Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #892151 > unrolled thread

Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-03 22:03 -0700
    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-04 05:24 +0000
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-04 07:55 +0200
        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-04 22:38 +0000
    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-04 10:46 -0700
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:29 -0700
        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:37 -0700
          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 19:02 -0500
            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:12 -0700
              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:39 -0700
                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:50 -0700
              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 23:39 -0500
                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 23:57 -0500
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-04 14:15 -0700
        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-04 15:19 -0700
          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-10 22:58 -0700
            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-13 12:17 -0700
              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-14 01:13 -0700
                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-19 23:50 -0700
        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-05 11:17 -0700
          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-09 13:00 +0000
            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-09 13:10 +0000
            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 15:15 -0500
              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-10 22:32 +0200
                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 14:06 -0700
                  Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? x <x@x.org> - 2025-04-10 15:14 -0700
                    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-11 07:30 +0200
                      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 01:12 +0000
                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 19:32 -0500
                  Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-11 15:44 +0200
                    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 08:17 -0700
                      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 08:53 -0700
                    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 11:56 -0500
            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 11:03 -0500
    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 14:34 -0500
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:39 -0700
        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 14:45 -0500
          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 13:02 -0700
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:57 -0700
    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-04-09 15:21 +0100
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 09:44 -0700
        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? "shades@cov.net.inv" <seeu@nt.net> - 2025-04-11 20:16 +0100
          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 07:35 -0700
            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 11:59 -0700
              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 01:08 +0000
                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 20:39 -0500
                  Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 21:40 -0500
                    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 03:04 +0000
                      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 22:49 -0500
                        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 23:08 -0500
                          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 23:27 -0500
                            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 04:53 +0000
                              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 00:48 -0500
                                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 06:29 +0000
                        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 04:24 +0000
                  Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 02:52 +0000
                    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 23:45 -0500
                      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-20 12:05 +0000
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-11 06:27 +0200
    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? quadibloc <quadibloc@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 09:58 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#892243

On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 18:17:24 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> I mean, I observe the Earth and it doesn't appear rational to me....
>
> doesn't that ...bother...you?
>
> Using rational means in a irrational world sounds STUPID to me.
>
> Luckly, only a small percentage of the people on earth are rational.
>
> There is NO scientific basis for a rational world...
>
> but there is a scientific basis for a irratio[nal*] world.

* Correcting Starfaker's dyslexia.

“Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we
suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” -- J.B.S. Haldane

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892245

Poor devils simply cannot understand the implications of eternity and
infinity


Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892275

On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system.
> 
> 
> 
> Jan



How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having the 
means to check it?

That "title" hanging there on the wall must be the culprit. You are 
controlled by it. Take one little step outside the prison it placed you 
in, and you'll get toast.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892276

Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Jan
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having the
> means to check it?

Ockham told me.

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892277

On 04/10/2025 01:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jan
>>
>>
>>
>> How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having the
>> means to check it?
>
> Ockham told me.
>
> Jan
>
>

Neither "Gaia Hypothesis" nor "Dumb Rock" are any more
falsifiable than "Big Bang" or "Steady State", which aren't.

Ockhamites are by no means the prevalent school,
though, it's popular with shallow inconstant sorts.


Do you, uh, believe everything Ockham says?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhXbcQjTHQ0&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=21

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892278

On 4/10/25 14:06, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/10/2025 01:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having the
>>> means to check it?
>>
>> Ockham told me.
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
> 
> Neither "Gaia Hypothesis" nor "Dumb Rock" are any more
> falsifiable than "Big Bang" or "Steady State", which aren't.
> 
> Ockhamites are by no means the prevalent school,
> though, it's popular with shallow inconstant sorts.
> 
> 
> Do you, uh, believe everything Ockham says?

You know if words do not have meaning than the
words 'true' or 'false' do not have meaning.

Do 'true' ideas have any greater value than
'false' ideas?  Well if those words are meaningless
then maybe not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892290

On 4/11/2025 12:14 AM, x wrote:
> On 4/10/25 14:06, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 04/10/2025 01:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having the
>>>> means to check it?
>>>
>>> Ockham told me.
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Neither "Gaia Hypothesis" nor "Dumb Rock" are any more
>> falsifiable than "Big Bang" or "Steady State", which aren't.
>>
>> Ockhamites are by no means the prevalent school,
>> though, it's popular with shallow inconstant sorts.
>>
>>
>> Do you, uh, believe everything Ockham says?
> 
> You know if words do not have meaning than the
> words 'true' or 'false' do not have meaning.
> 
> Do 'true' ideas have any greater value than
> 'false' ideas?  Well if those words are meaningless
> then maybe not.

As a general rule "true" is a stamp assigned by
the society to ideas of value to allow them
to cruise and "false" is a stamp assigned to
ideas of negative value to block them.
Distinguishing, however, is not easy and
mistakes often happen.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892337

Truth is of a two fold nature - subjective and objective.

Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor


"The fancy cannot cheat so well,
As she is famed to do, deceiving elf."
John Keats

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892280

On 4/10/25 3:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jan
>>
>>
>>
>> How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having the
>> means to check it?
> 
> Ockham told me.
> 
> Jan
> 
> 




Hmm.. Ockham didn't tell you Einstein wrote that letter of 
recommendation himself?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892296

Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/10/25 3:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having the
> >> means to check it?
> > 
> > Ockham told me.
> > 
> > Jan
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm.. Ockham didn't tell you Einstein wrote that letter of 
> recommendation himself?

That is not the simplest explanation.

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892298

On 04/11/2025 06:44 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/25 3:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having the
>>>> means to check it?
>>>
>>> Ockham told me.
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmm.. Ockham didn't tell you Einstein wrote that letter of
>> recommendation himself?
>
> That is not the simplest explanation.
>
> Jan
>

The simplest explanation is none, yet, then that's
no explanation. How does explanation not exist?

Why does the universe go to all the bother of explaining?

There's quite a significant amount of data to explain.


"Parsimony" may simply be taking the inner product,
then as with regards to the uniqueness of the result,
is a matter of wider concerns.


So, parsimony can readily arrive at that parsimony
is merely slant on the bias, or, parsimony by definition
is merely partial.

Nature's frugality of a sort or for least-action or
for Maupertuis and other definitions what makes least-action,
for example whether it's any old gradient the partial derivative,
"simple", or the sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials with least-action
the least-gradient of the cosmic clockworks, that being,
"simple", or instead you can just explain that you can
ask your phone for delivery since an apple fell on Newton's head ("stupid").


Of course that's a contrived example that most would
say would be too simple to the point of being ignorant
and in terms of the wider milieu, incompetent.



Yeah the simplest, ..., is, none.


Then with regards to theories of evolution applying to
anything, and everything, then gets introduced, for example,
the data of all the theory about it there ever was.


So, "why are we here" can have "Ockham doesn't say".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892299

On 04/11/2025 08:17 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/11/2025 06:44 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/10/25 3:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having
>>>>> the
>>>>> means to check it?
>>>>
>>>> Ockham told me.
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm.. Ockham didn't tell you Einstein wrote that letter of
>>> recommendation himself?
>>
>> That is not the simplest explanation.
>>
>> Jan
>>
>
> The simplest explanation is none, yet, then that's
> no explanation. How does explanation not exist?
>
> Why does the universe go to all the bother of explaining?
>
> There's quite a significant amount of data to explain.
>
>
> "Parsimony" may simply be taking the inner product,
> then as with regards to the uniqueness of the result,
> is a matter of wider concerns.
>
>
> So, parsimony can readily arrive at that parsimony
> is merely slant on the bias, or, parsimony by definition
> is merely partial.
>
> Nature's frugality of a sort or for least-action or
> for Maupertuis and other definitions what makes least-action,
> for example whether it's any old gradient the partial derivative,
> "simple", or the sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials with least-action
> the least-gradient of the cosmic clockworks, that being,
> "simple", or instead you can just explain that you can
> ask your phone for delivery since an apple fell on Newton's head
> ("stupid").
>
>
> Of course that's a contrived example that most would
> say would be too simple to the point of being ignorant
> and in terms of the wider milieu, incompetent.
>
>
>
> Yeah the simplest, ..., is, none.
>
>
> Then with regards to theories of evolution applying to
> anything, and everything, then gets introduced, for example,
> the data of all the theory about it there ever was.
>
>
> So, "why are we here" can have "Ockham doesn't say".
>
>
>

The "nominalism" makes it easy to pick up and put down
theories without much of an ontological commitment to
an ontological status, yet that's not much of an ontological
commitment to an ontological status.

When it's eliminated that over-simplistic theories
can explain theory like physics, then it must be
not an over-simple theory.


When anyone can arrive at scientific principles,
they sort of make sense.


These days there is a more of a resurgence of
"realism", not nominalism, besides "platonism",
not nominalism, and realist platonists can have
theories of science just fine.

That's not much promoting prevarication and equivocation,
univocation in a sense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892300

On 4/11/25 8:44 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/10/25 3:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having the
>>>> means to check it?
>>>
>>> Ockham told me.
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmm.. Ockham didn't tell you Einstein wrote that letter of
>> recommendation himself?
> 
> That is not the simplest explanation.
> 
> Jan
> 



For an objective person it is. For a Priest-like person, it isn't.

Priests carry their crosses on their chests, collectivistic scientists 
like you place their titles on their walls. And they both in effect kiss 
those things every now and then. It's a certain bizarre affair; a 
master-servant relationship :)

You tend to forget that the physics community even in 1921 didn't yet 
believe the GR tests were any proof of Einstein's work. They generally 
looked at GR as some sort of absurd hypothesis. That's how Nobel went 
for some much less important work of his.

Physics community found Einstein to be what that letter described only 
years after 1921. Don't try to assume credit for physicists of those 
days where they didn't have it. It won't work with Physfit's dick.

