Also, I'm sorry to say this, but a theory of the existence of spirits and souls makes more sense than epiontics. Sorry. :(

If you are talking about a creator within the universe/multiverse, then you need a hypothesis for the origin of that creator. If you are talking about a creator outside the universe/multiverse, then that's not the universe/multiverse, because by definition the universe/multiverse is everything in existence.

The point is that we need a hypothesis for the universe that only requires the universe and no outside agency. Positing a being that is somehow beyond all that exists (yet which somehow exists!) is a non-starter.

  • [deleted]

The U is such an ugly shape. I would suggest that it perhaps be completed as an oval, but with a twist in it, this taking the epiontic reality full circle, but with recognition that the return from consciousness to creation must be through a dimension of reality outside the material and into a realm of latent possibilities. The resulting symbol is already quite familiar: в€ћ

For those interested, there are related topics being addressed in the FQXi essay contest. I mention but do not dwell on the concept of quantum Darwinism (quantum possibilities are subject to mutation and selection against a fitness landscape - resulting in the universe we know and love) in my own essay, The Tip of the Spear.

-George

6 days later
  • [deleted]

Karl:

You present a false dichotomy.

If we take "universe" to mean "all that exists" then indeed any creator which may exist would be within the universe (by definition). However, defining "universe" to mean "all that exists" does not entail that everything within the universe has an origin; this is true only for things that begin to exist, and it is entirely possible that, within the realm of all that exists, there exists one being who did not begin to exist, and all other objects which did begin to exist and were caused to exist by this being. Conversely, if we want to define "universe" as "all that began to exist" then the creator would indeed be outside the universe, but this would no longer be problematic because the universe would no longer by definition encompass all that exists.

    • [deleted]

    Dr Zurek's theories are 100% correct but not in the way you think.

    The Revelatorium at website www.revelatorium.com contains the complete basic infra-structure for the intelligent design of creation in the most comprehensible yet simplistic form ever before presented to creation.

    It is waiting for someone with enough courage to speak far enough outside the box to bust it wide open.

    Bless,

    Dsl.

    • [deleted]

    Does the act of observing the universe create it? Answer: No! We are only tuning into what is already there as EVERYTHING already exists in the now in the 4th dimension. We think we are creating it but we are creating nothing. (Remember energy cannot be created or destroyed.) We only become aware of what is already there in the 4th dimension where there is no time and space (no limitation of the speed of light) when we collapse the waveform (into 3rd dimensional physicality). A by-product of this is the illusion of time and space in the 3rd dimension.

    I think the scientific community's abandomment of common sense was a mistake. It is obvious that we have free will, at least in the moment.

      "it is entirely possible that, within the realm of all that exists, there exists one being who did not begin to exist"

      But do we have a hypothesis to explain the properties of that being? If not, then we might as well simply say that a particular set of laws exists but did not begin to exist, and similarly end the discussion there. Unfortunately there is no fundamental explanatory value to a program that begins by postulating a particular being or set of laws that just "always was." Why not other laws, or why not a being that chose other laws? Why not a being that only creates numbers, or fractals? Some may be satisfied by waving away the question with "Because that's just how it is," but physics -- at least the kind Wheeler chased -- tries to go a bit further.

      Common sense is excellent for tracking antelope, avoiding predators, and fleeing grass fires. It's not so good for discovering scientific truths -- the history of science, from long before Copernicus, shows that common sense has repeatedly led us astray from truths that were later objectively demonstrated. Why should questions about ultimate origins and the fundamental nature of reality be the exception?

      To put it another way: We're looking for a recipe for the universe. If the first ingredient is a proprietary "special sauce" that cannot be described further or derived from more basic ingredients, yet it is absolutely required, then the recipe is not going to be very useful.

      Karl,

      It's like the 'special recipe' from Coke of Kentucky. It comes in large VAT's and we know exactly what it does, so we know just as much about 'what' it is as we know about water or plasma. All it lacks is an acceptable name beyong the Higgs field and Dark Energy.

      OK I can tell you as it means nothing anyway. it's called 'comprathene'. Matter condenses from it in conjugate fermion pairs (opposing vortices) then some binds and evolves to make a right mess everywhere.

      The question now is; does knowing what it 'IS' actually help? The point is that whatever we 'call' anything we actually 'know' nothing about what it 'is'!.

      What it 'does' is another question. Doctrine is still catching up with that. A more coherent option is here, but little to do with the present (ageing) paradigm.; Cyclic Cosmology.

