First Things First: The Physics of Causality

Eckard,really it's very odd,do you know that Cantor considered this too?he identified the Absolute Infinite with God,and he considered his work on transfinite numbers to have been directly communicated to him by God, who had chosen Cantor to reveal them to the world.Lol so you speak about infinities,infinity,finite systems without really understand their real meanings.Don't be vanitious but learn more generally speaking.I can understand it's not easy to change a line of reasoning,but I am persuaded that you can do it,you seems smart,so please go farer,deeper in your analyses about Numbers,matters,energies,infinities,infinity,finite systems,constants.Friendly

Dear Dr. Merali,

You saw fit to remove my comments because you deemed them inappropriate for this thread. Why then are you allowing Steve and Eckard to parrot unnatural codswallop that has nothing to do with supposedly finite causality?

Joe Fisher, Realist

How to explain at Akademia the remarkable 3,003 Views and Paper Rank 2.1 for "Cantor on Infinity in Nature, Number, and the Divine Mind"? If I recall correctly, the paper by Anne Newstead was printed in a Catholic Journal.

To those who intend learning about confusion in fundamentals of mathematics, I recommend reading at least key papers by Katz and by Mückenheim, beginning with "Die Geschichte des Unendlichen", firth edition Augsburg 2004.

What about ethics by Leibniz, Feuerbach, and maybe Oskar B. too, I would like to vote for a completed ethics that includes the obligation to birth control as a part of reasonable limitation to destruction of the globe. Richard Dawkins and Greta Th. were cowards when they shied back from this consequence.

Eckard Blumschein

Hi,

Dear Joe ,yes of course and the next president of USA will be Mickey Mouse and the next director of UN Donald Duck,of course of course,and your visible surface is the key for all our unknowns,yes of course,thanks for all your nonsenses.

Dear Eckard,thanks for developping.

Hi Eckard,

I repeat ,please don t confound the religions and a kind of deterministic faith in a thing above our understanding.The religions have nothing to do with a real understanding with this infinite eternal potential ,consciounsess.You can tell us all what you want about maths,physics,numbers,infinities,infinity,finite series,that does not change the interpretation of a majority of thinkers,searchers...I am conscious that the sciences community is divided,but for me it is odd for people wanting to know what is matters energy transformation to not consider this main cause.How can we encircle,understand the codes,informations,encodings,diversities of matters...without this important parameter.You beleive that we come from nothing? that we are a result of a hazard,it seems so not possible,even nonsense.Regards

dear Joe,

please explain us differently.Philosophically,physically,mathematically.There we don4t understand nothing. Please explain the causes of your conclusion, it is odd there,we need more details to encircle what you mean,what you tell us.Invisible,visible,am,this and that,me I want well but your Words aren t sufficient simply.

Steven.

Was there a real visible Earth surface millions of years ago?

Joe Fisher, Realist

Steve,

Did humanly contrived supposedly FINITE mathematics and physics exist millions of years ago?

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe,no the Earth has more than 4 billions years,do you need a course about evolution? I know well in all humility. I have too ranked this evolution and too animals and vegetals,minerals,maths,physics,biology,chemistry. About maths and physics,yes they are foundamentals and the language of this infinite eternal consciousness creating this physicality.So what do you mean frankly with Always your Words wich define nothing there? Is it a hidden galactic cemera Joe,if yes it is time to tell us my friend instead to repeat this nonsense.Friendly

Today's Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:

"Jared Diamond makes the case that the human need for explanation is a survival mechanism, and that religion fulfilled that need. He proposes that the original functions of religion are explanation, defusing anxiety, and providing comfort in the face of bad things. Has religion lost it's explanatory function for modern people? Is the primary function of religion today to provide comfort for upsetting life events? Tell us your thoughts in the comments.Watch more interviews on evolutionary psychology and religion: http://bit.ly/2Ok867q"

I have posted this sensiblecomment at the website and on the FQXi.org website and on my own Facebook page.

When the FINITE question: "Has religion lost it's explanatory function for modern people?" Was entered into the Google Search Engine, it elicited "About 6,290,000 supposedly FINITE results (0.72 seconds)" Did the planet Earth have a visible surface for millions of real years before Jared Diamond ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork about FINITE invisible religious influences affecting imaginary people? Of course it did. Nature must have only provided one sort of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one form of finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher Normal Realist

:( you make me crazy more Tham I am lol ,please if it is possible develop with physics and maths and about your philosophical point of vue.PLEASE for the respect of FQXi and the members and people PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE JOE

One of the three recent Nobelists was chosen for his contribution supporting the belief in something first, a kind of creation.

