Re: God=G_uv
analog57_at_yahoo.com
Date: 12/12/04
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin"
- Previous message: dkjk_at_bigpond.net.au: "Transformation of angles in SR"
- In reply to: TMG: "Re: God=G_uv FOR DUMMYS"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv FOR DUMMYS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 12 Dec 2004 00:17:08 -0800
TMG wrote:
> These instructions were received directly from the Science and Policy
> Group of the Trilateral Commission ( www.trilateral.org ).
>
> Those operatives in Massachusetts and RI have received additional
> directives, which I understandably am unable to divulge.
Deep ...deep ...deep ...just how deep does this rabbit hole go Alice?
A closed universe?
Stokes' theorem is a generalization of Green's theorem to non-planar
surfaces, with applications to curves traversed in the right hand sense
with respect to the outward normal of the curve surface.
It says that the integral of del x F is zero over every closed oriented
surface.
The divergence theorem makes this most quantitative by expressing that
the integral of a vector field over such a surface, is equal to the
integral of the divergence of that field over the region bounded by
that surface.
A hologram is aptly demonstrated by the mathematics of "Fourier
Transforms." Fourier transforms can convert any pattern, i.e. also a
numerical encoding, into the language of waves. They also can be used
to convert wave forms into patterns. A hologram is an image created by
the interference of wave energy, with the image projected out of that
hologram being the pattern of the interference wave-form.
Heuristically speaking, the term "causal structure" means that the
locality principle holds, in accordance with Einstein's wishes. That is
to say, future event B, is contained within past event, A.
If the barber shaves those, and only those men who do not shave
themselves, then does the barber shave himself?
If an assertion A, is true and its negation, ~A is also true, it
becomes a form of the "liars paradox".
Suppose a person called X, stands up and says, "This assertion is
false."
Let S denote the statement uttered; let p be the proposition the person
makes by uttering S. Then the utterance of the phrase "This assertion"
refers to the claim p. It follows that, in uttering the words "This
assertion is false," X is making the claim "p is false". Thus , p and
"p is false" are one and the same:
p = [p is false]
By making the claim, X is implicitly referring to the context in which
the claim is stated. Let c symbolically represent the context for which
the sentence refers.
X's uttering of the words "This assertion" refers to the context, c,
which entails p.
[c entails p]
That is to say, p must be the same as [c entails p] due to the fact
that X is referring to both p and [c entails p] via the utterance of
the phrase "This assertion."
If X's assertion is true then [c entails p] is true
p = [p is false]
[c entails p is false] is true
This creates a contradiction, ergo X's claim that [p is false] is
false.
[c entails p is false] is false
This appears to be the same contradictory state of affairs as in the
previous cases of the Liars Paradox.
Conclusion?:
c cannot be the appropriate context.
Consequently, the paradox becomes a theorem/demonstration.
When X utters the Liar sentence, X is uttering a falsehood, and the
context in which the claim of falsehood is made cannot be the same as
the context in which the Liar sentence S, was uttered...
Thus context c, becomes a subjective-qualia operator.
A physical system is described by a normalized vector[state vector] in
Hilbert space. All possible information can be known about the system,
since, for every physical observable there corresponds a self adjoint
operator in Hilbert space.
The only allowed physical results of measurements of some observable U,
are the elements of the spectrum of the operator which corresponds to
U.
So all properties of a number may not be completely known, but that
which is known, must be specifiable on logical or analytic grounds.
Now if you are trying to say that mathematics is inherently random at
its foundations, you must define what randomness is ...exactly.
Take a coin toss for example, as the number of flips of the coin
increase the
HTTTHTHTHHTHT.....HTHTHTHTHT...
The probability becomes an "exact" number at an infinite limit. 1/2 H
and 1/2 T.
So a number becomes an identity in the Platonic aeon.
lim
x->a f(x) = L
If 0 < |x - a| < delta then |f(x) - L| < epsilon
For example:
lim
x->3 (2x-5) = 1
if 0 < |x-3| < delta then |(2x-5)-1| < epsilon
|(2x-5)-1| = |2x-6| = |2(x-3)| = 2|x-3|
If 0 < |x-3| < epsilon/2 then |(2x-5)-1| = 2|x-3| < 2*epsilon/2 =
epsilon
Aeon means eternal.
A timeless symmetry?
An infinite number of coin flips gives an equal amount of heads and an
equal amount of tails.
