Dinesh D'Souza indicted

[Frediano]

God or an infinity of Universes? I don't think so. Those aren't the only two choices. We only need two.

A + -A = 0.

And within our Universe, we have direct actual evidence of anti-matter(and via lockstep, anti-energy.) We observe, locally, in our Universe, a pre-ponderance of matter over anti-matter.

As odd as this sounds, there are actually folks spending money and searching, today, for signs of the early separation of these Universes; the 'Big Bang' as the energetic event that initially hurled these two regions of statistically allowable(if rare and infrequent)regions of net matter close to regions of net anti-matter. The annihilation would propel the two regions apart-- cutting off future interaction and mutual destruction.

This event might be extraordinarily rare, but not prohibited by battling infinities: an infinity of time waiting for an infinitely rare event. A rare event. Our universe(s) won the Universe Lottery.

[Frediano]

Dinesh argues that the 20th century was freed of religious influence.

Nonsense. "Social Scientology", the religion that believes "S"ociety=God and the state is its proper church, was the most efficient killing machine mankind has ever seen.

See Hitler and the Nazis, Stalin and the Commies, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and all those 'Tribe Uber Alles' killing machines.

[Frediano]

The primacy of existence is true if existence exists. The alternative is true if existence does not exist. If there is -only- consciousness, then the Universe is purely imagined by consciousness, and to create 'surprise' -- to actually experience a purely imagined universe, such a consciousness would by necessity need to do what we already know any schizoid can do, and that is, divide itself into consciousness that 'knows' and consciousness that doesn't know(else, how could 'surprise' exist in such a universe of pure consciousness? A singular creative consciousness that purely imagined the Universe would already know the answer behind every question, would know what was on the unopened side of every door.)

So that is the essence of faith; do we believe that existence exists, or do we believe that all is nothing but consciousness? Which is more fantastic-- to believe in a consciousness that could create everything there is, and actually 'build' it, or a consciousness that purely imagined everything that is, but in order to enjoy its creation, became a massive schizoid?

It would be far easier to imagine and become a schizoid than to imagine and actually build.

The alternative is, a Universe that actually exists.

[Frediano]

The question based on Zeno's Paradox was just purely flawed logic, as well as a tautology; the questioner assumes finite time, then introduces finite time multiplied by an infinitiy of periods to imply infinite time as a consequence.

He is mixing the concept of time in this universe, as an interesting universe of expansion and gradient, vs. the concept of immeasurable time in a flat cosmic field devoid of all gradient.

His argument, to me, supports the idea of a megauniverse(the flat uniniteresting field devoid of all gradient) as opposed to the rare instances of universes of finite but cosmic duration filled with interesting gradient for as long as they are. The answer to his question is the same as the answer to Zeno's Paradox: mathematics is filled with examples of battling infinitities that result in finite results.

Example: before crossing a room, you must cross half the room. And before crossing half the room, you must cross half of half, and so on, and infinitiy of halves must be crossed. But each one is crossed in half the time. An infinite number of intervals that approach an infinitely small duration to time to cross them. The result of those battling infinities is finite time to cross the room.

Ditto, waiting for a Universe to erupt from a flat field of uninteresting gradient. The probability of a bubbling cosmic flat field of 'foam' erupting in an arrangement of two adjacent areas of net matter, net anti-matter, configured such that the resulting anihaltion propelled two net areas of matter and anti-matter away from each other before totally destroying each other, might be infinitely small, but if you throw an infinity of time at it, the result might well be a finite number of instances. It only has to have happned 'once' in order for our Universe of interesting gradient to have been created from a flat uniform field of bubbling non-gradient that always was and always will be-- as far as we are concerned, within our universe of interesting gradient, 'nothing' including no time and no space. But that is a parochial definition of time and space.

[Brant Gaede]

The question based on Zeno's Paradox was just purely flawed logic, as well as a tautology; the questioner assumes finite time, then introduces finite time multiplied by an infinitiy of periods to imply infinite time as a consequence.

He is mixing the concept of time in this universe, as an interesting universe of expansion and gradient, vs. the concept of immeasurable time in a flat cosmic field devoid of all gradient.

His argument, to me, supports the idea of a megauniverse(the flat uniniteresting field devoid of all gradient) as opposed to the rare instances of universes of finite but cosmic duration filled with interesting gradient for as long as they are. The answer to his question is the same as the answer to Zeno's Paradox: mathematics is filled with examples of battling infinitities that result in finite results.

Example: before crossing a room, you must cross half the room. And before crossing half the room, you must cross half of half, and so on, and infinitiy of halves must be crossed. But each one is crossed in half the time. An infinite number of intervals that approach an infinitely small duration to time to cross them. The result of those battling infinities is finite time to cross the room.

