday life space and time and spacetime are for all practical purposes the same things. As objects moving in different directions speed up, then space and time as compared to spacetime begin to significant discrepancies. For that reason, it is hard for me to grasp your principle that you do not believe in time since you have reclassified it as a 4th spatial dimension. When you go to measure any of the standard 3 dimensions of space, you can use a yardstick or some more sophisticated tool that measures as a yardstick or ruler does. When you go to measure time, you have to use some sort of clock, simple or sophisticated, No matter how complex an apparatus for measuring space becomes, it can't measure time. Even the units are different. Space is measured in meters and time is measured in seconds. Time, even when it is a dimension of spacetime still exists.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I don't think of art as a career, so I doubt it can take off. (Check back in a few years and you will see this 'doubt' in better clarity). It's possible that someone will will want to buy or have my art. If so, that is great.

But I doubt it will be a career. This is no criticism of myself or of you! Anyway, I primarily do my art for my own pleasure. I am very avant garde in my thinking so unfortunately I don't believe in works or careers. I believe that art is not a work, but beauty which I follow and weave along with (the best I can if at all.) But beauty is all about the eye that perceives...so perhaps what I conceive of and do as art will not appear as beautiful to another.....so it goes.

As such, it is all out of my control. Most likely I will not have a career ever (lol) but just to give myself hope, I will say maybe I will have a career. But by then I will be somewhere else. LOL.

I don't care to succeed or to fail. I do care if some, one, specific, human likes something. I don't know you all that well but I do care and I would much prefer for you to succeed.

Art, real art, is not able to conform to a universal mold, anymore than philosophy should try to. I don't really think in that sense that I have 'major beliefs'. If anything I have experiences. That is all I have. Art works are just images, beautiful I hope....that is all.

And from what I can see, others have much more interesting experiences than mine....and therefore might have insights I cannot access.

I don't know about your last line here, your experience with your 2 year old son being placed in CCLA's cadet org while you were doing your routing form to route in was right up there with the most interesting experiences here on ESMB. Also, some things you PMed me are extremely interesting as well. Certainly, being a philosophy professor at a major university had to have some very interesting moments.

A couple more points to make, I'm about to be a bit demeaning here but if you don't care to succeed or to fail, why not just opt for succeeding. I mean if neither one matters much to you, you might as well opt for success. all other things being equal. If nothing else, it would give you more money but I believe that it would do more than that.

On your comment that it is all out of your control, we have already established the Carmelo Principle that the more people you connect with the more control more size and influence you will possess. Also, where you go to launch your career is something you can control. Go to Paris rather than Timbuktu, go to San Francisco or LA rather than Mongolia. Where you go, who you meet, just those 2 things give you some control right there.
Lakey

 

[Leon-2]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Part of it was also from the Communists. There was an active Communist presence in Germany, assisted by Russia. The Reds would march through the city, and threaten strikes and violence to get what they wanted (mainly higher wages for union members, their main constituency). The Nazis were the only group who seemed willing to get into the streets and fight it out with the Reds.

Keep in mind that western Russia and Ukraine had a sizable population of ethnic Germans, who had been invited to immigrate there in the days of Catherine the Great. I would imagine that word of what was happening (including the Ukrainian Terror Famine) would get back to their distant relatives back in Germany, and it was enough to scare them.

Also, keep in mind that Germany had experienced a short Communist revolution in 1919 ( the Spartacist Uprising), and had seen a bloody Communist revolution in neighboring Hungary, led by Bela Kun. The German middle-class was understandably frightened of what could happen, and were thus willing to turn to anybody who demonstrated he would fight the Communists. Even if he DID wear a funny mustache.

The underlying issue was that both the commies and the nazis were getting their recruits from the same demographic pool of dissatisfied layabouts who were eager to blame all of their own shortcomings on some other group - be it "the rich" or "the jews"- both were convincing enough. And exactly because they were vying for control over the same bunch of people they saw each other as enemies to be destroyed.

Eric Hoffer goes into this in detail in his book The True Believer. Worth reading.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The underlying issue was that both the commies and the nazis were getting their recruits from the same demographic pool of dissatisfied layabouts who were eager to blame all of their own shortcomings on some other group - be it "the rich" or "the jews"- both were convincing enough. And exactly because they were vying for control over the same bunch of people they saw each other as enemies to be destroyed.

