Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[psyreporter]

Neutrinos (a.k.a. Ghost Particles) travel at the speed of light and in exact straight lines. Neutrinos pass straight through stars such as the Sun, and straight through the earth's iron core.

Do neutrinos also pass straight through black holes?

I've wondered the same but a quick search in Google did not provide an answer.

Neutrinos have a mass, however, they can switch their mass from a certain level up to 3000x in size which is called Flavor Switching or morphing.

Recently a fourth 'heavy weight' flavor may have been discovered which indicates that there may be more flavors that a Neutrino can morph into.

Recently, scientists doing research at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, or Fermilab, announced a measurement that is a real puzzler. It involves a subatomic particle called the Neutrino, which is the ghost of the microcosm, able to pass through Earth without interacting. And that's BEFORE we start talking about the weird stuff.

The recent measurement, performed by a collaboration of scientists called MiniBooNE, could herald the possible discovery of a new kind of Neutrino flavor. The new Neutrino flavor participates in neutrino oscillation…the morphing of neutrino flavors, and it is heavy.

https://www.livescience.com/62842-fourt ... trino.html

If Neutrinos interact with mass of the visible world on their own regard, i.e. to serve the purpose of their 'ghostliness', then maybe Neutrinos will not be affected by the gravity of a black hole (its position in space and time) and can pass straight through it, on a exact straight line into infinity.

Why do Neutrinos morph into various flavors with a different mass? Does the ability imply intelligence?

Are there really still some so called "scientists" who are that far in the dark ages that they still say there is an "edge of the Universe"?

Would it have been valid to argue that the particles move into infinity? If so, what basis would there be for such a statement?

[creation]

Do neutrinos also pass straight through black holes?

I've wondered the same but a quick search in Google did not provide an answer.

Neutrinos have a mass, however, they can switch their mass from a certain level up to 3000x in size which is called Flavor Switching or morphing.

Recently a fourth 'heavy weight' flavor may have been discovered which indicates that there may be more flavors that a Neutrino can morph into.

Recently, scientists doing research at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, or Fermilab, announced a measurement that is a real puzzler. It involves a subatomic particle called the Neutrino, which is the ghost of the microcosm, able to pass through Earth without interacting. And that's BEFORE we start talking about the weird stuff.

The recent measurement, performed by a collaboration of scientists called MiniBooNE, could herald the possible discovery of a new kind of Neutrino flavor. The new Neutrino flavor participates in neutrino oscillation…the morphing of neutrino flavors, and it is heavy.

https://www.livescience.com/62842-fourt ... trino.html

If Neutrinos interact with mass of the visible world on their own regard, i.e. to serve the purpose of their 'ghostliness', then maybe Neutrinos will not be affected by the gravity of a black hole (its position in space and time) and can pass straight through it, on a exact straight line into infinity.

Why do Neutrinos morph into various flavors with a different mass? Does the ability imply intelligence?

Are there really still some so called "scientists" who are that far in the dark ages that they still say there is an "edge of the Universe"?

Would it have been valid to argue that the particles move into infinity?

Not from my perspective. Would it be from your perspective?

If yes or no, then what basis would there be for a such a response?

If so, what basis would there be for such a statement?

[psyreporter]

Would it have been valid to argue that the particles move into infinity?

Not from my perspective. Would it be from your perspective?

If yes or no, then what basis would there be for a such a response?

If so, what basis would there be for such a statement?

If it is ought to be invalid to consider that the particles reach the edge of the Cosmos, would that not imply that the particles move into infinity?

Are there really still some so called "scientists" who are that far in the dark ages that they still say there is an "edge of the Universe"?

[creation]

Not from my perspective. Would it be from your perspective?

If yes or no, then what basis would there be for a such a response?

If it is ought to be invalid to consider that the particles reach the edge of the Cosmos, would that not imply that the particles move into infinity?

To me, there is NO "ought to be invalid to consider".

To me, absolutely any thing is valid to be considered.

You MISSED the point that I was making, which was: Why are there still some human beings existing, in the days of when this is written, who still imply that there is an edge of the 'cosmos' or the 'Universe'?

Also, and to answer your question, Obviously, if there is an "edge" of the cosmos, then nothing could go past it. There obviously could not be an "edge" of finite, which some thing could move out of, or past, and then, so called, move "into" infinity.

Either the Universe is finite, or infinite. If it is the latter, then nothing moves "into" infinity. Every thing would just be in infinity. If some thing could move in a so called "straight line", and there is absolutely nothing to resist it from moving in that straight line, then it would just move infinitely, without moving "into" infinity.

Are there really still some so called "scientists" who are that far in the dark ages that they still say there is an "edge of the Universe"?

[psyreporter]

To me, there is NO "ought to be invalid to consider".

To me, absolutely any thing is valid to be considered.

The result of a consideration is valid or invalid. Therefor one could argue that something is ought to be considered invalid.

You MISSED the point that I was making, which was: Why are there still some human beings existing, in the days of when this is written, who still imply that there is an edge of the 'cosmos' or the 'Universe'?

The source is discovermagazine.com. The sentence could have been intended to spark a thought quest into the concept infinity for random readers.

Also, and to answer your question, Obviously, if there is an "edge" of the cosmos, then nothing could go past it. There obviously could not be an "edge" of finite, which some thing could move out of, or past, and then, so called, move "into" infinity.

Either the Universe is finite, or infinite. If it is the latter, then nothing moves "into" infinity. Every thing would just be in infinity. If some thing could move in a so called "straight line", and there is absolutely nothing to resist it from moving in that straight line, then it would just move infinitely, without moving "into" infinity.

If the concept finitude is considered to be otherwise than infinity, it implies that when something that is defined as finite is ought to move beyond what is comprehensible by the concept finitude, that it will move "into" infinity.

[creation]

To me, there is NO "ought to be invalid to consider".

