The illusion of free will

[Quantum Quack]

Another thing to consider is that your thoughts, cognition, actions, reactions etc become a memory immediately upon emergence from the zero point moment [event horizon] between past and future. They actually have no reality beyond being a memory. [ Thus the universe exists and is perceived as a temporal phenomena]
*Before you are forced to delete the insults you are compelled to write, I have had the above checked by others and apart from some minor semantic issues it is quite sound.

 

[Sarkus]

[insults deleted] & [more insults deleted] ...have you not heard of thermodynamic equilibrium?

Yes, thanks. It has nothing to do with a zero-energy state, but an equilibrium state: if the system is not a zero-energy system then the equilibrium state will not be zero. Which is what both I and NMS have pointed out, which you have either chosen to ignore or simply don't understand.
Simples, really.

is quite a rational assessment [in it's over simplified terms] IMO

And as you are consistently demonstrating, your qualification of "IMO" is really not worth the otherwise empty paper on which it is written.

You are now claiming, within your "rational assessment" that the universe did not exist pre-BB, which is a completely different matter to the present being t=0: one is a case of a zero-length duration of time between the future and past, and the other is before time ever existed.
But feel free to sneak other concepts or claims into notions that you have previously argued in the hope that we won't notice, because if you throw enough of them around, one of them might actually make sense.

 

[Quantum Quack]

And as you are consistently demonstrating, your qualification of "IMO" is really not worth the otherwise empty paper on which it is written.
But feel free to sneak other concepts or claims into notions that you have previously argued in the hope that we won't notice, because if you throw enough of them around, one of them might actually make sense.

can't help it can you?

 

[Sarkus]

Another thing to consider is that your thoughts, cognition, actions, reactions etc become a memory immediately upon emergence from the zero point moment [event horizon] between past and future. They actually have no reality beyond being a memory.

By "semantic issues" presumably you mean what you refer to as the "zero point moment".
That aside, you're saying that things, once happened, become memories, and can only be referenced via memory.
There's no issue there.

[ Thus the universe exists and is perceived as a temporal phenomena]

Ah, and here it is. The universe certainly exists. It is certainly perceived as a temporal phenomena.
So what?
When did anyone deny, dispute, or claim otherwise? We are temporal creatures: we perceive everything through the passage of time. How does this relate to your claim that at t=0 the universe does not exist?

*Before you are forced to delete the insults you are compelled to write, I have had the above checked by others and apart from some minor semantic issues it is quite sound.

I couldn't care less who has checked what you have written. To even make the statement shows you are now resorting to having to appeal to consensus and seemingly to some hidden authority.

But let's take a cue from your tactic: "You're wrong. I have had this judgement (that you're wrong) checked by others, and it is quite a sound."
See how easy it is?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yes, thanks. It has nothing to do with a zero-energy state, but an equilibrium state: if the system is not a zero-energy system then the equilibrium state will not be zero. Which is what both I and NMS have pointed out, which you have either chosen to ignore or simply don't understand.
Simples, really.

and when a universe is in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium and has no change nor movement [ including photons, all dead, buried and forgotten ] do you feel the universe would still exist?
If so, how so?

 

[Sarkus]

can't help it can you?

Then don't make it so easy.

 

[Sarkus]

and when a universe is in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium and has no change nor movement [ including photons, all dead, buried and forgotten ] do you feel the universe would still exist?

The universe will always have movement, unless it is zero-energy and all the positive and negative energy annihilates itself. But that won't happen. Even in a zero-energy universe. And since, according to Newton's Laws, a particle will continue to move unless acted upon, eventually the energy will merely dissipate... i.e. spread so thin as to rarely, if ever, interact. And so will continue to move.
So there will still be movement.

I suggest you listen to or read Lawrence Krauss and his thoughts on the heat-death of the universe.

 

[Quantum Quack]

By "semantic issues" presumably you mean what you refer to as the "zero point moment".
That aside, you're saying that things, once happened, become memories, and can only be referenced via memory.
There's no issue there.

