The Topic on Space and Energy

[bobmax]

Communication is not the search for "the One". You can't communicate if you are in solitary confinement, or suffering from shut-in syndrome.In both these cases and in all other cases the search for "the One" is via experience. Experience when it is absolute experience, is "the One".

Because experience is ultimately all of what there is ,experience , when it's split into separate lives, is what links us to the absolute.

Perhaps the word "experience" is more appropriate.
But in my opinion the word "communication" can also give the idea, where there is no one who communicates.

This nobody is the One who is returning to himself.

[Age]

And whereabouts in the Universe, exactly, is this place where there is, supposedly, NO matter in it but where ONLY a quantum field is present?

This is pretty standard stuff in contemporary cosmology. I'm not qualified to delve into the details

It appears here that you have NO idea correct?

but there are lots of Wiki pages and Youtube videos around on the subject. I'm only reporting my understanding of physics, I'm neither defending or explaining it.

There may well be LOTS of pages and videos, but NONE that I have seen answer my question here, and I am YET to find a human being who can answer it either.

Also, does not anyone else find it contradictory to claim that there is this place with, supposedly, no matter in it but where matter actually is. Obviously, if matter is so-called 'spontaneously' getting created, then there IS 'matter', in that place, or space, correct? Or, am I misreading or just missing some 'thing' here?

I'm only reporting, and not qualified to go deeper.

Yes, you are 'only reporting', just like a "preacher" is 'only reporting', (what is written in a book).

And, just like when a "preacher" is UNABLE to back up and support what they are 'only reporting' and is NOT ABLE to answer and clarify challengers and questions, then this is a GREAT SIGN that what is 'only being reported' is NOT ACTUALLY, NOR ABSOLUTELY, True anyway.

You can Google around for more info.

And spoken just like a "preacher". That is; CLAIM that, "If you just READ THE BOOK, then you will FIND THE TRUTH".

But my understanding is that there is no matter; and then, after a particle/anti-particle pair is spontaneously produced, there is then matter and antimatter.

And, do those so-called 'pairs' then exist FOREVER, or do they DISAPPEAR, and then does ANOTHER "pair" APPEAR, or does the SAME 'pair' RE-APPEAR? Or, ... (there are just SO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS here).

They came literally from "nothing," in the sense that they weren't there before, and now they are.

But 'you' were NOT 'there' BEFORE, and NEITHER was earth 'there' BEFORE, NOR the sun, NOR the galaxy, NOR the penguins, but did ANY or ALL of these 'things' come from NOTHING?

Again, I'm only reporting my own understanding, and I am not defending nor qualified to go any deeper.

Okay.

And, what I suggest is that although there is Truth in what you are reporting, the WAY you are reporting 'it' is UNTRUE or NOT Correct.

There are a LOT of people who will LOOK FOR and "FIND" 'things', which they think or BELIEVE will back up and support their CURRENTLY HELD BELIEFS.

Again, I'm only reporting my own understanding of the popularized explanations of contemporary cosmology and quantum field theory.

AGAIN, this is just a 'theory', which could be partly or completely False, Wrong, or Incorrect.

I'm not defending the theories nor going any deeper into explanations. I can't respond to your objections.

What do you assume I am 'objecting' to here, exactly?

And, I do NOT even do 'theories'.

But the so-called 'spontaneous creation of stuff' would be the 'cause'. Oh, AND the supposed and alleged so-called 'primordial quantum field' AND 'the laws of physics' AS WELL, of course.

I suppose it depends on the meaning of "cause." If it happens spontaneously for no particular reason, I don't think you can call it a cause. But if you prefer to call it a cause, I won't argue the point. I haven't got a dog in this fight.

Neither have I. I just ponder over allegations and claims made, and then just question some of them.

Do you KNOW this FOR SURE? Or, is this some 'thing' that you have been told, or heard?

I'm not qualified to do the math or physics. I've done a lot of reading and Youtube watching. Pair production is pretty standard, as is Krauss's account of the cosmology.

Oh, and by the way, what you talk about here is HOW the supposed 'inconsistency' between physics at the 'quantum level' and 'classical level' can be and WAS resolved.

I don't think I mentioned that. I'm not an expert. I'm honestly not understanding the intent or context of your questions. I'm not attempting to explain physics nor justify or defend it. I'm only giving my own impression of what the physicists believe, and I only did that to explain the context of my claim that there are uncaused events in physics these days. It's not something that's arguable. I'm only giving the basis for my belief. Even if I'm wrong, I'm answering honestly about the basis of my belief. I don't understand where you're coming from.

Okay.

Okay. But it is great to SEE signs of True INTELLIGENCE here within 'you' "wtf".

Thank you kindly.

'Modern' is a very relative term, hey?

Twentieth century quantum physics and postwar quantum field theory, I suppose.

And BOTH of them are also very old history.

But, absolutely EVERY thing is relative, correct?

But even without the cosmological stuff, quantum physics doesn't have causes, and perhaps this is a more down-to-earth example of what I was getting at. A particle might have spin-up or spin-down, and before we observe it, it doesn't meaningfully have a spin. In fact we could wish that it has a spin but we just don't know what it is.

'We' WOULD KNOW IF and WHEN some one tells us what the 'it' word means or is referring to here, EXACTLY.

"It" meaning the particle in question.

The reason WHY there is NO 'first cause' or NO 'cause' NOR to Everything is just because the Universe is infinite.

Does this mean that if NO one is looking at the sun, then the particles of the sun do NOT have properties, and thus then the sun would NOT shine?

I don't know the answer to that.

I thought the answer was pretty obvious.

Of course observing doesn't mean just "looking." We feel the heat and absorb the energy of the sun, and I suppose that counts for an observation.

Okay great. Thanks again for SHOWING INTELLIGENCE.

If yes, then okay?

But if no, then what do you mean here?

I don't mean anything at all.

When you say and claim some thing, then you also mean some thing. But if you do NOT know what you mean, then okay.

I'm not trying to explain physics. I'm telling you why I wrote what I did. If I'm wrong, so be it.

Are you basing 'contemporary physics' on what one author said about "a Universe from nothing" and some alleged pairs of particles/non particles 'popping' into creation

Pair production was first observed in the laboratory in 1948 according to Wiki.

Maybe, but that they came from 'nothing' is NOT necessarily true.

That long predates Krauss's book. I don't think he's advancing any new ideas, only collating the existing ones.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

An existing idea which exists only on and as an ASSUMPTION, ONLY.

Surely 'it' does NOT HOLD the BELIEF that there are items that are caused by NO items at all, or am I wrong here?

We may be lost in the quoting here, but "it" referred to some particle under discussion. Particles don't hold beliefs, unless we are panpsychics. Are we?

Yes 'we' seem to be lost here, and that is why I asked you a clarifying question before.

I was NEVER inferring that particles could hold beliefs nor that they do hold beliefs.

I am NOT 'panpsychic'. Are you?

But this would be like saying, " Before we look at or observe some 'thing' we do not know about that 'thing' ", for example its EXACT state or position, or in other words, 'about the state of that 'thing', which is just PLAIN OBVIOUS is it not?

I'm repeating very standard "pop" quantum physics.

That is good that you now wrote "pop quantum physics" and are now NOT portraying that the current, in the days when this is being written, views of physics are right nor correct.

It's beyond my abilities and the scope of this discussion to explain it from scratch if this is new to you. Maybe you've heard of Schrödinger's ca, a thought experiment that shows that quantum indeterminacy can affect macroscopic entities. Or as physicist and Youtber Sean Carroll once said, "Schrödinger's daughter said, 'My father just didn't like cats.'"

I was just ascertaining whether you KNEW, FOR SURE, and thus WITHOUT DOUBT, that 'things' can just come into Existence from absolutely NOTHING, or if this was just something that you have heard/read and which you now just think or BELIEVE is true.

I was also ascertaining whether you just argue/fight for that position because you think or BELIEVE God does not exist or because you have not yet considered what the irrefutable Truth IS.

I may have completely misunderstood you here, but is it not just our curiosity, and our ability to observe, what causes us to observe one state or the other?

As I understand it, it turns out that to the best of our theory and experiment, quantum indeterminacy is an actual truth about reality, and not just a limitation of our knowledge.

You have missed or misunderstood the actual question I was asking here.

Wow, you have JUMPED from one CONCLUSION to ANOTHER CONCLUSION, to ANOTHER CONCLUSION, VERY QUICKLY here.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I said that whether the physics is right or wrong; and whether my understanding of the physics is right or wrong; are irrelevant. The original question was, why did I say that physics no longer has causes. I gave my explanation. Even if I'm all wrong, it's still my understanding and still the reason I said what I said. So I'm not defending the physics, or even my understanding of the physics. I'm only explaining why I wrote what I did, which was the question you asked me.

The questions I asked you were;
What BELIEF does this so-called 'contemporary physics' hold to 'now'?

And,

Surely 'it' does NOT HOLD the BELIEF that there are items that are caused by NO items at all, or am I wrong here?

I asked these because 'contemporary physics' says ALL items/things besides the Universe, Itself, are created, or 'caused' by OTHER items/things.

But, 'contemporary' is relative, correct?

And one could say a multitude of OTHER things as well.

I'm pointing out my own criticism of Krauss's argument. His book is called, "A Universe from Nothing." Many people have countered that the laws of physics and the primordial quantum fields are not nothing. I agree with that criticism.

And many people, back in the days when this was being written, were 'trying to' counter "other people's" in just an 'attempt' to put forward and further their OWN BELIEFS, which then, AGAIN, someone would 'try to' counter with their OWN BELIEFS, which they were attempting to put forward, and further, and then so on, and so on. While actually all along NOT one of them was getting anywhere of any real significance.

Okay, if you say so.

Isn't causality what we're discussing?

I WAS just questioning you regarding your claim about things/items supposedly being uncaused.

What your answer is will take us somewhere and where your answers lead us to we will have to wait and see.

If you don't have an intuition that causality is required, why push back on the physics that says causality is not required?

But I was NOT pushing back on ANY thing to begin with. I was just asking WHAT BELIEFS does so-called 'contemporary physics' HOLD to 'now', when you wrote that?

