My wife, who’s an atheist, is fond of saying, “Oh My God!” Or just, “God”.
So last time she said it I asked her,”Why do atheists use the word ‘God’ when they don’t believe in him?”
She said,”It’s like the word,’fuck’. It’s the only word that works in certain situations. Using a substitute just sounds lame.”
Makes sense.
Carry on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2021 04:49PM by schrodingerscat.

Its the same as when Ron Burgundy uses the phrase "by the beard of Zeus".....he doesn't really believe in Zeus, there just isn't any other phrase that captures the situation quite like that.

Zounds, methinks thou hast it!

When I say "oh my god" I'm usually thinking of Eric Clapton, who I actually beleive is real.....in a stratocastic sort of way.

Agreed! And 'zounds comes from his drug addiction.

And thus, with a doffing of my tennis visor to Parley P. Pratt, appears The Key to the Science of Theology.

By jove, I think you've got it!....or at least had it at some point. If the latter, maybe you can get EOD to return it....and ask him for my wheelbarrow too!

Nerd that I am, I have read the Pratt volume multiple times. It originally had a big section on polygamy but that was eliminated (damn cancel culture!), leaving a work that must be read under the influence to be fully appreciated.

It could also be for the very reason religious folks don't.

I personally don't have los huevos to do it, but I'm aware of a guy who says, during moments of annoying stress, like when he's cut off in traffic, or he misses a short putt, "Well, goddam himself!"

Apparently, he holds ghawd responsible for every single annoyance that he, the guy I know, suffers.

Visions of Hie driving his golf cart off into the sunset. . .

What ever happened to Hie? He dropped off like person taking a selfie on the edge of a cliff.

Not the sort to mingle with the proudly ignorant, Hie felt he was wasting his time when magaRomney denounced the quadratic equation and what it stood for. So it was off to the links for him, happily ever after.

I haven't so much 'wrestled' with this as I have just been true to myself...

Hie and I played golf together and I know I enjoyed it and he said he did, too.

When he 'disappeared', I said to myself, "...if he wanted me to know what was going on, he'd tell me." So the fact that he didn't say anything meant, it's private.

So I don't know what happened and I won't speculate. "Whatever it is, is what it is" is my version of the sentiment.


Did you know that I "disappeared"? Only Saucie knew of this intention of mine. I'd had enough of a particular RfMer and told myself that her seemingly unfettered and unrestrained access to the board was more than I wanted to deal with. So I quit.

But then a couple of days later Saucie told me that the poster I couldn't abide had been given a long ban. So no one being aware that I'd been 'gone', my 'return' went unheralded.

By the way, The Cat does NOT have unfettered access to RfM. He's had at least three threads removed in the past couple of weeks. So things are proceeding in an acceptable manner.

Me? My last thread to be pulled was 45 minutes ago when I ...

Well, I suppose the point of it being pulled was to keep that topic from being raised...

I miss Hie, too. I imagine 'the usual suspects' having to deal with BOTH Gladys and Hie!! I think 'surreal' was coined to deal with situations like that!

I knew you were gone. A cousin told me.

But then you returned. . .

Why do you care ?

Someone has to be blamed. It might as well be God.

It's just a word. You pick up words like that when you hear a lot of other people around you saying it.

Like when you swear you'll never use the word "like" all the time, but over time you find yourself picking it up, much to your own annoyance.

Like.

Invoking the word God is harmless because it falls on imaginary ears. How do you offend the Missing in Action?

It is often offensive to "just the right people" so your swear isn't in vain-- which is important. My sanctimonious BIL goes absolutely ballistic. Love it!

It's useful and not a socially banned word for public use like F & C. Which is surprising considering the clout of the religious right. But perhaps they are cancelled out by the members of the NRA?

Last, "there is no such thing as bad publicity". Got to keep your name out there if you want to stay popular. Goodness knows this God thing needs all the help it can get. 2021 years and counting and even cursing him doesn't get a rustle of the curtains.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Invoking the word God is harmless because it falls
> on imaginary ears.


