Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Joe Fisher: on 9/28/16 at 14:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Fellow Sagacious Comment Providers, The physical construction of the...

melta kelt: on 9/28/16 at 11:22am UTC, wrote Excellent writing skills have been shown here by you. I am one of your most...

Manfred: on 1/14/12 at 16:48pm UTC, wrote Thus, the problem of parallel universe for you, too, is of interest, I...

Manfred: on 1/14/12 at 16:46pm UTC, wrote Thus, the problem of parallel universe for you, too, is of interest, I...

James Putnam: on 1/22/11 at 15:55pm UTC, wrote Hi Dr. Ray, I just now read that article. I posted my response under its...

Dr. Cosmic Ray: on 1/21/11 at 21:00pm UTC, wrote Hi James, Have you read this article? ...

Anonymous: on 1/21/11 at 20:07pm UTC, wrote "When, presumably sometime in the future, theoretical physics finally...

James Putnam: on 1/21/11 at 1:01am UTC, wrote Information is fundamental because intelligence is fundamental....


RECENT FORUM POSTS

James Putnam: "Dear Steve Agnew, "Although discrete aether seems natural to me and..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "In this scenario preference is meant as a measurement outcome and not an..." in Defining Existence

Georgina Woodward: "A better analogy would be choosing carrots or cabbage. The rabbit once..." in Defining Existence

Georgina Woodward: "Paul, Smooth seas do not make good sailorsThe essay can be downloaded from..." in Science Funding in an...

Georgina Woodward: "I emphasize materially." in What Happens Inside the...

Georgina Woodward: "Pentcho, there is a difference between a material future,(consisting of..." in What Happens Inside the...

Jason Wolfe: "Hi Steve, Great to hear from you. You have been one of the long standing..." in Alternative Models of...

Paul Butler: "Dear Eckard, I find it interesting that after all the of gains in science..." in Science Funding in an...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Untangling Quantum Causation
Figuring out if A causes B should help to write the rulebook for quantum physics.

In Search of a Quantum Spacetime
Finding the universe's wavefunction could be the key to understanding the emergence of reality.

Collapsing Physics: Q&A with Catalina Oana Curceanu
Tests of a rival to quantum theory, taking place in the belly of the Gran Sasso d'Italia mountain, could reveal how the fuzzy subatomic realm of possibilities comes into sharp macroscopic focus.

Dropping Schrödinger's Cat Into a Black Hole
Combining gravity with the process that transforms the fuzzy uncertainty of the quantum realm into the definite classical world we see around us could lead to a theory of quantum gravity.

Does Quantum Weirdness Arise When Parallel Classical Worlds Repel?
Quantum mechanics could derive from subtle interactions among unseen neighboring universes


FQXi BLOGS
October 1, 2016

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: The Parallel Universe Experiment, by Vlatko Vedral [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Oct. 7, 2008 @ 13:22 GMT
Can we detect the existence of parallel worlds in the lab? Quantum physicist Vlatko Vedral checks out the suggestion that a new—and surprisingly simple—experiment could tell us if alternate universes exist, once and for all.

From Vlatko Vedral:

Parallel worlds are a staple of science fiction and fantasy, with characters weaving in and out of alternate universes and interacting...

view entire post


this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


JL Wallace wrote on Oct. 7, 2008 @ 18:05 GMT
Research: Blackholes and Baby Universes - Hawking

I like the interpration of the multiverse theory as this: that each individual blackhole in our universe, creates another entirely seperate universe, that creates blackholes that also spawn blackholes, that creates other universes, which create blackholes... etc.

That way, one can have the "multiverse" theory, without the absurdity.

report post as inappropriate


DBS wrote on Oct. 10, 2008 @ 16:50 GMT
In response to JL Wallace: aren't those separate universe's different than the ones preposed in the quantum multiverse theory? Can those two multiverse theories overlap?

I do agree, though, on a nonquantum level, that theory of black hole universes sits very well with me.

report post as inappropriate


Jesse wrote on Oct. 11, 2008 @ 21:52 GMT
So, since Colbert is a parody of a conservative commentator, then the parallel Colbert would be a parody of a liberal one...and actually a conservative. And would that mean that O'Reilly would be a liberal? A strange world that would be indeed.

report post as inappropriate


Dango wrote on Jul. 1, 2010 @ 15:15 GMT
Where does information come from?