You have said that some people CLAIM that cause is NOT required. But you have already explained that the people who CLAIM this also CLAIM that there actually IS some thing ELSE existing BEFORE, or ANYWAY. Which ultimately and obviously would have been THE CAUSE, of the said and CLAIMED 'uncaused', anyway.

If you think things happen randomly, there's nothing more to discuss. You've dispensed with the need for causality.

What I 'think' does NOT dispense with the NEED for causality NOR even mean there IS a need for causality.

By the way, to you, can things happen randomly and still be caused?

I will just SHOW and REVEAL what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.That is; IF you become Truly OPEN and be FULLY Honest, here.

Also you never answered WHY do you think or BELIEVE that 'you', "yourself", could NEVER get past 'your' OWN intuition of, ALWAYS, LOOKING FOR 'causes' here.

At this point in your early post, I was uncertain as to what you were saying. If I misunderstood, perhaps you can clarify your point.

But I will NEVER KNOW 'what' to CLARIFY, for you, if you NEVER ask me to CLARIFY some 'thing', for you.

My mistake.

Thank you AGAIN. I have NEVER met someone, in this forum, who is so Honest as you and who is as so OPEN and INTELLIGENT as well.

I believe I started my response with, "I'm not sure what you mean here ..."

But that is NOT asking for ANY thing.

It may have been simpler, easier, and quicker to have just asked instead, 'What do you mean in regards to ...?'

And, I KNOW, FOR SURE, that it would have been much simpler, easier, and quicker for you to get your CLARIFICATION. As, IF you had asked a question for CLARITY, THEN I would have ALREADY provided that CLARIFICATION, and thus that CLARITY for you, BY NOW.

Also, and by the way, the MORE SPECIFIC your question, the MORE SPECIFIC my CLARIFICATION to you WILL BE.

I should have left it at that. I took a guess as to what you meant, and apparently I guessed wrong.

The more guesses/assumptions you make, the more chances you can be wrong. However, and conversely, the less guesses/assumptions you make the less chance you will be wrong. And, the more times you guess/assume wrong, the more chances there is that they will be more wrong in and of themselves.

BUT, if you NEVER make ANY guesses/assumptions and only sought out clarification FIRST and ALWAYS, then you can NEVER be wrong, as well also NEVER ACTUALLY being wrong wrong in ANY way AT ALL.

I'm not making any claims at all.

Okay, thank you for letting me know.

Just so we are all CLEAR here,I NEVER even implied you were, let alone saying you were. I was just saying what APPEARS here to be the case.

Ok I see that I misunderstood you.

Thank you, ONCE AGAIN, for being OPEN to SEE this, and for being Truly Honest as well.

By this point in your post I was thoroughly confused as to what you were saying, and made my best guess. In retrospect I should have just asked you to clarify.

EXCELLENT OBSERVATION, UNDERSTANDING, and thus CONCLUSION.

I see that I have caused grievous offense.

But your guess/assumption here is, ONCE AGAIN, wrong.

1. There is NO 'grievous offence' here.

2. If you did or even could 'cause' any such thing, then that would defeat any such CLAIM that there is NO cause within the Universe.

That was not my intention. I was trying my best to respond to what I thought you were asking.

I will suggest now that it is ALWAYS BETTER TO SEEK CLARITY,FIRST, BEFORE, ever thinking, guessing, or assuming what "another' is saying or asking, that way you could NEVER be wrong NOR as wrong.

What is 'them'? Are you STILL talking about 'integers'?

If yes, then I would say, 'Yes'.

But if no, then what is 'them', EXACTLY?

I was talking about the integers, but if you weren't talking about them, then nevermind.

Okay.

But 'numbers' were invented by human beings.

What numbers refer to, have existed, ALWAYS.

I've heard it put that humans invented numerals, and numbers are the abstract things that the numerals point to. Either way, the claim that there is anything at all in the abstract Platonic world of existence is far from settled.

But on the contrary 'this' has ALREADY been settled, ONCE and FOR ALL.

But OBVIOUSLY NOT EVERY one WAS AWARE of this , back in the days when this was being written.

Where that 'intuition' comes from is from WITHIN, where thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth LAYS, like, for example, that the Universe is infinite AND eternal.

Within what?

EVERY thing AND Everything.

If these truths come from within human beings, then these truths were not true before there were humans.

The reason I SAY and CLAIM what I just did was to overcome what you you just said and assumed here.

Making them contingent on the existence of humans.

AGAIN, you ask me a clarifying question, do not wait for My answer, guess/assume what My answer will be, and then carry on, from your OWN presumptions, ONLY.

Which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN and noticed here, only takes us further OFF TRACK and AWAY from what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS, EXACTLY.

You are refuting your own point. If you think that truth comes from within humans, then these truths were not operative before there were humans.

LOL But I NEVER even 'thought' such a thing, let alone said such a thing absolutely ANYWHERE.

Throughout EVERY post of mine in this whole forum I have NEVER EVER said such a thing as this, and what could be CLEARLY SEEN is that I have ALWAYS referred to what I have SAID and CLAIMED here this time, ONCE AGAIN.

The ONLY REFUTATION here is you REFUTING what you ASSUMED I would say or was meaning

If someone says that the Universe came from 'the primordial quantum field', AND, 'the laws of physics', to you, do you also have no problem with that, except to ask who made 'the primordial quantum' and/or 'the laws of physics' also, or do you NOT ask about them? '

I was only reporting my understanding of physics, for the purpose of explaining why I wrote that physicists no longer believe in causes. I am not defending physics and I am not explaining physics. I have no dog in this fight.

There is ALSO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to 'fight' about nor over here either.

But the Universe ALWAYS JUST IS, and It NEVER needed to be caused.

But there is NO need for God, just like there is NO need for ANY other word.

Yes, this is exactly my challenge to @dattaswami. Perhaps you should direct your remarks to him. If the universe always was, or if it just randomly popped into existence, then there is no need for God. That is my point, which you appear to agree with.

1. The Universe ALWAYS IS, in Existence.

2. The Universe could NOT just 'pop' into Existence.

3. What the word 'God' once meant and just referred to is why that word is still bandied around, in the days when this is being written. But like ALL words, they are NOT 'needed'. But words do help in UNDERSTANDING the 'what' we have found "ourselves" WITHIN.

WHY can the word 'God' not just be a synonym for 'Universe'?

Exactly. That's my question for @dattaswami.

Ah okay.

What thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, is ALL rather VERY SIMPLE and EASY, REALLY.

I myself never understand people who believe they know the ultimate truth about anything.

Okay.

What would you say is the ultimate truth?

What I say is the Ultimate Truth is 'that' what EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT and 'that' what NO one could REFUTE.

For example in regards to the Universe, Itself, then the Ultimate Truth IS thee Universe IS infinite AND eternal. So, there WAS NO 'first cause' in relation the Universe, Itself, 'beginning'. But, there is 'a beginnin' and a 'first cause', but all of this can get way to convoluted and confusing, and way too quickly, when one looks at or discusses 'this' with pre-existing BELIEFS.

To wrap this up: You asked me why I said physicists don't believe in causality any more. I answered to the best of my ability. I am not defending the physics. I am not even defending my own superficial and pop-derived understanding of physics. I'm only answering your question, explaining why I said what I did. If I'm wrong, so be it.

[Age]

God made the universe using math and physical laws.

I myself take exception to this claim. In my opinion, it's possible that the universe is what it is, and math is just the way humans describe and explain the world to ourselves. Just as Bat-Galileo would patiently explain to you that the world is written in the language of echoes. For all we know, the universe is a moment of coherence in an otherwise formless and random world, and math is just our pathetic attempt at imposing order. No different in principle than the ancients making up stories about the constellations in the sky.

The Boltzmann brain thought experiment suggests that it might be more likely for a single brain to spontaneously form in a void (complete with a memory of having existed in our universe) rather than for the entire universe to come about in the manner cosmologists think it actually did.

Not saying it's necessarily false that math underlies the world; only that it's conceivable that math is what humans impose on the world, and not inherent in the world itself.

Saying, "God made the universe using math and physical laws", is just saying, The Universe is creating, Itself, in and with what human beings have labelled as 'math' and as 'physical laws'.

Saying, 'God made the universe', is OBVIOUSLY just ABSURD, NONSENSICAL, and ILLOGICAL. Which is the reason WHY ALL who do, have ALL FAILED in EXPLAINING HOW that could even be A POSSIBILITY, let alone ACTUALITY.

[Age]

God made the universe using math and physical laws.

I myself take exception to this claim. In my opinion, it's possible that the universe is what it is, and math is just the way humans describe and explain the world to ourselves. Just as Bat-Galileo would patiently explain to you that the world is written in the language of echoes. For all we know, the universe is a moment of coherence in an otherwise formless and random world, and math is just our pathetic attempt at imposing order. No different in principle than the ancients making up stories about the constellations in the sky.

The Boltzmann brain thought experiment suggests that it might be more likely for a single brain to spontaneously form in a void (complete with a memory of having existed in our universe) rather than for the entire universe to come about in the manner cosmologists think it actually did.

Not saying it's necessarily false that math underlies the world; only that it's conceivable that math is what humans impose on the world, and not inherent in the world itself.

--------
Math and physical laws existed before anything was created
---------

We can agree that what is referred to as 'physical laws' existed before human beings 'came along', but depending on what you call 'math', this will then mean if 'math' existed before human beings came into Existence.

Also, what do you mean by, "existed BEFORE ANY thing was created"?

HOW could ANY thing exist, BEFORE ANY thing was even created?

[Age]

Math and physical laws existed before anything was created

The world proves to be consistent with math.

LOL So 'math' was NOT created in order to just make sense of 'the world'?

But could it ever be different?

Could 'what' be different?

Isn't rationality a product of the same world?
And isn't mathematics the purest expression of rationality?

Some so-called "scientists" use 'math' to 'rationalize' what they BELIEVE is true, even when what is being BELIEVED is TWO completely OPPOSING and CONTRARY 'things'.

But at this point, the question that I think we should ask ourselves is:
"Is reality rational and what is not rational is not real? Or is there something else?"

AND, when 'you' asked "yourself" this, what answer did 'you' arrive AT?

That is, is mathematics the fabric that pervades everything or not?

We would be tempted to answer yes...

WHY would 'you' be tempted to answer, 'Yes'?