To me, absolutely any thing is valid to be considered.

The result of a consideration is valid or invalid. Therefor one could argue that something is ought to be considered invalid.

One could have concluded that, but to have reached that conclusion one would have had to have had to 'consider' some thing else first. Therefore, to me, absolutely any thing is valid to be considered.

To reach the result of a consideration is valid or invalid, there must have been a consideration first. Again, to me, absolutely any thing is valid to be considered. In fact, it is through 'consideration' first of some thing before and when any and all results have come from.

You MISSED the point that I was making, which was: Why are there still some human beings existing, in the days of when this is written, who still imply that there is an edge of the 'cosmos' or the 'Universe'?

The source is discovermagazine.com. The sentence could have been intended to spark a thought quest into the concept infinity for random readers.

It could have been, but obviously that would only be assumption of no necessary undertaking, as it could be completely and utterly false or wrong to begin with.

My point was and still is; Why do those, and especially those, who are called "scientists", of all people, still use words like "edge" in relation to the Universe (and still use the word "beginning" for that matter)? I do not care what magazine they say it in nor in what scientific papers these words are written, my question still remains the same: Why do scientists use words like "edge" and/or "beginning" in relation to the Universe? Especially even when there is absolutely NO evidence at all for an "edge" nor for a "beginning", let alone there being any proof at all.

So called "scientists" I would say if taught correctly would know better to say some thing as though it is true, right, and/or correct, when there is no evidence nor proof for it.

Also, and to answer your question, Obviously, if there is an "edge" of the cosmos, then nothing could go past it. There obviously could not be an "edge" of finite, which some thing could move out of, or past, and then, so called, move "into" infinity.

Either the Universe is finite, or infinite. If it is the latter, then nothing moves "into" infinity. Every thing would just be in infinity. If some thing could move in a so called "straight line", and there is absolutely nothing to resist it from moving in that straight line, then it would just move infinitely, without moving "into" infinity.

If the concept finitude is considered to be otherwise than infinity, it implies that when something that is defined as finite is ought to move beyond what is comprehensible by the concept finitude, that it will move "into" infinity.

Well that is one very strange concept to have. If there is 'infinity', and some thing could move "into" infinity, then there is obviously NOT 'finitude'. But obviously no one would have the concept you suggested above, as it is obviously just plain old self-contradictory, which can be clearly seen when looked at from the Truly OPEN perspective.

[psyreporter]

One could have concluded that, but to have reached that conclusion one would have had to have had to 'consider' some thing else first. Therefore, to me, absolutely any thing is valid to be considered.

To reach the result of a consideration is valid or invalid, there must have been a consideration first. Again, to me, absolutely any thing is valid to be considered. In fact, it is through 'consideration' first of some thing before and when any and all results have come from.

You are correct. However, one could still pose (based on preceding arguments) that the result of a consideration is "to be considered" valid or invalid, thereby one can be considered ought to consider something as valid or invalid.

In this case the question is: if it is to be considered implausible that particles reach the edge of the Cosmos, what would be plausible to consider? I.e. what would one be ought to consider instead?

It could have been, but obviously that would only be assumption of no necessary undertaking, as it could be completely and utterly false or wrong to begin with.

My point was and still is; Why do those, and especially those, who are called "scientists", of all people, still use words like "edge" in relation to the Universe (and still use the word "beginning" for that matter)? I do not care what magazine they say it in nor in what scientific papers these words are written, my question still remains the same: Why do scientists use words like "edge" and/or "beginning" in relation to the Universe? Especially even when there is absolutely NO evidence at all for an "edge" nor for a "beginning", let alone there being any proof at all.

So called "scientists" I would say if taught correctly would know better to say some thing as though it is true, right, and/or correct, when there is no evidence nor proof for it.

Yes, you may be correct. However, what should they have written instead?

As it appears, the idea that the Universe is infinite is not conclusive. So what should people think or write instead when it concerns particles that move beyond what is visible/known?

Well that is one very strange concept to have. If there is 'infinity', and some thing could move "into" infinity, then there is obviously NOT 'finitude'. But obviously no one would have the concept you suggested above, as it is obviously just plain old self-contradictory, which can be clearly seen when looked at from the Truly OPEN perspective.

Finitude is essentially merely a mental concept. The presumed quality of finitude contrasts with something that is other, which is named infinity.

When something contained within the concept finitude would move beyond what can be named finite, that something will move "into" infinity because that something will move beyond the boundaries of the concept finitude, which is infinity.

If a particle will fly in a straight line to "the edge of the Cosmos" and when one assumes that the Universe is infinite, then, what will that particle move towards/into?

And if that particle indeed will (potentially) fly into infinity (i.e. continue forever), what does it imply with regard to the nature of that particle? Why would that particle exist if it can fly for infinite time and distance?

The ghostly morphing of the particle may provide a clue.

[creation]

One could have concluded that, but to have reached that conclusion one would have had to have had to 'consider' some thing else first. Therefore, to me, absolutely any thing is valid to be considered.

To reach the result of a consideration is valid or invalid, there must have been a consideration first. Again, to me, absolutely any thing is valid to be considered. In fact, it is through 'consideration' first of some thing before and when any and all results have come from.

You are correct. However, one could still pose (based on preceding arguments) that the result of a consideration is "to be considered" valid or invalid, thereby one can be considered ought to consider something as valid or invalid.

Was I saying anything disagreeing with this.

In this case the question is: if it is to be considered implausible that particles reach the edge of the Cosmos, what would be plausible to consider? I.e. what would one be ought to consider instead?

Consider the ridiculous of thinking, assuming, believing, and/or saying "edge of the cosmos"?

It could have been, but obviously that would only be assumption of no necessary undertaking, as it could be completely and utterly false or wrong to begin with.

