07 Jul 09
Originally posted by KellyJayI see;
I do believe God created it and has in place laws that govern the
universe as I He has also set in place laws we are by our choices
also held to account, that when obeyed give us a peaceful and blessed
life. Watching it work itself out is both a scary and amazing thing to
behold at times.
Kelly
My personal idea is simply related to an epiontic universe/ observer which it derived from the fundamental field of potentialities😵
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by Lord SharkNot really although the theory moves on constantly; check among else:
Well the epiontic principle is certainly radical, but it needs beef doesn't it?
Zurek’s “Decoherence, Einselection and the Quantum Origins of the Classical”, Reviews of Modern Physics, 75, 715-765 (2003)
Penrose’s “The Emperor’s New Mind” Oxford University Press, 1989
Lloyd’s “Ultimate Physical Limits to Computation”, Nature, vol. 406, 2000
Einstein-Podolski-Rosen’s “Can Quantum-Mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?” Phys. Rev. 47, 1935
Tegmark’s “The Mathematical Universe”, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 38, Issue 2, 2008
Markosian’s “Time”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2008 Edition
Davies’s “Cosmic Jackpot: Why our Universe is just right for life”, Houghton Mifflin 2007
😵
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by black beetleThanks.
Not really although the theory moves on constantly; check among else:
Zurek’s “Decoherence, Einselection and the Quantum Origins of the Classical”, Reviews of Modern Physics, 75, 715-765 (2003)
Penrose’s “The Emperor’s New Mind” Oxford University Press, 1989
Lloyd’s “Ultimate Physical Limits to Computation”, Nature, vol. 406, 2000
Einstein-Podolsk ...[text shortened]... n
Davies’s “Cosmic Jackpot: Why our Universe is just right for life”, Houghton Mifflin 2007
😵
I still think it needs beef.
08 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleI was hoping to get a better understanding of your conceptual model by giving a simple scenario: "Let's say we have two observers in an environment." I tried to explain how the scenario fit in my conceptual model and asked that you do the same. I defined "reality" in relationship to the "environment", "truth" in relationship to that
But I clearly told you that "Whatever you stated is accurate...", and then I worked on your scenario offering my thoughts. In your opinion, what part of your scenario I answered not?
"reality", the "observer's" relationship with the "environment", etc., and was hoping to get something similar in return.
You came back with, "Whatever you stated is accurate..." (I'm not even sure what you meant by that, since most of what I stated was about my conceptual model) and proceeded to speak abstractly about your conceptual model. You spoke not of "environment", "reality" in relationship to the "environment", "truth" in relationship to the environment, "observer" in relationship to the environment, etc. In short, you completely abandoned the scenario. I also asked several questions that you seem to have completely ignored.