While the two others illustrate how shaky guesses may be, I dislike the hope for finding some substitute for our globe. Instead, Kadin was perhaps correct in that we need global birth control and serios restrictions to consumptive economy.

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Eckard ,are you serious about the births? we don t lack of matters,energy nor space considering this universe.We can give water,food,energy,jobs,hopes to majority if the high spheres of power take their responsabilities.It is just that this world bank and UN aren t conscious of solutions where all wins.We can liberate the funds and industrialise our solar system and harmonise on Earth the interactions of ecosystems in improving this ecology.All wins,we don t need to check the economy and births or this or that,we must just open this sphere Earth to our universe with a wisdom,consciousness,freewill even,universal and altruistic for the well of all.The rest seems vain Eckard.

If they didn t exist these solutions,I could understand but they exist and are rational,objective,deterministic,logic because we have not limits about this space,these matters,this energy.The problem is just the unconscious governances.And if we insert the corruption,the Vanity,the stupidity,the power and this unconsciousness so we understand quickly our global problems.

Today's Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:

"Does evolutionary psychology undermine religion? Can religion be attributed to brain structure and chemistry? Watch Warren Brown's full interview: http://bit.ly/30IXsd6"

I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:

When the FINITE question: "Does evolutionary psychology undermine religion?" was entered into the Google Search Engine, it elicited: "About 9,970,000 supposedly FINITE results (0.54 seconds) When the FINITE question: "Does regular psychology undermine religion?" was entered into the Google Search Engine, it yielded: "About 24,400,000 supposedly FINITE results (0.62 seconds)" Guess what? There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be provided by nature, one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one form of finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Regular Realist

LOL Today closer to truth ,Joe continues to repeat without detailing or explaining what he means to us

"How many people the Earth can sustain at a comfortable standard of living is a function of technological development (as well as of how resources are distributed)" wrote Mick Bostrom in his Transhumanist FAQ 2.1 . Is this true for good or are there rational limits to the acceptable or even optimal number of humans from the global perspective of mankind?

When Marx was for a century successful in competition with Malthus, they both merely considered nutrition. However, isn't pollution human too?

Are billions of cars and overmuch vacation travels by flight and crusaders and other limitless laziness still really comfortable? Do you dream of living in cities each with a billion of citizen? Don't get me wrong. I too don't like the autist Greta and XR activists. However, I feel sympathetic with the rapidly growing number of young people who feel having no good perspective in particular so far in the notoriously politically unstable regions of Africa, Asia, and South America. When religions demanded to "be fertile and get more", they did perhaps derive doomsday speculations from correct observation of dead as element of life in nature while they couldn't imagine that the globe and the inhabitable part of universe are definitely finite and certainly causal, with or without a Big Bang or crunch.

Eckard Blumschein

Hi Joe,well we have understood,let s go farer please.I have several questions.When I was 17 years old I searched answers to our universe.So I have read a Little bit of all,books of philosophy,the talmud,the bibble,the coran,the buddhism ,this and that.The best answers I must say were given by sciences,I have ranked a Little bit of all,the animals,the vegetals,the minerals,the Chemistry,the biology,the physics,the maths mainly.So in all humility we can discuss about all.So I repeat do you beleive in God,what is your personal faith.Me I beleive in this infinite eternal consciousness but with determinism,I am not religious because they are human inventions simply but I respect the persons having faith in their religions chosen.So tell me you are christian ? or others ? please explain me what you mean by your analyses,thanks

My Salvatinian understanding of infinity is aware of many papers including Bolzano's paradoxes and Yitzhak Malamed's work on Parmenides and Spinoza.

When my credo causality led me to the necessity of stopping growth in the interest of the humans altogether, I feel that the view of XR is much to narrow. Perhaps I need not explaining that XR stands for Extinction Rebellion and focuses on manmade climate change. My intention is to rather correct ethics for the sake of survival.

This includes to overcome national, religious, and male egoisms by making in particular women aware of their chance and obligation. Every intelligent people should grasp that speaking in a metaphor she or he doesn't STAY like a car in the tailback but we altogether ARE the tailback unless we will get control over our animality. Unfortunately, the total number of most uneducated people goes on tending to rapidly increase worldwide. I see a crucial competition and hope those who don't see Boko a Haram will win in time.

Eckard Blumschein