Only that life inevitably leads us to the presence of the limit. Just where rationality stops.

I find it completely IRRATIONAL to LIMIT "ones" 'self' in regards to IMAGINATION, LEARNING, and UNDERSTANDING. But each to their own, correct?

And if we manage to resist in front of the limit of the conceivable, without immediately ignoring it, a new awareness can be born in us.

[Age]

--------
Math and physical laws existed before anything was created
---------

. . . but the proof was the historically contingent work of a human.

Infinite monkey theorem
In fact, , , , the probability that monkeys filling the entire observable universe would type
a single complete work, such as Shakespeare's Hamlet, is so tiny that the chance
of it occurring during a period of time hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude longer
than the age of the universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

And YET here it IS, ALREADY HAPPENED. That is; an evolved 'monkey', which was giving the label "shakespeare" then wrote/typed 'a work' called 'hamlet'.

[Age]

Math and physical laws existed before anything was created

But at this point, the question that I think we should ask ourselves is:
"Is reality rational and what is not rational is not real? Or is there something else?"

----
If I am a rational person, then why is the universe so paradoxical?
------

What definition of the word 'paradox' are you using here?

I wonder how many of the posters here realize that the definitions of 'paradox' are literally a 'paradox' in and of themselves?

Also, although 'you' can be a 'rational person', 'you' can also be an 'irrational person'. Just like the rest of 'you', adult people.

[Age]

This means that when matter and energy disappear, space also disappears spontaneously.
With reference to the absolute existence of unimaginable God,

According to Einstein's GRT: matter + energy create a gravitational space,
and light near the gravitational masses changes its rectilinear motion.
And when matter and energy disappear, gravity-space and gravity-time also spontaneously disappear.
#
Book : ''Albert Einstein''
'' A world without masses, without electrons, without an electromagnetic field is an empty world.
Such an empty world is flat. But if masses appear, if charged particles appear,
if an electromagnetic field appears then our world becomes curved.
Its geometry is Riemannian, that is, non- Euclidian.''
/ the page 116, by Leopold Infeld. /

Are you aware that that diagram/picture/depiction could never be accurate?

[Age]

If I am a rational person, then why is the universe so paradoxical?

Paradoxes are the indispensable stimulus for the thought that wants to understand.

Will it be possible to resolve the paradox through rationality?
Or am I faced with a rationally insoluble paradox?

ONLY when 'you' INFORM 'us' of what this SUPPOSED 'insoluble (or insolvable) paradox' IS, EXACTLY, then, and ONLY THEN, can 'we' SOLVE 'it', for 'you'.

Is the limit of the conceivable relative or absolute?

If relative, the moment will come when it can be overcome.

But if the limit is absolute, what is this paradox telling me?
Isn't it turning to me so that I think differently from how I have always thought?

[Age]

Uh. No. Existence as a whole doesn't communicate with anything, because communication necessitates two parties to any communication: ; but there is only one existence.

Parts of existence can communicate with other parts of existence; but only once you split existence into parts.

This is the correct way to see the world from a logical point of view.

In fact, logic sees the world divided into parts, and it is these parts that communicate.

However, are we sure that this view is really right?
Is reality really intrinsically multiple?

Isn't the universe born of a singularity?

NO.

What about quantum entanglement?

What about 'quantum entanglement'?

Is communication a transfer of "truth" from one side to another, or is it the emergence of the truth that is already necessarily everywhere?

[Belinda]

I myself take exception to this claim. In my opinion, it's possible that the universe is what it is, and math is just the way humans describe and explain the world to ourselves. Just as Bat-Galileo would patiently explain to you that the world is written in the language of echoes. For all we know, the universe is a moment of coherence in an otherwise formless and random world, and math is just our pathetic attempt at imposing order. No different in principle than the ancients making up stories about the constellations in the sky.



Not saying it's necessarily false that math underlies the world; only that it's conceivable that math is what humans impose on the world, and not inherent in the world itself.

--------
Math and physical laws existed before anything was created
---------

We can agree that what is referred to as 'physical laws' existed before human beings 'came along', but depending on what you call 'math', this will then mean if 'math' existed before human beings came into Existence.

Also, what do you mean by, "existed BEFORE ANY thing was created"?

HOW could ANY thing exist, BEFORE ANY thing was even created?

I am surprised that someone as sceptical yourself agrees physical laws predated human beings.

[Age]

--------
Math and physical laws existed before anything was created
---------

We can agree that what is referred to as 'physical laws' existed before human beings 'came along', but depending on what you call 'math', this will then mean if 'math' existed before human beings came into Existence.

Also, what do you mean by, "existed BEFORE ANY thing was created"?

HOW could ANY thing exist, BEFORE ANY thing was even created?

I am surprised that someone as sceptical yourself agrees physical laws predated human beings.

Okay.

And, why?

[wtf]

Infinite monkey theorem
...

I gave you some questions to challenge your claim that "Math and physical laws existed before anything was created." I did not find your response to be on point. I made the distinction between a theorem being true, and a mathematician coming up with a historically contingent proof. Likewise I made the distinction between the ultimate laws of nature, if there are any such things; and the historically contingent theories of physicists.

I didn't see how the infinite monkey theorem was relevant.

By the way I looked back at the start of this thread and I see that you posted an image about pair production. Glad to see that, since that was the foundation of my remark that causality isn't necessary in physics these days.

[wtf]

It appears here that you have NO idea correct?

No, I have a very good idea. I'm being modest since I didn't study physics. But my understanding of the basic ideas is pretty good. I don't understand where you're coming from. You asked why I claimed causality is not always needed in modern physics. I explained myself. Can't you leave it at that?

There may well be LOTS of pages and videos, but NONE that I have seen answer my question here, and I am YET to find a human being who can answer it either.

I don't know what your question is. The only question you asked ME was why I said that causality's not required in modern physics. I gave the example of pair production, a very well-known phenomenon. I linked the Wiki page on the subject, which to be fair isn't very good. You haven't asked me anything else.

Also, does not anyone else find it contradictory to claim that there is this place with, supposedly, no matter in it but where matter actually is. Obviously, if matter is so-called 'spontaneously' getting created, then there IS 'matter', in that place, or space, correct? Or, am I misreading or just missing some 'thing' here?

There's no matter, just quantum fields. As I understand it.

Yes, you are 'only reporting', just like a "preacher" is 'only reporting', (what is written in a book).

Well it's true that I haven't gone through the primary literature on quantum field theory. Are you accusing me of getting my knowledge third-hand? But I have already admitted that. I believe the earth is round, but I have not personally carried out Erotosthenes's great experiment to that effect. Does that make me worth of your scorn? Are you being scornful? Am I misreading you? Maybe it's the ALL CAPS. I feel a bit under attack. Can you help me out by telling me where you're coming from? I'm not personally responsible for the state of modern physics.

And, just like when a "preacher" is UNABLE to back up and support what they are 'only reporting' and is NOT ABLE to answer and clarify challengers and questions, then this is a GREAT SIGN that what is 'only being reported' is NOT ACTUALLY, NOR ABSOLUTELY, True anyway.

Until an actual quantum physicist shows up here, what you see is what you get. Are you unhappy with me personally about this? Is there something I could do to make you happy? You asked me a question and I answered it, and now you want to pick an argument about quantum physics.

And spoken just like a "preacher". That is; CLAIM that, "If you just READ THE BOOK, then you will FIND THE TRUTH".

I said no such thing. I said, more than once, that even if the physics is wrong, it's still the reason I wrote what I did about causality. I guess you missed the half dozen or so times I said that.

And, do those so-called 'pairs' then exist FOREVER, or do they DISAPPEAR, and then does ANOTHER "pair" APPEAR, or does the SAME 'pair' RE-APPEAR? Or, ... (there are just SO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS here).

Pairs recombine and disappear. Just Google around for pair production. It's unreasonable or you to expect me to explain quantum field theory.

But 'you' were NOT 'there' BEFORE, and NEITHER was earth 'there' BEFORE, NOR the sun, NOR the galaxy, NOR the penguins, but did ANY or ALL of these 'things' come from NOTHING?

I don't know where the world came from. Are you angry at me for not knowing? You are being a little weird.

Again, I'm only reporting my own understanding, and I am not defending nor qualified to go any deeper.

Okay.

Ah. Comprehension. Thank you.

And, what I suggest is that although there is Truth in what you are reporting, the WAY you are reporting 'it' is UNTRUE or NOT Correct.

What way is that? I started by saying that I'm not an authority, and that even if I'm wrong on the physics, my mistaken understanding is still the reason I said what I did about causality.

You are going on strangely. Something I said pushed your buttons. Do you like having your buttons pushed? I don't enjoy mindless internet sparring like I used to, so you may not get the argument you seem to want.

Still, I wish you would Google pair production. It's a well known aspect of modern physics.

AGAIN, this is just a 'theory', which could be partly or completely False, Wrong, or Incorrect.

As I have acknowledged many times over. As even you agree that I acknowledged a few sentences back.

What do you assume I am 'objecting' to here, exactly?

I don't know, you seem to be upset with something I said, or something you think I said. Are you?

And, I do NOT even do 'theories'.

Meaning what?

Neither have I. I just ponder over allegations and claims made, and then just question some of them.

I made no claims. I did not claim pair production is true, although it's a cornerstone of modern physics. I said that pair production is the reason I said what I did about causality. And that fact remains true even if tomorrow morning someone proves that pair production was false all along. I don't know why you can't see this.

If it's a bright sunny day and you see me carrying an umbrella, and you ask me why I'm carrying an umbrella, I might say, "I thought it was going to rain today." And you might say, "Well you can see it's not raining, and the weather forecast said it wasn't going to rain." And I'd say yes, but you ASKED ME WHY I'm carrying an umbrella; and I said I'm carrying an umbrella because I thought it was going to rain. THIS REMAINS VALID even if I happen to have been wrong about the rain. Can't you see that? My REASON is valid because it's based on my BELIEF that it's going to rain, even if it's not going to rain.

My explanation that I wrote what I did about causality is based on my belief in pair production. The truth value of pair production is irrelevant. I have been at pains to tell you that, multiple times.

I'm not claiming pair production is true. I'm telling you, over and over and over, that my BELIEF in pair production is what underlies my claim about causality.