My point was and still is; Why do those, and especially those, who are called "scientists", of all people, still use words like "edge" in relation to the Universe (and still use the word "beginning" for that matter)? I do not care what magazine they say it in nor in what scientific papers these words are written, my question still remains the same: Why do scientists use words like "edge" and/or "beginning" in relation to the Universe? Especially even when there is absolutely NO evidence at all for an "edge" nor for a "beginning", let alone there being any proof at all.

So called "scientists" I would say if taught correctly would know better to say some thing as though it is true, right, and/or correct, when there is no evidence nor proof for it.

Yes, you may be correct. However, what should they have written instead?

To me, there is no "should", but how I would write:

Once you create a neutrino, a tiny subatomic particle, it moves at the speed of light, and it doesn't stop. It keeps going in a straight line to the edge of the universe. Straight through any stars, planets, or mountains; straight through any atoms, nuclei, or other particles that happen to lie in its path.


Is by just removing the words 'to the edge of the Universe'.

As it appears, the idea that the Universe is infinite is not conclusive.

"At is appears", to who exactly?

Also, to those people, does "it appear" to them the idea that the Universe being finite is conclusive?

So what should people think or write instead when it concerns particles that move beyond what is visible/known?

Once again, to me, there is no "should". People are absolutely FREE to think or write whatever they so chose to think or write.

If some thing moves beyond what is visible/known, then what I think and/or write in regards to what happens to a thing, which goes beyond observation, is to just be completely open and honest. So, I just think and or write; I do not know.

Assuming and/or believing that there is "an edge" to the Universe is just a very closed and dishonest way of thinking, as is assuming and/or believing that the Universe "has no edge" is just a very closed and dishonest way of thinking.

Well that is one very strange concept to have. If there is 'infinity', and some thing could move "into" infinity, then there is obviously NOT 'finitude'. But obviously no one would have the concept you suggested above, as it is obviously just plain old self-contradictory, which can be clearly seen when looked at from the Truly OPEN perspective.

Finitude is essentially merely a mental concept.

Yes it is, just like "fairies", "unicorns", "santa clauses", and "Universe's beginning" are as well.

The presumed quality of finitude contrasts with something that is other, which is named infinity.

This goes without saying.

When something contained within the concept finitude would move beyond what can be named finite, that something will move "into" infinity because that something will move beyond the boundaries of the concept finitude, which is infinity.

Obviously. But just as obvious is, the same thing cannot be finite and infinite as the exact same time.

If some thing is infinite, then it is not finite, and vice-versa, if some thing is finite, then it is obviously not infinite.

If a particle will fly in a straight line to "the edge of the Cosmos" and when one assumes that the Universe is infinite, then, what will that particle move towards/into?

You are really missing the mark and the point that I am making.

There is ONLY 'an "edge" of the cosmos' IF one assumes and/or believes there is. This is because there is absolutely NO proof yet either way.

If one is stupid enough to assume that the Universe is infinite, then they OBVIOUSLY would NOT be assuming thus nor saying that there is "the edge of the cosmos", in the beginning, now would they?

If one assumes and/or believes that the Universe is infinite, then they would never think nor say, "A particle will fly in a straight line to "the edge of the cosmos", only those who assume the "cosmos is finite" would think and say such a thing.

Maybe we are not understanding each other because we are using the word 'cosmos' differently? So, just to clarify, what do you actually mean when you use the word 'Cosmos'?

And if that particle indeed will (potentially) fly into infinity (i.e. continue forever),

You either overlooked, missed, or just plain forgotten, what I said earlier:
Either the Universe is finite, or infinite. If it is the latter, then nothing moves "into" infinity. Every thing would just be in infinity. If some thing could move in a so called "straight line", and there is absolutely nothing to resist it from moving in that straight line, then it would just move infinitely, without moving "into" infinity.

So, what can be easily and clearly seen here is that that particle will not fly "into" 'infinity'.

what does it imply with regard to the nature of that particle?

Nothing is "implied" with regard to the nature of "that" particle.

All particles just exist. That is there nature.

Why would that particle exist if it can fly for infinite time and distance?

For the same reason EVERY particle exists.

The eventual and ultimate answer to that question, is very quick and simple to say, but might take a bit longer to understand and comprehend, for some. But the length the answer takes to comprehend and understand just depends on what has been previously learned and understood.

The ghostly morphing of the particle may provide a clue.

What do you mean by 'ghostly morphing of the particle' here?

[psyreporter]

Consider the ridiculous of thinking, assuming, believing, and/or saying "edge of the cosmos"?

How would one be able to spark the idea in a random reader for the ultimate distance one can possibly imagine?

Maybe the phrase could be considered valid by the fact that "the Universe" as a concept is related to finitude that, as a mental concept, is introduced by the observer. The edge would then refer to the boundary of what is visible/known, which would make it a valid and an effective phrase for a science magazine.

If the Universe is merely a reference to what humans can possibly know, referencing to an edge is completely valid and logical.

"At is appears", to who exactly?

Also, to those people, does "it appear" to them the idea that the Universe being finite is conclusive?

Maybe philosophy may be able to provide an answer to that question. There is a discussion ongoing in the topic: Endless and infinite

Finitude is essentially merely a mental concept.

Yes it is, just like "fairies", "unicorns", "santa clauses", and "Universe's beginning" are as well.

As it appears, finitude is a product by the human mind due to the nature of counsciousness that expresses itself by means of pattern recognition.

A pattern is the origin of finitude by the "begin" that is introduced by the observer.

Therefor finitude is nothing more than recognized patterns and it may not be something of substance by itself.

When a particle would move beyond the boundaries of what is comprehensible by a pattern, i.e., when it would continue infinitely, then it will move out of the space of a pattern (finitude) into the space of what is considered to be infinite.

The question then arises: why would such a particle exist? When one discovers a particle, it means that there is a "begin" of a pattern. Why would it be possible that the particle continues infinitely? Or even, why would it do so since that would render it's begin purposeless.