[ Thus the universe exists and is perceived as a temporal phenomena]

Ah, and here it is. The universe certainly exists. It is certainly perceived as a temporal phenomena.
So what?
When did anyone deny, dispute, or claim otherwise? We are temporal creatures: we perceive everything through the passage of time. How does this relate to your claim that at t=0 the universe does not exist?

it doesn't nor is it supposed to...
it relates to :
My post:

So at the exact zero point moment between future and past there is no time duration which logically leads to the conclusion that at any given t=0 we have only nihilo.
Given also that all action, thoughts, cognition, remembering s occur at this same nihilo moment the laws of physics do not apply, simply because there is nihilo to apply them to. {however that does not mean the laws of physics do not influence our decisions etc.]

 

[Quantum Quack]

oh Sarkus you may have missed this edit to post #860:

Gotta realize the laws of physics do not influence the imagination unless we wish them to.
Examples:
Peter Pan - J.M. Barrie (1860-1937) or
Alice's adventures in wonderland - Charles Lutwidge Dodgson/ Lewis Carroll (1982-1898)
or any other work of non-reality based fiction.

and from a more psychological/metaphorical sense it isn't hard to claim that life for humans is a work of fiction, a lie. "From behind the mask we all wear hides the truth" so to speak.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The universe will always have movement, unless it is zero-energy and all the positive and negative energy annihilates itself. But that won't happen. Even in a zero-energy universe. And since, according to Newton's Laws, a particle will continue to move unless acted upon, eventually the energy will merely dissipate... i.e. spread so thin as to rarely, if ever, interact. And so will continue to move.
So there will still be movement.

I suggest you listen to or read Lawrence Krauss and his thoughts on the heat-death of the universe.

not according to the basics of thermodynamic equilibrium:
I'll repeat the quote from wiki

there are no net flows of matter or of energy, no phase changes, and no unbalanced potentials (or driving forces), within the system. A system that is in thermodynamic equilibrium experiences no changes when it is isolated from its surroundings.

the universe as a whole, being that system.

I suggest you listen to or read Lawrence Krauss and his thoughts on the heat-death of the universe.

thanks, how ever I would also suggest you get your thoughts sorted out regarding the basics of thermodynamic equilibrium first.

 

[Sarkus]

it doesn't nor is it supposed to...
it relates to :
My post:

So your posts don't have any coherent sense to them? You don't relate one post to the next?
As for the post it replies to: you're basically just arguing "if we don't exist - we don't exist". Yay. Well done, that man!
Your next challenge will be to show that t=0 is a meaningful proposition for what you are arguing, given that it lasts for a duration of 0 seconds.
Is non-existence meaningful if it lasts for 0 seconds?
Is anything meaningful if it lasts for precisely 0 seconds?
You are looking to attach significance to something that lasts exactly that length of time.
And not only that, you are trying to claim that for the entire duration of 0 seconds "the laws of physics do not apply"!
Wow. Think of that... the laws of the universe suspended for a whopping 0 seconds.

Whodathunkit!

 

[Quantum Quack]

Even in a zero-energy universe. And since, according to Newton's Laws, a particle will continue to move unless acted upon, eventually the energy will merely dissipate... i.e. spread so thin as to rarely, if ever, interact. And so will continue to move.
So there will still be movement.

eh? Particles are made of what? energy.... energy has to move... no energy movement = no universe.
no photons = no universe an so on..

 

[Sarkus]

not according to the basics of thermodynamic equilibrium:
I'll repeat the quote from wiki

the universe as a whole, being that system.

thanks, how ever I would also suggest you get your thoughts sorted out regarding the basics of thermodynamic equilibrium first.

:wallbang:
Have you ever considered that what I wrote means that the universe, as a system, will never reach thermodynamic equilibrium until the energy within the universe is spread so thin as to never interact, until there is no useful work left to be done?
As said, you simply do not understand the terms you employ.

 

[Sarkus]

oh Sarkus you may have missed this edit to post #860:

and from a more psychological/metaphorical sense it isn't hard to claim that life for humans is a work of fiction, a lie. "From behind the mask we all wear hides the truth" so to speak.

WTF? You're now trying to claim that our imagination is not influenced by the laws of physics??
Seriously??
You haven't had enough of claiming that we defy the laws gravity that now you want to move onto how the laws physics don't influence our imagination???

