Philosophy Now Forum

if everything came into localised existance from nonlocality which it did.its stands to (reason)! that everything then in existance is a form of nonlocality one way or another.and that includes consciousness ,relativity and entangled particals.?the universe is that simple to explain so dont go complicating it please.ha
ps.god is nonlocality and made us in his image in consciousness which is stationary to the speed of light and so as such takes on the position of relativity in the relative movment of the local event.being at one as it were with the nonlocal mover and creator.

jackles wrote:if everything came into localised existance from nonlocality which it did.
its stands to (reason)! that everything
then in existance is a form of nonlocality one way or another.
and that includes consciousness ,relativity and entangled particals.?
the universe is that simple to explain so dont go complicating it please. ha
ps.
god is nonlocality and made us in his image in consciousness
which is stationary to the speed of light and so as such takes on the position
of relativity in the relative movment of the local event.
being at one as it were with the nonlocal mover and creator.

Hm . . . . . jackles puzzle . . .

why socratus.gravity is then a form of nonlocality.as is time and as is space.

jackles wrote:why socratus.
gravity is then a form of nonlocality.
as is time and as is space.

What is about SRT where space (Minkowski ) doesn't have gravity ?
=

ok socratus .ill read up on minkowski .i see what you are getting at obviosly it all fits together its just seeing how.and if it doesent fit we can chop some bits of here and there till it does .ha

jackles wrote:ok socratus
.ill read up on minkowski .
i see what you are getting at obviosly it all fits together its just seeing how.
and if it doesent fit we can chop some bits of here and there till it does .ha

". . . . we can chop some bits of here and there . . . . . . "
It seems like . . . .
. . . like in the supermarket we can bay some bits of cheese here
and some bits of sausages there . . . . . . and have a nice meal.
Not bad . . . have a good appetite Mr. jackles.
=.

yeah exactly sorcrtus.the ingredients of a meal are like the localised forms of nonlocality.they are all put together to make the event action happen.

Perhaps we could say that Minkowski space represents degree of freedom -four dimensional manifold- space and time being fundamental. We cannot move though one without going through the other.

It provided the groundwork for Einstein's special relativity.

ok if object is accelerated its uses the more usful energy from a highly localised source and exhausts it into a less usful and more nonlocal state.is this then the hidden nonlocal and real mover doing work.acceleration and gravity being caused directly or indirectly by nonlocal timespace.so the action of the acceleration is in fact loss of locality back to timespace.but at the same time the object it self gains location in terms of timespace.?

jackles wrote:ok if something is accelerated its uses the more usful energy from a highly localised source and exhausts it into a less usful and more nonlocal state.is this then the hidden nonlocal and real mover doing work.acceleration and gravity being caused directly or indirectly by nonlocal timespace.

OK, let's go back to your OP. I think you are trying to say that relativity/local is a creation of God/non-locality in the world. Is this your starting point?

yeah thats right ginkgo.if nonlocality is god the creator of locality then time and space gravity and acceleration are just forms of nonlocality.as entangled particals are.

jackles wrote:yeah thats right ginkgo.if nonlocality is god the creator of locality then time and space gravity and acceleration are just forms of nonlocality.as entangled particals are.

Basically there are a few points worth keeping in mind. It is possible to argue that quantum mechanics provides a means for the manifestation of time,space and gravity from non-locality. This can be seen as a casual argument, but this doesn't necessarily make it a first cause argument. Non-locality doesn't automatically supply us with a first cause explanation.

The other point is that special relativity can be explained without the need for non-locality. Perhaps we can say, mass tells space/time how to curve and curved space/time tells mass how move in curved space. No need for a unmoved mover in this case.

yes ginkgo .special relativity is nonlocality so what you have said is in exact agreement .because it is it nonlocality that has aranged things in the way you have said them .all being forms of nonlocality.