Exactly. If someone was offended by me saying, "OMG," then I would say, "Look, if I swear by your god, then maybe you can get upset. But I said "My god, who is invisible and non-existent. So there's no reason to get upset."

We should all be saying "oh my nature!"

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We should all be saying "oh my nature!"
“Oh My Goodness” is kinda the same thing, since nature is good, inasmuch as it tends toward supporting life.

"Oh, my evil nature!"

And the lion sinks its teeth into that beautiful gazelle's lovely throat.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Oh, my evil nature!"
>
> And the lion sinks its teeth into that beautiful
> gazelle's lovely throat.

Circle of life is not evil.

Easy to say for a lion.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Easy to say for a lion.

Easy to say for any animal.
If lions didn't pick off the weakest, slowest antelopes, they'd turn into weak and slow animals.

> since nature is good, inasmuch as it tends toward
> supporting life.

Absurd. 99.999% of the universe is inanimate, inert, dead. The universe tends towards death.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > since nature is good, inasmuch as it tends
> toward
> > supporting life.
>
> Absurd. 99.999% of the universe is inanimate,
> inert, dead. The universe tends towards death.


If that were true, we'd all be dead.

Not good with math, are we.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not good with math, are we.

I’m not the one who can’t comprehend that nature has continuously tended toward life on Earth over the past 3 billion years.

Let's think through your logic there, S-Cat.

> nature has continuously tended toward life on
> Earth over the past 3 billion years.

Some infinitesmal portion of the universe is alive for a transitory moment and you think that makes life the "tendency" of nature? Okay.

It follows that the splashing of water out of a bathtub implies that "nature has continuously tended toward [anti-gravity] over the past 3 billion years." The truth, of course, is that localized forces can produce transitory violations of the law of gravity but that eventually the water is pulled back to the earth. Your logic likewise implies that local increases in complexity (e.g., life) means that "nature has continuously tended towards [anti-entropy] over the past 3 billion years."

Is that your belief, S-Cat? Does nature tend towards anti-gravity and anti-entrophy? How do you reconcile the contradiction between your notion that infinitesmal and transient phenomenon represents a tendency toward life with your enthusiasm for universal rules with local aberrations like Relativity? You know, your talismanic E=MC^2.

Perhaps you ought to run your thinking by Carl or Neil or Sam or Bill or someone else who's famous. Because your math, and your science, are fallacious. But if your buddies aren't taking your calls anymore, you can always treat us all to a dollop of bombast.

Because bombast overrules logic.

I want my big scope of bombast with chocolate syrup.

I’m not the one who can’t understand that 3 Billion years of continuous evolution ain’t a “transitory moment”.

How do you reconcile your view with the second law of thermodynamics?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2021 06:54PM by Lot's Wife.

I'd reply *crickets* but it takes too much energy.

I’ll take an actual scientists word for it, instead of your nihilist world view,
“When asked about God, Kaku is likely to quote Einstein’s suggestion that there are two types of god: “One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.”

It’s that second “God” to which Kaku is drawn. He tells innovation tech today that the universe could have been random, but that instead “Our universe is rich; it is beautiful, elegant.”
https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/michio-kaku-believes-in-god-if-not-that-god

Non sequitur.

Defend your statement that nature tends towards life. Don't muddy the waters by talking about God.

So once again, how do you reconcile your views on the "tendency of nature" with the second law of thermodynamics?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2021 06:59PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Non sequitur.
>
> Defend your statement that nature tends towards
> life. Don't muddy the waters by talking about
> God.
>
> So once again, how do you reconcile your views on
> the "tendency of nature" with the second law of
> thermodynamics?

Despite all the destructive forces in the universe, life has not only survived, but thrived and evolved continuously over the past 3 billion years. That alone is plenty for me to conclude that the universe tends towards life in the ‘Goldilocks Zone’ like on Earth, not too hot, not too cold and just the right amount of water. I suspect that is true in other solar systems, but we have no way of knowing, except deductive reasoning.