[1/2 H and 1/2 T]*n, for n--->oo
A radioactive nucleus decays in accordance with probability P within
time t_0 to time t_1
Probability P becomes a timeless mathematical entity governing the
future iterations of events at time t. There exists a spectrum of
possibilities for the observed quantities. Certain deterministic
factors become contingent with respect to uncertainty, DxDp >= h .
An infinite number of observations of the radioactive decay, converges
to an exact number for t?
Wave function probability density = |psi (r, t)|^2
The physical meaning of the expectation value appears to be simple. It
is the value that would be found by taking the average of many
measurements of the observables in question on a large collection of
systems all in the state psi. the individual results are weighted by
the probability.
It seems that many valued logic must be formulated in terms of a stable
2-valued logic background.
Suppose the limit as n-->oo, s_n = s, in the classical sense. It must
then be demonstrated that s_n - s is infinitesimal for all infinite n.
That is to say, for any epsilon > 0 and for any infinite natural number
n , it must be proved that |s - s_n| < epsilon.
For any given epsilon > 0 in R there exists a natural number v in N
such that
|s_n - s| < epsilon for n > v, n is an element of N.
For all x, if x is an element of N and x > v then |s_x - s| < epsilon.
Since any infinite natural number is greater than v it can be deduced
that |s_n - s| < epsilon for all infinite n.
so if I flip a coin, it will be Heads H, or not-Heads, ~H
So if the coin lands on its side, it is still H or ~H, this being the
case that it is ~H. Absolutely true.
So if I go for a more specific multivalued logic it becomes H, ~H, S.
H or ~H is still true.
H or ~H or S is just adding more specification...?
Using the concept of "invariance/symmetry" :
T|F = F|T = T
The | represents a "choice" between T or F
Some might question the "equals sign".
Here is someone explaining a type of complementary logic.
http://users.erols.com/igoddard/gods-law.html
One asks oneself the question "What the heck does it mean for a wave
function to collapse?"
According to Einstein, there is no instantaneous action at a distance!
Distance is a property between objects in space. Space is a structure,
which is constructed of discrete units. The structure of space is a
distributive lattice. A set of properties, being a "complementary
logic?", expressing difference in wholeness.
An isometry on spacetime is a diffeomorphism which leaves the metric
g_ab invariant. The action on a connected spacetime is determined by
its action on a single point, along with the induced action on the
tangent space at the point, since isometries map geodesics onto
geodesics.
For a two dimensional manifold, the antisymmetric tensor determines the
value of the field at the point of two intersecting null planes. If the
metric has a Riemannian signature, the equations of action are equal to
the action of an infinitesimal rotation in flat Euclidean space. It
follows that the map is simply an ordinary rotation on a tangent space.
In a Schwarzchild spacetime via an analogue of the Schwarzchild
spacetime of the Rindler vacuum state, for which static observers
detect no particles, the expected stress-energy tensor becomes singular
on two distinct portions of the intersecting null planes. This is known
as the Hartle-Hawking vacuum, and the vacuum state will become a
thermal state with respect to the notion of time translations with
temperature T = hbar*c^3 / 8pi*k*G*M .
The vacuum state gives rise to a generalized entropy law, where the
entropy S' never decreases:
S' = S_m + A/4
The area of a spacetime surface and the maximum amount of information
contained in a finite region of space, cannot be greater than one
quarter of the area in Planck units. Spin networks can describe the
quantum geometry of space at the intersection of horizon boundaries,
where the spin networks intersect with the boundary at a finite number
of points.
There is a finite amount of energy contained by a given region of
spacetime. A finite amount of information. A finite number of quantum
phase entanglements and random fluctuations.
A phenomenon is random if individual outcomes are uncertain but there
is a regular distribution of outcomes in a large number of repetitions.
The Hawking-Unruh effect is therefore the consequence of the noise
spectrum for a massless scalar field along an accelerated trajectory in
Minkowski space. It would appear to be a Fermi-Dirac form. The Unruh
effect then becomes an integral part of a quantum field theory.
Symbols are merely information transducers. The map is not the
territory. Worshipping the symbols[or the scientific method] is
tantamount to deliberate ignorance of the facts. Symbols can transduce
our observations of the real world, nothing more.
So yes, symmetry is useful for creating an initial template for a time
dependent symmetry breaking process:
http://www.math.washington.edu/~burdzy/Bayes/book.pdf
AS WE CAN CLEARLY SEE, THE PROBABILITY OF A BROKEN SYMMETRY IS GOVERNED
BY THE SYMMETRY OF THE PROBABILITY.