Eric Hoffer goes into this in detail in his book The True Believer. Worth reading.

I read it, have a copy, and felt it was a pastiche? He was a bit like Hubbard taking a bunch of things and throwing them together that might not always fit. I felt that way with Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand too. It always surprises me that conservatives favor it since a closer reading shows it to have entirely different tendencies.... In Atlas words are bandied about there and made to stick somehow without meaning much. Hoffer's book joins things together that for me don't fit either, jumping or leaping without clarifying connections. Camille Paglia's early work was like that, brilliant and making interesting but tenuous leaps. I agree Hoffer is worth reading. There are interesting things there. Although I don't know about relying on all his conclusions.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Lakey, your question that I had trouble answering seems to be answered by the first page of Gardner's Relativity Explosion using a though experiment. In the night everything, down to the electrons, gets bigger including oneself. Would there be any way, within the system, to notice the change? No. There would be no way to detect that one had changed size.

From within this physics we inhabit I think that it is equally hard to detect certain 'effects' and truths.

In a way it is meaningless if the answer is yes or not as to how the world came to be if we ask it from a mechanical physical or logical point of view. It's here and we live in it. I think that we as human beings, through our emotional connections, style our lives according to what we each find meaningful. We have a limited scope to piece that out but we authentically attempt to do it. I would assume the Carmelo Bigness Factor as I called it before takes into account, needs, Emotional IQ, something he wrote about before.....and that in building or assembling or transforming a world, that emotional IQ leads the way.....
It's here where the bigness factor can really take off..... since that emotional IQ is what lets everything get BIG. (I like that emotional IQ thing myself.....and it is really NEAT, much better than OT levels in terms of side effects....)

The existential response is to live life well, authentically, without resentment.

All this logical arguing is basically not important. Nothing I have ever written on the forum matters. What matters is that love and connection with people, the bigness factor.

All the logic is fun, it's an activity, but it has its place and its place is not that important for me. I enjoy it and I have training in it. It passes the time (and gets Apollo stats up). (Ahem on both.) But in the end what rules is the emotional life and the whole network of bigness. The bigness network!

I know all this logical arguing grates on a lot of people's nerves and turns them off, I do it anyway. One reason is my age vis a vis my memory and my mind. The logical arguing seems to be similar to what attorneys do in court. To take an argument and be able to rephrase it or to take someone else's view which at first glance seem of rock solid logic and then analyze it make it one's own and then find a possible hole in their argument just makes me feel smarter and sharper. It sort of reverses the aging process for me both as regards my memory and as regards IQ. I know I am much smarter now than when I got here 6 years ago. My memory is better, I grasp concepts quicker and see things deeper. I THINK OPEN PANEL DISCUSSION BOARDS CAN BE AN EXCELLENT METHOD TO GET EDUCATED AND AN EXCELLENT WAY TO KEEP ONE'S MIND SHARP.

Both my son and my ex wife are lawyers and when a legal issue comes up, I don't want to be left out of the discussion so I have sort of taught myself to think like an attorney. It's being done because I am not working right now. When I get busier, hopefully I won't have the time for it any longer.

I am very aware that some are turned off, but a few, who are pretty logical themselves, such as Enthetan for example or yourself, Maria. always come back with some interesting replies. If the person is hostile, I no longer do the above. I was doing that for a long time and making a lot of enemies. Basically I will only do it if I like and respect a person or if I at least like their last post.

I agree with you on the fun quotient, its a lot of fun to find someone who you can verbally joust with, I mean with the right person, there is nothing quite like it! I also agree as to the importance of it, its far more fun than important!! As to worrying about whether people like it or not, fuck a duck, I don't care about that either. This is a message board, I am the OP and I'll write whatever I feel like. If someone doesn't like it, more power to them, just skip over it. I paid my dues here and I'll write whatever I want except for violating ESMB guidelines but if someone requests me to delete something I wrote, I will always comply if their reason is valid.

What was that, Maria, which you wrote in a small font? It's too small to read but I have a message for you in small font too. Less than 7,800 to go!
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Lakey, your question that I had trouble answering seems to be answered by the first page of Gardner's Relativity Explosion using a though experiment. In the night everything, down to the electrons, gets bigger including oneself. Would there be any way, within the system, to notice the change? No. There would be no way to detect that one had changed size.