That would be a no, you don't know how to reconcile your views with the second law. You believe that water splashing upward when you drop that bar of soap in the tub is a better description of the universe than the law of gravity.

I think that The Cat is firm in his opinion that being sincere when he quotes someone is better than actually being able to provide pertinent facts or to understand processes. "The Universe tends toward Life" and you can't 'prove' him wrong, because he's alive, and the world is full of life, therefore ...

Besides, it's not like it would cost him anything to be wrong, given that he can always deny that he was wrong! Everyone else is wrong! Plus Plato's cave and the Tao!

"If I feel really strongly about something, it's true."

That's a very Mormon epistemology.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That would be a no, you don't know how to
> reconcile your views with the second law. You
> believe that water splashing upward when you drop
> that bar of soap in the tub is a better
> description of the universe than the law of
> gravity.
No I think gravity is God.
So is dark matter/energy,
The Cosmological Constant
Lambda, = 1

So is the God Particle
So is good
So is goodness
So is the = in E=mc^2
Which is Einstein’s god, Nature
So is the Great Spirit,
So is Genius.
So is Logos
So is Tao
All inadequate words
to describe
The infinitely beautiful, super symmetrical, balanced dimensions of the multiverse.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.3.20181030a/full/

“ Recently, a revolutionary new theory has shaken the foundations of modern physics, introducing bizarre new concepts such as higher dimensions, parallel universes, and the multiverse into science. Vigorously opposed by the Old Guard in physics, it has since become the leading candidate for a "theory of everything" which will allow us to "read the mind of God," as Einstein hoped. Einstein spent his last 30 years struggling to find a single theory which would unify all physical laws, much like his equation E = mc2 united matter and energy. He failed. But many physicists now believe that they might have it. It is called string theory or M-theory, and postulates that all the particles, atoms, molecules, etc. in the universe are nothing but musical notes on vibrating strings or membranes. If true, it means that physics represents the beautiful harmonies of nature, that chemistry represents the melodies played on these strings, and the universe is a symphony of strings. It would also mean that the "mind of God" is cosmic music resonating through 11 dimensional hyperspace. The theory also melds Buddhist and Christian thinking. Buddhists believe in a timeless universe, a 1\irvana with no beginning or end. But Judeo-Christian thinking is based on Genesis, a single moment of Creation. But either the universe had a beginning, or it didn't. There is no middle ground. Until now. In this new theory, universes are constantly being born in an ocean of 11 dimensional hyperspace or Nirvana, like bubbles floating in the air. Hence, we have a beautiful melding of these two theories. In addition, the question now being debated by physicists is: what lies in these other universes? Can we ever reach them? Is there life on these universes? Is there a clone of myself existing in these parallel universes?” Kaku

Whatever it is The Cat follows, it's cutting edge.

Can you say that, Gladys? I know I can't.

And thus little mistakes like "the universe tends toward life" are lost in an avalanche of word salad and unfounded but nonetheless impressive emotionalism.

Testify, brother, testify!

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And thus little mistakes like "the universe tends
> toward life" are lost in an avalanche of word
> salad and unfounded but nonetheless impressive
> emotionalism.
>
> Testify, brother, testify!


I'll simplify it for you

God is the equals in E=mc2

There's a reason Energy equals Mass sped up faster than the speed of light, and that Energy slowed down by the speed of light squared equals mass, because we live in a super symmetrical universe, where Dark Energy + Dark Matter = Lambda, the cosmological constant
= 1
in this universe
with a singularity at its center
A black hole
Continually spinning, radiating energy
equal to the mass it attracts
On its way to the Great Attractor
in a continual, eternal cycle of destruction and creation

More word salad. Sadly you are at a stake restaurant and people can see you don't have the meat.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More word salad. Sadly you are at a stake
> restaurant and people can see you don't have the
> meat.
I’m in good company. I believe in Sagan’s God,
“The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.”
Carl Sagan

More word salad. Sadly you are at a stake restaurant and people can see you don't have the meat.