Maybe the particle does not fly to "the edge of the Universe" (i.e. infinitely) because ...

Maybe we are not understanding each other because we are using the word 'cosmos' differently? So, just to clarify, what do you actually mean when you use the word 'Cosmos'?

Cosmos originates from the Greek word Kosmos and means "to put in order" with a reference to the worldly environment as it is comprehended by humans, i.e. the Universe.

what does it imply with regard to the nature of that particle?

Nothing is "implied" with regard to the nature of "that" particle.

All particles just exist. That is there nature.

A scientific publication from yesterday discovered that all particles in the Universe are connected by identity entanglement.

A big surprise may be the fact that the postulate of indistinguishability of particles is not only a formal mathematical procedure but in its pure form leads to the consequences observed in laboratories. Is nonlocality inherent in all identical particles in the Universe? The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the Universe seem to be entangled only by their identical nature. This is a great secret that science will soon face.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 032420.php

The ghostly morphing of the particle may provide a clue.

What do you mean by 'ghostly morphing of the particle' here?

Neutrinos can instantly switch between 3 known types which is named Flavor-Switching: electron, muon and tau.

The mass of the muon flavor is 200x greater while the tau flavor has 3000x more mass than the electron flavor. It means that the particle can interact with the visible world on its own terms.

Neutrinos can mysteriously morph from one type to another.

“It’s like throwing vanilla ice cream a long distance and seeing some of it turn into chocolate,” says physicist Chang Kee Jung of New York’s Stony Brook University.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... -neutrinos

Recently a fourth 'heavy weight' flavor may have been discovered which indicates that there may be more flavors that a Neutrino can morph into.

https://www.livescience.com/62842-fourt ... trino.html

What could explain such "instant" morphing of a particle that can move through the core of the Sun? Does it imply intelligence?

[creation]

Consider the ridiculous of thinking, assuming, believing, and/or saying "edge of the cosmos"?

How would one be able to spark the idea in a random reader for the ultimate distance one can possibly imagine?

By just asking the random reader to imagine the so called "ultimate" distance they could possibly imagine, which, by the way, for every human being is just infinity anyway.

Also, you are now getting way off the point I was making, which, again, was; Why would a so called "scientist" in this day and age still use words like "edge" in relation to 'cosmos' or 'Universe', as though that is what actually exists ?

If a writer wants to "spark an idea" of the 'ultimate distance', then just write that. Obviously, what can be seen, in what was written, was nothing about "sparking and idea of ultimate distance" at all. What was being portrayed in that writing was that the cosmos was finite, which, to me, is a ridiculous thing to assume is true.

Maybe the phrase could be considered valid by the fact that "the Universe" as a concept is related to finitude that, as a mental concept, is introduced by the observer.

Why would any observer hold a concept that the Universe is finite?

And, I was not questioning if the concept the Universe is finite was valid or not. I am questioning why do people still write in ways, which presumes that the Universe is finite?

The edge would then refer to the boundary of what is visible/known, which would make it a valid and an effective phrase for a science magazine.

You are now obviously just 'trying to' "justify" the incorrect writings, which still persist in this day and age in science magazines. A lot of "scientists" are still maintaining very strong beliefs that the Universe began and/or is finite, which forms biased views that can be clearly seen in their writings.

If a neutrino moves in a straight line and is not stopped by anything, then there is NO 'edge' NOR 'boundary'. The neutrino moves in a direction infinitely. Full stop.

If the Universe is merely a reference to what humans can possibly know, referencing to an edge is completely valid and logical.

But the word 'Universe' is not merely a reference to what humans can possibly know, to me.

If the word 'Universe' was merely a reference to what humans can possibly know, then the Universe is therefore infinite, which would then mean there is no 'edge', and to reference an 'edge' would again be completely invalid and illogical.

You, however, may like to "justify" that the word 'Universe' is merely a reference to what humans do know, but then that would not work either, because that would mean that the Universe is getting bigger all the time.

Either way, your attempts at "justification" here are not working.

Your continual attempts at "justifying" those writings will not work.

"At is appears", to who exactly?

Also, to those people, does "it appear" to them the idea that the Universe being finite is conclusive?

Maybe philosophy may be able to provide an answer to that question. There is a discussion ongoing in the topic: Endless and infinite

Which question? I did ask two.

Also, how about for 'you', is the Universe being finite, conclusive?

Yes it is, just like "fairies", "unicorns", "santa clauses", and "Universe's beginning" are as well.

As it appears, finitude is a product by the human mind due to the nature of counsciousness that expresses itself by means of pattern recognition.

This is the biggest load of made up crap, which can be proven by your complete incapability to answer the following clarifying questions accurately and correctly.

What is the human 'mind'?

What is 'consciousness'? And,

What is the 'nature of consciousness'?

Also, if human beings express 'finitude' of something, then so what? Human beings can perceive 'finitude' of anything they so wish. But that in now way means that the Universe being 'finite' is true, right, or correct at all.

There is in fact a reason why human beings observe and maintain a very strongly held view and belief that the Universe is finite, but that is in no way a refection of what is actually True, Right, and Correct. That is just what some human beings assume and/or believe is true.

A pattern is the origin of finitude by the "begin" that is introduced by the observer.

As I just said there is a reason WHY some people see patterns, which may not even exist anyway.

The first flaw in logic is introducing some thing, which may not even being true to begin with.

The second flaw is continuing on with that 'introduced' thing as though it is true. Saying, the "edge of the Universe", is just continuing on with an assumption as though it is true, when it could be completely and utterly WRONG.

Therefor finitude is nothing more than recognized patterns and it may not be something of substance by itself.

But 'who' recognizes these "patterns"?

I certainly do NOT see any "recognized pattern" in relation to a finite Universe. What so called "patterns" are you or others supposedly recognizing here?

