One might flip that over and suggest that mathematical laws are derived from observing physical reality.  Newton and the apple, and all that.

Just saying "the set of all sets, includes itself" is not all that meaningful.  Nor is "fundamental inseparability" without stuff to which such a theory might apply.

The notion of what is subservient to which is not all that meaningful.  Math serves to describe the physical world, so to then suggest that the physical world "obeys" in "subservience" to mathematics is going to raise some questions that may be difficult to answer with anything other than "well, we just haven't discovered all the mathematics yet".  All that says is that we haven't yet made observations of the physical world to the level where we have the language to describe it.
LHC, E8, and all the rest are on a path to developing that language, but are "subservient" to the engineering effort to make the observations.  They serve each other.

God always was and always will exist.  The universe exists for a very simple reason, so we can perceive self (the universe) from a foreign perspective, so we can learn and explore, live with ego.

Here is where it totally falls appart for me. I can't see how "creating something in your imagination" is actually creating anything at all. It's just imagination, which happens through a mechanical/physical process. If I change some electrons on a tiny slab of silicon, and the computer "imagines" the result as a picture of a house on a computer screen, the computer didn't actually "create" a house. It's just an asembly of electrons into a pattern that can be interpreted as a house. Same with our imagination - we aren't creating worlds, we are just rearranging electrons in a way that let our brains interpret them as a representation of something.


That's the thing, we have witnessed it. We gathered some experimental data from satelites, and used our imagination and knowledge of math and physics to construct a model. The model stated that the universe popped into existence, containing equal parts matter and antimatter, so that the "matter can not be created or destroyed" law still applied, which it does, since the sum of all universe cancels each other out to 0. We confirmed part of that by observing the motions of stars and galaxies, and seeing that the matter was balanced by dark matter we can't see. Then we expanded on the "popping into existence" theory by using updated physics models to predict that such an event can happen spontaneously, on it's own. And finally, when we ran the Large Hadron Collider, we actually saw such an occurence happen many times, where tiny particles would pop into existence, containing both matter and antimatter. Essentially we saw tiny big bangs, except they were very little banks, and, having popped into our own already existing universe, quickly burned out or were annihalated. This confirmed that an event such as a universe popping into existence was not only possible, but probable. Oh, P.S. that's also how we generate anti-matter at this point: we made lots of these little pops happen, then separate matter from antimatter using magnetic fields. That's how it was done in Dan Brown's Angels and Demons, too.


But my being formed through chemical processes isn't a singularity. There was no pre-existing idea of my car 5 years ago, either, but it was put together from raw materials, and now here it is. I don't call that a singularity, I cann it a normal physical event.


It's inconsiistend to reason that an environment of physical laws and raw materials needs to pop into existance, before those physical laws and raw materials can be used to put something together?


If that is your definition of a singularity, then neither the Big Bang, nor my formation, were singularities, since we can coherently explain how both happened.


Why is it relevant which one of these two is true? If there is no difference in the way I percieve the universe from either of those cases, then it makes no difference as to whether one is true and one is false. I will still come to the same conclusions, based on my own observations and experiences. It's like believing that there is a god, but that he is unable to interract with this world in any way. In either of those scenarios, the easiest and most productive outcome for research is the one that ignores the untestable and unprovable (all in my imagination, or an untouchable god), and only focus on things that may affect reality, however we may percieve it.



Electrons aren't spinning, they are in a cloud around the protom, existing in quantum state, i.e. everywhere in the cloud at once. You can pull a limited amount of energy out of them, but it's like extracting energy out of a spring: all you are doing is changing the hydrogen atop, and it will "snap" back, releasing the energy, as soon as you let go. Ditto for magnets. It's not mystical energy, it's just potential and kinnetic energy. When you pull two magnets appart, you are using kinnetic energy to store potential energy between them. When they come back together, they take their stored potential energy and releasse it as kinnetic to snap back together. Magnets are about as full of mystical energy as mattress springs, and as effective. All "pulls" will always end up at a point where there is nowhere else to pull to...