I have derived the analog to the Godel rotating universe that is
basically one that involves quantum theory - utilizing the nonlinear
Schroedinger equation. It involves the concept of "resonance", which
means that the periodicity analog for a rotating universe becomes one
of standing wave resonance, generated via closed timelike loops.
Time-like geodesics from the moment of creation, all initially diverge,
but reach a maximum radius of divergence and then converge once again
to a point p' generating the "virtual" thermodynamic arrow,
orthogonally to the plane of p, where the plane forms the holographic
substrate.
Statistics also comes into play here...
Taken at face value, the observed Hubble expansion of the universe
implies that it was a point of infinite energy density at the very
beginning, roughly 12-15 billion years ago. In contrast to GR, good ol'
quantum theory says that it is totally meaningless to talk of an
infinite energy density compressed to a point. It says one should
consider the expansion as having started from a region with a diameter
that can be no larger than the Planck length 10^[-35] m. Consequently,
the density is no longer infinite, just a very large[finite] number.
Universal flatness is tied to the density of energy.
The flatness problem and the density parameter is a measure of the
amount of gravitating matter/energy in the universe, denoted by the
Greek letter Omega, and also understood to be the universal flatness
parameter. It is defined in such a way that if spacetime is "exactly"
flat then omega = 1. Before inflation, one of the great enigmas in
cosmology was the fact that the actual density of the Universe at
present is very close to the critical Omega value, one. This creates a
mystery, because as the Universe expands away from the initial "big
bang" the expansion will push the density parameter away from this most
critical value. If the Universe starts out with the parameter less than
one, Omega gets smaller as the Universe ages, while if it starts out
bigger than one, Omega gets bigger as the Universe ages.
Actually, the hypothesis is, ...that the Omega density parameter is
asymptotically approaching one.
Observations suggest that the early universe underwent a period of
rapid expansion known as inflation, which can be modelled by assuming
an extremely large positive cosmological constant existed at the
beginning. In contrast, observations made at the present time of
distance-redshift relations, can readily be explained by assuming a
very small positive cosmological constant now exists at present.
The "cosmological constant" - Lambda, would be a latent energy built
into the structure of space-time itself, that counteracts the "tug" of
gravity. The cosmological constant, Lorentz symmetry breaking, and
interpretation of dark matter are all related.
Einstein's cosmological constant, becomes necessary to account for the
absence of universal gravitational collapse. Theoretically speaking, it
is not actually a constant, but must have varied over the universe's
life, as if were converging to a specific value. Einstein's Equations
don't allow for the acceleration of the newborn universe accurately
without increasing the cosmological constant, or some similar
mechanism.
Imagine an existence without space or time that becomes a singular
consciousness. Consequently this consciousness forms the "big bang"
with the the initial "inflationary expansion".
The line element for the manifold curvature surface of a
quasi-continuous 4-dimensional space, becomes a generalization of the
complex numerical amplitudes of the fundamental modes of submicroscopic
Planck scale oscillations, macroscopically representing the universal
constant of action whose emergent dimensions become momentum and
position or energy and time, linking to the Heisenbergian ratio h, via
the Cauchy Schwartz inequality.
The action is also funadmentally tied into Einstein's cosmological term
Lambda, becoming the Gravitational/antigravitational/inflational
action, linking universal antigravity, dark matter, and
symmetry/symmetry-violation via metasymmetry. It represents an extremal
minimum condition of intervals of all consequent emergent
scales, whose excited states, or "quasi-stable resonances" become
reduced to non-local emergent global patterns of constraint,
metasymmetrically guiding the consequent symmetry breaking process. The
panoramic spectrum of fundamental particles is a direct result of it.
A complex space subsumes a real space-time and thus, it includes a real
space, in contrast to the fact that each component of real space is
closed on itself, it still acquires an open aspect as expressed by the
inevitable symmetry breaking that is generated at the phase boundary of
the null surface defined by macroscopic speed of light in vacuum [c
invariance] itself. That is to say, an observer maps a real phase of
space-time as the field of gravitation which is a
closed-circular/elliptical form that projects through the flat null
surface of c to an imaginary phase, mapped by the same real observer,
as the open-hyperbolic field of inflation. This is a broken symmetry
because the real and imaginary cases, which are exactly equivalent, or
which are singularly identical in terms of the complex metasymmetry,
become dually dissociated by the symmetry breaking phase transitions,
which essentially constructs our space of observables. This is a
"spontaneous" symmetry breaking, since the specification of "real" and
"imaginary" occurs in either of two arbitrary ways in the process of
observation. Two different ways of expressing the same thing. This is
quantum mechanically coined "observer participation" by the physicist
John Archibald Wheeler.