Perhaps you can explain to me, in simple declarative sentences, which part of this is unclear to you.

Do you KNOW this FOR SURE? Or, is this some 'thing' that you have been told, or heard?

It's my understanding. I know it the same way I know anything in science. Why do bowling balls fall down? It's because the mass of the earth curves nearby spacetime, and the bowling ball is just following a geodesic. Do I believe that? Yes. Could I prove it from first principles? No. Do I think it will someday be replaced by a deeper theory? It's quite possible. Nothing in science is absolute. Science is the history of one refinement after another. It's never finished.

Okay. But it is great to SEE signs of True INTELLIGENCE here within 'you' "wtf".

I think I'll just quote this again! Thanks!!

Okay great. Thanks again for SHOWING INTELLIGENCE.

LOL. Thank you.

When you say and claim some thing, then you also mean some thing. But if you do NOT know what you mean, then okay.

I'm getting dizzy.

Maybe, but that they came from 'nothing' is NOT necessarily true.

Krauss has been righteously hammered elsewhere. I agree with his critics. I have already stated that I don't believe the primordial quantum fields and the laws of physics are "nothing." Many others have made the same criticism.

An existing idea which exists only on and as an ASSUMPTION, ONLY.

Much more than assumption. Observation and mathematical models consistent with those observations. Science. Same way we know that general relativity explains why bowling balls fall down.

I am NOT 'panpsychic'. Are you?

I admit that possibility from time to time. How does a pile of atoms suddenly become conscious? One possibility is that a little bit of consciousness is already present in each atom. It's an interesting idea.

That is good that you now wrote "pop quantum physics" and are now NOT portraying that the current, in the days when this is being written, views of physics are right nor correct.

You are using "right" and "correct" in a funny way. Do you believe the law of gravity is right and correct? It's a good model. It works. Is it the ultimate law of nature? Probably not. Science is never "right" or "correct," but we CAN ligitimately use those words to describe the latest theory.

Pair production is indeed the latest view of physics. Nobody knows whether it will still be regarded as correct a hundred years from now. It's regarded as correct today. Science is always contingent.

I was just ascertaining whether you KNEW, FOR SURE, and thus WITHOUT DOUBT, that 'things' can just come into Existence from absolutely NOTHING, or if this was just something that you have heard/read and which you now just think or BELIEVE is true.

What do you mean for sure and without doubt? Science is contingent. We'll see these things differently in a hundred years. As of today, that is the theory. It's backed up by lots of experiments and observations, as well as an extremely accurate mathematical model. That's as good as you can get in science.

I was also ascertaining whether you just argue/fight for that position because you think or BELIEVE God does not exist or because you have not yet considered what the irrefutable Truth IS.

I have not argued or fought for that position at all. On the contrary, I've repeatedly -- at least ten or twelve times at this point -- said that even if the physics is wrong, it's still the reason that I said what I did about causality.

I've never held or stated the views you keep ascribing to me.

You have missed or misunderstood the actual question I was asking here.

I have said repeatedly: I have no idea what you are asking. I have no idea why you are engaging with me as you are. I have no idea why you keep claiming I've said things I haven't said, and hold beliefs that I don't hold. I have absolutely no idea where you are coming from.

Wow, you have JUMPED from one CONCLUSION to ANOTHER CONCLUSION, to ANOTHER CONCLUSION, VERY QUICKLY here.

Pot, meet kettle.

The questions I asked you were;
What BELIEF does this so-called 'contemporary physics' hold to 'now'?

Pair production. That's the current theory in question. It's the currently accepted theory.

Surely 'it' does NOT HOLD the BELIEF that there are items that are caused by NO items at all, or am I wrong here?

That's exactly the point. It does hold that things pop into and out of existence for no reason at all.

I asked these because 'contemporary physics' says ALL items/things besides the Universe, Itself, are created, or 'caused' by OTHER items/things.

I don't believe that's true. But perhaps I'm wrong.

But, 'contemporary' is relative, correct?

If any word in the world is NOT relative, it's "contemporary." Contemporary means right now. Unless someone has falsified pair production in a lab or journal article we haven't heard about. And frankly a result of that magnitude would make the news.

And many people, back in the days when this was being written, were 'trying to' counter "other people's" in just an 'attempt' to put forward and further their OWN BELIEFS, which then, AGAIN, someone would 'try to' counter with their OWN BELIEFS, which they were attempting to put forward, and further, and then so on, and so on. While actually all along NOT one of them was getting anywhere of any real significance.

Back in the days? The book's only a few years old. And these are not "beliefs," they're the latest scientific theories. Mathematical models that match, up to a good amount of precision, the results of observations and experiments. Science.

I WAS just questioning you regarding your claim about things/items supposedly being uncaused.

But I've explained this twenty times. My claim is based on my understanding of pair production.

And if I'm wrong about that, then I'm wrong. It doesn't matter. I carried my umbrella because I thought it was going to rain. THAT IS MY REASON, whether or not it is raining! Can you not see that?

But I was NOT pushing back on ANY thing to begin with. I was just asking WHAT BELIEFS does so-called 'contemporary physics' HOLD to 'now', when you wrote that?

Pair production. You can look it up same as I can. I hope you are not waiting for me to explain the world to you. Put "pair production" into your favorite search engine and spend some time reading.

You have said that some people CLAIM that cause is NOT required. But you have already explained that the people who CLAIM this also CLAIM that there actually IS some thing ELSE existing BEFORE, or ANYWAY. Which ultimately and obviously would have been THE CAUSE, of the said and CLAIMED 'uncaused', anyway.

My understanding is that you can't look at the equations of quantum field theory and know that a pair is or isn't going to pop into existence.

By the way, to you, can things happen randomly and still be caused?

No. Causation is deterministic. The pair productions are spontaneous. They are not caused. They are random. That's my understanding of the theory. But so what? I have already said (many times) I'm not an authority. So if I'm wrong, it's a waste of time for you to tell me. Go find out for yourself.

I will just SHOW and REVEAL what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.That is; IF you become Truly OPEN and be FULLY Honest, here.

Ahhhhhhh ...

But I will NEVER KNOW 'what' to CLARIFY, for you, if you NEVER ask me to CLARIFY some 'thing', for you.

I'd like you to clarify why you are arguing with me about why I'm carrying an umbrella. I already told you, it's because I believed it was going to rain. That was my reason, even if it turned out not to rain.

My reason for my claim about causality is still my reason, whether or or not pair production is true, whether or not it's random, whether or not it's caused, whether or not it's falsified tomorrow morning.

Thank you AGAIN. I have NEVER met someone, in this forum, who is so Honest as you and who is as so OPEN and INTELLIGENT as well.

LOL. Thank you. Why do I feel under attack? Am I imagining it?

It may have been simpler, easier, and quicker to have just asked instead, 'What do you mean in regards to ...?'

Yes well we can't go back and fix that anymore.

And, I KNOW, FOR SURE, that it would have been much simpler, easier, and quicker for you to get your CLARIFICATION. As, IF you had asked a question for CLARITY, THEN I would have ALREADY provided that CLARIFICATION, and thus that CLARITY for you, BY NOW.

Yet you still, after all this, have not told me what your point is. I don't know what you're asking.

Also, and by the way, the MORE SPECIFIC your question, the MORE SPECIFIC my CLARIFICATION to you WILL BE.

What is your question? Be specific.

The more guesses/assumptions you make, the more chances you can be wrong. However, and conversely, the less guesses/assumptions you make the less chance you will be wrong. And, the more times you guess/assume wrong, the more chances there is that they will be more wrong in and of themselves.

What is your question?

BUT, if you NEVER make ANY guesses/assumptions and only sought out clarification FIRST and ALWAYS, then you can NEVER be wrong, as well also NEVER ACTUALLY being wrong wrong in ANY way AT ALL.

If you're never wrong, you'll rarely be right.

I'm not making any claims at all.

Okay, thank you for letting me know.

Right. Thank you. I'm not making any claims about the rain. I am only claiming that I THOUGHT it was going to rain, hence I brought my umbrella. I make no claims about the rain; only about what I thought.

Thank you, ONCE AGAIN, for being OPEN to SEE this, and for being Truly Honest as well.

I'm honest to a fault, it's brought me much trouble. Also I take things literally. So when someone asks me, "What is your reason for saying such and so," I tell you my reason, and I DON'T claim that my reason was correct. Only that it was my reason.

By this point in your post I was thoroughly confused as to what you were saying, and made my best guess. In retrospect I should have just asked you to clarify.

EXCELLENT OBSERVATION, UNDERSTANDING, and thus CONCLUSION.[/quote]

Yes that's about it.

I see that I have caused grievous offense.

But your guess/assumption here is, ONCE AGAIN, wrong.[/quote]

You're not unhappy with what I wrote? Ok. I have felt a bit put-upon. But I tend to be a little thin-skinned and defensive.

1. There is NO 'grievous offence' here.

Ok, good to know.

I will suggest now that it is ALWAYS BETTER TO SEEK CLARITY,FIRST, BEFORE, ever thinking, guessing, or assuming what "another' is saying or asking, that way you could NEVER be wrong NOR as wrong.

But you have offered none. Ask your question.

The reason I SAY and CLAIM what I just did was to overcome what you you just said and assumed here.

I deleted a few paragraphs, I'm just lost here.

AGAIN, you ask me a clarifying question, do not wait for My answer, guess/assume what My answer will be, and then carry on, from your OWN presumptions, ONLY.

I didn't do it and I promise not to do it again!

Which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN and noticed here, only takes us further OFF TRACK and AWAY from what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS, EXACTLY.

We're in agreement that whatever the track is, we're off it.

You are refuting your own point. If you think that truth comes from within humans, then these truths were not operative before there were humans.

LOL But I NEVER even 'thought' such a thing, let alone said such a thing absolutely ANYWHERE.

You just said it. You said truth comes from within. Within what, may I ask?

Throughout EVERY post of mine in this whole forum I have NEVER EVER said such a thing as this, and what could be CLEARLY SEEN is that I have ALWAYS referred to what I have SAID and CLAIMED here this time, ONCE AGAIN.

Looks like I misunderstood you by reading exactly what you wrote.

But the Universe ALWAYS JUST IS, and It NEVER needed to be caused.

