Is it difficult to hammer in that last nail?
I’m not here to “share”. To stop thought?!? To go back 40 years and try to explain my thoughts and logic to someone who would fight me the whole way and contribute nothing? Why would I do that? There’s nothing in it for me. It’s not gonna happen.
As far as bullying goes, I wasn’t talking about bullying me. Bullying is a two party activity. I’m not bullied - or persecuted or anything like that. Which is not to say you aren’t trying, but I’m OK with that. Ridicule, insult, criticize and generally flap around, all you want. It’s all good.
I think you’ll find the same fluidity of thought in IMHO and MPSIMS and the Pit, and no one will expect you to debate there, though it is done.
A conversation like this would be more enjoyable if those who are of science would let down the science for a few minutes and play along pointing out scenarios for which something like this could be possible. My guess is that when and if we ever do discover the source of matter it will be nothing like what any of of could have ever imagined. It couldn’t come from anything governed by physical laws if nothing physical existed prior to the existence of matter.
Ah! So you would prefer to inflict yourself on others. Again, may I suggest that a blog would be perfect for you.
“Swagger” - that’s a new one…I *like *it!
It always amazes me when people recognize such things in others, but not in themselves. Is it because you think I’m better at it than you are? Is that what makes my self-righteousness self-righteousness and your own self-righteousness something else?
See, THIS is one of the things I like about “debate” forums. I hadn’t given much thought to the “why” of this.
Look, if you want baseless hand waving or groundless blue sky thinking IMHO and MPSIMS are second and third doors to the right.
If you want to debate or discuss the potential for a universal consciousness then we’re dealing with what we know, and what we can rationally extrapolate from that basis. We can even take certain clearly stated axioms as true (entanglement actually does imply FTL information transfer) and work from there. However those axioms will then need to be reconciled back to what we actually know, and if they don’t support what we current understand then we have to either determine their impacts or discard them.
Otherwise I can say that the universe is actually a pan multiverse particle that interacts with other pan multiverse particles some of which are identical to our own (based on an extrapolation of common universal quantum states) and so when we interact with a similar but not identical particle we experience deja-vu and ghosts.
Neat huh?
nole.'s link to the Princeton group is a neat idea to kick around. They’re working on the premise that human awareness of events can shift random number generation. I’m not sure how, but if the evidence is there then we can start to imagine what it could be and how that mechanism might impact other things. I don’t think they’ve found anything but I only took a brief look.
That would not be letting down the science, it would be a form of science, known as a thought experiment.
“Inflict” - that’s an interesting interpretation.
You may “suggest” to your heart’s content - such is the nature of a public forum.
And debating is the nature of a debate forum. Care to participate?
Well I figured you’d be flexible and brave enough to take the underlying meaning and not the written meaning like most drones would. Ah well.
Well jeez, you just pummeled that hypothetical into a bloody pulp, didn’t ya? What did hypotheticals ever do to you? //rolleyes//
You may have met your match in this particular forum…just sayin’ now, to avoid having to say later, “I told ya so.” Have fun.
Yes! The implications of what quantum science has already found (and is still exploring) are tremendous. We already know that matter isn’t what we thought it was and we’re beginning to find evidence that it isn’t doing what we thought it was doing, either. So, what *is * matter and what *is *it doing?
As we are a *part *of this universe and made of the very “stuff” from which all things are made, it stands to reason that we can explore the subject by exploring ourselves and our own, personal environments. In essence, we each have our very own laboratory, complete with specimens, in which we can explore such questions.
Something that has always bothered me is the dismissal of “thought” - which exists in the same universe as everything else but is dismissed as “irrelevant”.
Ah! Therein lies the beauty of my “non-plan”! It isn’t dependent upon what anyone else is doing.
What field of quantum information science are you referring to?
What’s the underlying meaning? I’m afraid I don’t have the key to your code.
Honestly, underlying meaning is dependant on the framework the observer presents to the subject. Obviously you know and now you’re messing with me. If you can’t be forthright in discussions I’m not sure why you’re wasting everyone’s time.
Ah, That’s a typo - I went from physics to quantum physics to the more general “science” but failed to edit out the “quantum”.
I don’t understand. How can a failure to catch “inuendo” from someone I don’t know, possibly be offensive?
I have no idea what the “underlying” message was. Apparently, that offends you. It wasn’t meant to. If you want to clarify, fine. If not, that’s fine too.
All the same, could you expand?