Philosophy Now Forum

This book may contain the theories Greylorn keeps referring to:

http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Universe- ... 0985716800

This site appears to be associated with Greylorn's book.

http://www.beon-cpt.com/index.htm

Copyright © 2013 The Church of Physical Theology, Ltd., all rights reserved.

Ginkgo wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote: I wrote two books on the subject, the best one (but most difficult) being Digital Universe -- Analog Soul. There is no way to present my thesis in a post that would make sense to anyone. I've tried, on three different forums, to present ideas piecemeal, in a series of threads focused upon a single theme. This proved to be a fruitless effort. Trolls and nits descended upon each thread like flies on a picnic lunch. On two forums the moderators (atheists) simply made it impossible to produce content.

I am working on an article that neither PN nor anyone else is likely to publish, but it is a difficult process trying to condense such ideas. The human mind tends to become somnambulistic whenever it is presented with just a single concept that differs from its current programming. Imagine how minds will react when confronted with seven divergent ideas, several of which depend upon classical physics.

Greylorn, have you thought about the possibility of a quantum universe and a quantum soul?

Ginkgo,

My thoughts on these matters are reflected in the book's title. The "Digital Universe" part comes from an arcane chapter near the end of the book, where I try to explain the reason why the universe is quantized. No one reads it, or they speed-read it and wonder why they didn't comprehend a word.

The "Analog Soul" part of the title implies that I had also considered the alternative, a digitized or quantized entity. I did, of course-- several people have proposed such a thing-- but it struck me as a New Age Revisionist notion. New Age beliefs are motivationally illogical, and the idea of promoting a Quantum New Age Religion has zero appeal. My general theory works well as is, with the soul an analog kind of entity, at least with respect to its interactions with the digital side of the universe and the human brain.

You'll notice that there is a tendency among current metaphysical and speculative-science types to overuse elements of quantum mechanics without understanding a bit of QM theory other than the garbage on TV documentary channels. It's quantum this and quantum that. The term "quantum" could easily be the most abused word in the English language. People commonly speak of "quantum leaps" as if the phrase describes something momentous or important. I've yet to encounter anyone outside the hard science world who knows that a "quantum leap" is the smallest possible increment of physical change-- the most insignificant event in the known universe.

Greylorn Ell wrote:I've yet to encounter anyone outside the hard science world who knows that a "quantum leap" is the smallest possible increment of physical change-- the most insignificant event in the known universe.

Is it where a single photon is emitted?

TIME==EMIT

attofishpi wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:I've yet to encounter anyone outside the hard science world who knows that a "quantum leap" is the smallest possible increment of physical change-- the most insignificant event in the known universe.

Is it where a single photon is emitted?

TIME==EMIT

Basically this is correct when elections are considered. Electromagnetic radiation should be given off in a continuous pattern. It doesn't actually because apparently energy comes in a quantized state.

I guess it is a bit like moving from one room to another. You walk down the hall to the next room an enter. It is somewhat mind boggling
to imagine that you could just suddenly appear in the next room without any transition states.

As Greylorn suggests such events are significant in the quantum world because without them the physical world could not possibly exist. As puzzling as this all is, quantum mechanics is probably the most successful scientific theory every discovered.

Anyway that's my contribution to your question. I am sure Greylorn, Blaggard or Uwot will do a better job than myself.

Greylorn Ell wrote: Ginkgo,

My thoughts on these matters are reflected in the book's title. The "Digital Universe" part comes from an arcane chapter near the end of the book, where I try to explain the reason why the universe is quantized. No one reads it, or they speed-read it and wonder why they didn't comprehend a word.

So why is it quantized? Do you have other reasons why this might be the case? That is to say, other reasons than the impossibility of the physical existing.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

The "Analog Soul" part of the title implies that I had also considered the alternative, a digitized or quantized entity. I did, of course-- several people have proposed such a thing-- but it struck me as a New Age Revisionist notion. New Age beliefs are motivationally illogical, and the idea of promoting a Quantum New Age Religion has zero appeal. My general theory works well as is, with the soul an analog kind of entity, at least with respect to its interactions with the digital side of the universe and the human brain.

Yes, but what about quantum new age science? If we are talking about science and the soul, I don't really see much difference between a classical scientific explanation for the soul and a quantum explanation for the soul.