From within this physics we inhabit I think that it is equally hard to detect certain 'effects' and truths.

In a way it is meaningless if the answer is yes or not as to how the world came to be if we ask it from a mechanical physical or logical point of view. It's here and we live in it. I think that we as human beings, through our emotional connections, style our lives according to what we each find meaningful. We have a limited scope to piece that out but we authentically attempt to do it. I would assume the Carmelo Bigness Factor as I called it before takes into account, needs, Emotional IQ, something he wrote about before.....and that in building or assembling or transforming a world, that emotional IQ leads the way.....
It's here where the bigness factor can really take off..... since that emotional IQ is what lets everything get BIG. (I like that emotional IQ thing myself.....and it is really NEAT, much better than OT levels in terms of side effects....)

The existential response is to live life well, authentically, without resentment.

All this logical arguing is basically not important. Nothing I have ever written on the forum matters. What matters is that love and connection with people, the bigness factor.

All the logic is fun, it's an activity, but it has its place and its place is not that important for me. I enjoy it and I have training in it. It passes the time (and gets Apollo stats up). (Ahem on both.) But in the end what rules is the emotional life and the whole network of bigness. The bigness network!

Okay, Maria, I am so glad that the book arrived and that you started reading it. I am not so sure if Gardner is right on that size thing. If everyhting in the universe doubled in size overnight, no one could see the difference but they might be able to tell if they weighed themselves. If a 6' guy grew to 12' and everything else stayed the same, Gardner would be right. However, to keep the proportions correct, the width of the guy's body would double as well, say from 20" to 40 and his depth would go from say 20" to 40" as well so his volume would increase by 2x2x2 = 8 times, not just 2 times, so if he weighed 150 lbs. in the morning he would weigh 1,200 pounds the next morning. Of course the scale would also increase in size to eight times it's original volume so there is a chance that the scale might still show 150 lbs. Anyway, if it did, then Gardner will have fully proved his point.

Please keep me posted on the board as to how it is going with that book. I would really like to post it here so more of the general public can learn some of the basics of Relativity. In this manner, we could do a public service for our public by explaining some of the elementary principles of Relativity Theory to them in layman's language!
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Basically, you have presented a consistent model above. All known things are physical and are created by God and the laws of physics apply. You project a physical universe of infinite size and beyond that there is only God and it matter not whether God is in or out of the physical universe because we would only be speculating and can never really know for sure so it doesn't really matter one way or the other. That is my interpretation of your answer above. In effect, I believe you have built a sort of cocoon, a comfort zone of what can ever be known and can never be known.

I doubt comfort zones are possible...although beliefs are a way of feeling comfort or setting some other psychological boundary.

I want to remind you of the parallel universes which you brought up a few days ago. How do those fit into your model. Obviously they had to be created by God too so each of them must be inifinite in extent and then moment in time persists in our branch of the parallel universes and all other branches, so you are implying infinities upon infinities. What about the connections between parallel universes. Do they also follow the laws of physics. It would seem to me that while someone was in a connection tube between two parallel universe, the normal laws of spacetime would be overridden and would not apply because time jumps could be made, or spacetime jumps to be more exact would be possible from going from one parallel universe to another. Perhaps in 30 minutes, a traveler could journey either forward or backwards several light years in space time How would this type of thing figure into the physical universe.

You are right that spacetime is a matter of belief in varying degrees. Theory. I guess the topic of wormholes is separate. Will think on that and get back. As for other universes, don't see why they don't work within physics. We have multiple humans and multiple colors and other forms of multiplicity ... If anything, positing 1 of something (one universe or one God, i.e., an exception) seems more a problem.

I don't believe in infinite space, or more accurately spacetime. There is no way to go straight in our 4 dimensional space time and just keep going forever. What will most likely happen is that the space time is curved and we will eventually end up back at our starting point. Then the question arises that if a 4 dimensional spacetime curves, what does it curve into? It seems like it must curve in a 4 space plus time as opposed to our 3 space plus time. In other words a 5th dimension, and so forth.

