Rocky

Then there's Michio Kaku's book, The God Equation. Which I read and reviewed on Goodreads almost a year ago Clearly, I'm no physicist, though I did take physics (instead of chemistry) in HS... more than half a century ago. Kaku's book does kinda make sense to me, at least a little bit. But it really is over my head. Near the last few pages, he writes: So why is there something rather than nothing? Because our universe originally came from quantum fluctuations in Nothing. Much of the meaningfulness of Kaku's book (IMO) lies in or comes from the philosophical questions he sets the stage for and ultimately poses. Like, Will this theory of everything give us the meaning of life?... "However, I do believe the theory of everything might have something to say about the meaning of the universe," Kaku writes. Thankfully, Michio Kaku is not like the Sheldon Cooper character on the Big Bang Theory television show. However like the TV show and other literary artistic expressions, Kaku uses numerous illustrations to make abstract concepts more understandable for people like me. It's also important to realize this book is about the QUEST for a theory of everything which has not yet been discovered or figured out. Maybe one of your descendants or mine will be instrumental in finding such a beautiful, elegant, symmetry that can more fully enlighten us. Is it also possible Paul (or various bible translators) just didn't have words to express the message in ways humans could understand? Rather than the verse being the equivalent of Paul thumbing his nose at people who didn't want to believe him? Frankly, I VERY MUCH appreciate Hossenfelder's reflection on the situation (in the YouTube short post I posted in the thread about 45 minutes ago. I'm not claiming to be right. I don't need to "win." Rather, I'd prefer to expand the discussion on this subject.

More of the excerpt shared above, which I found at https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/616868/existential-physics-by-sabine-hossenfelder/ Of course, I want to know these things too. But somewhere along my path through academia I learned to avoid asking such questions, not to mention answering them. After all, I’m just a physicist. I’m not competent to speak about consciousness and human behavior and such. Nevertheless, the young man’s question drove home to me that physicists do know some things, if not about consciousness itself, then about the physical laws that everything in the universe—including you and I and your grandmother—must respect. Not all ideas about life and death and the origin of human existence are compatible with the foundations of physics. That’s knowledge we should not hide in obscure journals using incomprehensible prose. [...] However, my aim here is not merely to expose pseudoscience for what it is. I also want to convey that some spiritual ideas are perfectly compatible with modern physics, and others are, indeed, supported by it. And why not? That physics has something to say about our connection to the universe is not so surprising. Science and religion have the same roots, and still today they tackle some of the same questions: Where do we come from? Where do we go to? How much can we know? When it comes to these questions, physicists have learned a lot in the past century. Their progress makes clear that the limits of science are not fixed; they move as we learn more about the world. Correspondingly, some belief-based explanations that once aided sensemaking and gave comfort we now know to be just wrong. The idea, for example, that certain objects are alive because they are endowed with a special substance (Henri Bergson’s “élan vital”) was entirely compatible with scientific fact two hundred years ago. But it no longer is. **** Not that I'm at all qualified to expound on the dichotomy between science and religion, but I find Dr Hossenfelder's insight compelling.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/59695048-existential-physics Can I ask you something?” a young man inquired after learning that I am a physicist. “About quantum mechanics,” he added, shyly. I was all ready to debate the measurement postulate and the pitfalls of multipartite entanglement, but I was not prepared for the question that followed: “A shaman told me that my grandmother is still alive. Because of quantum mechanics. She is just not alive here and now. Is this right?” As you can tell, I am still thinking about this. The brief answer is, it’s not totally wrong. The long answer will follow in chapter 1, but before I get to the quantum mechanics of deceased grandmothers, I want to tell you why I’m writing this book. During more than a decade in public outreach, I noticed that phys-icists are really good at answering questions, but really bad at explain-ing why anyone should care about their answers. In some research areas, a study’s purpose reveals itself, eventually, in a marketable product. But in the foundations of physics—where I do most of my research—the primary product is knowledge. And all too often, my colleagues and I present this knowledge in ways so abstract that no one understands why we looked for it in the first place. Not that this is specific to physics. The disconnect between experts and non-experts is so widespread that the sociologist Steve Fuller claims that academics use incomprehensible terminology to keep insights sparse and thereby more valuable. As the American journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner Nicholas Kristof complained, academics encode “insights into turgid prose” and “as a double protection against public consumption, this gobbledygook is then sometimes hidden in obscure journals.” Case in point: People don’t care much whether quantum mechanics is predictable; they want to know whether their own behavior is predictable. They don’t care much whether black holes destroy information; they want to know what will happen to the collected infor- mation of human civilization. They don’t care much whether galactic filaments resemble neuronal networks; they want to know if the universe can think. People are people. Who’d have thought?

https://sabinehossenfelder.com/ It seems, Raf, you might be taking a harshly dogmatic approach to the subject of this thread.