Ditto, waiting for a Universe to erupt from a flat field of uninteresting gradient. The probability of a bubbling cosmic flat field of 'foam' erupting in an arrangement of two adjacent areas of net matter, net anti-matter, configured such that the resulting anihaltion propelled two net areas of matter and anti-matter away from each other before totally destroying each other, might be infinitely small, but if you throw an infinity of time at it, the result might well be a finite number of instances. It only has to have happned 'once' in order for our Universe of interesting gradient to have been created from a flat uniform field of bubbling non-gradient that always was and always will be-- as far as we are concerned, within our universe of interesting gradient, 'nothing' including no time and no space. But that is a parochial definition of time and space.

You are crossing a room, not a measurement. Half way across you have the same distance still to go.

It's like the rest of this mental churning and chewing--it's all in the head.

--Brant

[Frediano]

Look into 'oscillons.' An accessible, obervational branch of physical phenomena on a gross scale obervable by direct human objservation(vibrating media or slurries)which hint at the concept of 'pile and hole' as being the ying and yang of states out of phase, creating something from 'nothing.' A + -A = 0.

Oscillons exist at a larger linear scale than the scale of the vibrating media they exist in, and exist over longer periods of time than the periods associated with the vibrations of the media they exist in. They have separate rules of attraction and repulsion, like particles, and form chains and interact. Why? What's to stop them? This is observational physics, and only recently, computational physics. They exist because they can exist.

Sort of like matter and anti-matter, energy and anti-energy, forming from a jiggling foam of energy devoid of gradient. So in this purely imagined explanation of what seems like a paradox if only part of the picture is imagined, what we call our Universe is a finite-lifed local interesting region of space time with gradient in what is otherwise a flat uninteresting field of uniform sameness that exists becuase it can exist.

Ironically, not because of a God that made it, but because of the lack of a God that would prevent it..

So we should enjoy the ride. It could be exceedingly rare and short lived on a cosmic scale of time and space. And for all we know for certain, even if there is a God, that is our function in this Universe; to not know, and thus, to experience surprise. If an all knowing God created all, then for all I know, he created us to create surprise in his Universe. (He could otherwise not experience surprise himself, because according to the legend he knows the answer to every riddle and mystery and so, could not create 'surprise' in the Universe without creating us.) And so, for all I know, it is our function in this Universe to get our greasy little monkey sweaty ape prints all over it before it expands back to a flat uninteresting 3 deg K uniform flat field of sameness.

The endgame of this expanding universe is apparently its own death in a final consumption of all gradient; the domination of ultimate equality, a flat mega-universe devoid of all gradient. The death of our universe. Or at least this cycle, the current lucky winner of the rare Universe lottery. So until then -- some far off future many times the current age of our expansing Universe -- for all I know its our job to enjoy this playground and bring 'surprise'into the universe.

Somebody has to do that; it is one of the things an all knowing omnipotent God could not do by himself without self-deception(pretending He didn't already know what was behind the door he made.)

I figure, if an unknowable God put me here, He had his reasons, so I might as well be grateful and live here.

[Frediano]

The question based on Zeno's Paradox was just purely flawed logic, as well as a tautology; the questioner assumes finite time, then introduces finite time multiplied by an infinitiy of periods to imply infinite time as a consequence.

He is mixing the concept of time in this universe, as an interesting universe of expansion and gradient, vs. the concept of immeasurable time in a flat cosmic field devoid of all gradient.

His argument, to me, supports the idea of a megauniverse(the flat uniniteresting field devoid of all gradient) as opposed to the rare instances of universes of finite but cosmic duration filled with interesting gradient for as long as they are. The answer to his question is the same as the answer to Zeno's Paradox: mathematics is filled with examples of battling infinitities that result in finite results.

Example: before crossing a room, you must cross half the room. And before crossing half the room, you must cross half of half, and so on, and infinitiy of halves must be crossed. But each one is crossed in half the time. An infinite number of intervals that approach an infinitely small duration to time to cross them. The result of those battling infinities is finite time to cross the room.

Ditto, waiting for a Universe to erupt from a flat field of uninteresting gradient. The probability of a bubbling cosmic flat field of 'foam' erupting in an arrangement of two adjacent areas of net matter, net anti-matter, configured such that the resulting anihaltion propelled two net areas of matter and anti-matter away from each other before totally destroying each other, might be infinitely small, but if you throw an infinity of time at it, the result might well be a finite number of instances. It only has to have happned 'once' in order for our Universe of interesting gradient to have been created from a flat uniform field of bubbling non-gradient that always was and always will be-- as far as we are concerned, within our universe of interesting gradient, 'nothing' including no time and no space. But that is a parochial definition of time and space.

You are crossing a room, not a measurement. Half way across you have the same distance still to go.

