Discussion No eternal recurrence

[esse_est_percipi]

I just have to post this because the eternal recurrence (ER) idea bothers me so much.
It's a bit of a dry post so I apologize, and it will probably quickly be forgotten.

It's Nietzsche's idea that this exact universe might repeat an indefinite or infinite number of times. A nightmare scenario.
If Poincare recurrence is applicable to the universe, or if Boltzmann brains are possible, or if parallel universes are real, or if some big bounce model is true, then ER might be scientifically plausible.

But I don't think it's possible based on the following reductio argument and my limited knowledge of what infinity actually means and implies.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) Assume ER is true and that 'eternal' is equivalent to 'infinite'

(2) Then we would already have necessarily lived this same life infinite times in the 'past' (or in identical parallel universes).

(3) Because if not, then there would have had to have been a 'first beginning' or 'first iteration' of our universe (e.g. it could be this universe, or 3, 7, 850 universes ago, or 20,000,000,000,987,564 universes ago, etc).

(4) But a first iteration would be arbitrary and beg the question why the iterations didn't stretch back one stage further, or to infinity.

(5) If this is all true, then we could never have reached this point in time in this universe
[ Because: this iteration would be iteration (infinity + 1).
But in the addition (infinity + 1), the left side of the sum is an actual infinity.
Actual infinities cannot be 'traversed' in reality
Because the real infinite cannot be summed in a set (as opposed to series which only tend to infinity) and 'overcome' to reach a 'present' **
So we can't have already lived an infinite amount of identical lives ]

(7) Which means that an infinite recurrence in the 'future' cannot happen either (this follows from (1), (2) and (5). And apart from the logic involved here, it just wouldn't be aesthetically pleasing or symmetrical for infinite recurrence not to apply to the 'past', yet to apply the 'future'. If ER is true at all, it has to be true that it applies across every inter-universe spacetime 'direction', or not at all.)

Conclusion: Assuming ER to be true leads to a contradiction (i.e. that this universe could never have been 'reached'. But it has been reached.)
So ER is false.
Q.E.D. (?)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
** this is correct as far as it is consistent with modern science, if potential infinity is distinguished from actual infinity (going back to Aristotle).
We could not have already lived an actually infinite number of identical lives, because as far as physics is concerned actual infinities cannot be instantiated in reality. Only potential infinities can, i.e. summing a series which tends to infinity as used in calculus.

So e.g. you can keep dividing the distance between two points forever, and this division is potentially infinite, but it is not an actual infinity. If distances between two points were actual infinities, then Zeno's paradoxes would hold and we would be living in alice in wonderland world.

The idea of already having lived an infinite amount of lives implies actual infinity, which mathematicians and set theorists can manipulate, but there is no empirical evidence that this is or can be part of physical reality.

e.g. "The conquest of actual infinity may be considered an expansion of our scientific horizon no less revolutionary than the Copernican system or than the theory of relativity, or even of quantum and nuclear physics." (A. Fraenkel)

"Infinite totalities do not exist in any sense of the word (i.e., either really or ideally). More precisely, any mention, or purported mention, of infinite totalities is, literally, meaningless." (A. Robinson)

"Georg Cantor's grand meta-narrative, Set Theory, created by him almost singlehandedly in the span of about fifteen years, resembles a piece of high art more than a scientific theory." (Y. Manin)

"There is no actual infinity, that the Cantorians have forgotten and have been trapped by contradictions." (Poincare)

"During the renaissance, particularly with G. Bruno, actual infinity transfers from God to the world. The finite world models of contemporary science clearly show how this power of the idea of actual infinity has ceased with classical (modern) physics. Under this aspect, the inclusion of actual infinity into mathematics, which explicitly started with G. Cantor only towards the end of the last century, seems displeasing. Within the intellectual overall picture of our century ... actual infinity brings about an impression of anachronism." (P. Lorenzen)

So the above deduction purporting to 'prove' the impossibility of eternal recurrence by equating 'eternal' with 'infinite' and precluding the possibility of traversing an actual infinite to reach the present has to be qualified with the clause: as far as modern science and maths knows.

 

[Rollo]

I don't think any kind of speculation on such subjects as 'infinity' has anything to do with actual science. Actual science is people observing and properly uncovering an order in which our world actually runs. Determining cause and effect. And so from this knowledge we can judge how our world was/will be based on how it is right now. We can create effects that we want. But when it comes to infinity you wonder into philosophy, not science. And even though some scientists think they are more qualified to judge in these matters - they're not. This is just to say your guess is as good as mine's or Einstein's or an actual nuclear physicist's.

As far as your argument against ER goes - I don't think it's logically sound tbh. On the left side of the sum should be not infinity but 'inbeginity'. No beginning. And "no beginning" doesn't contradict the fact that we reached this iteration.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Yes, it's not only a contradiction, but a paradox. If this is how it were to be working then the universe/multiverse would act as a self generating paradox machine with no beginning and no end. Whilst this motion of cycles might appeal to some, I would observe that the process of entropy suggests that, at least in our own universe, this is not what is happening.
However...our universe could simply be a sub-set of a much larger system occurring within our set of observable sub-space dimensions, and that in turn could be a sub-set of higher dimensions. None of this is testable let alone provable. All that can be said is that from a mathematical point of view such ideas have an internal consistency.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

I don't think any kind of speculation on such subjects as 'infinity' has anything to do with actual science. Actual science is people observing and properly uncovering an order in which our world actually runs. Determining cause and effect. And so from this knowledge we can judge how our world was/will be based on how it is right now

I would disagree with the first part. Infinity is part of set theory in maths, and some very surprising results have been proven about the properties of infinity (i.e. that some sets of infinities are larger than others using methods like Cantor's diagonal argument).
Calculus is intergral to physics, and potential infinities are used in calculus in the form of summing a series which tends to infinity. Maths isn't empirical, sure, but it's the language we use to understand reality.
But yes, ultimately, any theory has to agree with observation. Reality can't be discovered a priori by playing around with symbols.

On the left side of the sum should be not infinity but 'inbeginity'. No beginning. And "no beginning" doesn't contradict the fact that we reached this iteration.

You're referring to premise (5) and the (infinity + 1) stuff?
I think I understand what you're saying. You're applying the notion of potential infinity to the 'past'?

I don't think this works. If reality functions in such a way as to churn out infinite recurrence of this universe (which is itself finite because there was a beginning with the big bang), then it has to be the case that the infinite recurrence stretches into the 'past' too, otherwise infinite recurrence wouldn't be a feature of reality.