      Does that throw any light on anything? The classical quantum analogue is hypothesised in my essay. At least that makes more sense.

      Best wishes

      Peter

      Some say we live in a 'Quantum Universe', some say a 'Classical Universe'. Both are a bit too pure for me, like religions and dialectic philosophies. No one has convinced me that we live in a 'Perfect Universe' that *always* follows this or that 'law'. There-in lies all probabilities however one wishes to present them, whether in a universe of perfect information or one without any.

      For an entire century, the scientific community has ignored the essential question of *why* "If an experimenter chooses to measure the wavelike properties of a photon for instance, that photon will act like a wave. If she elects instead to measure it's particle-like attributes - for example, by pinpointing its location - then a particle it shall be."

      The question should be; what IS that photon?

      Accepting the literal definition of Einstein that E=mc^2 means that, 'the energy of a closed system is equal to its inertia' requires that we allow an inertial reference frame to exist that is itself (for some yet to be explained reason) that quantity of energy of Planck's Constant, which is observable in any single wave event or particle impact. The only difference between a relative rest particle and a wave event of equal energy is that the inertial reference of the wave event in an electromagnetic photonic emission is that the physical shape of the energy packet is elongated, that does not mean we can ignore that is has an inertial property. The so-called *massless particle* is the sweetest fudge to be cooked up, so sweet that no one has challenged it as a complete SOP. ANY successful effort to reconcile SR, QM, and GR, will take the shine of the shoes of Lorentz. To obtain co-variance will require that we who bore the great multitude of shoppers and huxters, rethink the assumption that *any size mass* can not attain light velocity. Simple as that. jrc

      Karl,

      The Michelson-Morley experiment happened in 1887. Particle-wave duality and quantum mechanics didn't show up until the 1920's. A hundred years later, someone asked the question: could the aether medium be made out of quantum fields? After all, the quantum vacuum is full of quantum fields. These are accepted scientific facts. Every particle in the standard model has an associated quantum field. The only difference between you and me is that I don't want to be minimalist about what other kinds of quantum fields exist and have dynamics that are beyond what we can detect (at this time). I also don't have a problem with the idea that some quantum fields can be living creatures.

      "I also don't have a problem with the idea that ... can be living creatures".

      That brings up an interesting foundational question but more of interest to biologists. What is a living creature?

      Simple as it sounds, its not so easy to answer. For instance if 'metabolism' and reproduction are criteria, is Fire a living creature, since it consumes oxygen and releases carbon dioxide, it also multiplies as can be seen from wild fires?

      On the other hand, are virus particles having no metabolism of their own living creatures?

      I really couldn't answer that question without getting metaphysical. All I know is that the standard model of particles is arbitrary. Since every particle has a quantum field associated with it, and the standard model is arbitrary, one can only ask why there wouldn't be an extensive list of quantum field things, most of which wouldn't be particles. The existence of quantum fields opens the door wide to anything from an aether to Holy Spirit to ghosts, spirits and near death experiences. A soul could fit neatly in a physical body like a particle in a box. Quantum fields are good news for Spiritualists.

      7 days later
      • [deleted]

      Referencing Quantum Entangled Singularities

      http://jamesbdunn2.blogspot.com/2014/05/fatalism-non-deterministic-physics.html

      The problem with using the relative perspective is that one cannot see the underlying non-relativistic foundations. Locking perspective in observable physics hides the foundation of causal relationships.

      The Big Bang is proposed to represent a cycling through a shift in alternate dimensional states; the shifting of physics constants (relativistic singularities) as quantum causality systems of conjoined non-evolving connected systems evolve toward the next system of relativistic physics constant shifts.

      In a causal system Entropy is an indicator of changing from one system toward another system. From the creation of the "properties of causality" of our physics constants toward a shift in the "properties of causality" of those same physics constants. This includes one or more physics constants that may not be dominant in our systems of relativity (everything observable).

      So relativity as systems of relative causality evolve with reference to non-evolving connected systems toward another Big Bang.

      Big Bangs are just "Relativistic" (observable) perspectives within smooth and continuous systems of non-relativistic quantum causality as Relativistic perspectives (observable physics) cycles from one alternate dimensional space to the next.

      13 days later

      If the big bang was the entangled splitting of the central dark matter Black hole into 12x entangleD ( CP symmetric) copy universes , then we are left with a wavefunction collapse system without CAT PROBLEMS.

      SEE:

      Democratic Free Will in the instant Entangled Multiverse.

      http://vixra.org/pdf/1401.0071v2.pdf

      Write a Reply...