It's like the rest of this mental churning and chewing--it's all in the head.

--Brant

Half way across, you have half the distance to go. You have the same distance to go as you've already travelled in finite time. You have already crossed an infinity of infinitely small intervals, and you've already done it in finite time. You have already proven that you can cross an infinite number of intervals in finite time. Just do it again, and you are done, in finite time.

Zeno's Paradox is indeed 'all in the head' if that head has never studied calculus.

[Brant Gaede]

All continually dividing a finite distance by two does is create a smaller and smaller number and soon you'll need a microscope to see the results. (A problem will appear when you split the atom.) This doesn't seem much different than finding longer and longer solutions for pi respecting what you can see and deal with. There are a lot of things that add nothing in themselves to existential reality--calculus, time, arithmetic, any particular thought.

--Brant

you started out with a finite distance and you covered a finite distance, with the infinities in your head, not under your feet

[BaalChatzaf]

The question based on Zeno's Paradox was just purely flawed logic, as well as a tautology; the questioner assumes finite time, then introduces finite time multiplied by an infinitiy of periods to imply infinite time as a consequence.

He is mixing the concept of time in this universe, as an interesting universe of expansion and gradient, vs. the concept of immeasurable time in a flat cosmic field devoid of all gradient.

His argument, to me, supports the idea of a megauniverse(the flat uniniteresting field devoid of all gradient) as opposed to the rare instances of universes of finite but cosmic duration filled with interesting gradient for as long as they are. The answer to his question is the same as the answer to Zeno's Paradox: mathematics is filled with examples of battling infinitities that result in finite results.

Example: before crossing a room, you must cross half the room. And before crossing half the room, you must cross half of half, and so on, and infinitiy of halves must be crossed. But each one is crossed in half the time. An infinite number of intervals that approach an infinitely small duration to time to cross them. The result of those battling infinities is finite time to cross the room.

Ditto, waiting for a Universe to erupt from a flat field of uninteresting gradient. The probability of a bubbling cosmic flat field of 'foam' erupting in an arrangement of two adjacent areas of net matter, net anti-matter, configured such that the resulting anihaltion propelled two net areas of matter and anti-matter away from each other before totally destroying each other, might be infinitely small, but if you throw an infinity of time at it, the result might well be a finite number of instances. It only has to have happned 'once' in order for our Universe of interesting gradient to have been created from a flat uniform field of bubbling non-gradient that always was and always will be-- as far as we are concerned, within our universe of interesting gradient, 'nothing' including no time and no space. But that is a parochial definition of time and space.

You are crossing a room, not a measurement. Half way across you have the same distance still to go.

It's like the rest of this mental churning and chewing--it's all in the head.

--Brant

Half way across, you have half the distance to go. You have the same distance to go as you've already travelled in finite time. You have already crossed an infinity of infinitely small intervals, and you've already done it in finite time. You have already proven that you can cross an infinite number of intervals in finite time. Just do it again, and you are done, in finite time.

Zeno's Paradox is indeed 'all in the head' if that head has never studied calculus.

Alas. Zeno, warrior philosopher, had no concept of limits or convergence.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Can't say I completely follow Frediano here, though I enjoy his thinking.

[Brant Gaede]

Dinesh argues that the 20th century was freed of religious influence.

Nonsense. "Social Scientology", the religion that believes "S"ociety=God and the state is its proper church, was the most efficient killing machine mankind has ever seen.

See Hitler and the Nazis, Stalin and the Commies, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and all those 'Tribe Uber Alles' killing machines.

I like this post.

--Brant

I'm not all bad

[Frediano]

Can't picture 'cosmic foam?' The massive flat field of nothing? Neither can I, barely.

But give it a try. Here is an imperfect model devoid of discussion of quantum effects.

So, Einstein says matter and energy are related by delta-E = delta-M x C^2 (delta: change-in)

If we believe that, then we can think of matter as condensed energy; alternately, we can think of mass as a potential source of energy, or we can think of energy as a potential source of mass.

We also claim to observe something called 'anti-matter' in our universe of mostly matter. We accept that as 'real' in our observational physics, and we also observe when matter and anti-matter interact, they 'annihilate' each other resulting in a massive release of energy. No more matter, no more anti-matter, just energy (and I assume, anti-energy).

So how to imagine energy and anti-energy(or lockstep, matter and anti-matter): Think of them as being 'out of phase' in some sense; opposites. A + -A = 0. The pile and the hole. Clockwise and counter-clockwise.