I agree with this. Like I say, this is the point I was trying to make to the OP of the thread.

But there is NO need for God, just like there is NO need for ANY other word.

Again, a point I've been making to the OP.

1. The Universe ALWAYS IS, in Existence.

This contradicts Big Bang theory. Another widely accepted theory that may or may not be ultimately true, but that is accepted science as of this moment.

2. The Universe could NOT just 'pop' into Existence.

Contradicts Big Bang theory. Go argue with a cosmologist. Maybe they're wrong. But spontaneous popping into existence is exactly what cosmologists currently believe about the universe. That is a fact.

What I say is the Ultimate Truth is 'that' what EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT and 'that' what NO one could REFUTE.

I don't think there is a single thing that you could get "everyone" to agree with.

For example in regards to the Universe, Itself, then the Ultimate Truth IS thee Universe IS infinite AND eternal.

Those are claims for which there is no evidence, and which directly contradict current science. That doesn't mean current science is right. It only means that you have a substantial burden to make your case. You can't just say, "Bowling balls fall up," when we can plainly see that they don't. Likewise, the evidence for the Big Bang is very strong.

So, there WAS NO 'first cause' in relation the Universe, Itself, 'beginning'. But, there is 'a beginnin' and a 'first cause', but all of this can get way to convoluted and confusing, and way too quickly, when one looks at or discusses 'this' with pre-existing BELIEFS.

You are making claims that directly contradict current science. Again, that doesn't mean you're wrong. It DOES mean that you have the burden of making an argument in support of your claims.

Ok!

ps -- We can't go on like this. Maybe we should try to be more concise. Ask me a question and I'll try to answer it.

[Age]

It appears here that you have NO idea correct?

No, I have a very good idea.

If you have 'a very good idea', then WHERE, in the Universe, exactly, is this place where there is, supposedly, NO matter in it but where ONLY a quantum field is present?

I'm being modest since I didn't study physics.

Okay.

But my understanding of the basic ideas is pretty good.

Okay, SO, if you did NOT answer above, then, AGAIN, WHERE, EXACTLY, in the Universe, is 'this place' where there is , supposedly, NO matter in it but ONLY a quantum field exists?

I don't understand where you're coming from.

Where I am coming from is from a Truly OPEN and CURIOUS place.

You asked why I claimed causality is not always needed in modern physics. I explained myself. Can't you leave it at that?

But I NEVER asked ANY such thing AT ALL.

'you' may have explained some thing/s, but 'you' have STILL NEVER answered the question I asked, NOR explained ANY thing in relation to what I ACTUALLY asked.

I CAN leave this here if this is what 'you' REALLY want and would like.

There may well be LOTS of pages and videos, but NONE that I have seen answer my question here, and I am YET to find a human being who can answer it either.

I don't know what your question is.

Someone wrote and claimed:
In this universe, every item has another item as its cause.


You then wrote and claimed:
Contemporary physics no longer holds to that belief.

I asked you:
What BELIEF does this so-called 'contemporary physics' hold to 'now'?

Surely 'it' does NOT HOLD the BELIEF that there are items that are caused by NO items at all, or am I wrong here?


'you' then responded with:
Yes, thanks, good question. To recap, @dattaswami said that, "In this universe, every item has another item as its cause," to which I responded, "Contemporary physics no longer holds to that belief." So I should explain myself.

I only have a very layman's understanding of physics obtained from Youtube videos and such. My understanding is that virtual particle / anti-particle pairs spontaneously get created out of "empty" space, meaning space with no matter in it but where a quantum field is present. There's a Wiki article on this, which I did not find very enlightening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

I then asked 'you':
And whereabouts in the Universe, exactly, is this place where there is, supposedly, NO matter in it but where ONLY a quantum field is present?

So, NOW 'you' KNOW what my question IS, and even what my questions ARE.

The only question you asked ME was why I said that causality's not required in modern physics.

OBVIOUSLY this is NOT correct, or as some would say, OBVIOUSLY this is a LIE.

I gave the example of pair production, a very well-known phenomenon. I linked the Wiki page on the subject, which to be fair isn't very good. You haven't asked me anything else.

AGAIN, this is OBVIOUSLY a LIE.

Also, does not anyone else find it contradictory to claim that there is this place with, supposedly, no matter in it but where matter actually is. Obviously, if matter is so-called 'spontaneously' getting created, then there IS 'matter', in that place, or space, correct? Or, am I misreading or just missing some 'thing' here?

There's no matter, just quantum fields. As I understand it.

BUT, if 'matter' IS CREATED, in that place, then there is, OBVIOUSLY, 'matter'.

Yes, you are 'only reporting', just like a "preacher" is 'only reporting', (what is written in a book).

Well it's true that I haven't gone through the primary literature on quantum field theory. Are you accusing me of getting my knowledge third-hand?

NO, NOT AT ALL. Are you ACCUSING me of ACCUSING 'you' of 'this'?

I am just SAYING, and CLAIMING, that 'you' are 'only reporting', just like a "preacher" 'only reports'.

But I have already admitted that. I believe the earth is round, but I have not personally carried out Erotosthenes's great experiment to that effect. Does that make me worth of your scorn?

'you' went OFF TRACK, and are now DIVERTING even FURTHER AWAY.

Are you being scornful?

NO.

Am I misreading you?

YES.

Maybe it's the ALL CAPS.

Maybe, maybe NOT.

I feel a bit under attack.

Okay. WHY do you think or BELIEVE this is so?

Can you help me out by telling me where you're coming from?

From a Truly OPEN and CURIOUS position.

I'm not personally responsible for the state of modern physics.

I have NEVER even thought you were.

AND, considering that 'modern physics' KNOWS that ALL 'things' besides the Universe, Itself, were CAUSED, or created, from or by some OTHER 'thing' or item, I would NEVER even think you were responsible for what BELIEF you CLAIMED 'contemporary, to you, physics' HOLDS.

And, just like when a "preacher" is UNABLE to back up and support what they are 'only reporting' and is NOT ABLE to answer and clarify challengers and questions, then this is a GREAT SIGN that what is 'only being reported' is NOT ACTUALLY, NOR ABSOLUTELY, True anyway.

Until an actual quantum physicist shows up here, what you see is what you get.

Besides the Fact that there are NO ACTUAL "quantum physicits", IF, what 'you' call an "actual quantum physicist" did show up here, then what do you think or BELIEVE would happen?

Are you unhappy with me personally about this?

NO, NOT AT ALL.

Is there something I could do to make you happy?

But I am NOT 'unhappy' AT ALL?

WHY did 'you' ask 'me' a question, answer it BEFORE I did, and then reply to 'your' OWN answer?

You asked me a question and I answered it, and now you want to pick an argument about quantum physics.

But this is a complete and utter LIE, as evidenced and PROVED above.

What some are assessing is that 'you' are just 'trying to' DEFLECT here now.

And spoken just like a "preacher". That is; CLAIM that, "If you just READ THE BOOK, then you will FIND THE TRUTH".

I said no such thing.[/quote]

Did you provide me with a link to a book, or writings, and expect that the truth about how 'contemporary (to you) physics' holds the BELIEF that 'things/items' are NOT caused by OTHER 'things/items'.

I said, more than once, that even if the physics is wrong, it's still the reason I wrote what I did about causality. I guess you missed the half dozen or so times I said that.

But I NEVER missed that ONCE, let alone ANY other amount of times.

'you' appear to be COMPLETELY MISSING what has been ACTUALLY happening and occurring here.

And, do those so-called 'pairs' then exist FOREVER, or do they DISAPPEAR, and then does ANOTHER "pair" APPEAR, or does the SAME 'pair' RE-APPEAR? Or, ... (there are just SO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS here).

Pairs recombine and disappear.

And then they, supposedly, reappear, correct?

Just Google around for pair production. It's unreasonable or you to expect me to explain quantum field theory.

But I have NEVER even wanted 'you' to explain 'quantum field theory' to 'me', let alone expected 'you' to.

If 'you' do NOT YET NOW what ACTUALLY happens AND occurs, then WHY CLAIM that 'contemporary (to you) physics' no longer HOLDS the BELIEF that EVERY item has ANOTHER item as its cause?

Considering 'you' STILL have NOT answered my first question posed to 'you' here, then maybe if you just PROVIDE the ACTUAL writings where the words that 'contemporary physics' 'no longer hold the belief that every item has another item as its cause', then 'you' might NOT get SO DISTRACTED here.

But 'you' were NOT 'there' BEFORE, and NEITHER was earth 'there' BEFORE, NOR the sun, NOR the galaxy, NOR the penguins, but did ANY or ALL of these 'things' come from NOTHING?

I don't know where the world came from.

Well it is OBVIOUS.

Are you angry at me for not knowing?

NO, absolutely NOT AT ALL.

You are being a little weird.

This is just a Wrong perception that 'you' are INSTILLING within "yourself" because of just how DISTRACTED 'you' are here and because of how FAR 'you' have DEFLECTED AWAY here.

Okay.

Ah. Comprehension. Thank you.

And, what I suggest is that although there is Truth in what you are reporting, the WAY you are reporting 'it' is UNTRUE or NOT Correct.

What way is that?

In the way 'you' report and portray 'pair production' are NOT caused by OTHER items nor things.

I started by saying that I'm not an authority, and that even if I'm wrong on the physics, my mistaken understanding is still the reason I said what I did about causality.

Yes we KNOW.

'you' have REPEATED this a few times ALREADY.

You are going on strangely.

And this is because 'you' have resorted to making ASSUMPTIONS and JUMPING TO Wrong CONCLUSIONS, without ever ACTUALLY resorting to FINDING OUT what I am ACTUALLY MEANING, FIRST.

Something I said pushed your buttons.

What was 'that', EXACTLY?

Do you like having your buttons pushed?

'you' are just getting FURTHER and FURTHER DISTRACTED and AWAY.

I don't enjoy mindless internet sparring like I used to, so you may not get the argument you seem to want.

Okay. What do 'you' think or BELIEVE, EXACTLY, is 'the argument' that I seem to want?

Still, I wish you would Google pair production. It's a well known aspect of modern physics.

AGAIN, this is just a 'theory', which could be partly or completely False, Wrong, or Incorrect.