Greylorn Ell wrote:
You'll notice that there is a tendency among current metaphysical and speculative-science types to overuse elements of quantum mechanics without understanding a bit of QM theory other than the garbage on TV documentary channels. It's quantum this and quantum that. The term "quantum" could easily be the most abused word in the English language. People commonly speak of "quantum leaps" as if the phrase describes something momentous or important. I've yet to encounter anyone outside the hard science world who knows that a "quantum leap" is the smallest possible increment of physical change-- the most insignificant event in the known universe.

I guess I fall into that category.

I've tried, on three different forums, to present ideas piecemeal, in a series of threads focused upon a single theme. This proved to be a fruitless effort. Trolls and nits descended upon each thread like flies on a picnic lunch.

There's a recurring theme in your writing of blaming others for your inability to present and defend your thesis. Another reader commented upon this distraction in their review of your book from the Amazon site.

http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Universe- ... 0985716800

My biggest beef is that the author descends into a nasty political diatribe that has nothing to do with his main theories or the title of his work. He also displays an off-putting radical bias against most mainstream authorities, whether scientific or religious.

1) It might be a step forward to work to identify the disappointments, personal emotional themes, social competition agendas etc in your presentations and surgically remove these distractions as best you can. Perhaps open a blog which is focused on venting the personal stuff, so that it might be kept separate from your intellectual offerings.

2) It's possible people aren't getting your thesis because it's too complicated, and that level of complication reveals you haven't yet been able to boil your core ideas down to their bottom line. I have no idea if this is the case, but it is perhaps worth noting that there tends to be a significant bias in the intellectual realm for complexity in both language and concepts, perhaps due to a notion that complexity equals value, and that complexity elevates the author to an expert status etc. In any case, there is nothing you can do about "speed reading nits" but you may be able to simplify and clarify your thesis, and thus expand your audience.

3) The person stopping you from presenting your thesis on forums is you. None of us can prevent you from posting whatever you want, nor do we wish to, and on this forum especially the mods will give you very wide latitude.

As best I can tell what is slowing you down is fear. I would suggest that a person of reason, such as you claim to be, should have no reason to be fearful. If your thesis should be debunked and defeated by other posters, as a person of reason you should be happy to have this service provided so that your investigation may proceed in a more hopeful direction.

If you feel that people on forums are incurable nitwits and trolls etc, then nobody is stopping you from opening your own forum where you can limit participation to those who you judge qualified to review your ideas.

The person standing in your way is you. This is good news because it means you are in control of the solution.

deleted by user

Ginkgo wrote:deleted by user

get off the gear man.

attofishpi wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:deleted by user

get off the gear man.

LOL, good one. I like your sense of humor.

Greylorn Ell wrote:...
I wrote two books on the subject, the best one (but most difficult) being Digital Universe -- Analog Soul. There is no way to present my thesis in a post that would make sense to anyone. I've tried, on three different forums, to present ideas piecemeal, in a series of threads focused upon a single theme. This proved to be a fruitless effort. Trolls and nits descended upon each thread like flies on a picnic lunch. On two forums the moderators (atheists) simply made it impossible to produce content. ...

It's different here, the mods are fairly relaxed about content. What they would appreciate is if the original poster did some of their work for them, i.e. report posts that they think are inappropriate to the thread and if their reasons are valid the mods will remove them. this way you could keep the trolls away, although nit-pickers are part and parcel of philosophy.

To be honest, if you have a thesis then you should at least be able to have an introduction that explains it or, if science-minded, at least an abstract.

Took a goggle and at base you appear to claim to have a definition of a possible 'God' or 'Gods' based upon considerations from Physics and Logic. Are you claiming actual existence?

Ginkgo wrote:... quantum mechanics is probably the most successful scientific theory every discovered. ...

Not a physicist or anything but I'd have thought Quantum Electrodynamics(QED) might have this title.

Arising_uk wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:... quantum mechanics is probably the most successful scientific theory every discovered. ...

Not a physicist or anything but I'd have thought Quantum Electrodynamics(QED) might have this title.

Actually, I would say your are correct. Thanks for pointing out that distinction.

Oh, by the way. 5/0 in the Ashes. Revenge is sweet.

attofishpi wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:I've yet to encounter anyone outside the hard science world who knows that a "quantum leap" is the smallest possible increment of physical change-- the most insignificant event in the known universe.

Is it where a single photon is emitted?

TIME==EMIT

Yes, but....

All energy exchanges are QM events. The detonation of an H-bomb consists of an extremely large number of quantum events that would be too insignificant to be noticed if one of them occurred within your body, as they do billions of times per second. Supernovae involve quite a few more quantum events of the same sort. All energy exchanges occur at the quantum (insignificant but digital) level.