It would be arbitrary and illogical for the universe to recur infinitely in the 'future' yet not have recurred infinitely in the 'past'. (that's premise (4)).
And what already happened in the 'past' cannot be just a potential infinity since it actually had to have already happened. So it is an actual infinity. But actual infinities cannot be 'crossed' in reality. We get the paradox, so no infinite recurrence.

I get your point that this might just be a logical exercise which is irrelevant to how things really are, and that only doing science can tell us that.

But Einstein came up with his general theory of relativity without using empirical methods and observations, just a priori theorizing and thought experiments. It was only later that his theory was verified (i.e. the 1919 solar eclipse where starlight was observed to deflect around the sun due to gravitational lensing, by the distance predicted by the theory).

I would observe that the process of entropy suggests that, at least in our own universe, this is not what is happening.
However...our universe could simply be a sub-set of a much larger system occurring within our set of observable sub-space dimensions, and that in turn could be a sub-set of higher dimensions. None of this is testable let alone provable. All that can be said is that from a mathematical point of view such ideas have an internal consistency.

Yes, this all seems right.

 

[Rollo]

I would disagree with the first part. Infinity is part of set theory in maths, and some very surprising results have been proven about the properties of infinity (i.e. that some sets of infinities are larger than others using methods like Cantor's diagonal argument).
Calculus is intergral to physics, and potential infinities are used in calculus in the form of summing a series which tends to infinity. Maths isn't empirical, sure, but it's the language we use to understand reality.
But yes, ultimately, any theory has to agree with observation. Reality can't be discovered a priori by playing around with symbols.

No I would disagree. Infinity, if this notion any relevance at all, is first and foremost part of life not math. Math can use the term and it can use it in some non-obvious specific sense but we're talking about common understanding. And I would say math is empirical, because number and quantity is empirical, it's a part of life. Math is basically play with equations. All the stuff about them discovering and proving some properties of something, just in general doing something other than calculating and proving equations, I don't really buy it.

As far as time is concerned infinity means there's no finish, no end. Eternity means no finish and no beginning. There's no room here for math to add any input. We're on our own.

You're referring to premise (5) and the (infinity + 1) stuff?
I think I understand what you're saying. You're applying the notion of potential infinity to the 'past'?

I don't think this works. If reality functions in such a way as to churn out infinite recurrence of this universe (which is itself finite because there was a beginning with the big bang), then it has to be the case that the infinite recurrence stretches into the 'past' too, otherwise infinite recurrence wouldn't be a feature of reality.

It would be arbitrary and illogical for the universe to recur infinitely in the 'future' yet not have recurred infinitely in the 'past'. (that's premise (4)).
And what already happened in the 'past' cannot be just a potential infinity since it actually had to have already happened. So it is an actual infinity. But actual infinities cannot be 'crossed' in reality. We get the paradox, so no infinite recurrence.

I get your point that this might just be a logical exercise which is irrelevant to how things really are, and that only doing science can tell us that.

But Einstein came up with his general theory of relativity without using empirical methods and observations, just a priori theorizing and thought experiments. It was only later that his theory was verified (i.e. the 1919 solar eclipse where starlight was observed to deflect around the sun due to gravitational lensing, by the distance predicted by the theory).

No my point is not that it's only a logical excersize irrelevant to how things really are. The only sound logic is the one dealing with how things really are or may conceivably be. Doing proper actual science won't give you any answers to the questions at hand.

TBH I don't really get what you're saying. It's not me applying notion of infinity to the past. It's in the very notion of Eternal Recurrence. If there was (past) some beginning then the supposed recurrence is obviously not eternal.

And I gotta be perfectly honest with you - I have very little respect for Einsteins supposed contribution to the human knowledge. Never really read any of his works but from what people are ascribing to him - all of it is just bad philosophy. Just a bunch of ridiculous paradoxes that people put on pedestal. Not meaning to offend you if you admire him but that's how I feel. Although if he actually predicted some distance of something occuring only after his death - it would be interesting.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

This now appears to have carried over here ooops sorry lol

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/the-ss-lounge.32243/post-842719

 

[esse_est_percipi]

I have very little respect for Einsteins supposed contribution to the human knowledge. Never really read any of his works but from what people are ascribing to him - all of it is just bad philosophy.

I'm not quite sure you're even being serious here or just sort of baiting me lol
But it's absolutely fine, you're entitled to your opinion, I'm not offended.
But I will just mention,

discovering and codifying the equivalence of mass and energy (E = mc2, resulting in the atomic bomb),
discovering the law of the photoelectric effect (for which he won the nobel prize),
discovering special relativity (the consequences of which (i.e. time dilation, length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, a universal speed limit with light, etc) have been verified numerous time),
giving a precise mathematical model of brownian motion,
not to mention re-describing the nature and structure of the entire universe with general relativity and all its consequences (rewriting the geometry of spacetime with the field equations, giving a metric theory of gravitation as opposed the Newtonian attracting force theory, equivalence of acceleration and gravitation, gravitational time dilation, gravitational light deflection, gravitational waves, etc), which has been empirically verified numerous times based on all its predictions and implications (another example, in 2016, a team of researchers at an advanced observatory announced that they had directly encountered gravitational waves from a pair of black holes coalescing.)

I'm not sure how any of this is bad philosophy or ridiculous paradoxes? I understand that the idea that time can slow down the faster you go, or that things can get shorter the faster they move, or that light can bend around space, or that nothing happens at absolutely the same time but depends on specifying relative frames of reference, are all counter-intuitive and seem paradoxical. But all the observations and experimental data have verified their truth.

Maybe you are referring to some of the things he said and wrote about politics or philosophy in general, but his scientific contributions cannot be doubted.

But anyway thanks for taking the time to read what I wrote, and commenting.

 

[Brick In The Wall]

This now appears to have carried over here ooops sorry lol

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/the-ss-lounge.32243/post-842719

It was a tear in SS time fabric. Now you merged into the other universe... NNooooo!!!

 

[RedDEE]

I would just like to say, if you're interested in "no eternal recurrence" you should read about "temporal finitism". They are related/similar.

Temporal finitism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[esse_est_percipi]

"The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought... The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." David Hilbert

 

[dieornottodie]

mathematics also go against logic = setting up axiomes and rules and by then negate them = to expand itself and even approach reality in a scary way, approach it by finding equations helping in engineering

my mental instability killed all neurones which may help me converse with you in the topic, instead i will reply as a dumb person and say

infinite is possible, to live in the same world during many occurrences also is possible, but then our memories are not that good so why worry, unless you lived many times the same life i wld be curious to know what wld bother u in that case

 

[esse_est_percipi]

infinite is possible

I'm not sure about this.
I don't know if actual infinities are possible, because then you start getting lots of paradoxes.