When a particle would move beyond the boundaries of what is comprehensible by a pattern, i.e., when it would continue infinitely, then it will move out of the space of a pattern (finitude) into the space of what is considered to be infinite.

Wow you are really 'trying' all you can to 'try to' "justify" those four words. Do you normally spend this much time 'trying to' "justify" some thing that is obviously just someone's belief, which has not yet been proven to be true and correct.

The question then arises: why would such a particle exist? When one discovers a particle, it means that there is a "begin" of a pattern. Why would it be possible that the particle continues infinitely? Or even, why would it do so since that would render it's begin purposeless.

Maybe the particle does not fly to "the edge of the Universe" (i.e. infinitely) because ...

Maybe we are not understanding each other because we are using the word 'cosmos' differently? So, just to clarify, what do you actually mean when you use the word 'Cosmos'?

Cosmos originates from the Greek word Kosmos and means "to put in order" with a reference to the worldly environment as it is comprehended by humans, i.e. the Universe.

Wow, it appears that so when 'you' use a word, you KNOW how it is comprehended by humans as a whole.

Nothing is "implied" with regard to the nature of "that" particle.

All particles just exist. That is there nature.

A scientific publication from yesterday discovered that all particles in the Universe are connected by identity entanglement.

A big surprise may be the fact that the postulate of indistinguishability of particles is not only a formal mathematical procedure but in its pure form leads to the consequences observed in laboratories. Is nonlocality inherent in all identical particles in the Universe? The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the Universe seem to be entangled only by their identical nature. This is a great secret that science will soon face.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 032420.php

This might be interesting to some, but what has this got to do with what we were talking about?

Also, 'scientific publications' do not discover things. 'Scientific publications' publish what is said to have been discovered, among other things.

Was there any information in that 'scientific publication' about how exactly human beings made a contraption that was able to look at and investigate absolutely every and ALL particles in the Universe, which allowed those human beings to discover that ALL particles in the Universe are connected by the so called "identity entanglement"?

What do you mean by 'ghostly morphing of the particle' here?

Neutrinos can instantly switch between 3 known types which is named Flavor-Switching: electron, muon and tau.

The mass of the muon flavor is 200x greater while the tau flavor has 3000x more mass than the electron flavor. It means that the particle can interact with the visible world on its own terms.

Okay, so absolutely nothing at all to do with whether a neurtrino moves infinitely or is stopped at some so called "edge of the Universe".

Neutrinos can mysteriously morph from one type to another.

When they 'morph' do they still travel in straight lines and still travel through things?

“It’s like throwing vanilla ice cream a long distance and seeing some of it turn into chocolate,” says physicist Chang Kee Jung of New York’s Stony Brook University.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... -neutrinos

Recently a fourth 'heavy weight' flavor may have been discovered which indicates that there may be more flavors that a Neutrino can morph into.

https://www.livescience.com/62842-fourt ... trino.html

What could explain such "instant" morphing of a particle that can move through the core of the Sun? [/quote]

Just out of curiosity how does a human being keep up with some thing moving at the speed of light?

When keeping up with some thing at the speed of light how exactly do they know when it 'morphs' into some other thing?

And, how do they know that it can pass through the core of the sun, and whether it is the exact same thing, which may or may not have morphed into some other thing, when it comes out the other side of the sun?

What instruments do they have and use on the other side of the sun to KNOW that this is exactly what happens?

Or, is all of this just a guess, or mental construct, of what just 'might happen'?

Does it imply intelligence?

What is 'it', which you are asking "imply intelligence"?

And, 'intelligence' in relation to what exactly?

[psyreporter]

How would one be able to spark the idea in a random reader for the ultimate distance one can possibly imagine?

By just asking the random reader to imagine the so called "ultimate" distance they could possibly imagine, which, by the way, for every human being is just infinity anyway.

Also, you are now getting way off the point I was making, which, again, was; Why would a so called "scientist" in this day and age still use words like "edge" in relation to 'cosmos' or 'Universe', as though that is what actually exists ?

If a writer wants to "spark an idea" of the 'ultimate distance', then just write that. Obviously, what can be seen, in what was written, was nothing about "sparking and idea of ultimate distance" at all. What was being portrayed in that writing was that the cosmos was finite, which, to me, is a ridiculous thing to assume is true.

After further consideration, it appears to me that it is perfectly correct to mention "edge of the Universe" in a scientific publication. It is simply a reference to the boundary of one's perspective on his/her environment which could have been the "edge of the Earth" when people did not know yet that the Earth was round, and today it could refer to the edge of what is known about space.

Why would any observer hold a concept that the Universe is finite?

Because the observer, by naming the environment, introduces a "begin" which implies a "total".

And, I was not questioning if the concept the Universe is finite was valid or not. I am questioning why do people still write in ways, which presumes that the Universe is finite?

If the concept "the Universe" implies finitude then it is impossible to imagine that the Universe is infinite. One could only imagine the Universe as endless but that would be nonsensical because why would something that has a begin not have an end?

Therefor, to be correct, one should consider "the Universe" as a product of the observer and thus as a concept with a "begin" that is finite. The boundary would be defined by the limit of the perspective of the observer. That limit or "edge" is real, but it is only limited to the perspective of the observer. By looking further, ones perspective can change. From "the edge of the Earth" to "the edge of the Universe" to "the edge of human knowledge about its environment".

As it appears, finitude is a product by the human mind due to the nature of consciousness that expresses itself by means of pattern recognition.

This is the biggest load of made up crap, which can be proven by your complete incapability to answer the following clarifying questions accurately and correctly.

What is the human 'mind'?

What is 'consciousness'? And,

What is the 'nature of consciousness'?

Also, if human beings express 'finitude' of something, then so what? Human beings can perceive 'finitude' of anything they so wish. But that in now way means that the Universe being 'finite' is true, right, or correct at all.

