[MD] FW: Quantum weirdness

[Ron Kulp]

 [Case]
Right, I should ignore the work of physicists and mathematicians and
focus on your speculations.

[ron]
It is of interest to note that since physics works with the concept of
the "limit" in calculus
It follows suite that physics would want to concieve of a physical
theory of that limit

 Limit of a function at infinity
A related concept to limits as x approaches some finite number is the
limit as x approaches positive or negative infinity. This does not
literally mean that the difference between x and infinity becomes small,
since infinity is not a real number; rather, it means that x either
grows without bound positively (positive infinity) or grows without
bound negatively (negative infinity).

For example, consider .

f(100) = 1.9802 
f(1000) = 1.9980 
f(10000) = 1.9998 
As x becomes extremely large, the value of f(x) approaches 2, and the
value of f(x) can be made as close to 2 as one could wish just by
picking x sufficiently large. In this case, we say that the limit of
f(x) as x approaches infinity is 2. 
 
All the numbers point to an infinate reality
That's not ignoring physics it's seeing beyond physics
It's seeing physics for what it is, as a value of the limit.
Physics will infinately be approaching. Both Positive and negative.

And that's what the root of physics is telling us
You can't argue that.

The limit is the big bang theory.

Therefore I think infinate reality is a more accurate theory
If your going to base it on physics, at least it is just as viable
As the big bang theory.

The site you forwarded to Ham starts with a point
A point is an imaginary starting point it stated.
That point in the 10th dimension is what Ham is talking about
Remember that point in the 10th dimension falls to the same 
paradox as the rounding Error.
My argument with the big bang is it assumes a starting point
Which is imaginary. It suggests an absolute beginning.
the question of cause still remains. It was established
Even in that presentation that absolute starting points 
are imaginary.
Please clarify your argument in this regard.
Thanks
-Ron





 

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Case
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 12:16 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] FW: Quantum weirdness

[Ham]
You may think you're bringing me up to speed with this rock guitarist's
self-promotion, but I fail to see the point of a 10th dimension.  So far
as I know, Einstein's universe consisted of four dimensions: three
spatial and one temporal.  What exactly are the other six?

[Case]
I realize getting you up to speed was optimistic. But the point is that
string theory and other newer interpretations of physics incorporate
multiple dimensions. The video at that site shows you how the dimensions
work.

[Ham]
Dimensionality is an intellectual scrabble game to explain phenomena we
can't otherwise understand.  The mode of human perception is
spatio-temporal.  It relates to the four-dimensional world of finite
experience. 

[Case]
Actually human perception is assuredly not confine to four dimensions.
Access to memory and the ability to model the future allow us to travel
back in fourth in time. This mean we can perceive in at least five
dimensions.
And as the video demonstrates we can conceptualize at least 10.

[Ham]
The world as finitely experienced is an intellectual construct, as Micah
and I have been arguing for some time.  To conclude that ultimate
reality is limited to such a finite scheme is to reject the value of
metaphysical theory and bind yourself to an SOM construct.  This is what
I thought Mr.
Pirsig was trying to escape.

[Case]
Right, I should ignore the work of physicists and mathematicians and
focus on your speculations. Many physicists have complained that because
no tests for string theory have yet to be proposed, that string theory
should not be considered a part of physics. Instead they maintain it is
really speculative metaphysics. It is a simple and coherent theory and I
for one plan to keep my eye on it. At its cutting edge physics is
metaphysics. So rejecting your idle speculations hardly constitutes a
rejection of metaphysics.

[Ham]
Creation is not an act in time, like winding up a watch mechanism and
then letting it run out.  It is constant and applies to every moment of
cognizant experience.  

[Case]
Creation does seem to have been an act in time and the consequences of
that event are now working themselves out though the process of time.

[Ham]
The universal template is the appearance that is sustained throughout
the life of every cognizant being by the awareness/otherness dichotomy.
The only way to transcend the appearance of finitude is to end your
being-aware and eliminate the dichotomy.

[Case]
Do you seriously believe that you have arrived at a scheme that warrants
ignoring all of math and science? 

[Ham]
Or, of course, you can make up songs about the 10th dimension and
pretend you know something that I don't.

[Case]
Actually I had forgotten there even was a song on that site. In any
event I did not listen to it so I really have no idea what you are
talking about. I mean even more so than usual.



moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/