 

[dieornottodie]

I'm not sure about this.
I don't know if actual infinities are possible, because then you start getting lots of paradoxes.

shouldnt a paradox be a limitation of our mind, or you think we can perceive any thing ? i have something for you , u might not be able to perceive

 

[esse_est_percipi]

shouldnt a paradox be a limitation of our mind

Possibly yes.
But logic does seem to set limits to what is possible.
Like, a square cannot exist which is also a triangle. This isn't because of a limitation of the mind, but because of a limitation to what can actually exist.

 

[RedDEE]

I would like to state - infinity is possible. But not in this life. Infinity is what happens after we die.

 

[almost_dead]

I just have to post this because the eternal recurrence (ER) idea bothers me so much.
It's a bit of a dry post so I apologize, and it will probably quickly be forgotten.

It's Nietzsche's idea that this exact universe might repeat an indefinite or infinite number of times. A nightmare scenario.
If Poincare recurrence is applicable to the universe, or if Boltzmann brains are possible, or if parallel universes are real, or if some big bounce model is true, then ER might be scientifically plausible.

But I don't think it's possible based on the following reductio argument and my limited knowledge of what infinity actually means and implies.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) Assume ER is true and that 'eternal' is equivalent to 'infinite'

(2) Then we would already have necessarily lived this same life infinite times in the 'past' (or in identical parallel universes).

(3) Because if not, then there would have had to have been a 'first beginning' or 'first iteration' of our universe (e.g. it could be this universe, or 3, 7, 850 universes ago, or 20,000,000,000,987,564 universes ago, etc).

(4) But a first iteration would be arbitrary and beg the question why the iterations didn't stretch back one stage further, or to infinity.

(5) If this is all true, then we could never have reached this point in time in this universe
[ Because: this iteration would be iteration (infinity + 1).
But in the addition (infinity + 1), the left side of the sum is an actual infinity.
Actual infinities cannot be 'traversed' in reality
Because the real infinite cannot be summed in a set (as opposed to series which only tend to infinity) and 'overcome' to reach a 'present' **
So we can't have already lived an infinite amount of identical lives ]

(7) Which means that an infinite recurrence in the 'future' cannot happen either (this follows from (1), (2) and (5). And apart from the logic involved here, it just wouldn't be aesthetically pleasing or symmetrical for infinite recurrence not to apply to the 'past', yet to apply the 'future'. If ER is true at all, it has to be true that it applies across every inter-universe spacetime 'direction', or not at all.)

Conclusion: Assuming ER to be true leads to a contradiction (i.e. that this universe could never have been 'reached'. But it has been reached.)
So ER is false.
Q.E.D. (?)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
** this is correct as far as it is consistent with modern science, if potential infinity is distinguished from actual infinity (going back to Aristotle).
We could not have already lived an actually infinite number of identical lives, because as far as physics is concerned actual infinities cannot be instantiated in reality. Only potential infinities can, i.e. summing a series which tends to infinity as used in calculus.

So e.g. you can keep dividing the distance between two points forever, and this division is potentially infinite, but it is not an actual infinity. If distances between two points were actual infinities, then Zeno's paradoxes would hold and we would be living in alice in wonderland world.

The idea of already having lived an infinite amount of lives implies actual infinity, which mathematicians and set theorists can manipulate, but there is no empirical evidence that this is or can be part of physical reality.

e.g. "The conquest of actual infinity may be considered an expansion of our scientific horizon no less revolutionary than the Copernican system or than the theory of relativity, or even of quantum and nuclear physics." (A. Fraenkel)

"Infinite totalities do not exist in any sense of the word (i.e., either really or ideally). More precisely, any mention, or purported mention, of infinite totalities is, literally, meaningless." (A. Robinson)

"Georg Cantor's grand meta-narrative, Set Theory, created by him almost singlehandedly in the span of about fifteen years, resembles a piece of high art more than a scientific theory." (Y. Manin)

"There is no actual infinity, that the Cantorians have forgotten and have been trapped by contradictions." (Poincare)

"During the renaissance, particularly with G. Bruno, actual infinity transfers from God to the world. The finite world models of contemporary science clearly show how this power of the idea of actual infinity has ceased with classical (modern) physics. Under this aspect, the inclusion of actual infinity into mathematics, which explicitly started with G. Cantor only towards the end of the last century, seems displeasing. Within the intellectual overall picture of our century ... actual infinity brings about an impression of anachronism." (P. Lorenzen)

So the above deduction purporting to 'prove' the impossibility of eternal recurrence by equating 'eternal' with 'infinite' and precluding the possibility of traversing an actual infinite to reach the present has to be qualified with the clause: as far as modern science and maths knows.

life is a nightmare period

 

[Rollo]

I'm not quite sure you're even being serious here or just sort of baiting me lol

Oh I'm dead ass. No baiting whatsoever. Although in the past such discussions quickly turned personal, people get offended. And I see why but I still hold my ground

discovering and codifying the equivalence of mass and energy (E = mc2, resulting in the atomic bomb),

You brought forth a bunch of examples of his supposed discoveries, but lets so far focus on this one cause this one is the only one that has an obvious reference to an actual observable reality - ie an atomic bomb. Now a whole bunch of experimenting, a whole bunch of scientific process, resulted in atomic bomb. We can start from discoveries of radioactive decay, names such as Curie, but more closely to the thing is the discovery of nuclear fission. Once again a whole buch of scientific process was involved and a whole bunch of people too. You can check the following wikipedia rather lengthy articles

Nuclear fission - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Discovery of nuclear fission - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Then you can press Ctrl+F and search for 'Einstein' in both articles to see how much E = mc2 or his other ideas contributed to the discovery/creation of the thing. Or you can just take my word for it that in the first article his name is mentioned 1 time - guys who actually created atomic bomb asked Einstein to lend his name to a warning letter to Roosevelt about the Germans.

And 1 time in second article, which is a lengthy article specifically dedicated to the process of discovery of nuclear fission. The only time Einstein is mentioned is after everything was created. One of the guys (Frisch) believed that energy created by the division of nucleus matches his formula. So AT THE VERY BEST the amount of energy released from the nucleus division matches the loss of nucleus mass in a ratio claimed by his formula. Which if true is nice reinforcement but the fact is bomb would have been built regardless. No a single step was influenced by the formula.

