Philosophy Now Forum

I present this New Italic School opinion, of its Teacher Romano Amodeo.

A simple dictionary indicates that:
<< 1) the ABSOLUTE is what doesn't accept limits, restrictions, or conditions referred to itself, its own will, or attribution.
2) In grammar, the ABSOLUTE indicates a construction independent by the term...
3) In mathematics, the ABSOLUTE WORTH of a number is the real relative number, without algebraic sign.
4) In Physics, the ABSOLUTE is the contrary of what is relative one; the system (of a unit of measurement) is "ABSOLUTE ONE" when the adopted unities in this system are invariant one in every time and every place, and are defined by theory and without any reference to experimental results.
5) In philosophy, the ABSOLUTE is what doesn't depend on nothing else, to affirm its own reality.
6) "IN ABSOLUTE" means “to be without any limitation or condition”. This word is derived by the Latin ABSOLUTUS, meaning “without any link". >>

I’ll present the << ABSOLUTE IN PHYSICS >>., afterwards referring on "c", the "absolute speed" og the light
My instrument of concerning uses the MATH, and, as we have seen, the absolute number is the "TOTAL QUANTITY" of any number different from zero, when it is without the positive-negative sign, and so when it hasn't any reference about the complex reality.
Accepted 10 like the ESSENTIAL GOD of any number of our decimal Math, since every number, like 3, or 4, ... etc, is Log 10×10×10, or Log 10×10×10×10, ... etc., number 10 is also the TRUE CYCLE of the unitary and complex space-time, going from -1 to +1. In this way:
10×10 × 10×10×10×10×10×10×10×10 = 10^2 × 10^(2^3) = 10^(2+8) = 10^10 is the ABSOLUTE CYCLE in line of the time-space (time in 2 and space in 2^3).
When in PHYSICS we consider 10^10 Å (Angstrom, atomic unit of the space) equal to 1 m (METER, the unit of our “big” space), the dimension of our world is “the ABSOLUTE ONE” of the atomic context.
So we, starting from this ABSOLUTE REFERENCE, refer to it if we count in atomic dimensions.
Therefore:
10^0 Å = 1 Å, the unit line in 1 a.m.u. (atomic mass unit)
10^1 Å = 10 Å, the unit cycle in 10 a.m.u.
10^2 Å = 100 Å, the unit area in a.m.u.
10^3 Å = 1 000 Å, the unit volume in a.m.u.
10^4 Å = 10 000 Å, the space-time unit in a.m.u.
10^5 Å = 100 000 Å, the electric and/or magnetic unit in u.m.a.
10^6 Å = 1 000 000 Å, the complex atomic volume of the u.m.a.
10^7 Å = 10 000 000 Å, the complex atomic volume of the u.m.a. in the 10 cycle of time
10^8 Å = 100 000 000 Å, the complex space-time reality of the volume, in its most length
10^9 Å = 1 000 000 000 Å, the complex space-time reality of the atomic cycle = m 10^-1 = 1 dm
10^10 Å = 1 m
10^11 Å = 10 Å × 1 m (that is 1 atomic cycle “ABSOLUTELY advanced”)
10^12 Å = 100 Å × 1 m (that is 1 atomic area “ABSOLUTELY advanced”)
10^13 Å = 1 000 Å × 1 m (that is 1 atomic volume “ABSOLUTELY advanced”)
10^14 Å = 10 000 Å × 1 m (that is 1 atomic reality “ABSOLUTELY advanced”)
10^15 Å = 100 000 Å × 1 m (that is 1 atomic electric/magnetic cycle “ABSOLUTELY advanced”)
10^16 Å = 1 000 000 Å × 1 m (that is 1 atomic complex volume “ABSOLUTELY advanced”)
10^17 Å = 10 000 000 Å × 1 m (that is 1 atomic FREEDOM “ABSOLUTELY advanced”)
10^18 Å = 100 000 000 Å × 1 m (that is 1 atomic complex reality “ABSOLUTELY advanced”)
10^19 Å = 1 000 000 000 Å × 1 m (that is 1 atomic “energy” of the cycle 10, “ABSOLUTELY advanced”)
10^20 Å = 1 m × 1 m (that is the “ABSOLUTE UNITARY AREA”)
10^21 Å = 10 Å × 1 m^2 (that is the “ABSOLUTE AREA in the unitary atomic cycle of the “time”)
In this way, when we consider an ALPHABET having the 21 dimensions of the Italian one, the SINGLE LETTERS could be used to represent “ideally, through ideas” the SAME PHYSICAL QUANTITIES, giving a “scientific reason” to our mind.
In the sequent unitary dimension in m:
10^30 Å = 1 m^3 is the ABSOLUTE REPRESENTATION of all the masses of 1 m^3.
10^40 Å = 1 m^4 is the ABSOLUTE REPRESENTATION of all the “reality” of 1 m^3 in 1 s of time.
10^50 Å = 1 m^5 is the ABSOLUTE REPRESENTATION of all the “electric/magnetic unit” .
