Cosmology

[desiresjab]

Gauss believed in the afterlife because he considered it wasteful for there not to be one. People come up with every kind of rationalization. For that belief you would have to believe in a God to begin with, because there is no injunction against nature for being wasteful. Indifferent nature has no motive. One could say God was merely a personification of indifferent nature by humans in an attempt to give it some human qualities of mercy and justice for those we love, and the power to destroy those we do not love. The destruction of one's enemies has been an important role for God throughout history. It made him a star.

I like Christmas. I even love Christmas. Jesus has a lot more to recommend him than Mohammed. Our modern vision of Christmas was created by Johnny Marks and Montgomery Wards, but still I like it. It is a beautiful fairytale. The core of it could even be true.

From one point of view modern Christmas is an ugly capitalist scheme to get people into stores. A pretty package for greed. On the other hand it is a beautiful tradition filled with merriment and good cheer.

I feel sorry for kids today that they cannot experience Christmas the way kids fifty years ago did. Most of the charm is now gone from the tradition. I see kids, I am with them, I know it is not the same for them now. Parents and grandparents try to keep the tradition alive as they knew it, but it is a losing battle against multi-cultural political correctness instituted by an army of diverse activists whose ridiculous college educations prepared them for nothing else. They majored in baloney like "public policy" and "gender studies," then they were loosed upon society. Since they now know nothing useful, they become activists, they start a board, a foundation, an institute. The world, especially our country, is so filled with useless activists I am confident I could find someone advocating for people with two rectums, if I tried hard enough. The toilets we use show how little we care after all.

* * * * *

The rest of this post was so controversial I decided not to publish it during Christmas season. There is still enough to gnaw on.

[YesNo]

It occurred to me today that the idea of our being simulations has some similarities to my own idealist viewpoint. Consciousness is behind both of them.

[desiresjab]

It occurred to me today that the idea of our being simulations has some similarities to my own idealist viewpoint. Consciousness is behind both of them.

If we are simulations, what the heck are we simulations of? Maybe we are simulations of beings with free will. If we are simulations, why were we only given sensitivity to small bands of light and sound? Our makers considered that enough-- but for what? And just where are these makers carting our dead off to? No one makes something they do not use in some way, even if it is only art to view. We could be the makers' art form.

Be assured of one thing, God is not going to answer any questions. We will get the answers for ourselves, or not at all. That is what we are up to and have been up to.

Why all the injunctions against "earthly" knowledge, though? What did God have against us wising up? Those parts of the Bible sound very humanly inspired to me, as in keeping your subjects kowtowing to the emperor, sultan, king.

I have to say that I believe 0% of the Bible and Koran were divinely inspired. Whatever God did was done with the creation of a universe with infinitely unfolding emergent properties. Want hints about God?--study the universe. Mathematicans and physicists--all sciences--try to study its architecture.

[YesNo]

I am reminded of a glass being half full or half empty. It is a matter of perspective. When you say that the Bible or the Koran are 0% divinely inspired in contrast I view all texts as being divinely inspired. That would include the Bible and the Koran as well as our posts on this thread.

Simulations with free will are even closer to my view of what we are than deterministic simulations. Underlying the simulation idea is some consciousness creating and maintaining the simulation.

When you talk about "earthly knowledge", what are you referring to? Is there some Bible or Koran verse you are referring to? I have read only about 10% of these texts. If that. I am not familiar with them.

[desiresjab]

I am reminded of a glass being half full or half empty. It is a matter of perspective. When you say that the Bible or the Koran are 0% divinely inspired in contrast I view all texts as being divinely inspired. That would include the Bible and the Koran as well as our posts on this thread.

Simulations with free will are even closer to my view of what we are than deterministic simulations. Underlying the simulation idea is some consciousness creating and maintaining the simulation.

When you talk about "earthly knowledge", what are you referring to? Is there some Bible or Koran verse you are referring to? I have read only about 10% of these texts. If that. I am not familiar with them.

By your definition Mein Kamph was divinely inspired.

1 Corinthians 3:19

For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their craftiness."

1 Corinthians 19-20

For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

James 3:15

This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.

Colossians 3:2

Set minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth.

Isaiah 44;25

Who frustrates the signs of liars and makes fools of diviners, who turns wise men back and makes their knowledge foolish?