Thanks! I learned some new terms, and now have more lables to apply to myself  

No, I am saying people who abuse children should be sent to that jail as soon as the person with power do send them to jail finds out about it. Instead of simply standing idly by, watching it happen, telling the child they still love them, and hoping that the abuser will land in jail many years later for some other reason.

Note that if you search for Oort cloud on wikipedia, or anywhere else, you will find the word "hypothesis," not "theory." Meaning it's just a guess based on how we know things word, but so far without evidence to back that up. When there is evidence (such as in the gravity theory, microbe theory, and evolution theory), then we eventually convert the idea from a hypothesys (colloquial "theory") to theory (colloquial "how things actually are")


There are also hundreds of articles that debunk much of the stuff on that site. Only hundreds instead of thousands, because much of the claims there are too silly to spend time on.
For example, in the section "What about dinosaur footprints? - In the footsteps of giants" has the following quote right at the beginning


It's cute how it tries to relate to common people who may not live anywhere near wild animals, by refering them to the tracks they may see in snow. It's silly (and rather stupid) because the tracks you may see in snow are of small mamals and rodens, who are typically forraging for food under that snow. Predators, large pack animals, and even migrating forraging rodents still travel in straight lines, but the common people don't see those, because they don't live near large predators, prarries full of pack animals, or in the forests near the homes those small rodents treck to and from.

Btw, I used to read that site all the time for amusement. It's like the Jerry Springer of science  



Let's see...

A Common Flood Story - Floods happened everywhere in the world, causing great destruction, and still happen everywhere. Why would it be surprising that everyone wrote about them?

The Code of Hammurabi - Hammurabi, or the fact that most of the places in the bible actually existed, isn't being questioned. The thing being questioned is whether the myths and tales of the people who used to live during that time are true. Much of Harry Potter happens in London, a real place, and much of Greek The Oddysey takes place in known Greek locations, also all real places. That alone does not make boy wizzards, or Greek gods, true (does it?)

The Nuzi Tablets - There is ton of eidence that the biblical story was basically ripped off from other stories. Heck, the whole sacrafice and resurection thing was lifted practically verbatum from much more ancient Egyptian folklore. Why should we be surprised that some practices that were written about in yet another book weren't lifted and included into the bible as well?

The Existence of Hittites - London <> Harry Potter

And, actually, it pretty much continues like that. I think what you Christians are misunderstanding is that proof of history only prooves that our recorded history is true. It doesn't actually prove that the miracles, mysticism, or gods that were talked about during those times are true. There are far more historical artifacts and landmarks that are mentioned in the Greek mythology, yet you don't believe in Zeus. Why?

It's very simple to understand when you understand what infinity means.  If the universe is infinite, everything has already happened infinitely and everything you can think of exists everywhere.

We call it creating, though it's not really creating anything because you cannot create more than infinity.  But it's a good word.  We are conscious creators.

No, it is a good word.  It just means we aren't creating from nothing, we are creating from something.

To the above statement, there are infinite alternate dimensions, it matters not if our universe is a finite bubble.  I have astral projected and seen another universe taking place in the same location as ours, the mountains were red and the creatures grey.  Everything exists everywhere.

The experience of creating something in imagination is more immediate, than your interpretation of it as simply rearranging the electrons in the brain. So why do you prefer some very complex interpretation over the immediate experience? You can also create something in physical reality after you imagine it, don't you have a concept of a house with all those drawings before you go and build it?


But there is a clear distinction (for you) between chemical processes before your birth and after. So is there a particular chemical process that makes you who you are? Isn't that process a pre-existing idea of you then?

The car example is irrelevant to this discussion, as anything else you call yours, simply because for something to be yours you need to be you to begin with. Your car is not you, so it is not so interesting how it came to be. The funny thing is that according to this train of thought your brain also is not you. You need to go deeper, or should I say "outside"