Still whether or not even this part is true - I'm not sure. First I don't even understand what the formula means. How can you multiply mass and speed of light? Mass has separate and different units of measurement (kg?grams?pounds?). Speed (of light or of something else) not only has different units of measurement but any measurement, any number, is dependent upon time period. What's the time period? What numbers are you going to multiply? Like take this example right here. Frisch says the loss of mass for single nucleus is 1/5 of a proton mass. It's a known number. He says energy is 200 MeV. Another number. So all numbers are there and it would seem we can check if Einstein's formula is legit in 10 seconds using a calculator.

But how can we even do it? The only way the formula can make sense is if units of measurement are specified and ratio is specified. Like say Einstein discovered that loss of every gram of mass leads to the release of energy of 1MeV. He observed this ratio in many experiments and layed down the law. So now the ratio is clear and regardless of units of measurement we can always calculate it. Then later they created atomic bomb and voila! - formula stands. Loss of mass/release of energy carries the same proportion. Hooray for Einstein.

But it's not the case cause the formula doesn't make any sense other than as Frisch puts it "whenever mass disappears energy is created".

So it's because of stuff like this, which is in line of what I heard about him before, that I believe his scientific contributions are non-existent. Regardless of the reverence with which his name is held by people including those who actually contributed something. At least until I see something actual that the guy has discovered or created. And until then he's nothing but a bad philosopher to me. He wildly speculated on non-scientific subjects and to the point his ideas actually make sense - many other thinkers did a much better job. Which is perfectly illustrated by what you're saying below.

I'm not sure how any of this is bad philosophy or ridiculous paradoxes? I understand that the idea that time can slow down the faster you go, or that things can get shorter the faster they move, or that light can bend around space, or that nothing happens at absolutely the same time but depends on specifying relative frames of reference, are all counter-intuitive and seem paradoxical. But all the observations and experimental data have verified their truth.

Ideas can be counter-intuitive but still be true. Cause intuition can come from order of certain environment but may not hold water in different environment. Or they can be counter-intuitive because they actually don't make sense.

Notion of time slowing down at certain speed - it can make sense. But for it to be this way we have to specify what 'time' actually slows down. See in reality there's no time, there are processes. So you have to specify which processes slow down. Processes inside the body which is going with this speed? Processes around it? Now casual observations don't confirm it - time runs with the same speed inside racing car as it runs in my bedroom. Unlike say cold temperature which slows down metabolic processes. So at least here the notion is false. And same goes for things getting shorter. Still it doesn't mean that time can't slow down on higher speeds or that things can't get shorter at higher speeds. The only question is - how the hell the guy found it out? He wasn't big on experimenting, but sure big on making big claims. As far as others confirming it - I have to see it to believe it. Buch of guys saying stuff doesn't cut the deal for me.

Things sure can happen at the same exact time. They can happen simultaneously. Plenty of them are happening simultaneously right now. Point of reference has nothing to do with it. And once again - this stuff belongs to philosophy, not science. All this counter-intuitive, paradoxes etc - all of it is what philosophers have been dealing with for eternity.

Einstein made a bunch of wild claims, many of which don't make sense. He's not the first philosopher to go this route. And his defence was - it's cause I'm talking about highly nuanced stuff that only higher intellects are capable of understanding. But the way I see it it's not the case. Guy was just a bad philosopher.

 

[dieornottodie]

Possibly yes.
But logic does seem to set limits to what is possible.
Like, a square cannot exist which is also a triangle. This isn't because of a limitation of the mind, but because of a limitation to what can actually exist.

a square might be a triangle if you change your perception, in math you only have to represent the set of data in another base. translating a set of data from a three vector base in a four vector base, then you take the values and draw the new geometrical representation
but this is easy for the mind to grasp if you look into the math
when i mentioned logic, i was thinking about imaginary numbers, how creating numbers or math entities from the void, equations who logically dont have a solution, but then creating imaginary numbers or the complex group of numbers, we were able to measure capacities in electronic devices, and by then create the transistor and engineer it into becoming computers and stuff
from non logic to computers which is tangible in a sense
nuclear reactors are a great potential for energy, many nuclear reactors feed so many humans with energy,

science is a tool, it can be used for progress or for hurting others

but even scientific warfare is needed to defend ourselves or communities, i cant imagine a world with only good intentions,

also there is no scientific mind in recorded history who comes up with things alone, it is the scientific method, you educate yourself on what other human beings were researching and then come up with new things

all in all i still support the fact that any individual has the right to criticize human idols. cause criticism is also a way to go forward, it enlarges our perspective and we become less dogmatic

i still believe, if official tales are authentic, that many like Einstein should go forward, nuclear energy is a way for us to travel to other planets which is one of my dreams, there has been more research it is not the best, but the other theories are also based on Einstein equations

 

[Deleted member 1465]

@Brick In The Wall it really did rip a hole in something, didn't it? Ooops
Oh well.
It made me think of mutually exclusive shapes and perceptual frames of reference. And of course, erotic cakes...

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Infinity, if this notion any relevance at all, is first and foremost part of life not math.

math is empirical, because number and quantity is empirical

infinity means there's no finish, no end

Never really read any of his works but from what people are ascribing to him - all of it is just bad philosophy. Just a bunch of ridiculous paradoxes that people put on pedestal.

These statements make either false or questionable claims, but you also claim you've 'never really read any of Einstein's works' (which is fine, most people haven't), and that it's 'just bad philosophy', even though his theories are taught in every university in every physics course (physics is a science, not a part of philosophy), and he is referenced more times in peer-reviewed physics papers than almost any other physicist, and was voted number 5 in the journal Physics Today in the list of most impactful physicists of all time:

The most impactful physicists of all time, per AuthorRank (in Physics Today) :

1. Paul Dirac
2. Edward Witten
3. Steven Weinberg
4. Gerard 't Hooft
5. Albert Einstein
6. Julian Schwinger
7. Stephen Hawking
8. Alexander Polyakov
9. Richard Feynman
10. Murray Gell-Mann

to see how much E = mc2 or his other ideas contributed to the discovery/creation of the thing. Or you can just take my word for it that in the first article his name is mentioned 1 time - guys who actually created atomic bomb asked Einstein to lend his name to a warning letter to Roosevelt about the Germans.

The fact is that his formulation accurately describes the relationship between mass and energy. It's obviously not a step-by-step guide to creating nuclear fission, but it's a codification and proof of the equivalence of mass and energy before the fact was discovered empirically. It was a tool for the scientists of the manhattan project, not a detailed manual.

