I watched the Horizon programme about “What is Reality.” For approximately 40 years I have been trying to interest illustrious scientists in a hypothesis to cover the linking of the pre universe to the universe we exist in. It has been a long losing battle. Below are extracts from a couple of the emails I have sent to various (indeed many) physicists and also a reference to a site containing my hypothesis. Science cannot encompass the totality of reality using mathematical modelling alone. There has to be more. If you know of any illustrious person who is deeply into wanting to find out what reality is and who would be interested in my reasoning then I would be grateful if you would pass this letter on
If the universe did erupt from nothing, as many physicists believe, then it is necessary to take another step. That step is to suppose a cause, the effect of which is the universe. A quiescent absolute nothing would be so for eternity. This means that this nothing has to have a property, whereby the cause occurred. I say it was an intelligent cause. Dawkins says it was: what? It is extremely difficult to imagine “nothing” in turbulence, especially whereby a chance event was the cause of the universe. The universe’s very structure suggests design in every finely balanced aspect. It is also very difficult to imagine “nothing” with a property that can be defined in any material sense. The only property that seems to fit the bill is “thought” which can plan design and implement. The problem occurs by suggesting that thought, the only property or possession of nothing, can also convert to energy. No scientist will ever be able to do it; we do not encounter free thought.
However consider the following (mostly) from my site the address of which is:-
Even if you do not accept my Creation hypothesis of “Free Thought” to energy conversion you must, surely, accept the reverse (but limited) process! You and I consume mass. Some of that mass is converted into energy. Some of that energy becomes the energy of the neurons and thereby produces our encapsulated thought (or just enables it to be drawn in.) We are limited and cannot perform the reverse direct thought to energy process, but we do have a planning, design and implementation capability, as does All Thought. We can implement, using energy, derived from mass, and also intelligently, to control and drive our appendages, and/or the mechanisms, we create, which aid more creating.
We accept that energy can convert to mass and mass can convert energy which is a difficult idea to encompass, but it has been proven. With a bit of help from our bodies, energy can convert to thought via neurons. Why not the process, giving thought to energy then energy to mass as well as the reverse? The whole of my hypothesis is based upon what I consider are significant differences between mathematical modelling and reality. My basic assumption is that Energy, Electro Magnetic Radiation and matter are all granular and behave in a way that, plotted against our invention called time, demonstrate wave functions. I have tried to define the reason for those wave functions. I also consider that the basic element of the mathematics used to quantify the universe is based upon the gradient at a point, i.e. calculus. It works inasmuch as it can be very much expanded and added to, to provide acceptable quantification. However, the instantaneous static point is problematic.
There is a well worn riddle which consists of a fly flying due north. It is heading for a train moving due south Fly and train collide. They end up both travelling due south combined. Mathematically, although dead, the fly cannot reverse direction, unless it experiences a static point. The setter of the riddle points out that if the fly is stationary, at the instant it becomes integral with the train, then the train must also be stationary. The fly has stopped the train.
It is certainly a nonsense to say that the fly stops the train, but what is the reality? It seems obvious to me (but then it would) that at the point of contact of each particle of the fly, consideration has to be given to the integration of particle of fly combined with particle of train. There has to be a mechanism which ensures that each set of enjoined particles acquires the same velocity without any stationary point involvement.
That is where my hypothesis comes in. Each set of enjoined particles; train plus fly; leaves the universe with dissimilar velocities and each particle then re-enters and each with the same velocity; direction due south. This takes place for each set of enjoined particles over a very short duration. It is obvious that train and dead fly are going to end up travelling due south, but I would claim that the use of an instantaneous static point is less realistic than supposing that there is an adjustment mechanism; one which I have tried to define! Mine is also a hypothesis which fits the solidity of the universe better than the probabilities of Quantum Theory.
In addition; if I was designing a universe of changing circumstances then I would include a mechanism for adaptation of the inhabitants to meet those changes. It is a sure sign of intelligence and forethought!
Yours faithfully
Gordon Thompson
B.Sc. Tech. Electrical Engineering Manchester 1960
B.Sc. Physics With Natural Sciences O.U. 1999
Loading...
Hi Gordon (or is it Iswar Chandrel ?) I guess you intended this comment against this post http://www.psybertron.org/?p=3589
Without some headings or summaries, as you say your overall case is hard to follow.
I disagree with you about evolution itself. It is self-contained consistent theory with progressively more evidence and aspects empirically demonstrable. Positing a god as part of the process is an unnecessary additional speculation.
Two points where I agree:
Time and causation are strange human constructions, and therefore a great deal of physics (quantum and cosmological) beyond the human scale is highly speculative. The idea that there is some “teleology” – some direction in which evolution progresses – is tied up with the 2nd law, and with consequences of the Anthropic principles for the whole of cosmology (cosmological constant, and the Einstein gravitation and relativity work you mention above). Though again, to posit a god as part of the process is unnecessary additional speculation.
Since time is itself speculative, the idea of time before creation of “the” universe in which time arises, or the idea of there being a creation event, are doubly speculative – meaningless. Certainly not scientific questions. Creation (of something from nothing) is a metaphysical or theological question. (Big bangs that create observable local universes are not creation events, these arise from physics and evolution in the already existing universe.)