What has been and is generating it?

Is there a meaning to the question : Where is this "Information" locatrd?

Information, may be defined as: "structered content which encodes meaning", if so - where does the "informatic" - meaningful layer of the cosmos as information come from (same questions about the "meaner" and in turn its origin)

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jul. 1, 2010 @ 15:25 GMT
Dear Dango,

I have been asking questions like this for months. "Where is Hilbert Space?" "How does every electron 'know' that it has a rest mass of 511 KeV/c^2, an intrinsic spin of 1/2 h-bar, and an electric charge of -e?" We physicists like to crank the math without asking the philosophical questions, but I think that the answers to this information content lies in conserved quantum numbers within Hyperspace.

Please see my paper at:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/520

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Sissel Kvamme replied on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 10:20 GMT
Hi guys

I found this forum after making it halfway through Vedrals Decoding Reality and trying to understand why he concludes that information has to be a physical entity that complies with the second law of thermodynamics because deleting information from a memory (human or electronic) causes heat, as opposed to aquiring or storing memory.

I know there has to be some methapors or references in this statement that are unfamiliar to me. The closest I can get to getting my head around it is concluding that IF information has to be defined as a physical entity and comply with the second law, THEN deleting or forgetting information can be likened to removing it from my brain and/or computer and placing or losing it in cyberspace where it will contribute to entropy.

BUT this is a deduction based on an assumption which is very far from a proof.

My background is in economy and philosophy. If anyone has the patience to explain to me how the proof that information IS a physical entity should be understood I will appreciate it. Otherwise I will just have to file the idea as a reference or language game not applicable to the way I think.

Sissel

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 11:08 GMT
Sissel,

Welcome. I think your questions might be more appropriate, and get more notice, in Vedral's FQXi forum, "Decoding entropic gravity" (topic 626).

The short answer is that the mathematical model for communication entropy (Claude Shannon, 1948) is identical to the model of energy entropy (Carnot, Clausius). If the world is made of quantum information, quantum gravity follows as an entropic phenomenon. Halfway through the book, you've only read the background -- the exciting conclusions from the research Vedral is writing about are in the last pages.

See you over in topic 626 if you want to go into detail. I'm a big fan of the book, and I'd be delighted to see the forum revived.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Jul. 1, 2010 @ 17:49 GMT
Dear Ray,

Here I go giving my opinion again:

As a non-expert and speaking metaphorically, I think you may be asking for answers from idols instead of the Intelligent Cause of Creation. The use of the name God is fine with me though, with regard to additional details, I do not go beyond declaring intelligence to be the first cause of all understanding. My intent is not to define religion or religions. It is to establish that intelligence is the unexplanable first cause and is, thus far, no part of the idols put up for us by theoretical physics. I think that they are artifical obstacles put up between us and a real answer about intelligence.

Those idols, in my opinion, are like statues pretending to have fundamental causative, even intelligent, powers. A unified theory must be expected to include the explanation of our intelligence and when that day comes the idols of the mechanical ideology will crumble. The story of 'this happened and then that happened and then we happened because this and that happened first' will finally be recognized as a listing of results without explanation of cause and, most certainly, without explaining how life and finally we discern meaning from information.

The search for answers beyond our current, very limited, understanding, is bogged down in setting up more and more idols. The first idols lead to second idols which lead to third idols and so on and so on until the day finally comes when all these lifeless idols are replaced with understanding about the nature of intelligence and, even more so, intelligent life. In other words, 'until the day that mechanical theory is dropped in the manner similar to previous fallen idols'.

Other opinions are, of course, welcome. That is what lifts a forum up so that it might be a source of new, hopefully real, knowledge.

James

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jul. 1, 2010 @ 18:18 GMT
Dear James,

IDOLS?

OUCH!