No a single step was influenced by the formula.

see my above point

First I don't even understand what the formula means. How can you multiply mass and speed of light? Mass has separate and different units of measurement (kg?grams?pounds?). Speed (of light or of something else) not only has different units of measurement but any measurement, any number, is dependent upon time period. What's the time period? What numbers are you going to multiply? Like take this example right here. Frisch says the loss of mass for single nucleus is 1/5 of a proton mass. It's a known number. He says energy is 200 MeV. Another number. So all numbers are there and it would seem we can check if Einstein's formula is legit in 10 seconds using a calculator.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Obviously mass isn't 'multiplied' by light in the real world. It's a codification using symbols of the relationship between mass, the speed of light and energy. It means that you need to take the speed of light into account when calculating the amount of energy contained in an object, because the speed of light is a universal limiting factor when calculating the properties of objects in spacetime.

So it's because of stuff like this, which is in line of what I heard about him before, that I believe his scientific contributions are non-existent

So based on 'never having read Einstein' (your words), and questionable interpretations of a few quotes by Frisch, and 'having heard about stuff of his before', you conclude that 'his scientific contributions are non-existent'. I assume you're joking and baiting me, but just in case, let me post again:

discovering and codifying the equivalence of mass and energy (E = mc2),
discovering the law of the photoelectric effect (for which he won the nobel prize for physics),
discovering special relativity (the consequences of which (i.e. time dilation, length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, a universal speed limit with light, etc) have been verified numerous time),
giving a precise mathematical model of brownian motion,
not to mention re-describing the nature and structure of the entire universe with general relativity and all its consequences (rewriting the geometry of spacetime with the field equations, giving a metric theory of gravitation as opposed the Newtonian attracting force theory, equivalence of acceleration and gravitation, gravitational time dilation, gravitational light deflection, gravitational waves, etc), which has been empirically verified numerous times based on all its predictions and implications (another example, in 2016, a team of researchers at an advanced observatory announced that they had directly encountered gravitational waves from a pair of black holes coalescing.)

Maybe you could try reading his works or summaries and accounts of his discoveries, or do a physics/astrophysics/cosmology course, then you would see just how pervasive and groundbreaking all his contributions were. Or ask/email any professional physicist. They'll tell you exactly what I'm saying.

Ideas can be counter-intuitive but still be true. Cause intuition can come from order of certain environment but may not hold water in different environment. Or they can be counter-intuitive because they actually don't make sense.

Yes I agree with this

But for it to be this way we have to specify what 'time' actually slows down. See in reality there's no time, there are processes. So you have to specify which processes slow down. Processes inside the body which is going with this speed? Processes around it? Now casual observations don't confirm it - time runs with the same speed inside racing car as it runs in my bedroom. Unlike say cold temperature which slows down metabolic processes. So at least here the notion is false. And same goes for things getting shorter. Still it doesn't mean that time can't slow down on higher speeds or that things can't get shorter at higher speeds. The only question is - how the hell the guy found it out? He wasn't big on experimenting, but sure big on making big claims. As far as others confirming it - I have to see it to believe it. Buch of guys saying stuff doesn't cut the deal for me.

Again this is all codified in the special and general theories of relativity.

The 'time' that slows is the time relative to a specific inertial reference frame or set of coordinates and is related to the speed of light as a universal limiting factor (299,000km/s). A clock that is moving relative to the observer in the inertial frame of reference will tick more slowly than a clock at relative rest in the inertial frame of reference. This is related to the universal limit to the speed of light.

So imagine if the clock is a 'light clock' with a 'unit of time' measured every time a light beam (or photon) in the box goes up, bounces off the top then goes down again. Then if that 'light clock' is in the object which is moving relative to the inertial frame of reference, the light beam will take longer to go up, bounce off the top, then down again. Because the geometry of the 'moving' object will be modified. Instead of describing a straight line up and down (which is what would happen for a light clock at the inertial frame of reference), the beam will travel at an angle, diagonally, forming a triangle, and so will take longer to go up and down once (because it will have to travel a longer distance) than for a different light clock at the inertial frame. Units of time for the observer at the inertial frame of reference and for someone in the 'moving' object will diverge. (as an example, 8 units of time for the inertial frame of reference observer = 4 units of time for someone in the moving object, meaning that time will pass twice as quickly for the inertial observer).

This has been verified experimentally. It's also been confirmed in terms of gravity and the general theory of relativity, i.e. :
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gravitational time dilation has been experimentally measured using atomic clocks on airplanes. The clocks aboard the airplanes were slightly faster than clocks on the ground. The effect is significant enough that the global positioning system's artificial satellites need to have their clocks corrected.

Additionally, time dilations due to height differences of less than one metre have been experimentally verified in the laboratory.

Gravitational time dilation has also been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment, observations of the spectra of the white dwarf sirius B, and experiments with time signals sent to and from viking 1 Mars lander." (wikipedia article on time dilation).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, if none of this was true, then we wouldn't have been able to go to the moon. The physics and engineering requirement for sending a rocket to the moon depend on the physics described in the general theory of relativity.

--"Space-time tells matter how to move; matter tells space-time how to curve." (John Wheeler - theoretical physicist)

If you don't believe this, then that's up to you. You seem intent on denying reality and opposing Einstein for some obscure reason.

Things sure can happen at the same exact time. They can happen simultaneously. Plenty of them are happening simultaneously right now. Point of reference has nothing to do with it. And once again - this stuff belongs to philosophy, not science. All this counter-intuitive, paradoxes etc - all of it is what philosophers have been dealing with for eternity.

You are wrong here. Simultaneity is relative to specifying frames of reference for observers. There's no such thing as two things happening at objectively the same time. Because time is not a Newtonian absolute in the universe. This is established science. If you don't want to look at the evidence and learn about it, I'm not sure what else to say.
Check out the wikipedia article on the relativity of simultaneity.

Einstein made a bunch of wild claims, many of which don't make sense. He's not the first philosopher to go this route. And his defence was - it's cause I'm talking about highly nuanced stuff that only higher intellects are capable of understanding. But the way I see it it's not the case. Guy was just a bad philosopher.

Ah ok, I see what you're doing. It really is a case of baiting and prodding. It's a bit of fun, I guess lol.

Einstein wasn't a philosopher, although he had a philosophical outlook and was an adherent to Spinoza's philosophy. But that doesn't make him a philosopher in the technical sense. He was a theoretical physicist.