Sorry, but your approximation, TIME==EMIT is just some bullshit that someone who has not taken QM 501 has made up. Meaningless gibberish, pretending to substitute obfuscation for knowledge. Please tell me that you cribbed it from a know-nothing; else apologize for trying to fool me.

Ginkgo wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:I've yet to encounter anyone outside the hard science world who knows that a "quantum leap" is the smallest possible increment of physical change-- the most insignificant event in the known universe.

Is it where a single photon is emitted?

TIME==EMIT

Basically this is correct when elections are considered. Electromagnetic radiation should be given off in a continuous pattern. It doesn't actually because apparently energy comes in a quantized state.

I guess it is a bit like moving from one room to another. You walk down the hall to the next room an enter. It is somewhat mind boggling
to imagine that you could just suddenly appear in the next room without any transition states.

As Greylorn suggests such events are significant in the quantum world because without them the physical world could not possibly exist. As puzzling as this all is, quantum mechanics is probably the most successful scientific theory every discovered.

Anyway that's my contribution to your question. I am sure Greylorn, Blaggard or Uwot will do a better job than myself.

Don't worry about the relative value of contributions. You made yours. Keep on making them, and do not judge their value. You are not qualified to do that. Judging yourself will impede your imagination.

Guess who declared that QM is the most successful scientific theory ever discovered? Would you believe, proponents of QM? Coincidental?

Darwinists regard Darwinism as the most successful theory explaining the irrefutable evidence of biological evolution, nevermind that the probability for the Darwinian assembly of a single, small, 900 base-pair human gene is about 1.4x10exp-542, a number which is so small as to make, by comparison, your chance of winning a multi-million dollar lottery by buying one ticket, a certainty.

Every jackass with a theory or belief system thinks that his is the best. (That is exactly how I regard my theories--- except that I am certain that they will be greatly improved upon by better minds). Don't get sucked into the belief systems of jackasses, even when they are supported by large numbers of idiots. Quantity does not substitute for quality. There are at least a billion Hindus, Muslims, Catholics, and communists on the planet. Etc, so as not to neglect the other classes of believers in made-up truth.

Keep your own mind. Do your own thinking. Its the only kind of thinking that you can learn from, irrespective of which authority-figure or bullshit artist is "right," for the moment.

Greylorn

Ginkgo wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote: Ginkgo,

My thoughts on these matters are reflected in the book's title. The "Digital Universe" part comes from an arcane chapter near the end of the book, where I try to explain the reason why the universe is quantized. No one reads it, or they speed-read it and wonder why they didn't comprehend a word.

So why is it quantized? Do you have other reasons why this might be the case? That is to say, other reasons than the impossibility of the physical existing.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

The "Analog Soul" part of the title implies that I had also considered the alternative, a digitized or quantized entity. I did, of course-- several people have proposed such a thing-- but it struck me as a New Age Revisionist notion. New Age beliefs are motivationally illogical, and the idea of promoting a Quantum New Age Religion has zero appeal. My general theory works well as is, with the soul an analog kind of entity, at least with respect to its interactions with the digital side of the universe and the human brain.

Yes, but what about quantum new age science? If we are talking about science and the soul, I don't really see much difference between a classical scientific explanation for the soul and a quantum explanation for the soul.

Greylorn Ell wrote:
You'll notice that there is a tendency among current metaphysical and speculative-science types to overuse elements of quantum mechanics without understanding a bit of QM theory other than the garbage on TV documentary channels. It's quantum this and quantum that. The term "quantum" could easily be the most abused word in the English language. People commonly speak of "quantum leaps" as if the phrase describes something momentous or important. I've yet to encounter anyone outside the hard science world who knows that a "quantum leap" is the smallest possible increment of physical change-- the most insignificant event in the known universe.

I guess I fall into that category.

I appreciate your honesty and shall take it at face value.

After killing about 40 years trying to explain my ideas to someone smarter than me, so that they could do the development work, I gave up and wrote an effing book. I hate writing. If I could answer your questions here, I would. But consider, would you have asked Big Al for a brief explanation of General Relativity theory after mentioning that you hated math and had dropped out of high school algebra?

Before you reply, 'why not?' you might want to Wiki-lookup tensor algebra and Riemann-space geometry.

My theory is embarrassingly simple. My book contains the prerequisites necessary to understand and appreciate its simplicity.