There is in fact a reason why human beings observe and maintain a very strongly held view and belief that the Universe is finite, but that is in no way a refection of what is actually True, Right, and Correct. That is just what some human beings assume and/or believe is true.

Consciousness expresses itself by means of pattern recognition. It is simply an empirical perspective on consciousness without the need to know what consciousness is. The human mind equally can be empirically proven to be real without the need to know what it is. Discussions on this forum are empirical evidence that the human mind is real.

What does one do when one observes the world by means of the senses? Essentially, at the core, one recognizes patterns by which one derives meaning in relation to itself. It could be sight, feelings or emotions. An observation always knows a "begin" of a pattern. This is the origin of the concept finite.

Therefor finitude is nothing more than recognized patterns and it may not be something of substance by itself.

But 'who' recognizes these "patterns"?

I certainly do NOT see any "recognized pattern" in relation to a finite Universe. What so called "patterns" are you or others supposedly recognizing here?

The observer. "the Universe" is finite by the "begin" that is introduced by the observer that at some point started to recognize its environment and called all that it can perceive "the Universe".

A scientific publication from yesterday discovered that all particles in the Universe are connected by identity entanglement.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 032420.php

This might be interesting to some, but what has this got to do with what we were talking about?

Also, 'scientific publications' do not discover things. 'Scientific publications' publish what is said to have been discovered, among other things.

Was there any information in that 'scientific publication' about how exactly human beings made a contraption that was able to look at and investigate absolutely every and ALL particles in the Universe, which allowed those human beings to discover that ALL particles in the Universe are connected by the so called "identity entanglement"?

It was a misspelling/sloppy writing. My apologies. With regard to relevance, when all particles (including Neutrinos) are entangled, that may have implications that are relevant to form a philosophical perspective on the essence / purpose of the particle.

Neutrinos can instantly switch between 3 known types which is named Flavor-Switching: electron, muon and tau.

The mass of the muon flavor is 200x greater while the tau flavor has 3000x more mass than the electron flavor. It means that the particle can interact with the visible world on its own terms.

Okay, so absolutely nothing at all to do with whether a neurtrino moves infinitely or is stopped at some so called "edge of the Universe".

Maybe it does. If the Neutrino can morph and interact with the visible world on its own regard, then perhaps, it does not intend to "fly into infinity".

When they 'morph' do they still travel in straight lines and still travel through things?

Yes, that can be deduced from the information. It is said that the particle can do some things by itself while flying at light speed in an 'exact' straight line and straight through the core of planets and stars.

“It’s like throwing vanilla ice cream a long distance and seeing some of it turn into chocolate,” says physicist Chang Kee Jung of New York’s Stony Brook University.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... -neutrinos

Recently a fourth 'heavy weight' flavor may have been discovered which indicates that there may be more flavors that a Neutrino can morph into.

https://www.livescience.com/62842-fourt ... trino.html

What could explain such "instant" morphing of a particle that can move through the core of the Sun?

Just out of curiosity how does a human being keep up with some thing moving at the speed of light?

When keeping up with some thing at the speed of light how exactly do they know when it 'morphs' into some other thing?

And, how do they know that it can pass through the core of the sun, and whether it is the exact same thing, which may or may not have morphed into some other thing, when it comes out the other side of the sun?

What instruments do they have and use on the other side of the sun to KNOW that this is exactly what happens?

Or, is all of this just a guess, or mental construct, of what just 'might happen'?

I am not a scientist. Such questions are relevant, but this topic merely addresses the information that can be deduced from the status quo (i.e. recent information that is published about Neutrinos).

Does it imply intelligence?

What is 'it', which you are asking "imply intelligence"?

And, 'intelligence' in relation to what exactly?

When Neutrinos morph, they interact with the visible world on their own regard. I simply intended to question if it could be said that such activity could imply/require intelligence.

The question is "why" do Neutrinos morph? Scientists call it "ghostly" which could indicate that it may require something special to explain it, e.g. intelligence. I did not intend to imply that it is so. Perhaps science will discover a simple explanation but considering the small size of the particle, perhaps philosophy could be used to discover insights related to the question "why".

[creation]

By just asking the random reader to imagine the so called "ultimate" distance they could possibly imagine, which, by the way, for every human being is just infinity anyway.

Also, you are now getting way off the point I was making, which, again, was; Why would a so called "scientist" in this day and age still use words like "edge" in relation to 'cosmos' or 'Universe', as though that is what actually exists ?

If a writer wants to "spark an idea" of the 'ultimate distance', then just write that. Obviously, what can be seen, in what was written, was nothing about "sparking and idea of ultimate distance" at all. What was being portrayed in that writing was that the cosmos was finite, which, to me, is a ridiculous thing to assume is true.

After further consideration, it appears to me that it is perfectly correct to mention "edge of the Universe" in a scientific publication. It is simply a reference to the boundary of one's perspective on his/her environment which could have been the "edge of the Earth" when people did not know yet that the Earth was round, and today it could refer to the edge of what is known about space.

If you find doing this "perfectly correct", then that is is perfectly fine with me.

One day you, and so called "scientists", will actually catch up to what thee actual Truth IS.

Why would any observer hold a concept that the Universe is finite?

Because the observer, by naming the environment, introduces a "begin" which implies a "total".

And, I was not questioning if the concept the Universe is finite was valid or not. I am questioning why do people still write in ways, which presumes that the Universe is finite?

If the concept "the Universe" implies finitude then it is impossible to imagine that the Universe is infinite.

That is one very big 'IF'.

Does the concept "the Universe" imply "finitude", to you?

If yes, then you are the only one that I know of.

One could only imagine the Universe as endless but that would be nonsensical because why would something that has a begin not have an end?

Since when has the Universe had a "beginning"?

Who said the Universe had a "beginning", and what evidence is there for this so called "beginning"?