Oh wait, did I just repeat myself? How embarrassing!

I want a steak in that restaurant.

Scat has nothing of nutritional value to offer.

Cuz it was forbidden for so long, and because all the cool cats in all the cool movies say it at all the perfect cinematic moments, and because I’m a bit of egotist I think I sound as cool when I say it just like that or think of cruder ways to say it. It makes me cool.

When I think about it, I’m dignifying the idea of God by refusing to let it go by the wayside and giving theists an excuse to say that maybe I still believe deep down. But all I have to say to that it is...

omg just let me have this.

It's just habit - and not as profane as "fuck" ;-)

When you walk in on someone doing something really disgusting, there no substitute for, "Oh. My. God!" It is a sin NOT to say it.

TRADITION!

Like nailing God's son to a piece of wood?

The Cat has stated:

> Dark Energy + Dark Matter
>      = Lambda,
> the cosmological constant


Wikipedia says:

"In cosmology, the cosmological constant is the energy density of space, or vacuum energy, that arises in Einstein's field equations of general relativity."

Later, Wiki says:

"According to quantum field theory (QFT), ... empty space is defined by the vacuum state which is a collection of quantum fields. All these quantum fields exhibit fluctuations in their ground state ... arising from the zero-point energy present everywhere in space.

"These zero-point fluctuations should act as a contribution to the cosmological constant Λ, but when calculations are performed these fluctuations give rise to an enormous vacuum energy.

The discrepancy between theorized vacuum energy from quantum field theory and observed vacuum energy from cosmology is a source of major contention, with the values predicted exceeding observation by some 120 orders of magnitude, a discrepancy that has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics".

"This issue is called the cosmological constant problem and it is one of the greatest mysteries in science with many physicists believing that "the vacuum holds the key to a full understanding of nature"
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant#:~:text=In%20cosmology%2C%20the%20cosmological%20constant,field%20equations%20of%20general%20relativity.&text=Einstein%20abandoned%20the%20concept%20in,confirmation%20of%20the%20expanding%20universe.

      Now, if my limited English language skills have been up to the task, it would seem that NOBODY (other than The Cat) is claiming to understand/know/comprehend his Cosmological Constant Whining!! So he may well be nothing more than a salad chef... Either that or an even greater mind than Einstein. Take your pick.



Regarding an understanding of The Cat's Cosmological Constant Whining, a footnote says: "The theoretical problem of explaining the cosmological constant (whining) is one of the greatest challenges of theoretical physics. It is most likely that we require a fully developed theory of quantum gravity (perhaps superstring theory) before we can understand Lambda." ---Hobson, Efstathiou & Lasenby (2006), p. 188

I bet it would bug Hobson, Efstathiou & Lasenby to know that The Cat has been holding out on them!

Might want to try a better source than Wikipedia
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.3.20181030a/full/

The title of the 'better source than Wikipedia' you sent me to is "Investigating the legend of Einstein’s 'biggest blunder'”

The essence that I distilled from this learned piece is that Einstein disavowed the use of the term Cosmological Constant once the need to label a static situation was relieved by Hubble's discovery that the Universe was NOT static, but was expanding.

The article says, "...Einstein’s science—from 1931 onward, he emphatically dismissed the cosmological constant in all of his writings on cosmology."


further deponent sayeth not.

Why don't you just explain it to us in your own words?

Gμν−λgμν=−κ(Tμν−12gμνT)

How does the new Lambda differ from Einstein's original in terms of the new and more advanced physics you have so obviously mastered? And how does that change the math?

Feel free to employ E=MC^2 in your answer.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Lambda, Cosmological Constant = 1
What Einstein called his biggest blunder because he didn’t have the Hubble Space Telescope and had no way of knowing our galaxy was headed towards the Great Attractor at 1.4 Million mph along with all the other galaxies in our neighborhood due to Dark Matter, which hadn’t been theorized when he called Lambda his biggest blunder.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2021 09:44PM by schrodingerscat.