... Further ... I am asserting that, in MY experience and to MY understanding? ... Everything outside of consious experience only exists as "potential" until some consious entity focuses upon it (or imagines or actively expects it). And, I have heard tell that these rules MAY be mutable. So, *if* you do have a single iota of "faith" ("the faith of a mustard seed") these rules and probabilities may conform to your request, on occasion. A falling tree only makes a sound if something hears it.
OK, folks. I "postulate" that this multiverse is ENTIRELY experiencial. That matter and science are mearly authored constructs, almost exactly as in a virtual environment, except the fidelity is paradigm. Obviouslt, there is absolutely no point in my arguing or your arguing. YOU are explaining the RULES that this reality operates by (as best you can). I am saying that there is little if any actual "material substance" to any of this ... The entire thing consists of "authored information".
@phrankus2009, what you describe isn't the unexplainable, it's the currently unexplained, and in a lot of cases, not even that. Don't come to the conclusion that because you personally don't understand it, that it isn't understandable.
Describing the universe as being purely experiential denies its existence as a shared environment. You can't have a sane conversation at that point because you'd just be talking to yourself.
I view the FACT that I am still (apparently) alive as reasonable proof that there is a Personal God. I am thinking that when statistical anomalies "pile up" and concentrate, to the degree which I have witnessed, that the term "super-natural" surely does apply. Call it grace, divine intervention, uncanny coincidence? .... Whatever. When science is correct, it merely describes "HOW God does it" . Science may never even scratch at "why". Quantum Physics ALREADY surpasses physical empiricism.
@phrankus2009 Hello dear old friend. As you can probably guess, I disagree. The actual "pile up" is of evidence that there is no detectable super-natural agent at work in our world, from my point of view. But all you need to do is give me one example of a well documented fact about the natural world that can't be explained by natural forces, keeping in mind the unexplained is not the same as unexplainable, and I will consider changing my name.Quantum mechanics is couched in natural statistics.
@CVshorey Well, I know from our under-grad conversations, of many decades past, that you are no dummy and that I would be unwise to fence lightly, with you. There is obviously no room, in these comments, to even begin to express an introduction to any defence of my own "findings". I see this multiverse as a purely cognitive (experiencial) construct, and all science and physical law as an intentional whim. I know you are aware of Schrodenger's Cat, THE MATRIX, The Slot Experiment, etc.
@phrankus2009 To Schrodenger's Cat I say decoherence. I saw The Matrix, had to willingly suspend disbelief. You might be referring to matrix algebra used in quantum mechanics, but its a form of math that describes the statistical results of empirical experiments on subatomic particles. I see no supernatural there. The Slot experiment might refer to Young's two slit experiment. Yes, wavicles are weird and we can't describe them in classical physics. That does not make them supernatural.
Heh, is there an intended similarity between the Kids in The Hall "call me old fashioned..." sketches? :)
tweaker1bms 1 month ago
Had to remove a few "c"'s to make that all fit.
phrankus2009 1 month ago
... Further ... I am asserting that, in MY experience and to MY understanding? ... Everything outside of consious experience only exists as "potential" until some consious entity focuses upon it (or imagines or actively expects it). And, I have heard tell that these rules MAY be mutable. So, *if* you do have a single iota of "faith" ("the faith of a mustard seed") these rules and probabilities may conform to your request, on occasion. A falling tree only makes a sound if something hears it.
phrankus2009 1 month ago
OK, folks. I "postulate" that this multiverse is ENTIRELY experiencial. That matter and science are mearly authored constructs, almost exactly as in a virtual environment, except the fidelity is paradigm. Obviouslt, there is absolutely no point in my arguing or your arguing. YOU are explaining the RULES that this reality operates by (as best you can). I am saying that there is little if any actual "material substance" to any of this ... The entire thing consists of "authored information".
phrankus2009 1 month ago
@phrankus2009, what you describe isn't the unexplainable, it's the currently unexplained, and in a lot of cases, not even that. Don't come to the conclusion that because you personally don't understand it, that it isn't understandable.
Describing the universe as being purely experiential denies its existence as a shared environment. You can't have a sane conversation at that point because you'd just be talking to yourself.
Mythobeast 1 month ago
I view the FACT that I am still (apparently) alive as reasonable proof that there is a Personal God. I am thinking that when statistical anomalies "pile up" and concentrate, to the degree which I have witnessed, that the term "super-natural" surely does apply. Call it grace, divine intervention, uncanny coincidence? .... Whatever. When science is correct, it merely describes "HOW God does it" . Science may never even scratch at "why". Quantum Physics ALREADY surpasses physical empiricism.
phrankus2009 1 month ago in playlist That's a Fact?
@phrankus2009 Hello dear old friend. As you can probably guess, I disagree. The actual "pile up" is of evidence that there is no detectable super-natural agent at work in our world, from my point of view. But all you need to do is give me one example of a well documented fact about the natural world that can't be explained by natural forces, keeping in mind the unexplained is not the same as unexplainable, and I will consider changing my name.Quantum mechanics is couched in natural statistics.
CVshorey 1 month ago
@CVshorey Well, I know from our under-grad conversations, of many decades past, that you are no dummy and that I would be unwise to fence lightly, with you. There is obviously no room, in these comments, to even begin to express an introduction to any defence of my own "findings". I see this multiverse as a purely cognitive (experiencial) construct, and all science and physical law as an intentional whim. I know you are aware of Schrodenger's Cat, THE MATRIX, The Slot Experiment, etc.
phrankus2009 1 month ago
@phrankus2009 To Schrodenger's Cat I say decoherence. I saw The Matrix, had to willingly suspend disbelief. You might be referring to matrix algebra used in quantum mechanics, but its a form of math that describes the statistical results of empirical experiments on subatomic particles. I see no supernatural there. The Slot experiment might refer to Young's two slit experiment. Yes, wavicles are weird and we can't describe them in classical physics. That does not make them supernatural.
CVshorey 1 month ago
@phrankus2009 The fact that you perceive a pattern does not, necessarily, mean the pattern is real or that a cognitive entity is behind said pattern.
halleyscomet 1 month ago
@phrankus2009 This is a use of reasonable that I am unfamiliar with.
AUSEAOTTER 1 month ago
Comment removed
phrankus2009 1 month ago in playlist That's a Fact?
Comment removed
phrankus2009 1 month ago in playlist That's a Fact?