As I have acknowledged many times over. As even you agree that I acknowledged a few sentences back.

What do you assume I am 'objecting' to here, exactly?

I don't know, you seem to be upset with something I said, or something you think I said. Are you?

AGAIN, NO, NOT AT ALL.

I just asked 'you' what BELIEF/S does 'contemporary (to you) physics' currently HOLD, as 'you' CLAIM that 'contemporary (to you) physics' no longer holds the BELIEF that items are caused by other items.

And, I do NOT even do 'theories'.

Meaning what?

I prefer to LOOK AT and DISCUSS what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, or Correct instead of LOOKING AT and DISCUSSING 'that' what, essentially, could be partly or COMPLETELY Wrong, anyway.

Neither have I. I just ponder over allegations and claims made, and then just question some of them.

I made no claims.

'you' SAID; Contemporary physics no longer holds to that belief. 'in regards to every item has another item as its cause'.

So, if this is NOT a CLAIM, then what is this EXACTLY?

I did not claim pair production is true,

I NEVER thought you did, let alone EVER said you did.

although it's a cornerstone of modern physics. I said that pair production is the reason I said what I did about causality.

But you do NOT YET FULLY UNDERSTAND what 'pair production' IS, EXACTLY, correct?

And that fact remains true even if tomorrow morning someone proves that pair production was false all along.

But what in 'pair production' could even be False?

What is CLAIMED in 'pair production', which could be False, Wrong, or Incorrect?

I don't know why you can't see this.

But I CAN see this, AND, saw this when 'you' first brought this up.

If it's a bright sunny day and you see me carrying an umbrella, and you ask me why I'm carrying an umbrella, I might say, "I thought it was going to rain today." And you might say, "Well you can see it's not raining, and the weather forecast said it wasn't going to rain." And I'd say yes, but you ASKED ME WHY I'm carrying an umbrella; and I said I'm carrying an umbrella because I thought it was going to rain. THIS REMAINS VALID even if I happen to have been wrong about the rain.

But what you have said and written here has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what I have ACTUALLY ASKED you. So, ALL of this is moot.

Can't you see that?

NO.

My REASON is valid because it's based on my BELIEF that it's going to rain, even if it's not going to rain.

But NO one has EVER asked you ABSOLUTELY ANY thing in regards to THAT reason.

My explanation that I wrote what I did about causality is based on my belief in pair production.

What IS your ACTUAL BELIEF in 'pair production'?

The truth value of pair production is irrelevant. I have been at pains to tell you that, multiple times.

AND, I UNDERSTOOD that the FIRST time you told me this and EVERY other time you told me this. BUT, you are SO FAR OFF TRACK I wonder if you will EVER even attempt to come and get BACK ON TRACK.

I'm not claiming pair production is true.

WE KNOW.

I'm telling you, over and over and over, that my BELIEF in pair production is what underlies my claim about causality.

AND, what IS your CLAIM about 'causality'?

Your PREVIOUS CLAIM was that 'contemporary (to you) physics' no longer holds the BELIEF that items are caused by other items.

Perhaps you can explain to me, in simple declarative sentences, which part of this is unclear to you.

NONE of what you have been saying is unclear to me.

I am just WAITING for you to CLEAR UP and INFORM us of what your answers are to my two original questions posed to you, which are:
What BELIEF does this so-called 'contemporary physics' hold to 'now'?

Surely 'it' does NOT HOLD the BELIEF that there are items that are caused by NO items at all, or am I wrong here?

If you just read, and then answered, each one of these separately, and just STAYED ON and WITH what is being asked for here, then you will NOT get SO DISTRACTED and DRIFT OFF SO FAR and SO MUCH as you have ALREADY.

Do you KNOW this FOR SURE? Or, is this some 'thing' that you have been told, or heard?

It's my understanding. I know it the same way I know anything in science. Why do bowling balls fall down? It's because the mass of the earth curves nearby spacetime, and the bowling ball is just following a geodesic. Do I believe that? Yes. Could I prove it from first principles? No. Do I think it will someday be replaced by a deeper theory? It's quite possible. Nothing in science is absolute. Science is the history of one refinement after another. It's never finished.

SO, your answer to the first question is, 'No', and to the second question is, 'Yes'.

That was all that was needed. Which would have SAVED from writing ALL of these completely unnecessary MOOT words.

Okay. But it is great to SEE signs of True INTELLIGENCE here within 'you' "wtf".

I think I'll just quote this again! Thanks!!

Okay great. Thanks again for SHOWING INTELLIGENCE.

LOL. Thank you.

When you say and claim some thing, then you also mean some thing. But if you do NOT know what you mean, then okay.

I'm getting dizzy.

Okay.

Maybe if you just ANSWERED what was ASKED of you, then you MIGHT NOT be getting dizzy now.

Maybe, but that they came from 'nothing' is NOT necessarily true.

Krauss has been righteously hammered elsewhere. I agree with his critics. I have already stated that I don't believe the primordial quantum fields and the laws of physics are "nothing." Many others have made the same criticism.

What do 'you' and "others" mean by, 'You do not believe the primordial quantum fields and laws of physics are "nothing"?'

OF COURSE, OBVIOUSLY, and IRREFUTABLY these 'things' are NOT no 'things'.

IF, and WHEN, those 'things' ARE EXISTING, then they ARE and/or HELPING IN what is CAUSING other things.

An existing idea which exists only on and as an ASSUMPTION, ONLY.

Much more than assumption. Observation and mathematical models consistent with those observations. Science. Same way we know that general relativity explains why bowling balls fall down.

Here is ANOTHER PRIME example of WHY these human beings took SO LONG to LEARN and UNDERSTAND.

Lets us NOT FORGET that it was also CLAIMED that 'observation' and/or 'mathematical models consistent with those observations' is WHY the sun revolves around the earth', AND WHY this is 'more than assumption'.

Some people REALLY were just NOT OPEN to LEARNING and SEEING more nor anew.

I am NOT 'panpsychic'. Are you?

I admit that possibility from time to time. How does a pile of atoms suddenly become conscious? One possibility is that a little bit of consciousness is already present in each atom. It's an interesting idea.

Atoms themselves do not become conscious.

Consciousness comes from the exact same place 'intelligence', itself, comes from.

That is good that you now wrote "pop quantum physics" and are now NOT portraying that the current, in the days when this is being written, views of physics are right nor correct.

You are using "right" and "correct" in a funny way.

Really? Why do you propose this?

Do you believe the law of gravity is right and correct?

No.

It's a good model. It works.

Okay, if you say and believe so.

Is it the ultimate law of nature?

No.

Probably not.

It is not.

Science is never "right" or "correct," but we CAN ligitimately use those words to describe the latest theory.

But NO one here ever said, 'Science is 'right' nor 'correct'.

And, I would NEVER use those words to describe your latest nor any theories.

Pair production is indeed the latest view of physics.

This just SHOWS how far behind these people really were.

Nobody knows whether it will still be regarded as correct a hundred years from now.

ACTUALLY some do.

It's regarded as correct today.

Okay.

The earth being flat and in the center of the Universe was also correct, one day.

Science is always contingent.

I was just ascertaining whether you KNEW, FOR SURE, and thus WITHOUT DOUBT, that 'things' can just come into Existence from absolutely NOTHING, or if this was just something that you have heard/read and which you now just think or BELIEVE is true.

What do you mean for sure and without doubt?

You KNOW, when some 'thing' IS KNOWN, WITHOUT DOUBT and FOR SURE, which can be the very opposite of 'thinking' or of NOT knowing.

Science is contingent.

If you say so, AGAIN.

We'll see these things differently in a hundred years.

NOT if and when 'you' SEE 'things' EXACTLY AS THEY ARE, NOW.

As of today, that is the theory.

AND, like ALL 'theories' they are, essentially, just a guess or an assumption about what COULD BE true, right, and/or correct.

Which is EXACTLY WHY I do NOT 'do theory'. I much prefer to only LOOK AT and SEE what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and/or Correct ONLY, and INSTEAD.

It's backed up by lots of experiments and observations, as well as an extremely accurate mathematical model. That's as good as you can get in science.

Okay.

I was also ascertaining whether you just argue/fight for that position because you think or BELIEVE God does not exist or because you have not yet considered what the irrefutable Truth IS.

I have not argued or fought for that position at all. On the contrary, I've repeatedly -- at least ten or twelve times at this point -- said that even if the physics is wrong, it's still the reason that I said what I did about causality.

BUT, NO one EVER questioned you about what was the reason WHY you said what you did about 'causality'.

Which, by the way, you have NOT saying ANY 'thing' about 'causality', itself, YET. You have just more or less said, and STATED, 'Contemporary physics no longer holds to that belief that every item has another item as its cause'. Which is NOT saying ANY thing about 'causality', itself.

If you want to continue with your CLAIM that contemporary physics, itself, CLAIMS that there is NO 'causality' AT ALL, then, if this was ACTUALLY True, then there would, literally, NOTHING AT ALL to say about 'causality' BECAUSE there would be NO such thing as 'causality', itself.

I've never held or stated the views you keep ascribing to me.

What do you keep ASSUMING or PRESUMING are 'the views' that I, SUPPOSEDLY, keep ascribing to you?

If you TELL us this, what I think we will find is that I have NEVER even ONCE ascribed 'that' or 'those' views, to you.

But, we will have to wait and see to find out, FOR SURE.

You have missed or misunderstood the actual question I was asking here.

I have said repeatedly: I have no idea what you are asking. I have no idea why you are engaging with me as you are.

Okay.

I have no idea why you keep claiming I've said things I haven't said, and hold beliefs that I don't hold.

What 'things' do you think or BELIEVE I keep claiming you have said, which you CLAIM you have NOT said?

And, what BELIEFS do you think or BELIEVE I keep claiming you have, but which you CLAIM you do NOT have?

I have absolutely no idea where you are coming from.

Okay.

I HAVE BEEN EXPLAINING in detail to you, BUT, as you say, you STILL have absolutely NO idea.

Wow, you have JUMPED from one CONCLUSION to ANOTHER CONCLUSION, to ANOTHER CONCLUSION, VERY QUICKLY here.

Pot, meet kettle.

And what CONCLUSION do you ASSUME I have JUMPED TO, EXACTLY?

