Corresponding with galatomic

galatomic,

My general view of things is that I have a simpler theory than the vagueness that grounds the two modern physics- as many have suspected is there since at least Dirac.

In general if force (will or what have you) is a motion and the space a womb or a place of rest would something movable like ecotoms or blackholes not be a macho concept? If not why? In any case our generation actually thinks it can make artificial sperm (as in recent news) with no ethical consequences. Moving zombie sperm are still zombie sperm.

My ideas are not concerned with the cigar or the hole, but the action is in the cleavage. This more personal and dynamic idea of the universe becomes the same old philosophical paradox that bothered Einstein when he wondered how physics could contain the human experience of the "Now".

But lately I have been thinking about a more simple theory than the quasic fabric of space and time model. It is very hard to think on that so evident and obvious. I for example found a powerpoint presentation listing the idea that a series of 1's when squared leads to these things like 1111 squared = 1234321 that is four ones squared of the digits equal sixteen as the sum of the digits. Now the article showed other such seemingly remarkable number sequences and concludes that God is a powerful creator in this world. Are they not just appealing to the idea of an intelligble natural law? Would God as well as our idea of the personal experience of the Now not still be a little above such reductionist physics?

Recall that Newton goes up to the apple from Einsteins view depending on if we feel the force of acceleration. It is after all a question of what is at rest in spacetime and all of this depends on how we view symmetry from the arrow of time or the decay of particles. It is the same question that in crude quantum terms (despite the forum scientist clinging to the lifeline of decoherence from the 70"s so can claim the issue is solved and someone does not understand the quantum theory (when will they find original and fundamental PhD thinking again?)

These questions of motion are at least metaphysical ones still. It leads to the ideas of simplifying the possible shape of the universe in a few choices of geometry each of which can be open or close but some point seems to be the conditions of the universe at the origin to solve the entropy problem as in that one sci am issue I referred you to way back.

For both of us then we sense some sort of more general ground between these ideas of what is local or not in the relativity and quantum conception interpreted as will or motion or a direct link thus explanation for consciousness or not. For me when we do these sort of quasi-probability historical recurrences and the resulting ideas of symmetry breaking and so on the origin is located not at the zero point in the netscape. It is in a sense everywhere or can be a few places and this describes spin at least if not motion.

We are in a sort of digital age but the motions there are internal (why do we need an RSS feed when a picture is worth a thousand words? I mean it does not compute, is vulnerable as xtml and so on, and is a way from many multiple directions to receive spam and make it possible for someone to keep track of us.)

This higher level of non-linear intelligible connections is not the personality of the now but a moving zombie embedded as physical in a more general and vague space, The idea of symmetry breaking as explained by the Higgs mechanism is crude metaphysics rather than a scientific explanation of what really defines mass beyond the ideas of Einstein.

I have never seen us in conflict galatomic, sorry if that seems the case. Anyway I will post this on the blog just to have something there if you do not mind.

Person or consciousness ideas aside the conclusion I lean to is that many of our alternative posters and theories are closer to the physics of the reality. Indeed, even where we have disagreed on some of them with quantum stuff there is a new book from scientific american that discusses this very relationship from all sides. There are a few young students who have this view to which I am trying to follow their thinking in the blogs. But we at least do not try to compress our ideas into obselete terms for the sake of making things understandable to our narrow minded reviewers.

I am simply amazed how primitive some of our school graduates are to have such dogmatic attitudes. What is a degree but a credit card in cyberspace that makes it possible to steal money and identity and set up video game jobs and exclude not just the past but the future of the new paradigm?