By stipulating that certain solutions to the Yang-Mills equations, must
have finite energy, the Einsteinian curvature taken at the asymptotic
limit of infinity, becomes zero. Thus the Chern-Simons invariant can be
defined at the 3-space boundary. The Chern-Simons invariant of an
amphichiral hyperbolic knot or link is also equal to 0. Defining the
Chern-Simons invariant at the 3-space boundary, means that good ol'
Stokes' Theorem possibly comes into play here? Interesting... so my
independent investigation was not too far off the mark.
Topological solitons are spatial "defects" analogously to defects in a
crystal lattice that carry conserved charges. Supersymmetry says that
there is a unique entity that has a specifiable quantity of some charge
and a minimal mass. The charge can be defined as electric, magnetic,
color, etc.
Observations of Type I supernovae in distant galaxies implies that the
universal expansion is accelerating. General relativity has the
cosmological accounting term, Lambda, to resolve this enigma. Also, the
recent observations relating to the cosmic microwave background,
necessarily require a positive Lambda. A Chern-Simons wave function
would describe the converging of Lambda and Omega.
A point without another "reference" does not exist; the opposite of a
thing distinguishes it from the thing itself. What is the dynamic of
space-time? Is it a ratio?
When space[metric properties of] is taken as a measure of length,
space/time is the speed of light in vacuum for a photon of light:
space
^
|
|
|
|-------------time
DISTANCE/TIME = space/time = c
Where, distance/length = perception of separation between two reference
points.
E = mc^2
E/momentum = E/p = c
energy/momentum = space/time ==> Lorentz invariance
Of course this symmetry possibly becomes violated below the Planck
length. The conjecture is, that there exists an overarching
invariance/symmetry that explicates the macro/micro
symmetry/symmetry-breaking.
Let T be a metric space with distance function r(x,y) expressing the
definitive predication that involves T with the real numbers, R.
Therefore the juxtaposition of left and right hemispheres resonates in
perfect accordance with the proposition that T and R are embedded
simultaneously in the full structure of manifold M. Ergo we pass on to
an enlargement *M of M, whereby the non-standard metric space is
diffeomorphism invariant on the macro scales.
When the sub-Planck diameter is reached we find ourselves no longer
within the realm of space and domain of time. We are in effect, outside
the laws of physics.
A metric space is a set of points such that for every pair of points,
there is a nonnegative real number called their distance that is
symmetric, and satisfies the triangle inequality, which states that the
sum of the measures of any two sides of any triangle is greater than
the measure of the third side. Macroscopic space is then an ironclad
tranformation. Two objects with relative velocity will have a relative
measure that transforms into the other. In effect, absolute separation
does not exist in the extrinsic sense. It can only be relational.
Observations suggest that the early universe underwent a period of
rapid expansion known as inflation, which can be modelled by assuming
an extremely large positive cosmological constant existed at the
beginning. In contrast, observations made at the present time of
distance-redshift relations, can readily be expained by assuming a very
small positive cosmological constant now exists at present.
The "cosmological constant" - Lambda, would be a latent energy built
into the structure of space-time itself, that counteracts the "tug" of
gravity. The cosmological constant, Lorentz symmetry breaking, and
interpretation of dark matter are all related.
The universal laws of nature are explained in terms of symmetry. The
completed infinities, mathematician Georg Cantor's
infinite[transfinite] sets, can be explained as cardinal identities,
manefestly akin to a type of "qualia" from which, finite subsets, and
elements of subsets, can be obtained.
Completed transfinite infinities, posess the property of distributive
identity, similarly to the way that a set of "red" objects has the
property and "identiy" of redness. Predicates like "red" are numbers in
the sense that they interact algebraically according to the laws of
Boolean algebra. Take one object away from the set of red objects and
the distributive identity "red" still describes[predicates] the set.
The definitive - distributive property, "natural number" or "real
number" predicates, and gives identity to an entire[infinite]
collection of individual subsets - numbers.
Yet, if we have a finite set of individual objects, the number of
elements in that set, does not give it an identity. It does not
distribute over its individual subsets. Take anything away from the set
and the finite number of elements contained in its previous self,
ceases to describe it.
