Joe

Indeed, as I keep saying. But the question is, what is unique? What we refer to as St Pauls (or any other such thing) is not unique over time. What is unique is its physically existent state at any given time. So what we know of as St Pauls, or any other thing, does not physically exist. A sequence of physically existent states is what occurs, which, at a higher level of conception give the appearance of continuation.

Paul

Paul,

There is no such thing as time. There are such real things as time pieces every one of which is unique, once. Unique cannot change or be changed into anything else. It is your peculiar view of reality, and your inability to grasp the real meaning of the term; "last time" that is doing all of the repetitive changing.

Joe

Joe

I am fully aware there is no such thing as time in any given reality, by definition, it occurs once and is a unique physically existent state. Reality is only spatial. Time is concerned with the rate of change to the subsequent reality in the sequence. So there is only ever a 'present' which exists. The point is that what exists is a physically existent state of whatever comprises it, not the objects as we conceive them. Which is what I said at the outset and have been repeating ever since.

Here is a quote from your essay:

"The fact is that had I truly wished to find out anything about a real toe, the only way I could have done so would have been by taking my shoes and socks off and by looking at one of my real toes. Real snowflakes are unique. Real toes are unique. I presently possess a set of real toes no other person who has ever lived, who is presently alive, or who will ever live anywhere in the future, had, has, or will ever come to possess"

At any given time the reality which manifests as your toe is different from any other time. It is not your toe, or snowflake, or whatever, that is unique. As conceived this does not physically exist. What is unique, and what exists at any given time is a physically existent state of the 'thing'. The 'thing' only appears as a 'thing' because we are defining 'thing' on the basis of superficial physical characteristics, which are not what physically occurs. Indeed, we even rationalise that conception by speaking of 'it changes', when it does at this superficial level. Which is of course a contradiction, because if it has changed, then it is no longer it, it is something else.

Paul

Mr. Fisher,

I loved your essay, and I would rate it an A in contradistinction to all those Z's trapped in binary space. Yours is recommended reading for all those assimilated, and who are one with one, or one with zero, and unable to switch between the two. Yours is a breath of fresh air that should bring all those wannabe Z's back to R, i.e. reality. By the way, if you ever type in "thumb" I would be interested in knowing what reference you find most interesting.

Cheers.

Zoran

    Zoran,

    Thank you ever so much for your praise of my essay. I did as you requested and I typed the word "thumb" into the GOOGLE Search Engine. There were only 1,740,000,000 results for thumb. Please allow me a bit more time to do some meaningful research. I will get back to you and report which I thought was the most interesting after I have checked them all out.

    Joe Fisher,

    Thanks for your comments. As you have pointed out, it is not the age of our galaxy which is 4.5 billion years but it is the age of our earth which is 4.5 billion years. You have obviously confused. Age of our galaxy is about 13.8 billion years. So there is no exaggeration in the time scale for life to have existed on earth as it is supposed to be of the order of about 3- 3.5 billion years.

    I will go through your essay and post my comments soon.

    good luck,

    sreenath.

      Joe,

      Advocates of the Anthropic Principle (AP) speak of the subatomic world which they can't see and quite often attribute the same subatomic attributes to the macro world. Not being a mathematician or a real scientist,I tend to agree with your thinking of uniqueness but are you just speaking of the macro world?

      Being a humanities guy and a late science enthusiast, I attribute AP beliefs to man's anthropomorphic nature.

      I enjoyed your essay, especially the passion of your beliefs.

      Jim

        Jim,

        Thank you ever so much for reading my essay and understanding it. The real Universe is unique, once. Nobody (including me) fully understands unique, once. But whether it is a macro galaxy or an invisible particle, it can only be unique, once. I know it sounds nuts, but unique is not relative. Nature only delivers whole unique units such as a whole unique elephant or a whole unique star. Why man concentrates on the repeatable commonality of mathematics to try to define a unique system beats me.

        Joe

        Dear Joe,

        You have write interesting essay in specific style. For my more important also that you want to be realist. As we known it is not so welcomed by majority of ultramodern scientists. But truth is not depend from quantity of adherents!

        Check my work and you will find one supporter to your approach. I believe we can have many common points and we will cooperate.http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1804

        ESSAY

        Best wishes,

        George