In 1911, nobody gave a serious damn about Einstein, and that letter has 
more to say than just that. Nobody _knew_ Einstein's features that well, 
until decades later. The letter is how Einstein described himself. 
Doesn't matter which friend of his signed it, which amounts to doing 
what an essentially Bozo does for a friend.

But I'm repeating myself, and when I do that, my longtime usenet 
experience tells me I'm not talking to an objective person. I cannot put 
sense into a Priest's head. I just dump him and go on.

Another much more famous example of such fraudulent claim of credit by 
physicists of those times was the matter of black body radiation, 
calling the experimental results a "Catastrophe". As if any of them 
really believed the results to be true.

These little fraudsteres, complete with their titles, of course at the 
time of those experiments were 100% confident something had gone wrong 
with the experiments giving that ridiculous bell shaped result. But 
these same suckers some years later pretended to the world that they had 
immediately grasped the significance of those experiments as soon as 
results were out. Trying to credit themselves with a credit that they 
didn't have!..

As lately as in 1980s, still texts like Eisberg referred to those 
results as "the ultraviolet catastrophe". I have not checked the physics 
books since and do not know whether this sham, this Priestly fraud, is 
still ongoing.

In short, when you confront Physfit's dick, walk carefully. Talk 
carefully. Think carefully. Individuals like you hide from Physfit's dick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892313

On 4/12/25 5:52 AM, Corbin Yuan Xiong wrote:
> 
> 
>
> 
> 
> 
>  >
> *_Beautiful Dresden Germany in 1936_*
> https://%42i%54%63hute.com/vi%44eo/biiQogqnLF3N
> 
> 
> 



Trump should watch that to learn a lesson or two. Netanyahu too! A lot 
of Jews these days too.

Nazis are your enemy. They'll ruin you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892160

On 4/4/25 12:03 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Stephen Hawking once asked:
> 
> Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
> 
> If Stephen Hawking would like an answer
> to that question, has he ever consider
> asking a woman that question?
> 
> I don't mean a woman scientist..
> 
> i mean, just any woman.
> 
> Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is
> entitled to know the answer?
> 
> 
> Is he Moses?
> 


If you're keen to get that answer, the answer is, "Physfit's dick is the 
culprit, pushing all this forward." Ask Moses.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892162

On 04/04/2025 12:34 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 4/4/25 12:03 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Stephen Hawking once asked:
>>
>> Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
>>
>> If Stephen Hawking would like an answer
>> to that question, has he ever consider
>> asking a woman that question?
>>
>> I don't mean a woman scientist..
>>
>> i mean, just any woman.
>>
>> Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is
>> entitled to know the answer?
>>
>>
>> Is he Moses?
>>
>
>
> If you're keen to get that answer, the answer is, "Physfit's dick is the
> culprit, pushing all this forward." Ask Moses.
>
>

Shouldn't you be referring to Kosmanson or he to you?

Being the authority in these matters.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892163

On 4/4/25 2:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/04/2025 12:34 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>> On 4/4/25 12:03 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Stephen Hawking once asked:
>>>
>>> Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
>>>
>>> If Stephen Hawking would like an answer
>>> to that question, has he ever consider
>>> asking a woman that question?
>>>
>>> I don't mean a woman scientist..
>>>
>>> i mean, just any woman.
>>>
>>> Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is
>>> entitled to know the answer?
>>>
>>>
>>> Is he Moses?
>>>
>>
>>
>> If you're keen to get that answer, the answer is, "Physfit's dick is the
>> culprit, pushing all this forward." Ask Moses.
>>
>>
> 
> Shouldn't you be referring to Kosmanson or he to you?
> 
> Being the authority in these matters.
> 
> 


I know you miss Kosmanson's journals. I'll quote his latest one later 
today :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892165

On 04/04/2025 12:45 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 4/4/25 2:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 04/04/2025 12:34 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>> On 4/4/25 12:03 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> Stephen Hawking once asked:
>>>>
>>>> Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
>>>>
>>>> If Stephen Hawking would like an answer
>>>> to that question, has he ever consider
>>>> asking a woman that question?
>>>>
>>>> I don't mean a woman scientist..
>>>>
>>>> i mean, just any woman.
>>>>
>>>> Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is
>>>> entitled to know the answer?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is he Moses?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you're keen to get that answer, the answer is, "Physfit's dick is the
>>> culprit, pushing all this forward." Ask Moses.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Shouldn't you be referring to Kosmanson or he to you?
>>
>> Being the authority in these matters.
>>
>>
>
>
> I know you miss Kosmanson's journals. I'll quote his latest one later
> today :)
>
>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMF_-HprkZs&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=10

"Moment and Motion:  monism and theory, doubling-waves"

I don't ads on my youtube channel so any ads interrupting
the gentle remonstrance are unwanted freeloaders.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892164

On 4/4/2025 12:34 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 4/4/25 12:03 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Stephen Hawking once asked:
>>
>> Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

[...]

Perhaps it has no choice because it was simply always there and will be 
always be there, forever... ;^)

Perhaps it was never created because it was just, always there?

Yawn. ;^)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892247

What does 'exist' mean? Why suppose that it was ever possible for
nothing to exist?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web