He didn't have a 'defense'. He didn't need to defend himself against anyone. He just wrote his equations and built his theories and waited for the scientific community to validate and accept his ideas. And it did. If you don't think his ideas made sense then that's too bad for you, and it's also up to you. But, dismissing something because it doesn't make sense sometimes says more about the person dismissing it than the thing dismissed.

Perhaps you should read his four 1905 papers to see just how groundbreaking they were (on the photoelectric effect, brownian motion, special relativity and mass-energy equivalence). Then read about the effect they had on the scientific community (not the philosophical community, since he was a scientist, not a philosopher).

Anyway, I still wish you well..

.but I really don't feel like carrying on with defending something that doesn't need defending. It's like someone refusing to see Copernicus as a scientist and dismissing his theory that the earth goes round the sun on the grounds that it's senseless philosophy and he was just a bad philosopher. There's only so much you can say to someone who refuses to accept established facts.

But, good on you for being skeptical and thinking for yourself and holding your ground lol

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Einstein made a bunch of wild claims, many of which don't make sense. He's not the first philosopher to go this route. And his defence was - it's cause I'm talking about highly nuanced stuff that only higher intellects are capable of understanding. But the way I see it it's not the case. Guy was just a bad philosopher.

According to a poll of scientists conducted by Physics World magazine, the top ten physicists in history are as follows:

1. Albert Einstein
2. Isaac Newton
3. James Clerk Maxwell
4. Niels Bohr
5. Werner Heisenberg
6. Galileo Galilei
7. Richard Feynman
8. Paul Dirac
9. Erwin Schrodinger
10. Ernest Rutherford

 

[Rollo]

These statements make either false or questionable claims

and he is referenced more times in peer-reviewed physics papers than almost any other physicist, and was voted number 5 in the journal Physics Today in the list of most impactful physicists of all time:

I assume you're joking and baiting me, but just in case, let me post again:

Ah ok, I see what you're doing. It really is a case of baiting and prodding.

If you don't believe this, then that's up to you. You seem intent on denying reality and opposing Einstein for some obscure reason.

.but I really don't feel like carrying on with defending something that doesn't need defending. It's like someone refusing to see Copernicus as a scientist and dismissing his theory that the earth goes round the sun on the grounds that it's senseless philosophy and he was just a bad philosopher. There's only so much you can say to someone who refuses to accept established facts.

It's actually funny you compare it to Copernicus. Copernicus went against established thinking. Which was false as he demonstrated it. And you see that's the difference between truth and falsehood - truth can be defended with arguments. Falsehood ultimately can't. So at the time people actually reacted to Copernicus the same way you're reacting to what I'm saying right now. They put him down, he was just baiting them, joking, denying reality that is so obvious that it doesn't really need defending, they pointed to authority etc. One thing they didn't do though is present convincing arguments for their case. Cause they were actually wrong, despite all the thinkers at the time supporting their delusion. So if anyone is on the Copernicus side here, it's me

See I'm talking to you. We have difference of opinion. And to the point your opinion is formed by authority, by a whole bunch of guys with names praising Albert as a greatest thing since sliced bread - I really don't have any answer to that. I'm not denying neither them nor you the right to praise whatever you want. But I have a different view of him and I explain why. I present my arguments. And I can only answer you to the point that you present some actual counter-arguments, presuming you have a reason for your belief other than appeal to authority. And you actually do, you do present some arguments, which I'm now going to address. But if you feel that the 'shining truth' is so shiny that you just gonna stop arguing - be my guest, I'm not forcing you.

The fact is that his formulation accurately describes the relationship between mass and energy. It's obviously not a step-by-step guide to creating nuclear fission, but it's a codification and proof of the equivalence of mass and energy before the fact was discovered empirically. It was a tool for the scientists of the manhattan project, not a detailed manual.

No it's far from being a fact. 'Codification', i.e. a description, a statement, cannot be proof by itself. It needs to be proven. And it order for 'it' to be proven - we need to know what to prove. And here we don't. Because it doesn't 'accurately describe' anything. Equivalence of mass and energy would be described by e=m. If you multiply it by some uncertain number, then how the hell it's equivalent? And how the hell two different things can be 'equivalent'? In order for it to make sense (in line with how a guy who actually created the bomb interpreted his formula), a ratio between units of measurement need to be specified. How much energy is 'equivalent' to how much mass?

And so it sure wasn't a 'tool' for scientists of the manhattan project. Otherwise you think this 'tool' would be mentioned in wikipedia article called 'Manhattan Project'. And it isn't. The only mention of this 'tool' in any kind of relation to anything nuclear - a guy basically saying after everything is created 'oh yeah totally fits what Einstein said about mass having to disappear in order for energy to appear'. So confirmation at best, although it's not even clear what was or wasn't confirmed.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Obviously mass isn't 'multiplied' by light in the real world. It's a codification using symbols of the relationship between mass, the speed of light and energy. It means that you need to take the speed of light into account when calculating the amount of energy contained in an object, because the speed of light is a universal limiting factor when calculating the properties of objects in spacetime.

Well I exist in real world and is only interested in stuff about real world, you know real world objects, real world energy etc. Fantasy world I'm not really concerned with. And so in this real world there's a formula e=mc2, which according to wiki (and established algebra symbols) means "that the equivalent energy (E) can be calculated as the mass (m) multiplied by the square of the speed of light (c).". So I'm not really sure why you're putting quotation marks on 'multiplied' and say it 'obviously isn't multiplied'. It obviously is according to formula. You can 'take into account' in different ways, but here it's specifically stated how you take it into account - you multiply it. Whether or not 'speed of light is a universal limiting factor', whatever it means.

So based on 'never having read Einstein' (your words), and questionable interpretations of a few quotes by Frisch, and 'having heard about stuff of his before', you conclude that 'his scientific contributions are non-existent'. I assume you're joking and baiting me, but just in case, let me post again:

Well you didn't explain why my 'interpretation' is questionable. I didn't even interpret - I just stated what he said. But regardless any time you want to explain why my 'interpretation' is questionable - I'm all ears. Like I told you - we need to deal with one of his supposed 'discoveries' at a time. Once we finish with this one - I will happily proceed to others. And once again - I'm only here to address your arguments. Nothing I heard about Albert so far makes me interested in actually reading his stuff. I would rather deal with smbd who did take pain to dissect through his stuff and thinks it makes sense, thinks it's anything but a bunch of nonsense. This way I won't feel like an idiot for wasting my time

Again this is all codified in the special and general theories of relativity.