Symmetry is analogous to a self evident truth and is distributive via
the laws of nature, being distributed over the entire set called
universe. A stratification of distributive identities.
[1.] Nothingness is a difficult concept, or rather, a difficult
"non-concept" since it is ...nothing.
[2.] To say that nothingness exists is to create a contradiction,
since nothingness is non-existence. Nothingness "non-exists".
[3.] Nothingness is non-existence; therefore nothingness is
non-relational. Nothingness has no distinctiveness in and of itself,
hence nothingness cannot be recognizable.
[4.] Being-ness means basically "to be", and to exist. Being-ness
exists.
[5.] Take any two distinct quantities-attributes of existence:
A<------P------>B
A and B perceive each other to be different with perception P. That is
to say A is perceived to be different from B and B is perceived to be
different from A.
A and B are different elements of a larger picture, but they
also[must] share certain common attributes of the larger reality
including them. From that perspective A and B are the same, because
aspects of A transform into B and aspects of B transform into A. At a
higher level of generality and symmetry, A cannot be distinguished from
B, and B cannot be distinguished from A. For example, dogs and cats are
distinctively different, yet dogs and cats are the same from the
perspective that both are "mammals".
[6.] Following this premise, it stands to reason that all attributes &
aspects of reality can be transformed into each other, and hence they
have no distinctions from each other[at continually higher and higher
levels of symmetry].
[7.] Therefore, it follows, that at a top[infinite?] level of
symmetry, everything that exists is related by a singular QUANTITY; a
fundamental unity.
QED.
Consciousness, aka the mind itself, IS beholden TO the uncertainty
principle, which is merely a form of the Cauchy Schwartz inequality,
thus connected to the "triangle inequality", which is a property of the
Riemannian metric, which is also perceived by the mind itself, since
the metric properties of space can only be observed/described via
perception. The uncertainty principle and gravity are related to the
same mathematical properties.
Each event in space-time has its own intrinsic measure of time, its own
"present moment", which is a point in the the Euclidean separation
plane of past-present-future, with the future as an uncertainty.
Represent the present moment of an arbitrary observer as the
inward collapse of the "past" light-cone/circular cross section to the
point of the "present moment" and the outward expanse of the future
light-cone/circular cross section into the uncertain future.
A 2-dimensional planar "cross-section" of the present moment, which is
the overlapping of past history, present moment, and future
uncertainty. p is the observational center of the overlapping cross
sections. The "proper time".
[<-[->[<-[p]->]<-]->]
Now it appears that the "past" moments are cumulative and are
increasing in information density = Shannon entropy as a cumulative
overlapping Lorentz invariant circular cross sections on a holographic
substratum originated at t_0.
Curvature and Riemannian geomety can be expressed as light-cone
deformations - generating an equivalent set of non-linear partial
differential equations equivalent to the Einstein field equations.
Our particular universe is generated through "symmetry
breaking," where the low-energy universe is frozen out through a series
of accidents. In other words, the elegant symmetry principles specify
what
sort of dice were rolled to produce our world.
Symmetry and randomness are inexorably intertwined - just as the way
the symmetry between heads and tails is inevitably and irrevocably
essential to the randomness of a coin flip. We see that the more simple
and elegant our most fundamental laws, the more this means our universe
is a result of nonlinearity, which we interpret as "accidents".
One can suggest the use of technological modernism to challenge
capitalism, without losing the freedoms of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. Hence the subject is interpolated into a
post-constructive paradigm of a collective - self narrative
contextualism, precluding absolute truth judgements as a juxtaposed
paradox. Therefore, the premise of technological modernism really
implies that the evolution of the Constitution is, and has always
been, quite capable of distinctive significance in stark contrast to
past[pre-constitutional] attempts at government. The former absolutist
stance is consequently contextualised into a dialectical equilibrium
that includes perspective consciousness as a major player in a
post-Freudian relational paradigm.
In that sense, the technological modernist approach towards a
juxtaposition of collective-self narrative dialectic logic, states
that narrativity may be used to free former colonialist paradigms from
the frigidity of isolated consciousness.
By examining the dialectic situationism, one is faced with a choice:
either accept predialectic quasi-nationalism with an inevitable world
dictatorship or conclude that the raison d'etre of the poet is
quasi-deconstruction, given that culture is equal to collective
self-narrativity. Such is the case that "dialectic situationism"
requires us to denote the role of the artist as writer, politician,
spokesman and scientist. Not a sublimation per se, but subsublimation
may be discovered to be the consequence of societal evolution.
