451–460 of 647 posts
I don't have the Ph.D physics/maths skills to work out the plausibility of any of that (or variations on that) but I've always felt I've been good at coming up with ideas.
Any physicist wants to work with me, I'm https://purpleidea.com/contact/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you agree with the above comment, doesn't that make you an atheist, not agnostic?
Atheists are people that don't bleieve there is a God. Agnostics are people who don't know they are atheists. -- Aron Ra
> And we show that this rule prevents the particles in the collapsing matter from being squeezed indefinitely. As a result, the collapse halts and reverses. The bounce is not only possible – it’s inevitable under the right conditions.
Do I understand right, that this would mean that every formation of a black hole would result in a bounce?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most jobs are really not important either, they just keep people busy. Do you need sources for this claim, too?
The Bullshit Jobs jobs theory has been widely discredited by researchers, but you probably won't believe them. Consider that most business is B2B so it makes sense that the casual observer would not know what it's for. Additionally, the Bullshit Jobs book relies on a magazine survey, actual studies shows that the percent of people who consider their jobs meaningless is very low and also decreasing over time
Worth to point out that there is a huge difference between people considering their jobs meaningless AND their job being meaningless, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Bullshit Jobs jobs theory has been widely discredited by researchers, but you probably won't believe them. Consider that most business is B2B so it makes sense that the casual observer would not know what it's for. Additionally, the Bullshit Jobs book relies on a magazine survey, actual studies shows that the percent of people who consider their jobs meaningless is very low and also decreasing over time
I think you're right, but it's not how I remember it for some reason. I didn't read the book "Bullshit Jobs" [1] as an attempt to quantify how many jobs were bullshit. The author was an anthropologist with no interest in quantifying the economic impact. It's lots of amusing anecdotes from frustrated workers and a nudge for people to question the efficiency of capitalism. At least that's how I read it. But reading the…
Well, again, there is a huge difference between one's own perception of their job being useful or not. I believe garbage collectors, janitors, and nurses, are not examples of useless jobs. Useless jobs are mainly in the office, called "paper pushers". I mean come on, have you not been to any jobs (nor heard of any) where you had to pretend you were busy just to get paid? I saw plenty of cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think God will have a name? Name is used by humans to identity a person among a lot of other persons. Why will God have a name if it is the only thing in existence? To answer the question of why humans give name to God. It's to make god more relatable so that they can workshop it. And use devotion to come closer with it. Look up Bhakti Yoga.
How about just having one God vs many? If there is a single omnipotent being, why do various cultures have multiple gods? And why do different cultures’ gods tell them different things?
Now, you cannot worship consciousness as humans because it's invisible and you can never imagine it. You need a version of consciousness that you can see as well as you can relate to. So cultures invent localized version of God which people can relate to. And of course it will have attributes similar to that of the culture. But the properties kind of still hold. Like all knowing, powerful etc.
The article is based on a physics paper (arXiv:2505.23877), not management theory or institutional metaphors. What the paper actually proposes is that the Big Bang may have been a gravitational bounce inside a black hole formed in a higher-dimensional parent universe. Quantum degeneracy pressure stops the collapse before a singularity forms. From the outside, it looks like a black hole. From the inside, it evolves as…
> What the paper actually proposes [...] (Emphasis mine) I haven't read the paper yet, but this sounds like a (good) summary of exactly what the article is saying. It makes me wonder what, if anything, you feel is different from the way you put it and the way it is explained in the article? As a layman they seem the same to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The center of a black hole is infinitely dense. That's why it even exists. The event horizon is not the black hole. Arguing semantics is rather boring when it's obvious you understood the point he was trying to make. > Our universe is expanding. It's density is not fixed. None of that precludes uniform density at large scales.
>> Our universe is expanding. It's density is not fixed. > None of that precludes uniform density at large scales. According to observation, the universe is expanding. An argument that it's really static at a large scale would require contradicting observational evidence, but none exists. A theory that requires abandoning observational evidence bears a special burden, which this theory lacks.