 

[Sarkus]

eh? Particles are made of what? energy.... energy has to move... no energy movement = no universe.
no photons = no universe an so on..

As I said, even in a zero-energy universe you will have movement unless the positive and negative energy interact and cancel each other out. But if the last iota of postive energy moves in one direction, and the last iota of negative energy in the opposite direction, you are left with a zero-energy universe, and energy (both positive and negative), and movement. But no interaction.
So how does your rebuttal above address that explanation?

 

[Quantum Quack]

So your posts don't have any coherent sense to them? You don't relate one post to the next?
As for the post it replies to: you're basically just arguing "if we don't exist - we don't exist". Yay. Well done, that man!
Your next challenge will be to show that t=0 is a meaningful proposition for what you are arguing, given that it lasts for a duration of 0 seconds.
Is non-existence meaningful if it lasts for 0 seconds?
Is anything meaningful if it lasts for precisely 0 seconds?
You are looking to attach significance to something that lasts exactly that length of time.
And not only that, you are trying to claim that for the entire duration of 0 seconds "the laws of physics do not apply"!
Wow. Think of that... the laws of the universe suspended for a whopping 0 seconds.

Whodathunkit!

yes, sometimes reading post on an online forum can be a little challenging [after all I have only made 13000+ posts so I should know I guess], due to sequencing issues... some cope better than others.
If you could show how my posts are not related I would gladly and hopefully learn from the experience. You may also learn something from the experience as well..

 

[Quantum Quack]

As I said, even in a zero-energy universe you will have movement unless the positive and negative energy interact and cancel each other out. But if the last iota of postive energy moves in one direction, and the last iota of negative energy in the opposite direction, you are left with a zero-energy universe, and energy (both positive and negative), and movement. But no interaction.
So how does your rebuttal above address that explanation?

therefore thermodynamic equilibrium has not been reached yet...so we wait ... and wait... and wait for the 2nd law of thermodynamics to be proven valid.

Are you suggesting that the 2nd law is somehow invalid?

 

[Quantum Quack]

This is worth a shot:

Your next challenge will be to show that t=0 is a meaningful proposition for what you are arguing, given that it lasts for a duration of 0 seconds.
Is non-existence meaningful if it lasts for 0 seconds?
Is anything meaningful if it lasts for precisely 0 seconds?

of course not....
Our physical bodies are only temporal as well however "we face" an event horizon of t=0.[nihilo] It is on that horizon that we make our choices and our actions with our imagination which immediately become temporal.
The leading edge, the brink of the abyss, the cusp of oblivion....the event horizon of nihilo. [The bottomless cup of coffee ]


------------------------------------------->|nihilo
temporal existence

 

[Sarkus]

yes, sometimes reading post on an online forum can be a little challenging after all I have only made 13000+ posts due to sequencing issues... some cope better than others.
If you could show how my posts are not related I would gladly and hopefully learn from the experience. You may also learn something from the experience as well..

Oookay... let's revist:
Me: How does this relate to your claim that at t=0 the universe does not exist?
You: it doesn't nor is it supposed to... it relates to : My post: "So at the exact zero point moment between future and past there is no time duration which logically leads to the conclusion that at any given t=0 we have only nihilo."

So you agree your post doesn't relate to your notion that at t=0 the universe does not exist, but it relates to your post in which you claim a logical conclusion of there only being "nothingness" (or am I meant to interpret "nihilo" as something else?), which you have previously stated does not exist.
But then you have also said that it does exist, and has causal influence.

And your reference to the quantity of posts merely speaks to your willingness to post, not to the quality on which perhaps you should be focusing.

 

[Sarkus]

therefore thermodynamic equilibrium has not been reached yet...so we wait ... and wait... and wait for the 2nd law of thermodynamics to be proven valid.

Are you suggesting that the 2nd law is somehow invalid?

Where am I suggesting the 2nd law is invalid? The 2nd law has been proven. Repeatedly. Don't blame me for you not understanding it.
Are you somehow suggesting that a system that has reached thermodynamic equilibrium does not exist???