The 'time' that slows is the time relative to a specific inertial reference frame or set of coordinates and is related to the speed of light as a universal limiting factor (299,000km/s). A clock that is moving relative to the observer in the inertial frame of reference will tick more slowly than a clock at relative rest in the inertial frame of reference. This is related to the universal limit to the speed of light.

So imagine if the clock is a 'light clock' with a 'unit of time' measured every time a light beam (or photon) in the box goes up, bounces off the top then goes down again. Then if that 'light clock' is in the object which is moving relative to the inertial frame of reference, the light beam will take longer to go up, bounce off the top, then down again. Because the geometry of the 'moving' object will be modified. Instead of describing a straight line up and down (which is what would happen for a light clock at the inertial frame of reference), the beam will travel at an angle, diagonally, forming a triangle, and so will take longer to go up and down once (because it will have to travel a longer distance) than for a different light clock at the inertial frame. Units of time for the observer at the inertial frame of reference and for someone in the 'moving' object will diverge. (as an example, 8 units of time for the inertial frame of reference observer = 4 units of time for someone in the moving object, meaning that time will pass twice as quickly for the inertial observer).

This has been verified experimentally. It's also been confirmed in terms of gravity and the general theory of relativity, i.e. :
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gravitational time dilation has been experimentally measured using atomic clocks on airplanes. The clocks aboard the airplanes were slightly faster than clocks on the ground. The effect is significant enough that the global positioning system's artificial satellites need to have their clocks corrected.

Additionally, time dilations due to height differences of less than one metre have been experimentally verified in the laboratory.

Gravitational time dilation has also been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment, observations of the spectra of the white dwarf sirius B, and experiments with time signals sent to and from viking 1 Mars lander." (wikipedia article on time dilation).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, if none of this was true, then we wouldn't have been able to go to the moon. The physics and engineering requirement for sending a rocket to the moon depend on the physics described in the general theory of relativity.

--"Space-time tells matter how to move; matter tells space-time how to curve." (John Wheeler - theoretical physicist)

Finally the good stuff. Now first thing I can't help but notice is that the experiment with atomic clock on board of airplane showed the exact opposite of the idea that you ascribe to Einstein - clock went faster not slower. You might want to clarify this one.

However it may be though - it doesn't have any bearing on my argument. I didn't say clocks can't go faster or slower in different conditions, namely at different speeds. And I don't even necessarily have any quarrel with the explanation you put behind it - about light beam having to go a longer distance and thus clock ticking slower.

I don't understand what you mean when you say it's related to the limit of speed of light. How's so? How's speed of light having or not having the limit or having some other limit explain the light clock going slower or faster at different speeds? Until you explain it - sounds like a mumbo jumbo to me. Then again maybe you can teach me here, I love to learn something new, although not holding my breath tbh knowing the source.

Anyway the point of the section that you quoted was that there's no 'time' - there are processes. And so clock going slower doesn't necessarily mean all other processes are going slower. Your explanation specifically relates to speed affecting the work of light clock. Other processes, like biological processes inside living organism, may not be affected. In the same spirit that lower temperatures affect and slow down biological processes but won't slow down the light clock.

You are wrong here. Simultaneity is relative to specifying frames of reference for observers. There's no such thing as two things happening at objectively the same time. Because time is not a Newtonian absolute in the universe. This is established science. If you don't want to look at the evidence and learn about it, I'm not sure what else to say.

No it's not relative to specifying frames of reference to observers. Clock going faster or slower at different speeds (or in other conditions) has nothing to do with whether events are or are not happening simultaneously. Yes unit of measurement becomes different - seconds start taking longer. So what? We have different units of weight measurement, does this mean two things can't have the same weight? Because 'same weight' depends on the unit of measurement used and what is taken as a standard for each unit? Obviously no. In fact you can just take several mechanical clocks, where some will go faster, some slower. Does it in any way affect that things can happen at the same exact time, ie simultaneously? Ofcourse not. It's just if you want to add a system of coordinates, you now need to specify which one is it. If you say 'these two things started at 12:12:12 and ended at 12:12:16' then you need to specify according to which exact clock cause they're running at different speeds, and according to another clock they could have started at 12:12:17 and ended at 12:12:27. But in no way would it affect the fact that both these events happened simultaneously.

So it is only this simple truth that can be called 'an established science' here. Although in reality it's not science. Science is the experiment to determine whether or not clocks actually do or don't run at different speeds depending on certain factors. But this truth will stand regardless. Cause this truth belongs to philosophy not science. So given that Einstein didn't experiment much, he was a bad scientist. Without experimenting all you can do is philosophy, and he was a bad philosopher too. Perhaps in the future they will ascribe all 10 places in Top-10 to him. I don't really care. My own list - it would include people who actually made some meaningful contributions. Like when it comes to nuclear fission it would include people who created it. That's just me.

Anyway since it's not certain whether you will or won't respond I too wish you good luck and I wish you to always think for yourself. Cause once upon a time everybody believed our place rests upon backs of elephants. And those type of 'scientists' are still around

 

[esse_est_percipi]

If you multiply it by some uncertain number, then how the hell it's equivalent? And how the hell two different things can be 'equivalent

This is just a question of semantics, not an actual argument against the formula. You're just playing with words.
Of course two different things can be equivalent. That's what the whole history of physics and mathematics is about.

And so it sure wasn't a 'tool' for scientists of the manhattan project. Otherwise you think this 'tool' would be mentioned in wikipedia article called 'Manhattan Project'.

It was a background assumption, that's certain. Just like you don't need to prove 1 + 1 = 2 every time you do linear equations or trigonometry.

"Any time energy is released, the process can be evaluated from an E = mc2 perspective. For instance, the "gadget"-style bomb used in the trinity test and the bombing of nagasaki had an explosive yield equivalent to 21 kt of TNT. About 1 kg of the approximately 6.15 kg of plutonium in each of these bombs fissioned into lighter elements totaling almost exactly one gram less, after cooling. The electromagnetic radiation and kinetic energy (thermal and blast energy) released in this explosion carried the missing one gram of mass.This occurs because nuclear binding energyis released whenever elements with more than 62 nucleons fission." - wikipedia

Fantasy world I'm not really concerned with

So mathematics is a fantasy world?
The whole aim of physics is to discover and describe the real world. The 'real world' isn't a given, it's the subject of inquiry. The 'real world' is an unknown in an algebraic equation. It's the job of physics to build approximate models to describe it.
This is what Einstein did.
The whole of modern physics is built on two pillars which he inaugurated, general relativity and the standard model of particle physics.