I'm just trying to understand the problem presented in terms of the tools I know. I'm sorry that you don't see it that way. I have explained it many times, and feel that only a few (or maybe just Lawrence) actually understand me. The experts (like Distler - yes, we had a couple of e-mail exchanges last year) don't even take the time to try to understand my perspective, and too many people don't (or won't ever) understand String Theory and Particle Physics.

My ideas may eventually overthrow physics as we think we know it, but I prefer not to assume that. How can I better define time when I still don't fully understand it myself?

I even had a possible way to incorporate thought/ consciousness/ mind/ soul/ the dream (or whatever the latest cool term is) into my model through Scale Invariance, but even FMD rejected the idea.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said "Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimension." I guess that means I'm permanently stuck at 28 dimensions, and most everyone else is at 3 or 4.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jul. 1, 2010 @ 18:35 GMT
Dear Ray,

I was giving my opinion. Your opinion counts for more than mine. You have the distinction of being an expert about that which I am being critical.

"I even had a possible way to incorporate thought/ consciousness/ mind/ soul/ the dream (or whatever the latest cool term is) into my model through Scale Invariance, ..."

I can't imagine what scale invariance has to do with reaching out of the mechanical realm into the intellgence realm, but, I will say that I was very pleased to hear that you and Dr. Crowell are working together. While myself and maybe some others flail around, hopefully you real physicists can accomplish something that will make sense even to the rest of us.

James

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 1, 2010 @ 19:21 GMT
Good article but " One is to say that there are no individuals and only the society matters (socialism)". Please can we not stick to science and leave out the political philosophy. My first thought that the writer must be American who from the media seem to totally misunderstand Socialism. By the way Margaret Thathcher's views that there is no such thing as society are now disowned by her own party.

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Jul. 1, 2010 @ 19:27 GMT
Dear anonymouse,

What article and what writer are you referring too?

James

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 1, 2010 @ 20:05 GMT
The Parallel Universe Experiment, by Vlatko Vedral

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jul. 1, 2010 @ 20:08 GMT
Dear Anonymouse,

What does this response have to do with the wonderfulness and beautifulness of socialism (cough-cough)? Please reveal your intended meaning?

James

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Jul. 1, 2010 @ 20:52 GMT
I can't wait. It is not just anonymouse, it is many, many others. While waiting for anonymouse to reply, I will give my opinion: Socialism is the refuge, not the last refuge, that is communism, for those who are afraid. They are afraid because liberty requires us to remain vulnerable. Those who wish to give up their liberty, and be taken care of, leave themselves easy prey to the strongarm of the individual who is brutal enough to enslave them.

Those who choose liberty are choosing to provide for themselves, their families and those in need. Those who are afraid of liberty look to the powerful to take care of them and to ease their conscience by providing for those in need. Instead, the powerful deem themselves to be the most worthy and the needful to be less worthy. In the end, no matter what the socialist system is, those who rise to the top are those who are not mindful of the needy. Those who rise up are those who are brutal enough to relieve themselves of the burden of the true idealists who imagine that reason wins out over the unreasonable.

Let those who do not love liberty choose their system of control and be controlled by it. And, let those who chose liberty, take responsibility for themselves and those in need. Those in need have nothing to fear from those who, themselves, are not afraid of being vulnerable and take responsibility for themselves and others. Those who understand being vulnerable are those who are best ready to help those who are in need. That is what the 'greatest generation' in America did.

It is incredible to me that the children of the 'greatest generation' should be so irresponsible and weak so that they would choose socialism. Socialism is for those who hope that others will take over their responsibility and all responsibility and do it responsibly. Of course, that is a silly idea. How many times does the world have to laugh first, then cry, then scream at the results of giving responsibility to strongarms?

None of this, whether my opinion or someone else's opinion from a political or social point of view, has anything to do with studying the universe. Whatever we learn, it has to do with why objects change their velocities and how we discern meaning from the patterns in changes of velocity.

James

report post as inappropriate


dango wrote on Jul. 1, 2010 @ 22:38 GMT
Dear Prof. Vedral,

Do you belive that there is, in prinicple, a possibility to mathematicaly formulate "Spontanous Emergence Mechanics"?

I would like to claim that nothing is(and can be) more familiar for the "I" of each and everyone of us - than the certainty of knowing ourselves, to be "domains" of spontanous emergences.