I watched the Horizon programme about “What is Reality.” For approximately 40 years I have been trying to interest illustrious scientists in a hypothesis to cover the linking of the pre universe to the universe we exist in. It has been a long losing battle. Below are extracts from a couple of the emails I have sent to various (indeed many) physicists and also a reference to a site containing my hypothesis. Science cannot encompass the totality of reality using mathematical modelling alone. There has to be more. If you know of any illustrious person who is deeply into wanting to find out what reality is and who would be interested in my reasoning then I would be grateful if you would pass this letter on
If the universe did erupt from nothing, as many physicists believe, then it is necessary to take another step. That step is to suppose a cause, the effect of which is the universe. A quiescent absolute nothing would be so for eternity. This means that this nothing has to have a property, whereby the cause occurred. I say it was an intelligent cause. Dawkins says it was: what? It is extremely difficult to imagine “nothing” in turbulence, especially whereby a chance event was the cause of the universe. The universe’s very structure suggests design in every finely balanced aspect. It is also very difficult to imagine “nothing” with a property that can be defined in any material sense. The only property that seems to fit the bill is “thought” which can plan design and implement. The problem occurs by suggesting that thought, the only property or possession of nothing, can also convert to energy. No scientist will ever be able to do it; we do not encounter free thought.
However consider the following (mostly) from my site the address of which is:-
http://www.chandrel-creation.co.uk:-
Even if you do not accept my Creation hypothesis of “Free Thought” to energy conversion you must, surely, accept the reverse (but limited) process! You and I consume mass. Some of that mass is converted into energy. Some of that energy becomes the energy of the neurons and thereby produces our encapsulated thought (or just enables it to be drawn in.) We are limited and cannot perform the reverse direct thought to energy process, but we do have a planning, design and implementation capability, as does All Thought. We can implement, using energy, derived from mass, and also intelligently, to control and drive our appendages, and/or the mechanisms, we create, which aid more creating.
We accept that energy can convert to mass and mass can convert energy which is a difficult idea to encompass, but it has been proven. With a bit of help from our bodies, energy can convert to thought via neurons. Why not the process, giving thought to energy then energy to mass as well as the reverse? The whole of my hypothesis is based upon what I consider are significant differences between mathematical modelling and reality. My basic assumption is that Energy, Electro Magnetic Radiation and matter are all granular and behave in a way that, plotted against our invention called time, demonstrate wave functions. I have tried to define the reason for those wave functions. I also consider that the basic element of the mathematics used to quantify the universe is based upon the gradient at a point, i.e. calculus. It works inasmuch as it can be very much expanded and added to, to provide acceptable quantification. However, the instantaneous static point is problematic.
There is a well worn riddle which consists of a fly flying due north. It is heading for a train moving due south Fly and train collide. They end up both travelling due south combined. Mathematically, although dead, the fly cannot reverse direction, unless it experiences a static point. The setter of the riddle points out that if the fly is stationary, at the instant it becomes integral with the train, then the train must also be stationary. The fly has stopped the train.
It is certainly a nonsense to say that the fly stops the train, but what is the reality? It seems obvious to me (but then it would) that at the point of contact of each particle of the fly, consideration has to be given to the integration of particle of fly combined with particle of train. There has to be a mechanism which ensures that each set of enjoined particles acquires the same velocity without any stationary point involvement.
That is where my hypothesis comes in. Each set of enjoined particles; train plus fly; leaves the universe with dissimilar velocities and each particle then re-enters and each with the same velocity; direction due south. This takes place for each set of enjoined particles over a very short duration. It is obvious that train and dead fly are going to end up travelling due south, but I would claim that the use of an instantaneous static point is less realistic than supposing that there is an adjustment mechanism; one which I have tried to define! Mine is also a hypothesis which fits the solidity of the universe better than the probabilities of Quantum Theory.
In addition; if I was designing a universe of changing circumstances then I would include a mechanism for adaptation of the inhabitants to meet those changes. It is a sure sign of intelligence and forethought!
Yours faithfully
Gordon Thompson
B.Sc. Tech. Electrical Engineering Manchester 1960
B.Sc. Physics With Natural Sciences O.U. 1999
Hi Gordon (or is it Iswar Chandrel ?) I guess you intended this comment against this post http://www.psybertron.org/?p=3589
Without some headings or summaries, as you say your overall case is hard to follow.
I disagree with you about evolution itself. It is self-contained consistent theory with progressively more evidence and aspects empirically demonstrable. Positing a god as part of the process is an unnecessary additional speculation.
Two points where I agree:
Time and causation are strange human constructions, and therefore a great deal of physics (quantum and cosmological) beyond the human scale is highly speculative. The idea that there is some “teleology” – some direction in which evolution progresses – is tied up with the 2nd law, and with consequences of the Anthropic principles for the whole of cosmology (cosmological constant, and the Einstein gravitation and relativity work you mention above). Though again, to posit a god as part of the process is unnecessary additional speculation.
Since time is itself speculative, the idea of time before creation of “the” universe in which time arises, or the idea of there being a creation event, are doubly speculative – meaningless. Certainly not scientific questions. Creation (of something from nothing) is a metaphysical or theological question. (Big bangs that create observable local universes are not creation events, these arise from physics and evolution in the already existing universe.)