Over and over in the Bible, thousands of times, the message is the same, one of pure control: Seek no wisdom but that found in God. Any earthly knowlege is evil and demonic.

Remember, the mighty Koran is only the size of a first book of poetry published by a typical independent press. There are not as many injunctions, but they are there. You will find them.

[YesNo]

By your definition Mein Kamph was divinely inspired.

As well as the anti-Mein Kampf texts. Someone conscious wrote them and got inspiration from somewhere. Being inspired doesn't mean the texts are infallible.

1 Corinthians 3:19

For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their craftiness."

That sort of makes sense actually. A lot of people who think they are wise are not.

1 Corinthians 19-20

For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

That one also makes sense. Do we really think we know what is going on?

James 3:15

This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.

I assume this is referring to superior wisdom. Some of us are brighter than others. God should be brighter than all the rest. It makes sense to focus on what is best.

Colossians 3:2

Set minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth.

Superior wisdom again.

Isaiah 44;25

Who frustrates the signs of liars and makes fools of diviners, who turns wise men back and makes their knowledge foolish?

I could come up with a similar justification for that.

Over and over in the Bible, thousands of times, the message is the same, one of pure control: Seek no wisdom but that found in God. Any earthly knowlege is evil and demonic.

Remember, the mighty Koran is only the size of a first book of poetry published by a typical independent press. There are not as many injunctions, but they are there. You will find them.

I think the point of these passages is to avoid delusion and focus on what is true.

[desiresjab]

The language in all so-called wisdom literature is general enough to take in a wide sweep. I could find wise passages in Nostradamus or just about anyone else.

The point of controlling knowledge and the very definition of what knowledge is, is to control society, and the passages I quoted are examples of religion in action doing just that. People still use such Biblical injunctions to perpetuate all sorts of nonsensical beliefs not fit for modern minds.

You may interpret these texts with a liberal modern hand and think how beautiful they are, just as believers do, picking and choosing what you like and sweeping under the rug what you do not care for, but the intent of the authors had nothing to do with symbolism. You pay loyalty only to God through the temple, that was the big message. In the meantime jews are omnipresent in western academia, so they are not taking it too seriously. They are gathering up earthly knowledge. A hoard heaped by the roadside... [Joyce].

[YesNo]

Generally it is hard to find someone who is completely wrong. There is wisdom all over the place. Some is just harder to find.

[desiresjab]

Generally it is hard to find someone who is completely wrong. There is wisdom all over the place. Some is just harder to find.

I am peering at every detail of Eisenstein's proof of QR, and making headway. Every detail must be accounted for and understood. More pieces are falling into place every time I focus.

My bet has changed. I now beleive I will see to the bottom of the well on QR from the Eisenstein perspective. After that, I would like to add some other perspectives, such as combinatorial and group theory approaches. But Eisenstein is not fully transparent yet.

[desiresjab]

Tiny snags.

[YesNo]

You should be able to see to the bottom of the well.

I have been using Google Sheets to gather data about primitive roots as well as checking some papers online to get a feel for the problem. Since I need to show that 2 is a primitive root for infinitely many primes, I will have to find some way to use the information about a finite number of primes (assume all of them) for which 2 is a primitive root and reason from there that there must be another one.

[desiresjab]

You should be able to see to the bottom of the well.

I have been using Google Sheets to gather data about primitive roots as well as checking some papers online to get a feel for the problem. Since I need to show that 2 is a primitive root for infinitely many primes, I will have to find some way to use the information about a finite number of primes (assume all of them) for which 2 is a primitive root and reason from there that there must be another one.

I see what you want--something that proceeds along similar lines to Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes.

Is this a proven proposition--that 2 is a primitive root for infinitely many primes--or someone's unproven conjecture?

Was this something to do with Artin's conjecture? How quickly I forget except what is in my tunnel vision.

[desiresjab]

Okay, now I have refreshed. That type of simple appearing yet intractable problem is typical of number theory. One sometimes is astonished that certain propositions which are so simple go unproven for so long. No doubt, many a doctoral dissertation has beat its head against your particular problem, which is indeed Artin's conjecture.

[Dreamwoven]

Good luck to both of you in your search.

[YesNo]

Thanks, Dreamwoven!

Yes, it is Artin's conjecture, or part of it. A lot of number theory books are available as pdfs from the internet. There are more than I have time to read. Luckily for me I don't have to read all of them since they repeat themselves, just understand a few.