Evolutionary Principles Result in Digital Appearance. by Tony Zeigler

Hello Tony,

It appears that you are saying that since things evolve to have distinct forms in a shorter time frame than it takes to detect or observe them, this is what gives reality the appearance of discreteness. But there was insufficient detail to tell if that is what you really meant.

It is my guess that you are trying to hint at some of the beliefs of decoherence theory. You might want to check out this web-site maintained by Erich Joos, for some basic information and references on that subject.

You might also enjoy my essay, since I talk a little about both evolution and decoherence.

Please give us a little more next time.

Regards,

Jonathan J. Dickau

Thanks Jonathan - I'll check the articles you mentioned.

And yes, the idea was quite simple. Sadly, I never got the hang of doing math proofs - and thus the lack of equations. I just rely on my ability to visualize patterns.

Also - I'm poorly read in the area. Wouldn't surprise me at all if the path of thought had already been considered by others and I simply hadn't read about it yet!

The idea came to me when I was reading "Mr. Tompkins Gets Serious" and visualizing the forces that might result in radioactive materials. They seemed very similar to planetary escape velocity, or star clusters in the center of galaxies. All being systems that are unstable for some reason and kick out pieces of themselves as they try to reach a stable state.

The rate they fall apart, or move towards stability, seems to be related to size. A star cluster make wait eons before ejecting a member. The earth may wait centuries before a volcano manages to eject a rock into space. Atoms may go even faster still.

Follow the pattern as it scales down, and it suggests at some point we simply cannot detect the unstable forms because they stabilize too quickly. Ie., the pattern ends because we reach a limitation on ourselves - not because the pattern truly ends.

Tony

Have just re-read your essay properly (not difficult or I may not have bothered!!) and been quite astonished how perceptive those few words are. I do hope you may read mine, from another non physicist, to see if you can find the correlations (and hopefully feel it's worth a good score!)

I'm effectively saying, in another way, the smallest particles condense to implement change. Everyone struggles to perceive the dynamic variables to start with, then find it's so unbeleivably simple it's simply unbelievable (to long trained physicists with relatively fixed viewpoints). The implications of that one sentence may however catch us up over 100 years! - if it gets noticed at all.

Please do let me know if you've read and seen it. I really need to understand how to better explain it (easy with moving pictures).

Many thanks

Best wishes

Peter