In that sense, I believe that anything that we percieve as something that comes up "within" us, is a tini - tiny bang.

As one expression of the cosmos - that is one and the same, in its most fundemntal level - it seems plausible to assume , that any intuition, dream, thought that just "pops" in our mind etc. are tini- tiny echos or "after shocks" of the Big Bang - from within.

So, I just had a very pleasurable spontanous intuitive bang emergence, following watching an interview with you + and due to your kind , rapid response to a previous post by yours humbly.

This is what the "bang" I exprienced, just now, "tells me" (or more accuratley "tells in me"): the mystery which we tend to believe that is "out there", "beyond" the limits of the observable universe in all dimensions - is the same as the mystery of that which is US.

So, maybe there is a hint engraved in us, as to the limitations of our ability to decipher the "underlying nature of reality" through the use of scientific method. Since, none of us ,scientists included - while expriencing spontanous mental emergences, can account for the origin of those emergeces.

These emergences "feel" as "steming" from dimensionlessness.

All that "lurks" in the dimensionless ,seems to be beyond our reach. Attempting to observe the fundementals of what IS - is like attempting to look at the back of our own minds - where there are observers that can not be observed.

I am grateful for the "thinking - fun time" that coresponding with you provides me with.

I AM very very impressed with science and its' contributions as well as with able pepole - such as you.

Have a wonderful weekend!

DG

report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti (www.zenophysics.com) wrote on Jul. 2, 2010 @ 07:04 GMT
Dear Zeeya Merali,

What a choice, Copenhagen vs. many worlds. I do not like either of them because they make quantum mechanics just too "spooky" to use Einstein's term.

I think there is something spooky going on but it is not quantum mechanics and Heisenberg was on to it before he was "persuaded" by Bohr and Schrodinger to switch to continuously evolving waves. Heisenberg referred to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Donivan Bessinger wrote on Jul. 2, 2010 @ 21:00 GMT
Re Vlakto Vedral’s point: “To have this difference between measurement and evolution is not nice and clean. There are now two ways of getting rid of the dichotomy. One is to say that there are no measurements (the Many World’s philosophy) and the other one is to say that there is no evolution (this would be the "ultra" Copenhagen view).”

Could not there be another approach? One which is a superposition of both measurement and evolution? In a poetic mood I have floated the idea of the primary equivalence of Being-Energy as the irreducible reality, which leads to visualizing Energy as a waveform, which “plicks” (i.e. presents itself as Planck-time ticks), thus providing the threshold between locality (physical actuality) and nonlocality (the realm of deep reality, undefined in space-time.)

For the informational model of cosmos the effect is of a “CPU” offering extremely high resolution, in which physical-cosmos is recreated at each plick from the Hilbert Space which is the abstract “consciousness” of All-that-is. There are interesting implications for consciousness studies, physics and metaphysics. It’s rather much to encompass in a blog reply but a published abstract and unpublished article flesh it out a bit (or byte).

A scientific journal has rejected the paper as too speculative, but of course everything that has been written about consciousness is speculative. I would welcome discussion of the idea from a physics point of view, here or at dbscriptorium@gmail.com

Poster and abstract, Quantum Mind conference, 2003

Paper, 1998

Author

DonB / Donivan Bessinger

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Jul. 2, 2010 @ 21:49 GMT
Dear Don,

You have an interesting perspective. Please ignore Anonymouse, Lightbringer, Cosmo D, and Frank Martin DiMeglio (All are the same person whom I call FMD - "fully mentally disturbed"). He will be jealous of your ideas because he thinks he is the only one who understands Being/ Consciousness/ Thought/ Self/ Mind/ Soul/ Dream, and the rest of us think he should be on medication... As a surgeon who donates his time to Haitian missions, I'm sure you have seen people in worse shape than FMD.

My TOE models include (and explain) scale invariance (Supersymmetry) and "spooky" action-at-a-distance (tachyons) phenomena. I think that scale invariance allows a huge (infinite?) Multiverse with many (infinite?) alternate self-similar Spacetime Universes. Perhaps our Being/ Consciousness/ Thought/ Mind/ Soul/ Dream can sample outcomes from many of these alternate Universes via self-similar Don's, Ray's, FMD's etc. and this feedback mechanism becomes the basis for our descisions in the present.

