Pensive.

I debunk shitty conspiracies for a living , and im a physicist/ philosopher of science

[Pensive. @Nixsaltt]

@AshtonForbes @GiovanniSagredo @LiamCopich @mr01_x @truthache68 he says while trusting the fact that his CMOS chip is a dense array of semiconductor transistors engineered using quantum band theory. Such a profound intellectual we have here.

[Pensive. @Nixsaltt]

@PhysInHistory why there exits so many morons who think they are paradigm shifting savants, when they know nothing about the field.

[Pensive. @Nixsaltt]

@Philip_Goff @markocheese @CotswoldsQC well… it’s mostly regions of space that have satisfy averaged expansion condition sorta. But notably, this is a theorem expected to fail in quantum gravity scenarios. There’s also just counter examples and models that are cyclical, but are geodesically complete

[Pensive. @Nixsaltt]

@ericweinstein @nu_phases @skdh this isn’t the domain of science. This is philosophical.

[Pensive. @Nixsaltt]

@Philip_Goff i’ve been sympathetic to this view. Though, irrespective of your philosophy of mind position alongside your meta-ethical. What’s genuinely distinguishing you from the atheist? The metaphysical commitments seem to marry very well together.Atleast to me.

[Pensive. @Nixsaltt]

@CotswoldsQC @Philip_Goff that’s not according to the theorem, this is propaganda by WLC. Or anyone who can’t be bothered to understand the paper. As clarified by Dr Guth and Dr Vilenkin, this ISNT a theorem that applies to the universe as a whole. See “Physicists and philosophers debunk the kalam”

[Pensive. @Nixsaltt]

@Esoteric_Though @davideyoungmd @Saganismm every force is just “geometry” gravity isn’t the exception

[Pensive. @Nixsaltt]

@darwintojesus you could just go on PhillPapers and go to the philosophy of religion section and search for atheist papers, but that would require too much work for you.

[Pensive. @Nixsaltt]

@Tortcases @Camille69007 @AgainstAtheismX it’s irreducibly normative under the RR thesis, why is yours batter mine mine?

[Pensive. @Nixsaltt]

@JamesMacTavish7 @Camille69007 @AgainstAtheismX what’s the argument for this?? Atheism is true + relaxed realism is true. What’s the next move in the dialectic now

[Pensive. @Nixsaltt]

@NitoRaijin @DonnyDingleberg @Camille69007 @AgainstAtheismX argument for what? Moral realism under atheism???

[Pensive. @Nixsaltt]

@pieromorosini @Camille69007 @AgainstAtheismX wrong as in the entire paragraph is wrong??? If so…. Point out the reducito you’re defending from these conjuncts. Atheism is true + relaxed realism is true.

[Pensive. @Nixsaltt]

@Camille69007 @AgainstAtheismX half the people in your comments are morons

[Pensive. @Nixsaltt]

@wilwill87 @JohnAll50690792 @AgainstAtheismX okay derive that from atheism is true + relaxed realism is true

[Pensive. @Nixsaltt]

@AgainstAtheismX derive that from, atheism is true + relaxed realism is true. let’s get the argument

[Pensive. @Nixsaltt]

@ThomasTillerman @Leophilius the last part of your sentence supposes a form of robust realism. Which the realist isn’t committed to.

[Pensive. @Nixsaltt]

@csongi23602566 @LatFilosof meta-logical.. What’s your understanding of meta-logical? I doubt any if you think TAG is a serious argument, what’s the objection to the parity?

[Pensive. @Nixsaltt]

@ShaneRosengren @NotEvolution1 @MatthewLeGod @kJamesMarkk it’s a model…

[Pensive. @Nixsaltt]

@NotEvolution1 1. that’s not an issue….presumably you meant to invoke entropy.
2. This is a very old interpretation of the big bang, there’s no beginning supposed in the model.
3. This isn’t true, it’s not a “starting point”
4. There are geodesically complete models that are cyclical
5. ???