Therefor, to be correct, one should consider "the Universe" as a product of the observer and thus as a concept with a "begin" that is finite. The boundary would be defined by the limit of the perspective of the observer. That limit or "edge" is real, but it is only limited to the perspective of the observer. By looking further, ones perspective can change. From "the edge of the Earth" to "the edge of the Universe" to "the edge of human knowledge about its environment".

You are free to consider and/or believe that this concept is true and correct. But, this is one extremely very relative perspective to each individual, and therefore could be so completely and utterly WRONG.

This is the biggest load of made up crap, which can be proven by your complete incapability to answer the following clarifying questions accurately and correctly.

What is the human 'mind'?

What is 'consciousness'? And,

What is the 'nature of consciousness'?

Also, if human beings express 'finitude' of something, then so what? Human beings can perceive 'finitude' of anything they so wish. But that in now way means that the Universe being 'finite' is true, right, or correct at all.

There is in fact a reason why human beings observe and maintain a very strongly held view and belief that the Universe is finite, but that is in no way a refection of what is actually True, Right, and Correct. That is just what some human beings assume and/or believe is true.

Consciousness expresses itself by means of pattern recognition. It is simply an empirical perspective on consciousness without the need to know what consciousness is. The human mind equally can be empirically proven to be real without the need to know what it is. Discussions on this forum are empirical evidence that the human mind is real.

Well that is one way of proving that you have absolutely no idea what 'consciousness' and 'mind' is.

What does one do when one observes the world by means of the senses? Essentially, at the core, one recognizes patterns by which one derives meaning in relation to itself. It could be sight, feelings or emotions. An observation always knows a "begin" of a pattern. This is the origin of the concept finite.

To me, this sounds like one trying absolutely anything to 'try to' "justify" their already held assumptions and beliefs about what is true and right.

But 'who' recognizes these "patterns"?

I certainly do NOT see any "recognized pattern" in relation to a finite Universe. What so called "patterns" are you or others supposedly recognizing here?

The observer. "the Universe" is finite by the "begin" that is introduced by the observer that at some point started to recognize its environment and called all that it can perceive "the Universe".

Sounds like all just made up stuff, which obviously does not work in nor fit in with what is actually True, Right, and Correct.

This might be interesting to some, but what has this got to do with what we were talking about?

Also, 'scientific publications' do not discover things. 'Scientific publications' publish what is said to have been discovered, among other things.

Was there any information in that 'scientific publication' about how exactly human beings made a contraption that was able to look at and investigate absolutely every and ALL particles in the Universe, which allowed those human beings to discover that ALL particles in the Universe are connected by the so called "identity entanglement"?

It was a misspelling/sloppy writing. My apologies. With regard to relevance, when all particles (including Neutrinos) are entangled, that may have implications that are relevant to form a philosophical perspective on the essence / purpose of the particle.

Physical particles do not form so called "philosophical perspectives" on any thing.

Only human beings form 'perspectives'.

Okay, so absolutely nothing at all to do with whether a neurtrino moves infinitely or is stopped at some so called "edge of the Universe".

Maybe it does. If the Neutrino can morph and interact with the visible world on its own regard, then perhaps, it does not intend to "fly into infinity".

Are you now saying that they choose to do things?

When they 'morph' do they still travel in straight lines and still travel through things?

Yes, that can be deduced from the information. It is said that the particle can do some things by itself while flying at light speed in an 'exact' straight line and straight through the core of planets and stars.

Who would say such an absurd thing as, "The particle 'can do some things by itself' while flying at light speed in an 'exact' straight line and through the core of planets and stars"?

Every answer/response you have given so far you have just said words, but when looked at fully they are saying nothing at all really.

You are trying your hardest to answer my questions by just saying absolutely anything, which to you might make sense, but it obviously is completely nonsensical, from my perspective, anyway.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... -neutrinos


Just out of curiosity how does a human being keep up with some thing moving at the speed of light?

When keeping up with some thing at the speed of light how exactly do they know when it 'morphs' into some other thing?

And, how do they know that it can pass through the core of the sun, and whether it is the exact same thing, which may or may not have morphed into some other thing, when it comes out the other side of the sun?

What instruments do they have and use on the other side of the sun to KNOW that this is exactly what happens?

Or, is all of this just a guess, or mental construct, of what just 'might happen'?

I am not a scientist. Such questions are relevant, but this topic merely addresses the information that can be deduced from the status quo (i.e. recent information that is published about Neutrinos).

Is that the "status quo" that just follows 'whatever is said', because 'it is written in a science journal'?

What can be clearly seen, when, and if, these so called "scientists" are questioned seriously about how they make some of these so called "discoveries", they might, like you, be completely incapable of answering, properly and correctly.

What is 'it', which you are asking "imply intelligence"?

And, 'intelligence' in relation to what exactly?

When Neutrinos morph, they interact with the visible world on their own regard. I simply intended to question if it could be said that such activity could imply/require intelligence.

Oh, you are asking; if a neutrino can morph, then does that imply the neutrino has 'intelligence'?

Well the answer to your own question will depend on how you are defining the word 'intelligence' here?

So, how are you defining the word 'intelligence' here?

The question is "why" do Neutrinos morph?

Personally, I would NEED to see far more evidence that they do so call "morph" before I would even begin to question 'why' they "morph"?

Do you even know 'why' you think the way you do, why you think what you do, and why you even do what you do?

When you learn these things, then you will understand 'why' asking; Why do nuetrinos morph? can be seen as a truly absurd question.

Do you know of any thing that does not morph?

If no, then the reason why neutrinos morph is probably for the exact same reason why every thing else morphs.

But if yes, then what things do not morph?

And, how are you defining the word 'morph' here?

Scientists call it "ghostly" which could indicate that it may require something special to explain it, e.g. intelligence.

Or, they could call it "ghostly" because they have absolutely no idea at all, and this is the best word they could come up with.