'multiplied' and say it 'obviously isn't multiplied'

because multiplication, just like addition or division, is a formal symbolic operation which aims to approximate an aspect of physical reality.
Do you know how Einstein derived the formula? It's not just something he randomly invented or plucked out of thin air. It follows logically from a number of known theorems and proven theories in physics.

No it's not relative to specifying frames of reference to observers. Clock going faster or slower at different speeds (or in other conditions) has nothing to do with whether events are or are not happening simultaneously

Yes, it is relative to specifying inertial frames of reference for observers. This is getting tiring.
This is a fundamental principle of modern physics. You can doubt and question it all you like, you can't dispute the evidence.

I can't be bothered to go over the light clock example again, so I'll just copy and paste a wikipedia section.

"Special relativity indicates that, for an observer in an inertial frame of reference, a clock that is moving relative to them will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in their frame of reference. This case is sometimes called special relativistic time dilation. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the time dilation between one another, with the rate of time reaching zero as one approaches the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s). This causes massless particles that travel at the speed of light to be unaffected by the passage of time.
Theoretically, time dilation would make it possible for passengers in a fast-moving vehicle to advance further into the future in a short period of their own time. For sufficiently high speeds, the effect is dramatic. For example, one year of travel might correspond to ten years on Earth. Indeed, a constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to travel through the entire known universe in one human lifetime."

I don't understand what you're saying with the second sentence. Simultaneity is a relative concept. There is no such thing as absolute simultaneity.
All the experimental data show this.
You say you don't like fantasy or the world of ideas as opposed to reality, but you seem intent on denying reality, even when people show you theories that have been proven experimentally beyond reasonable doubt. You're inconsistent.

Anyway the point of the section that you quoted was that there's no 'time' - there are processes. And so clock going slower doesn't necessarily mean all other processes are going slower. Your explanation specifically relates to speed affecting the work of light clock. Other processes, like biological processes inside living organism, may not be affected. In the same spirit that lower temperatures affect and slow down biological processes but won't slow down the light clock.

Now this is an interesting point. Clocks or light clocks going slower indicate that all other processes within the frame of reference of the clock are also going slower.
This is shown by atomic measurements using atomic clocks. Given that atomic clocks slow down when moving fast or away from a gravitational source, and that all object are ultimately made of atoms, it follows that the processes in the objects also slow down.
This is beautiful, experimentally proven physics, not 'bad philosophy'.

Although in reality it's not science. Science is the experiment to determine whether or not clocks actually do or don't run at different speeds depending on certain factors. But this truth will stand regardless. Cause this truth belongs to philosophy not science.

• "In 1959 robert pound and glen a rebka measured the very slight gravitational redshiftin the frequency of light emitted at a lower height, where Earth's gravitational field is relatively more intense. The results were within 10% of the predictions of general relativity. In 1964, Pound and J. L. Snider measured a result within 1% of the value predicted by gravitational time dilation.
• In 2010 gravitational time dilation was measured at the earth's surface with a height difference of only one meter, using optical atomic clocks" - wikipedia

There have been lots of experiments which have confirmed time dilation, notably with the atomic clocks I mentioned above. Look at the evidence.

If it belongs to philosophy not physics, why is the whole of modern physics built on the theory of general relativity? Please answer that.

So given that Einstein didn't experiment much, he was a bad scientist

No, he was a theoretical physicist. That's what 'theoretical' means, i.e. not experimental. Neither did Dirac experiment much, nor Feynman, not Bohm, nor Bohn, not Schrodinger. Because they were theoretical physicists. And they all accepted Einstein's theories by the way. Because experiments subsequently showed his theories to be correct.

You can argue about it all you want, it won't make his theories any less true (or, strictly speaking, probably true, as science can only establish truths according to a probability scale, and no theory has a probability of 1.)

Without experimenting all you can do is philosophy

Untrue. You can do mathematics and theory building. Einstein never said he didn't like experimental science. He knew how science worked and that the ultimate test of any theory was whether it agreed with experiment or not. Which is why he dropped the cosmological constant when Hubble's data on the redshift indicated the universe was expanding (although it now turns out that the cosmological constant with a positive nonzero value is needed after all).

My own list - it would include people who actually made some meaningful contributions. Like when it comes to nuclear fission it would include people who created it. That's just me.

Who would you include?
I think it's rather strange that you imply Einstein didn't make any meaningful contributions when he basically laid the foundations of modern physics (general relativity and standard model).

Anyway since it's not certain whether you will or won't respond I too wish you good luck and I wish you to always think for yourself

Of course I'll respond.
I just find your skepticism strange, that's all.
You can't do modern physics without Einstein's theories, I think that does indicate something.

Good luck to you too, I do wish you well.

 

[Fragile]

Science is inherently biased and the concept of infinity is something that we simply cannot grasp. Not to mention that our understanding of the universe is on a very early stage.

We evolved around the concept of everything having a clear beginning and an end. It's natural that we think that the universe works on the same logic, when it simply may not be the case. Us humans try to anthropomorphize everything in order to understand it. but our logic is far from perfect, even very counter intuitive concepts, like eternity, may in fact be the way everything works outside of our little scope.

I'm not saying that eternal recurrence is a real thing, my point is that we'll probably never reach a conclusion on these concepts, to prove it definitively right or wrong we'll have to do something as impossible as to observe one of these 'universal resets'.

Science is complicated and constantly evolving. but some people are unironically arguing that 2+2=5 because it fits their narrative, so what the fuck do I know?

All I know is that it doesn't matter, we are eventually going to die and if eternal recurrence were to be true, then we can't do anything to stop this cycle since it already happened an infinite number of times.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Science is inherently biased and the concept of infinity is something that we simply cannot grasp. Not to mention that our understanding of the universe is on a very early stage.

We evolved around the concept of everything having a clear beginning and an end. It's natural that we think that the universe works on the same logic, when it simply may not be the case. Us humans try to anthropomorphize everything in order to understand it. but our logic is far from perfect, even very counter intuitive concepts, like eternity, may in fact be the way everything works outside of our little scope.

I'm not saying that eternal recurrence is a real thing, my point is that we'll probably never reach a conclusion on these concepts, to prove it definitively right or wrong we'll have to do something as impossible as to observe one of these 'universal resets'.

Science is complicated and constantly evolving. but some people are unironically arguing that 2+2=5 because it fits their narrative, so what the fuck do I know?

All I know is that it doesn't matter, we are eventually going to die and if eternal recurrence were to be true, then we can't do anything to stop this cycle since it already happened an infinite number of times.

I pretty much agree with everything you said