The questions I asked you were;
What BELIEF does this so-called 'contemporary physics' hold to 'now'?

Pair production. That's the current theory in question. It's the currently accepted theory.

But this THEORY is SUPPOSEDLY currently ACCEPTED by WHO, EXACTLY?

And WHY does that one or those ones BELIEVE (in) that THEORY?

Also, so-called 'pair production' in NO WAY means that 'things' exist WITHOUT 'cause', as you were alluding to before.

Surely 'it' does NOT HOLD the BELIEF that there are items that are caused by NO items at all, or am I wrong here?

That's exactly the point. It does hold that things pop into and out of existence for no reason at all.

WOW. Can you name just ONE 'thing' that pops IN TO and OUT OF Existence, Itself, WITHOUT ANY 'cause' NOR 'reason' AT ALL?

Are people, in the days when this is being written, REALLY that STUPID and CLOSED?

Or, when you say or mean, "for absolutely NO reason AT ALL", what do you mean by 'reason'?

Do you mean that the people who BELIEVE 'things' just POP into Existence happen for NO reason that they can YET work out?

Or, because there is absolutely NO reason AT ALL, forever more?

Or, because there is absolutely NO cause that they can YET work out?

Or, because there is absolutely NO cause, eternally?

Or, because you mean something else?

If it is the last one, then what do you mean, EXACTLY?

I asked these because 'contemporary physics' says ALL items/things besides the Universe, Itself, are created, or 'caused' by OTHER items/things.

I don't believe that's true. But perhaps I'm wrong. [/quote]

And here my friends is WHY these people, back in those days, were SO CLOSED, and thus SO STUPID, at times.

But, 'contemporary' is relative, correct?

If any word in the world is NOT relative, it's "contemporary."[/quote]

BUT, there are NO words, in the world, NOR ANY where else, that are NOT relative.

Absolutely EVERY 'thing', including ALL words, ARE relative, to the observer.

Contemporary means right now.

SO, what WAS 'contemporary' when you wrote this here IS NOT STILL 'contemporary', correct?

Unless someone has falsified pair production in a lab or journal article we haven't heard about. And frankly a result of that magnitude would make the news.

Some people 'see' or 'hear' 'the news' but do NOT necessarily agree with and accept 'the news'. Just like some people can 'see' and 'hear' 'things' but do NOT and will NOT believe 'them' to be true.

And many people, back in the days when this was being written, were 'trying to' counter "other people's" in just an 'attempt' to put forward and further their OWN BELIEFS, which then, AGAIN, someone would 'try to' counter with their OWN BELIEFS, which they were attempting to put forward, and further, and then so on, and so on. While actually all along NOT one of them was getting anywhere of any real significance.

Back in the days? The book's only a few years old. And these are not "beliefs," they're the latest scientific theories.

But I asked you, specifically; What BELIEF does this so-called 'contemporary physics' hold to 'now'?

And I asked you this because you said, 'Contemporary physics no longer holds to 'that' BELIEF', which you said regarding every item has another item as its cause.

Mathematical models that match, up to a good amount of precision, the results of observations and experiments. Science.

LOL Human beings MAKE UP 'mathematical models', to SUIT or FIT IN with BELIEFS they have, and/or just MAKE UP 'mathematical models', which if they do correspond with THEORIES, then 'TRY TO' use those 'models' as being some sort of PROOF. Which, when DELVED INTO and LOOKED AT FULLY and OPENLY, is just 'confirmation bias' AT WORK, and PLAY.

When 'you', human beings, are up to, when this was being written WAS;

We have NO answer to what was PRIOR to the 'big bang', which we BELIEVE was the START or BEGINNING of Everything. So, we just COINCIDENTALLY "found" that 'things' can just POP into Existence from absolutely NOTHING AT ALL, but which we will call and label 'a quantum field' and/or 'laws of physics'.

'you', human beings, have been going AROUND IN CIRCLES in 'trying to' CLAIM that the Universe BEGAN, from either God, or NOTHING, or SOME 'thing'. Which, LAUGHABLY, has been a Truly AMUSING and HILARIOUS 'thing' to WATCH 'you' 'trying to' PROVE true.

I WAS just questioning you regarding your claim about things/items supposedly being uncaused.

But I've explained this twenty times. My claim is based on my understanding of pair production.

Which, REALLY, you do NOT YET even UNDERSTAND, correct?

And if I'm wrong about that, then I'm wrong. It doesn't matter. I carried my umbrella because I thought it was going to rain. THAT IS MY REASON, whether or not it is raining! Can you not see that?

But I, STILL, have NEVER questioned you about ANY of this.

But I was NOT pushing back on ANY thing to begin with. I was just asking WHAT BELIEFS does so-called 'contemporary physics' HOLD to 'now', when you wrote that?

Pair production. You can look it up same as I can. [/quote]

BESIDES THE Fact that 'physics' NOR 'contemporary physics' BELIEVES ANY 'thing', there has NEVER been ANY human being that BELIEVES 'pair production'.

'Pair production' is just a phrase or term that means or refers to some 'thing', which is just CLAIMED to happen. Which, by the way, SAYS absolutely NOTHING about 'things' POPPING INTO Existence from absolutely NOTHING nor WITHOUT CAUSE. The last bit is just ANOTHER ASSUMPTION, PRESUMPTION, and/or INTERPRETATION made by VERY, VERY FEW PEOPLE, IF ANY AT ALL.

I hope you are not waiting for me to explain the world to you. Put "pair production" into your favorite search engine and spend some time reading.

I HAVE. And there is absolutely NOTHING I can find about 'pair production' MEANS that 'things' just POP INTO Existence WITHOUT ANY CAUSE AT ALL.

And, as I partly EXPLAINED to you EARLIER what ACTUALLY HAPPENS and OCCURS IS ALREADY KNOWN, and can be EXPLAINED, and VERY SIMPLY and EASILY as well. Unlike 'pair production'.

You have said that some people CLAIM that cause is NOT required. But you have already explained that the people who CLAIM this also CLAIM that there actually IS some thing ELSE existing BEFORE, or ANYWAY. Which ultimately and obviously would have been THE CAUSE, of the said and CLAIMED 'uncaused', anyway.

My understanding is that you can't look at the equations of quantum field theory and know that a pair is or isn't going to pop into existence.

PLEASE do NOT FORGET that ALL 'theories' are NOTHING more than just a GUESS or an ASSUMPTION about ONLY what COULD BE, and SO, in NO WAY, necessarily have ANY bearing whatsoever on what (ACTUALLY) IS.

The equations of some so-called 'quantum field theory' could equate to ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL. So, that would then render ANY thing else to do with THAT THEORY also WORTHLESS and USELESS.

And, just so you become AWARE absolutely EVERY thing, (besides the Universe, Itself), comes into Existence because of at least two OTHER 'things' coming-together.

By the way, to you, can things happen randomly and still be caused?

No. Causation is deterministic. The pair productions are spontaneous. They are not caused. They are random.

But HOW do you KNOW this?

That's my understanding of the theory.

WHY do you NOT say, for example, "from, MY PERSPECTIVE, 'pair production' (whatever that is) are not caused", instead of STATING and CLAIMING, "They are not caused"?

But so what? I have already said (many times) I'm not an authority. So if I'm wrong, it's a waste of time for you to tell me. Go find out for yourself.[/quote]

Considering the Fact that is NOT one solitary piece of PROOF that 'pair production' (whatever that is) is NOT caused, there is absolutely NO reason WHY absolutely ANY one would even think this to be true, let alone BELIEVE this to be true.

I will just SHOW and REVEAL what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.That is; IF you become Truly OPEN and be FULLY Honest, here.

Ahhhhhhh ...

But I will NEVER KNOW 'what' to CLARIFY, for you, if you NEVER ask me to CLARIFY some 'thing', for you.

I'd like you to clarify why you are arguing with me about why I'm carrying an umbrella.

But I am NOT doing this.

I suggest you ask me to CLARIFY some 'thing' about some ACTUAL 'thing'.

I already told you, it's because I believed it was going to rain. That was my reason, even if it turned out not to rain.

you are REALLY STUCK in and with this hey?

My reason for my claim about causality is still my reason, whether or or not pair production is true, whether or not it's random, whether or not it's caused, whether or not it's falsified tomorrow morning.

Okay. But, just so you become CLUED ON to what I have been POINTING OUT and SHOWING here, so-called 'contemporary physics' NEVER BELIEVED that things just POPPED INTO Existence from either NOTHING AT ALL or from NO other item NOR cause. Even though you do BELIEVE that this is true.

Thank you AGAIN. I have NEVER met someone, in this forum, who is so Honest as you and who is as so OPEN and INTELLIGENT as well.

LOL. Thank you. Why do I feel under attack? Am I imagining it?

YES.

It may have been simpler, easier, and quicker to have just asked instead, 'What do you mean in regards to ...?'

Yes well we can't go back and fix that anymore.

But the future lays AHEAD.

And, I KNOW, FOR SURE, that it would have been much simpler, easier, and quicker for you to get your CLARIFICATION. As, IF you had asked a question for CLARITY, THEN I would have ALREADY provided that CLARIFICATION, and thus that CLARITY for you, BY NOW.

Yet you still, after all this, have not told me what your point is. I don't know what you're asking.

And this is BECAUSE I was NOT intending to DIRECTLY SPELL OUT what my POINT WAS.

I was in the process of looking for those who are Truly OPEN and CURIOS, and through MY QUESTIONING to them, and their OPEN and Honest answers, they would have POINTED OUT and SHOWN what my point IS, EXACTLY.

Find Truly OPEN, Honest, and CURIOUS people just takes some time.

Also, and by the way, the MORE SPECIFIC your question, the MORE SPECIFIC my CLARIFICATION to you WILL BE.

What is your question? Be specific.

What, to you, is 'contemporary physics'?

The more guesses/assumptions you make, the more chances you can be wrong. However, and conversely, the less guesses/assumptions you make the less chance you will be wrong. And, the more times you guess/assume wrong, the more chances there is that they will be more wrong in and of themselves.

What is your question?

When you said and claimed that 'contemporary physics no longer HOLDS a BELIEF that every item has another item as its cause' were you then CLAIMING that NO item is caused'?

