Infinite worlds, Quantum indeterminacy, and The endlessly generative
in [Logic]
|
From: John Jones on 6 Mar 2010 23:14 David Canzi wrote: > In article <hmhnk3$3do$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> Modern science regards the universe as fixed, even if the number of >> things that are fixed is "infinite" or "indeterminate". For example, >> science's notion of infinite possible worlds and quantum indeterminacy >> are all variations on a granular, fixed universe filled with fixed >> objects. By "fixed" I mean re-identifiable. > > A neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. > Please clarify how the concept of fixity applies to neutron decay. > You have already been given that by science's concept of energy.
From: John Jones on 6 Mar 2010 23:16 Nemesis wrote: > > "John Jones" <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:hmhnk3$3do$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> Modern science regards the universe as fixed, even if the number of >> things that are fixed is "infinite" or "indeterminate". For example, >> science's notion of infinite possible worlds and quantum indeterminacy >> are all variations on a granular, fixed universe filled with fixed >> objects. By "fixed" I mean re-identifiable. >> >> Isn't there another way we can define or describe an endlessly >> generative universe rather than through "infinite" or "indeterminate" >> objects? >> >> Such an "endlessly generative" would immediately disqualify the idea >> of time-travel, as all moments would be unique. There could, in >> principle, be no returns or revisits. There could also be no >> empirically or non-empirically re-identifiable points in space. This >> latter idea is already partly endorsed by the quantum lads who, unlike >> the Newtonians, do not endorse the idea of the empirical >> re-identification of objects. The quantists are, however, committed to >> the idea of non-empirically re-identifiable objects in their notion of >> "indeterminacy". > > As initial parameters, if you can first find out where matter originates > from, and where life originates from then once you have determined this, > then maybe your questions could be answered, as the answers may follow > logically from the initial parameters. > You are trying to determine whether you should add salt and pepper to > your omelet before you have even broken the eggs and cooked it. > > That's a side issue. I'm not arguing about creation per se, I'm presenting it's manner of appearance.
From: Virgil on 7 Mar 2010 02:32 In article <74ce591f-64e0-40aa-b09c-98bc23a0a337(a)c37g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > God created Himself. There is no universe without God. Your God, even if it exists, does not say so. In fact it says nothing at all in this world. And no one knows if it says anything in the supposed next one.
From: Mark Earnest on 7 Mar 2010 02:37 "Virgil" <Virgil(a)home.esc> wrote in message news:Virgil-F428B4.00322907032010(a)bignews.usenetmonster.com... > In article > <74ce591f-64e0-40aa-b09c-98bc23a0a337(a)c37g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, > BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> God created Himself. There is no universe without God. > > Your God, even if it exists, does not say so. And HOW do you know what something that doesn't exist says?
From: Virgil on 7 Mar 2010 04:04
In article <P7GdnQ4vnftLyg7WnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d(a)posted.internetamerica>, "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "Virgil" <Virgil(a)home.esc> wrote in message > news:Virgil-F428B4.00322907032010(a)bignews.usenetmonster.com... > > In article > > <74ce591f-64e0-40aa-b09c-98bc23a0a337(a)c37g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, > > BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> God created Himself. There is no universe without God. > > > > Your God, even if it exists, does not say so. > > And HOW do you know what something that doesn't exist says? You misread me. I made no mention of what your probably nonexistent god says, but only of what it does not say. |