OK, so then, what is this imagined 'cosmic foam?' Well, it is a uniform in all directions flat field devoid of gradient (difference). No matter where you imagine that foam, every region seems like every other region. Though, there is no need for it to be infinite in size. It could have a boundary, beyond which there was nothing at all. So it is ok (to me) to think of the cosmic foam as a hugest of huge cosmic derigible, floating in a sea of nothing. But within the cosmic foam derigible, there are no gradients of any kind, but it is a bubbling sea of pure energy + anti-energy, (piles and holes, out of phase). A massive 'jiggling' foam. Like being inside of a pot of boiling water, but not in a gradient field...there is no 'up'. It is just a massive sea of jiggling sameness, a constant rolling of the dice. All juiced up with nowhere to go.

As an aside, picture the molecules of O2 in the room you are in. They are all just jostling around, they are at some finite temperature. When they collide with another molecule, they exchange energy and interact; if they lose, another molecule gains. Within the room, it is a closed system, and so the molecules just jostle randomly at some positions in the room. Why don't all the O2 molecules ever all congregate in a tiny layer next to the ceiling? They could. That is one of the possible arrangements of the O2 molecules in that room. Sort of like winning the lottery, only with odds far less than that. And yet, if you had an infinite amount of time to wait, eventually that random ticket could come up in that room. It might take waiting many multiples of the known age of the universe, but imagine waiting an eternity.

Well, back to the cosmic foam. Randomly, 'jiggling' energy interacts in such a way as to locally condense into matter and anti-matter. But the matter and anti-matter also interact, and annihilate each other, releasing energy and anti-energy. The cosmic foam is a closed system. But it is constantly 'sparking' with these events. They are just mostly going nowhere. But just like waves in the ocean, occasionally there are peaks and troughs of these events, a local phased event; the dice continue to roll. What combinations of these events are the dice allowed to roll, given enough time and enough rolls of the dice? Or said another way, what combinations are prohibited to the dice, given enough time? Especially given all the time they need...

Time and space don't have quite the same meaning in the cosmic foam, because it is totally void of all interesting gradients. Because of its lack of all gradient, there is no means to measure or detect the passage of time or any traversal in space. But imagine waiting for the -equivalent- of a period of time equal to many trillions of multiples of the age of our universe. How many? The answer is easy; as many as it takes. To do what? For the dice in the cosmic foam to roll a particular event; a net region of matter forming adjacent to a net region of anti-matter, resulting in an initial violent explosion that was sufficient to hurl the balance of matter and anti-matter away from each other and also away from mutual annihilation. A short lived burst of two expanding universes of interesting gradient, both on their way back to their own eventual death, but not before an interesting period of gradient in what was formerly a gradientless bubbling cosmic foam of sameness.

Permitted because it is not forbidden by pure random chance. Rare, but finite. For us, our universe only had to happen once.

Not created by a God, but with some irony, permitted because it was not prohibited by a God.

The hard part of imagining this model is to not limit the sense of the possible by what is possible to us as short armed, short lived humans with big imaginations. Including, imagining the required passage of time for the dice to roll two universes out of none; even in our imaginings, we soon grow impatient and claim 'that could just never happen.'

[Brant Gaede]

Incoherence comes to Objectivist Living, not for the frist time, but this is the most remarkable.

--Brant

[Frediano]

Ouch.

[Brant Gaede]

Of course, it may be my brain problem.

--Brant

[Mikee]

http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/psych-major-judge-overrides-doctors-on-dsouza/

[Selene]

http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/psych-major-judge-overrides-doctors-on-dsouza/

Paging Dr. Szasz

Separation of psychiatry and the state

If we accept that "mental illness" is a euphemism for behaviors that are disapproved of, then the state has no right to force psychiatric "treatment" on these individuals. Similarly, the state should not be able to interfere in mental health practices between consenting adults (for example, by legally controlling the supply of psychotropic drugs or psychiatric medication). The medicalization of government produces a "therapeutic state," designating someone as, for example, "insane" or as a "drug addict."

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

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Reeducation camp...

[Brant Gaede]

A bad law. A bad judge. The dictation of normal behavior respecting that law for the law is God. The legal behavior is totalitarian albeit of a rather soft kind. I'm not aware of any medication usage, but that's merely the next step in the face of recalcitrance. Sort of like that other judge dumping on those children because they didn't want to be with Dad, "a great man."

This arrogant judge is "sensitive to psychological issues in the criminal cases" he hears. But the criminality was contrived by Congress. Maybe we should be "sensitive to psychological issues" in the Congress-critters who passed such laws and the President who signed them into law and the judge who embraces such laws.

The judge reminds me of "This is not an assault" while tanks poured gas into the compound at Waco in 1993, not that he would have had the balls to have been there.

--Brant

[Mikee]

http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2015/07/15/crazy-like-a-dissident/

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis

[Brant Gaede]

http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2015/07/15/crazy-like-a-dissident/

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis

Ah. The Inquisition.

--Brant