Does it, really? I don't think so. Realizing it was just something some malignant narcissist made up is hardly a conundrum, IMO.

I don't understand why, if God has a budget shortfall, He doesn't at least pass a continuing resolution until the next fiscal year.

If it looks anything like this one, it's beautiful. Thanks for sharing with us, Twinky.

To/For questions in the Bible do not impact integrity on the issues like chockfull addressed.

Sorry...

Why would you challenge Marie's husband to do anything? Did he post here? Does he have any role in this thread?

Sure, you possibly could, if she come back to read. Will she do so?

Wow! Reasonable assumption? How so? Do you have any rational basis to determine your assumption is reasonable? Do you know much about her "life in that program?" You're sure I intend to blame you for her action/inaction? How is that NOT projection? Well, there's a LOT in every line of your comment I quoted herein. My ONLY response is reflection, not declaration. Nevertheless, thanks.

I'm not sure "secret sex ring" is a fair characterization of the situation. I'd recommend searching this site but some of the forums may be restricted (I'm not sure which or to what extent) to those who succeed at registering. I will try to get the attention of the moderators to your post above.

Waydale from my perspective, was the predecessor to GSC. It was started by a guy who (with his wife, who had been sexually assaulted by Martindale) sued TWI and posted relevant information. He reached a monetary settlement which included agreement to shut down the site. Pawtucket then started GSC.

Seriously? Really?

So, you're making a judgment about her motives based on whether or not she continues to engage in a confrontational discussion? How very Christlike of you. I seem to recall Jesus being confrontational in a couple of Gospel records. But only with the moneychangers, Pharisees and Sadducees. Am I wrong in that recollection?

Oh myy. I'm not sure that's defensive, but it sure sounds confrontational. Is it really a GSC social norm to challenge people to participate in an ongoing confrontational "discussion?" I can only surmise such confrontation of MarieP might be a disincentive for her to participate in said ongoing confrontation(al) discussion. And for anyone else might consider dipping their toe in the water here if they are considering adding insight from their twi experience. So, by all means, proceed as you wish. However, if you want new people share here, consider how your words might sound to such prospective contributors. IIRC, there have been plenty of obstructors over the decades here. But MarieP, regardless of how anyone else reads her post at the beginning of this thread, doesn't strike me as one of them.

I went to YouTube a little while ago. I don't know if this video suggests a bit of synchronicity or not, but I found it intriguing and though back to my childhood.

So sorry for what you and Tux are going through.

I statements are not blaming. They are An “I” message is not about being polite. It’s about being clear.  An “I” messages is not concerned with how the other person might respond.  An “I” message is not intended to force another person to “fix the problem.”  It is clear statement that says “this is how it looks from my perspective.” An “I” message says “this is how it looks from my side of things.” If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, no big deal. I don't understand the defensiveness in response to Marie's OP. I don't have a compelling desire to understand it.

Fair points. Nevertheless, "we in the corps" were duped. And yes, GSC has been sounding this alarm for more than two decades. Personally, I'm not offended even if she was engaged in a finger-pointing exercise. No reader at GSC is obligated to refrain from finger-pointing, last I heard. I ran for an elected position to the governing board of the school district my daughter attended, back in 1998. I faced a good bit of criticism, as candidates apparently always do. Thanks to a hit piece about my divorce in a community newspaper at the last moment, I lost the race. The criticism stung. At this point, this criticism doesn't bother me. You, Skyrider, have invested a lot and have valiantly made yourself vulnerable on GSC. That, I believe, is a solid indication of strength of character. I'm thankful for your input, both on this thread and over the years.

RE-reading Marie's OP, I realized the tone and the entire message was an extended "I" statement. Sure, she extended it to "we." What she did NOT do was blame anyone here for anything she did not own herself. MarieP's post was totally in line with emotional intelligence, IMO.

And perhaps sometimes when people show up and make a bold post, they might anticipate harsh replies. There's no social norm requiring the person to continue to engage. In fact, understanding such is implicit in requests made hoping she would engage further. Bottom-line: take it however you like, but I'd encourage people here to not badger people who do and say what Marie did.

I'm not sure someone posting rhetorical questions, suggesting readers examine their words/actions needs to verify her bone fides. I will review her OP, but right now do not recall her making any accusations or inappropriate claims.