You mentioned that Hilbert space is huge, and that the cpu's needed to process this amount of information is large. In my models, Hyperspace is much larger than spacetime (My current model has 28 dimensions), and this information is stored via conserved quantum numbers (for instance, an E8 algebra has 248 components that could potentially act as bits) within Hyperspace, and then transmitted to us via tachyons.

Most physicists do not try to include "Being" within their idea of Physics. I think they consider it sufficient that Physics connects with Being through the five senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell. Another fqxi physicist who is interested in this question is Edwin Eugene Klingman - please see

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561

Also, some of my multi-dimensional ideas are at

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/520

but that paper does not present my scale invariance ideas, or all 28 dimensions (just the first 12 dimensions).

Have Fun and Enjoy the 4th!

report post as inappropriate


don limuti (zenophysics.com) wrote on Jul. 4, 2010 @ 08:57 GMT
Hi Anon,

1. I agree. I too have dreams and believe they are quantum mechanical as are ordinary waking thoughts. The book that got me thinking about this was "Human" by Michael Gazzaniga. All those neurons we carry around can be a large content addressable memory and the synapses are quantum mechanical look up tables. During waking the I/O is connected to the memory and we sense and act. During sleep the I/O is disconnected from the memory and noise triggers the senses and the output is inhibited. So, in both waking and sleep we have thoughts. Of course we are more than thought, but that is our tool.

2. Ray is a super contributor to this site, and I like to read his posts.

3. I wish that I were a doctor but all I do is send my prayers to those who suffer in Haiti.

4. I like to use language that is questionable and some of my posts have been removed. I am a great admirer of the physician John Crapper. He has done more good than just about any other doctor and I use his name quite frequently to keep his memory alive and prod what I see as group think in physics.

5. I would like to encourage your participation and your developing a thicker skin and I also recognize you have made yourself a "pest" as retaliation for criticism. So. lighten up, have some fun. It is just thoughts and perhaps as you and Shakespeare say just dreams (aka multiple worlds).

report post as inappropriate


Donivan Bessinger wrote on Jul. 4, 2010 @ 16:57 GMT
First, appreciation to Ray for taking seriously a physician's attempt to intrude upon a physics discussion; and for the comments of Don Limuti and Lightbringer et al. My involvement grew first from papers on medical ethics, and the realization of the need to ground ethics (and consciousness and other aspects of a medical philosophy) in physical reality. My speculations about "plicks" are not so much a reach toward a TOE, as a proposal for a shorthand way for physicians and other non-physicists to visualize and to talk about the metaphysics to which physics itself now points.

Incidentally, Don L, my proposed model seems to correlate nicely with your idea of lambda-jumps (particles moving "digitally") in your essay @ zenophysics; also with Julian Barbour's no-time theory ("End of Time", 1999). Also, it offers a philosophical approach to Wm Oren's question here (Blog topic 266: Definition: Energy) -- "But what is energy? No, really. What is it?"

For me, Being-Energy is the ultimate equivalence, the essence of the foundational nonlocal reality. Energy is inexplicable, except as the "pressure" of Being itself, for without energy there is no thing to have Being nor can any spacetime thing exist without Energy. So in a nonlocal ("ultimate reality") sense, I would strongly qualify Willton Alano's statement (today, topic/266#post_21148) that, "Additionally, no energy exists by itself. Energy is always just a property of a material body or particle".

Energy is Primal -- it is the Quality which brought the "material body or particle" into existence in the first place.

For Lightbringer (et al.), dreams fascinate me too. But may I say that newcomers will find it less confusing if each respondent chooses one particular identity for the blog, rather than a superposition of several ! :)

Regards,

Don B / Donivan Bessinger

report post as inappropriate


Donivan Bessinger wrote on Jul. 4, 2010 @ 17:09 GMT
Please correct my Jul. 4, 2010 @ 16:57 GMT post above ---

William Orem's question and Wilton Alano's statement are at topic 639

Sorry! / DonB

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 14:54 GMT
Tom,

A break from debate. Since you and I live in at least two different universes, I will post this message in this blog. Thank you for your extensive participation in debate with me and the others. Your time, expertise, and forthrightness are valuable and appreciated.

