[MD] FW: Quantum weirdness

[Ham Priday]

Case and Ron --

I don't believe any of us are quantum physicists, but you have both
expressed thoughts that seem illogical or at least problematic to me.

For example, on 3/12, Case said:
> I have not really looked into this so it is probably nonsense
> but one thing about the Big Bang has always bothered me.
> If all that matter had all that gravity pulling in into a point
> how could it get loose? If you have all of the matter in the
> universe compressed into a Euclidian point and all of the
> force of physics had achieved symmetry and gravity fluctuated
> for even the tiniest fraction of a second, imagine the
> explosion that might result.

My understanding of symmetry, as related to evolution, is that state at
which all of the force and energy in the universe is dissipated or spent,
and what remains of universal matter is at rest.  This state is referred to
as entropy and, according to the laws of thermodynamics, it is the final
state toward which the universe is inexorably moving.  For anything to
happen once entropy is reached, a new source of energy
is required.  Yet, you are suggesting that symmetry sparked the Big Bang,
that a balanced energy system gave rise to an asymmetrical universe whose
energy forces were then unbalanced.  How can that be?

Ron's follow-up to this comment was:
> Once you head down the path of absolutes with "oneness"
> you get a dichotomy. Therefore the theory of the universe
> as a system process seems to work best, no beginning no
> end, all revolving into itself in a thermodynamic way
> constantly refreshing and degrading.
> So it would seem "oneness" rests in a dichotomy
> not in an absolute source.
> In this way you would term "source" as the process of
> everything, not so much a beginning point. Source then
> loses its meaning as well as oneness in its absolute sense.

What is the logic of the statement "oneness rests in a dichotomy", and how
do you draw this conclusion from Case's statement?  A process is neither a
dichotomy nor a duality, so the term isn't even relevant here.  What may be
relevant is deriving "differentiation" from oneness, and perhaps that is the
duality you are referring to. But that is not a "dichotomy" because it is
not two contingencies of a single system You're describing existence -- a
differentiated system, not the source which is not a differentiated system.
Oneness transcends multiplicity but cannot logically be defined by it.

In the event that my use of the term may have confused you, let me clarify
my usage.  Existence is a relational system in that it consists of two
mutually exclusive contingencies: Subjective Awareness and Objective
Otherness.  The fact that these two contingents are co-dependent qualifies
their relationship as a dichotomy.  In other words, there is no object
without a subject, and no subject without an object. All knowledge and logic
is based on the cognizant experience of objectivized otherness.  Like the
dimensions of time and space, S/O awareness is the mode of finite
experience.  In my ontology, the actualization of finitude begins with this
negation (reduction) of the absolute source.

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but other matters intervened.

Regards,
Ham