If not, then what are you CLAIMING here? (And remember 'contemporary physics' or ANY 'physics' AT ALL does NOT have NOR hold BELIEFS.)

BUT, if you NEVER make ANY guesses/assumptions and only sought out clarification FIRST and ALWAYS, then you can NEVER be wrong, as well also NEVER ACTUALLY being wrong wrong in ANY way AT ALL.

If you're never wrong, you'll rarely be right.

WHY would you even BEGIN to ASSUME or PRESUME this?

If you are NEVER wrong, then that has NO influence on how many times you ARE right.

I'm not making any claims at all.

Okay, thank you for letting me know.

Right. Thank you. I'm not making any claims about the rain. I am only claiming that I THOUGHT it was going to rain, hence I brought my umbrella. I make no claims about the rain; only about what I thought.

AHH here we are. It took a LONG time to get this out of you. So, when you said, 'contemporary physics no longer holds the belief that every item has another item as its cause' what you ACTUALLY MEANT was; 'I THINK that contemporary physics no longer holds the belief that every item has another item as its cause', right?

Thank you, ONCE AGAIN, for being OPEN to SEE this, and for being Truly Honest as well.

I'm honest to a fault, it's brought me much trouble. Also I take things literally. So when someone asks me, "What is your reason for saying such and so," I tell you my reason, and I DON'T claim that my reason was correct. Only that it was my reason.

Okay. Did ANY one here actually ask you, "What is your reason for saying [such and so]?

Also, it appears I take things far more literally, and may well be far more Honest.

But we will NEVER KNOW this, FOR SURE, and WITHOUT DOUBT, UNTIL someone STARTS CHALLENGING and/or QUESTIONING me over what I SAY and CLAIM here.

By this point in your post I was thoroughly confused as to what you were saying, and made my best guess. In retrospect I should have just asked you to clarify.

EXCELLENT OBSERVATION, UNDERSTANDING, and thus CONCLUSION.

Yes that's about it.

I see that I have caused grievous offense.

But your guess/assumption here is, ONCE AGAIN, wrong.

You're not unhappy with what I wrote? Ok. I have felt a bit put-upon. But I tend to be a little thin-skinned and defensive.

1. There is NO 'grievous offence' here.

Ok, good to know.

I will suggest now that it is ALWAYS BETTER TO SEEK CLARITY,FIRST, BEFORE, ever thinking, guessing, or assuming what "another' is saying or asking, that way you could NEVER be wrong NOR as wrong.

But you have offered none. Ask your question.

I only ask questions for what I want or seek CLARITY FOR.

The reason I SAY and CLAIM what I just did was to overcome what you you just said and assumed here.

I deleted a few paragraphs, I'm just lost here.

Okay.

AGAIN, you ask me a clarifying question, do not wait for My answer, guess/assume what My answer will be, and then carry on, from your OWN presumptions, ONLY.

I didn't do it and I promise not to do it again!

Would you like me to go back and find EXACTLY WHERE you DID DO IT, and then DISPLAY 'it' here?

Which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN and noticed here, only takes us further OFF TRACK and AWAY from what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS, EXACTLY.

We're in agreement that whatever the track is, we're off it.

You are refuting your own point. If you think that truth comes from within humans, then these truths were not operative before there were humans.

LOL But I NEVER even 'thought' such a thing, let alone said such a thing absolutely ANYWHERE.

You just said it. You said truth comes from within. Within what, may I ask?

1. I NEVER said 'it' [truth comes from within humans), and the PROOF is above. So, your first sentence here is Wrong.

2. I said what you said here in your second sentence but WITHOUT the 'truth' word. Which, it can be CLEARLY SEEN, does NOT say, '... comes from within humans'.

3. Yes you may ask. WITHIN EVERY thing.

Throughout EVERY post of mine in this whole forum I have NEVER EVER said such a thing as this, and what could be CLEARLY SEEN is that I have ALWAYS referred to what I have SAID and CLAIMED here this time, ONCE AGAIN.

Looks like I misunderstood you by reading exactly what you wrote.

YES, I am EXTREMELY HAPPY that you have, ONCE AGAIN, SHOWN True INTELLIGENCE by RECOGNIZING and NOTICING what 'you', adult human beings, do VERY FREQUENTLY. That is INTERPRET a MEANING in what "others" SAY and WRITE, which may NOT be there AT ALL.

See, 'you', adult human beings, READ 'words' BUT put your OWN INTERPRETATION, or READINGS, INTO those words, which may NOT even exist. And, this can be SEEN in just about ALL of YOUR COMMUNICATIONS.

Also, and by the way, although there was an ATTEMPT at SARCASM in what you just wrote here, and even some ridicule, if I am NOT mistaken, you have ACTUALLY POINTED OUT a GREAT Fact.

Which is what I intend to do through and with this forum. That is; get 'you', posters, here to SHOW and POINT OUT what thee ACTUAL Truths in Life, REALLY ARE. How this WILL BE DONE, in the most quickest, simplest, and easiest way, is through being absolutely OPEN, CURIOUS, and Honest to me QUESTIONING and CHALLENGING 'you' AND through 'you' QUESTIONING and CHALLENGING 'me'.

But the Universe ALWAYS JUST IS, and It NEVER needed to be caused.

I agree with this. Like I say, this is the point I was trying to make to the OP of the thread.

I thought this might have been the case.

I was just wanting to get RID OF the Wrong ASSUMPTIONS, FIRST, that was being ALLUDED to in your comment about how 'contemporary physics no longer holds the belief that things/items are caused from other items/things. And then move on to this.

I do NOT want to SHOW and POINT OUT the ACTUAL Truth of things UNTIL ALL the Wrong ASSUMPTIONS/PRESUMPTIONS and BELIEFS are REMOVED.

But there is NO need for God, just like there is NO need for ANY other word.

Again, a point I've been making to the OP.

The one who wrote the opening post is STILL a LONG WAY from even coming close to SEEING and UNDERSTANDING what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.

1. The Universe ALWAYS IS, in Existence.

This contradicts Big Bang theory.

REMEMBER AND and EVERY 'theory' is ALWAYS just A THEORY, and ALL THEORIES are just ASSUMPTIONS about what COULD BE true, and NEVER necessarily ANY thing about what IS ACTUALLY True.

Another widely accepted theory that may or may not be ultimately true, but that is accepted science as of this moment.

Just like the flat earth and geocentric universe WERE 'widely accepted' theories, and 'accepted science' in THEIR TIMES.

2. The Universe could NOT just 'pop' into Existence.

Contradicts Big Bang theory.

GREAT. The MORE it CONTRADICTS that OUTDATED THEORY, then the BETTER for me, and ALL of us.

The earth revolving around the sun ALSO CONTRADICTED the theory that the sun revolved around the earth AS WELL.

Go argue with a cosmologist.

I am NOT here to 'argue', in a couple of senses, WITH ANY one.

Maybe they're wrong.

Those people who think or BELIEVE that the Universe BEGAN, and/or IS EXPANDING ARE Wrong, and this IS an IRREFUTABLE Fact.

But spontaneous popping into existence is exactly what cosmologists currently believe about the universe. That is a fact.

YES, this is TRUE. Which makes SHOWING and PROVING HOW the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK so MUCH EASIER, SIMPLER, and QUICKER.

And, like in ALL periods the so-called "experts" BELIEVED ALL sorts of 'things', which TURNED OUT to be Wrong or False.

Also, WHY some people, subconsciously, WANTED to FIND and SEE that 'things' can just SPONTANEOUSLY POP into Existence will bring FURTHER LIGHT on 'things' here AS WELL.

'Confirmation bias' has FAR MORE CONTROL over 'you', adult human beings. than 'you' REALIZED YET, in the days when this is being written.

The words 'you' SAY and USE CONTROL 'you' FAR MORE than 'you' REALIZE, AS WELL.

What I say is the Ultimate Truth is 'that' what EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT and 'that' what NO one could REFUTE.

I don't think there is a single thing that you could get "everyone" to agree with.

ONCE AGAIN, here is ANOTHER example of MISINTERPRETING and MISCONSTRUING what I am ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING.

For example in regards to the Universe, Itself, then the Ultimate Truth IS thee Universe IS infinite AND eternal.

Those are claims for which there is no evidence,

There is NO proof for what you just CLAIMED here.

And, I do NOT need ANY evidence anyway for what I just SAID and CLAIMED there. I have PROOF, and that is ALL that IS NEEDED.

WITH PROOF, NO one CAN REFUTE.

and which directly contradict current science.

What you call 'current science' is SO OUTDATED to me.

That doesn't mean current science is right. It only means that you have a substantial burden to make your case.

I just have to PROVIDE IRREFUTABLE PROOF, which I ALREADY HAVE.

You can't just say, "Bowling balls fall up," when we can plainly see that they don't.

Here is ANOTHER example of which I could VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY PROVE Wrong.

But finding those WITHOUT BELIEFS, and who are Truly OPEN and Honest is a much harder task, in the days when this is being written.

Likewise, the evidence for the Big Bang is very strong.

But there is NO PROOF, and ONLY PROOF IS NEEDED.

Also, what is called 'evidence' for the 'big bang' is NOT ACTUALLY 'evidence' for 'that' AT ALL. AGAIN, thee PROOF for this ALREADY EXISTS.

So, there WAS NO 'first cause' in relation the Universe, Itself, 'beginning'. But, there is 'a beginnin' and a 'first cause', but all of this can get way to convoluted and confusing, and way too quickly, when one looks at or discusses 'this' with pre-existing BELIEFS.

You are making claims that directly contradict current science.

OF COURSE.

'Current science' is a RELATIVE term anyway, and is ALSO ALWAYS CHANGING, ALSO, ANYWAY.

, that doesn't mean you're wrong. It DOES mean that you have the burden of making an argument in support of your claims.

OF COURSE.

I am just WAITING for those who have been PREPARED, or ARE PREPARED, for thee REVEALING.

I am CERTAINLY in NO RUSH.

Ok!

Okay.

ps -- We can't go on like this. Maybe we should try to be more concise. Ask me a question and I'll try to answer it.

Do you BELIEVE the Universe BEGAN and/or IS EXPANDING?

And, I will NOT ask you to ask me a question. You will do this NATURALLY when you ARE READY, or PREPARED.