"scientists" are not exactly known for their creative ability when it comes to naming things.

I did not intend to imply that it is so. Perhaps science will discover a simple explanation but considering the small size of the particle, perhaps philosophy could be used to discover insights related to the question "why".

Through so called "philosophy" most human beings do not even know 'why' they do what they do, let alone why other things do what they do.

[psyreporter]

That is one very big 'IF'.

Does the concept "the Universe" imply "finitude", to you?

If yes, then you are the only one that I know of.

As mentioned in the other post:

One cannot pose that something that has a begin is infinite because infinity does not know a begin. Therefor, "the Universe" as concept with a begin introduced by the observer is finite by definition. The term Universe merely refers to what the observer can possibly know about its environment, thus the finite limit is relative to the perspective of the observer only and it does not imply anything about the actual environment that one assumes to exist.

Perhaps the first lines in the book Tao-te Ching by Lao-tzu are applicable:

"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name."

Maybe it does. If the Neutrino can morph and interact with the visible world on its own regard, then perhaps, it does not intend to "fly into infinity".

Are you now saying that they choose to do things?

At question is if that should be implied from the information that is available. If something acts out of itself to interact with its environment, which scientists call "ghostly" activity, maybe it implies the requirement for intelligence.

Is that the "status quo" that just follows 'whatever is said', because 'it is written in a science journal'?

What can be clearly seen, when, and if, these so called "scientists" are questioned seriously about how they make some of these so called "discoveries", they might, like you, be completely incapable of answering, properly and correctly.

One could question the validity of what the status quo of science assumes and communicates but is there a reason to question the existence of Neutrinos and what is claimed about them?

It may be a task of philosophy to detect potential flaws in the reasoning that has lead to the claims that were made.

When one could argue that the claims are correct, then the posed questions would be relevant: why do Neutrinos morph and interact with the visible world. And do they do that on their own terms (i.e. does it imply intelligence)?

And, how are you defining the word 'morph' here?

What is important to consider with regard to the morphing of Neutrinos is that they actually change their mass which implies that they "interact" with the visible world.

The Neutrinos fly in a straight line through the core of the Sun while they can morph into a "heavy" mass. For some reason they can do things which scientists refer to as "ghostly" activity.

[creation]

That is one very big 'IF'.

Does the concept "the Universe" imply "finitude", to you?

If yes, then you are the only one that I know of.

As mentioned in the other post:

One cannot pose that something that has a begin is infinite because infinity does not know a begin. Therefor, "the Universe" as concept with a begin introduced by the observer is finite by definition. The term Universe merely refers to what the observer can possibly know about its environment, thus the finite limit is relative to the perspective of the observer only and it does not imply anything about the actual environment that one assumes to exist.

Perhaps the first lines in the book Tao-te Ching by Lao-tzu are applicable:

"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name."

Are you now saying that they choose to do things?

At question is if that should be implied from the information that is available. If something acts out of itself to interact with its environment, which scientists call "ghostly" activity, maybe it implies the requirement for intelligence.

What thing in the Universe does not interact with its environment?

Is that the "status quo" that just follows 'whatever is said', because 'it is written in a science journal'?

What can be clearly seen, when, and if, these so called "scientists" are questioned seriously about how they make some of these so called "discoveries", they might, like you, be completely incapable of answering, properly and correctly.

One could question the validity of what the status quo of science assumes and communicates but is there a reason to question the existence of Neutrinos and what is claimed about them?

Yes. One of many reasons is some people do not always accept everything they are told, especially when the reason they are told to believe is "because it is written in a book", or "in a scientific journal".

It may be a task of philosophy to detect potential flaws in the reasoning that has lead to the claims that were made.

Well this is an extremely very simple and easy thing to do.

When one could argue that the claims are correct, then the posed questions would be relevant: why do Neutrinos morph and interact with the visible world. And do they do that on their own terms (i.e. does it imply intelligence)?

Well we will have to wait for the arguments that the claims are correct to come forward first.

And, how are you defining the word 'morph' here?

What is important to consider with regard to the morphing of Neutrinos is that they actually change their mass which implies that they "interact" with the visible world.

What were they actually interacting with before they so called "morphed" into "interact" the so called "visible world".

Also, what I find is far more important is when a person makes claim, then they are able to back up and support their claims. The best way for to back up and support their claims is to be able to explain what they actually mean by the actual words they use. This can only be truly done by being able to explain what the words mean that they use. If you cannot even define the actual words you use, then I suggest you change the words you use, or you do not expect others to understand you and do not be to surprised when they do not. Obviously, if you do not define the words you choose to use, then others will not fully understand what you are talking about and meaning. Obviously if you do not know what you mean, then others will not as well.

The Neutrinos fly in a straight line through the core of the Sun while they can morph into a "heavy" mass. For some reason they can do things which scientists refer to as "ghostly" activity.

Who or what was on the other side of the sun, making sure that it was the exact same neutrino that past all the way through the sun, and making sure that it did this in an absolute straight line?

[Ensrick]

What thing in the Universe does not interact with its environment?

Neutrinos have a very weak interaction with their environment otherwise there would be no way to measure them.

Who or what was on the other side of the sun, making sure that it was the exact same neutrino that past all the way through the sun, and making sure that it did this in an absolute straight line?

Well, in observed instances, the people on earth taking the measurement are. We can't say they took a straight line but pretty darn close to it. When we take measurements we can get information about their velocity and momentum which gives us evidence supporting the claim that they can travel through the sun.

Questions about physics and theories are better answered in textbooks and other informational sources. It's strange how often I see no actual claims, rather questions pointed at established theories. It's known that neutrinos don't fit nicely into the basic models of physics which is why learning more about them will help us understand physics. I don't think anyone can actually claim much about neutrinos from a philosophical perspective since they are--in good part--a mystery.