"Technological modernism" means that society evolves via a "human"
collective-self narrative, and it is a general term and
social-evolutionary extension of "modernism" which is, in retrospect,
a term applicable to comprehensively experimental and avant-garde
trends in art and literature. Modernism was born of the early 20th
century, with the modernist literature being characterized as a
rejection of certain 19th-century traditions.
Technological modernist ideation is predominantly cosmopolitan, often
expressing the sense of an urban cultural dislocation genre[e.g
generation X], along with an acute awareness of the 20th century
anthropological and psychological theories and paradigms. The
modernist, and hence technological modernist techniques of
juxtaposition and multiple[relational] point of view, challenge the
former[and still existing] 19th century absolutist genre to
reestablish a much needed coherence of meaning from a
multiple-perspective viewpoint.
Society appears to evolve via the majority shareholders of opinion, or
so it seems.
Such is the case, that we might incorrectly assume that all people are
almost exclusively motivated by their own material self-interest. Yet
the experiential juxtaposition of objective and subjective realities,
called the status
quo "of the people, for the people, and by the people" systematically
refutes the self-interest hypothesis to a large degree. It appears
that many people are strongly motivated by concerns for fairness and
reciprocity, even though, they may act inappropiately during fits of
road rage.
The ostensible majority[ruled by quasi-dictatorial nationalism] forms
its own "tyranny" and will always force its own agenda without
consideration for long term survival of future generations.
This majority becomes more and more aggressive in pushing its
viewpoint, becoming the metaphorical "strong arm" to enforce its
will, via both numbers and voice. The metaphorical "might makes right"
scenario[e.g. Waco]. But also, under very general conditions, an
aggressive minority coalition inevitably makes its appearance, provided
that
the group is large enough and "fed up" enough. This minority
inevitably becomes a "tyranny of the minority": Yes, it is true that
the relentless and increasing aggression of the minority more than
compensates for its smaller number, leading to the minority outcome
being implemented with larger probability than the majority
alternative. This is an inevitable consequence of human nature?
According to the "Law of Requisite Variety", in order for a system to
achieve complete control, the variety of the actions that a control
system should be able to execute, must be at least as great as the
variety of the perturbations that need to be compensated for.
Evolutionary systems (organisms, societies, self-organizing processes,
...etc.) obviously would all be more "fit" when they have greater
control over their environments, because that would make it easier for
them to survive and reproduce. Thus evolution through natural
selection would tend to increase control, and therefore internal
"variety" and hence, overall complexity. The complexity, on the
average, IS increasing.
Since the environment has an almost infinite variety, the evolving
system would never be able to achieve complete control, but it would
at least be able to generate sufficient variety in order to more or
less control its most direct neighbourhood.
Systems rapidly become so "complex" and rich in variety-that they are
no longer realistically computable.
There is a paradox of medieval logic concerning the dilemma of an ass
who is placed equidistantly from two piles of food of equal size and
quality. A perfectly symmetrical situation. If the behavior of the ass
is completely rational, it will have no reason to prefer one pile to
the other and therefore cannot reach a decision over which pile to eat
first, and so remains in its original position and starves.
The real world donkey would have no problem choosing a pile of food. We
all agree. On the other hand, it becomes quite relevant when taking the
existence of the universe itself into account. If the universe had no
initial self instantiating property then how the hell was the initial
perfect symmetry broken?
Yes, Heisenberg uncertainty.
But that seems to mean that consciousness, aka the mind itself, IS
beholden TO the uncertainty principle, which is merely a form of the
Cauchy Schwartz inequality, thus connected to the "triangle
inequality", which is a property of the Riemannian metric, which is
also percieved by the mind itself, since the metric properties of space
can only be observed/described via perception.
If spontaneity is considered to be a characteristic feature of the
mind, then naturalism may consider it to be most problematical when
spontaneity is taken to be both intentional and acausal. We hope
against all hope that this apparently inevitable false dichotomy just
cannot be. Yet quantum physics might still apply when indeterminism is
taken into account. Indeterminism becomes a property of nature, which
is a self referential logical loophole for the intervention of a
nonphysical mind.
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin"
- Previous message: dkjk_at_bigpond.net.au: "Transformation of angles in SR"
- In reply to: TMG: "Re: God=G_uv FOR DUMMYS"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv FOR DUMMYS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