I never used the word 'straight' to define the infinity of space times? I merely meant I don't see how or why only one universe is possible, what law dictates that would be true. I do think other universes/worlds/ spacetimes would have a connection of physics. I don't see why they would have to be the same or exact. Pandas are not dogs but both are animals. Worlds might qualify as worlds yet be heterogeneous one to the other in many ways.

If anything, a spacetime defines our universe; whereas many space times are possible even if we can't access them. As long as we are below the speed of light it would never matter about time and we can think in that structure of ordinary causality.

Don' get me wrong, I like your model, it is good logical thinking but I' just playing devil' advocate.

One other point as regards not believing in time. In Newtonian physics there are three spatial dimensions plus an independent variable called time. In relativity, time is linked to the 3 spatial dimension and is not totally independent of them so it is dubbed a 4th dimension and the 3 dimensional dimensions plus time transform into a 4 dimensional space time with time being one of the 4 dimensions.

You seem to be equating that with no time but that is not the case. You can say that time has taken on some characteristics of the three space dimensions but that works two ways. It can equally be said that the three dimensions of space have also taken on some of the characteristics of time. In 4 space we have three spatial dimension each of which has taken on a time component plus one non spatial dimension which has taken on some spacial component. Still the location of an object is defined by its 3 spatial locations and its time location. In a local area such as all of planet Earth, not much changes between the Newtonian system and the Relativity system. Only when objects are moving at very high speeds relative to one another does the concept of spacetime introduce large changes in measurements pf sizes and locations of objects in space and time as compared tp spacetime.

True.

In everyday life space and time and spacetime are for all practical purposes the same things. As objects moving in different directions speed up, then space and time as compared to spacetime begin to significant discrepancies. For that reason, it is hard for me to grasp your principle that you do not believe in time since you have reclassified it as a 4th spatial dimension. When you go to measure any of the standard 3 dimensions of space, you can use a yardstick or some more sophisticated tool that measures as a yardstick or ruler does. When you go to measure time, you have to use some sort of clock, simple or sophisticated, No matter how complex an apparatus for measuring space becomes, it can't measure time. Even the units are different. Space is measured in meters and time is measured in seconds. Time, even when it is a dimension of spacetime still exists.
Lakey

Ok. All my comments are bold above.
My thinking of 'there is no time' needs clarification.
And I hope I can.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

If not mistaken Hawking supports infinite parallel universes + wormholes (although he is a determinist and I would lean more to indeterminacy or Heisenberg's uncertainty principle).

 

[Panda Termint]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

When this thread finally hits 2 million views I think the Mods should rename it... I'd suggest something like;

Ex-Scientologists Discuss The Significance of Everything

What do you think?

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Hats

Jung has a different way of thinking of what we wrote about last night.....I view it as metaphorical (and literary) but also insightful. His archetypes feel a bit entity-like. Not sure like animal minds although I think he might view them as springing from the unconscious (which he accepts). So a wind god for Jung would be from within, not removable or bad.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=490&v=bVeZz5QnEFE[/video]
It is short and very interesting.....


Also this critique of Jung by Watts also touches on some things of interest, such as social hypnosis.....games....
[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VpugMBQD2to[/video]

Has a funny explanation of hell - postmortem courts of justice, Lol, Celestial police. Dante all over again.

 

[Enthetan]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The underlying issue was that both the commies and the nazis were getting their recruits from the same demographic pool of dissatisfied layabouts who were eager to blame all of their own shortcomings on some other group - be it "the rich" or "the jews"- both were convincing enough. And exactly because they were vying for control over the same bunch of people they saw each other as enemies to be destroyed.

Eric Hoffer goes into this in detail in his book The True Believer. Worth reading.

Yes, I read it. I recommend the book.

Yes, the National Socialist German Workers Party (shortened to Nazi) and the International Socialists both wanted a totalitarian government. The major difference between them was the idea of who was to be in charge.

But the reason why the German middle class gave the Nazis power was because they were more afraid of the Communists.

 

[MrNobody]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Yes, I read it. I recommend the book.

Yes, the National Socialist German Workers Party (shortened to [STRIKE]Nazi[/STRIKE]) NSDAP and the International Socialists both wanted a totalitarian government. The major difference between them was the idea of who was to be in charge.

But the reason why the German middle class gave the Nazis power was because they were more afraid of the Communists.

FIFY, because some correct information in this "Lakeyan" thread can't hurt, right?