James

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 15:35 GMT
That's very gentlemanly and kind of you, James. I think you understand that I would not invest so much if what you say didn't resonate, even though I disagree. Thanks for your thoughtful criticism, as well.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Franklin.McLoud wrote on Jan. 10, 2011 @ 00:22 GMT
Èíòåðåñíè ëîêàëèòåòè å realmente òðóäîò programa maravilhoso âåð o desfile îä 20 äå setembro em Piratini. Åì ÅÓ âî 2007 ãîäèíà fui Ïåëà primeira vez assisti-îâäå å fiquei emocionada, å òðóäîò desfile è ìíîãó Lindo feito com Àëìà ñîáà cada òðóäîò daqueles gauchos que la vivem. Âàëå íà Ïåíà..

report post as inappropriate


sorin wrote on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 23:36 GMT
Have you thought sir(mr Vedral) that "information" is a part of what people belive is "God"?In the begining it was the WORD.How else better could have they said in those time when the notion of "information "didn't exist?

report post as inappropriate


sorin wrote on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 23:41 GMT
so dear mr Vedral for that and other reasons I agree that "information" is the fundament of everything.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 01:01 GMT
Information is fundamental because intelligence is fundamental. Intelligence must have information to discern meaning from. All else follows after this. Information without discernment is nothing. Nothing can follow from nothing. Mechanics is a very low level substitute for intelligence. Theoretical physics proposes mechanical causes for mechanical effects. However, these so-called 'mechanical effects' are only a portion of what the universe has to offer for scientific analyses. The most important properties are life and intelligence. The proposed mechanical causes have nothing to offer for the analyses of these far more important properties of the universe. When, presumably sometime in the future, theoretical physics finally addresses the properties of intelligence, then it will no longer be a, self-restricted, mechanically useful, but, fundamentally artificial science.

James

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 20:07 GMT
"When, presumably sometime in the future, theoretical physics finally addresses the properties of intelligence..."

How do you propose that theoretical physics can address intelligence? To me, that's like saying, "When chemistry finally addresses music..." or, "When quantum gravity finally addresses dreams...."

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 21:00 GMT
Hi James,

Have you read this article?

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/820

The origin of Intelligence, Consciousness and/or Dreams (they may all be related) is relevant, but difficult for Physics, Biology, Chemistry and/or Mathematics to address.

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 15:55 GMT
Hi Dr. Ray,

I just now read that article. I posted my response under its comments section.

James

report post as inappropriate


Manfred wrote on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 16:46 GMT
Thus, the problem of parallel universe for you, too, is of interest, I decided to write to you and ask to read twenty-first chapter, "Revelation," where, I think, St. John gives a symbolic description ofa parallel universe. My article "hereafter OR DIVINE UNIVERSEUNIVERSE" in Russian and English is available at www.tracts.com / MB.html, where I tried to decipher the 21 chapters of "Revelation."For...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Manfred wrote on Jan. 14, 2012 @ 16:48 GMT
Thus, the problem of parallel universe for you, too, is of interest, I decided to write to you and ask to read twenty-first chapter, "Revelation," where, I think, St. John gives a symbolic description ofa parallel universe. My article "hereafter OR DIVINE UNIVERSEUNIVERSE" in Russian and English is available at www.tracts.com / MB.html, where I tried to decipher the 21 chapters of "Revelation."For...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Sep. 28, 2016 @ 14:43 GMT
Dear Fellow Sagacious Comment Providers,

The physical construction of the observable Universe must be of the simplest nature permissible. All I am asking you to do is to notice that no matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed varied colored surfaces. You cannot see invisible empty space. There must only be one unified infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. When one uses the word “is,” one implies a finite state arising from a finite state of was. The word “am” is truly descriptive of a state of infinity.

If you disagree with me, kindly provide me with an explanation for your disagreement.

Thank you for reading my spellbinding material,

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'O' and 'Q':


Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.