10^60 Å = 1 m^6 is the ABSOLUTE REPRESENTATION of all the complex volume m^3 × m^3.
10^70 Å = 1 m^7 is the ABSOLUTE REPRESENTATION of all the masses in the 6 dimensions +x +y +z –x –y –z summed to +1t (time).
10^80 Å = 1 m^8 is the ABSOLUTE REPRESENTATION of all the complex reality.
10^90 Å = 1 m^9 is the ABSOLUTE REPRESENTATION of all the energy of 10^10 Å.
10^100 Å = 1 m^10 is the ABSOLUTE REPRESENTATION of all the ABSOLUTE line of flow, or the electric-magnetic area.
The POWER 100, on the atomic unitary base of its cycle 10^(3/3) × 10^(3×3) = 10^(3/3+3×3) = 10^10= 1 m, when is elevated to 10, represent the ABSOLUTE REFERENCE, as of the PRESENT MASS + ENERGY AREA (only “space”, in the transverse dimension in the broadest sense), as of ALL THE MASS FLOW (only in the “time” dimension of the real flow of the volume, like an energy in real powerful action).
Since in our real dimension we perceive the ATOMIC CONTEXT mathematically acting through a decimal Log, by Log 10^10 = 10 we consider 1 m equivalent to 10 dm in line... and it was the FIRST ASSUMPTION, when m, kg and s were established 2 centuries ago by the French Genius!
The FIRST ASSUMPTION was 1 m = 1 s = cycle in line of 10 unitary masses.
Afterward, the Ideal Meridian of the Earth was imposed like a solid line of 4×10^10 dm^3 and kg and “decimal seconds”.
Since 10^3 dm^3 was the unitary cubic form of 1 m^3, the quantity 4×10^10 dm^3 was divided by the 10^3 of 1 m^3. The result was 4×10^7 m^3, and the line of the Meridian assumed the solid form of 1 m^2 in the section and 4×10^7 m in the circumference’s line.
The Meridian was imposed 4×10^7 m long, and had the same 4×10^10 kg in which 1 “time’s” dimension, plus 3 “space’s” dimensions, were 10^7 m=s in “time” and 3×10^7 m in “space”.
This “solid ring” of the Meridian represented the “PRESENT MASS 1” of the Earth in its “power” to contain all the mass of the “virtual sphere”. In fact the free turn of a mass run always equal areas in equal times... and 10 had been decided as the WHOLE CYCLE of the mass... in the FIRTS ASSUMPTION.
Consequently, since 3×10^7 m was the PRESESENCE of the mass in “decimal second minutes”, in ONE s the ABSOLUTE CYCLE had absolutely to be 3×10^8 m s^-1.
Mr. Einstein HAD NO TITLE to modify this ABSLUTE SPEED of the Earth mass, introducing the SQUARE of the LIGHT SPEED.
Its measurement in the vacuum dimensioned “c” (light speed) = 2.99792458×10^8 m s^-1, and this Einstein’s ARBITRARY DECISION gave its contribution in a PHYSICS NOT UNIFIED.
If we START FROM THE ABSOLUTE atomic dimension, the product 10^3 Å × 10^3 Å represents that between the positive mass and the negative mass. But represented in this EQUAL WAY we are loosing their fundamental OPPOSITION.
We can represent “very well” the “equal” 10^3 Å × 10^3 Å only if we introduce a formal difference between 10^3 Å and 10^3 Å.
WE CAN! In fact 10^3 is a POWER IN BASE TEN. The MATH FORM of the decimal Log is the contrary process. In fact as <Log 10^3> = 3 gets is the number of the TIMES that 10 interacts in itself, the calculus 10×10×10 gets 10^3. In the same way in which the POWER 3 represent the 3 TIMES of the 10 base, its Log represent the exact and contrary way to restore the 3, starting from the power 3.
So the equal end contrary representation of 10^3 Å × 10^3 Å, is through Log 10^3 × 10^3 = 3×10^3.
And when we assume that the complexity of the volume matter-antimatter was electric as 10^5 Å, the product 3×10^3 × 10^3 × 10^5 Å is exactly 3×10^8.
It gets ABSOLUTE ONE in m s^-1, as 3×10^8 m s^-1, with good peace of the WRONG Einstein’s affirmations!
He made a big mistake considering the SPEED of the electric flow, and not the potency of its real section. It is not 1×1 (only “space”) since it “really exists” in the decimal time of the mass. The 300 000 000 m are m^3... like in the DEFINITION of m, s and kg.
300 000 000 : 299 792 458 = 1.0006922855... reveal the time 0.0006922855... of the unit, in the transverse area of the real flow, being “volume” divided by the flow in line.
If Einstein should have considered the VOLUME SPEED, it should be exactly 3×10^8 m s^-1.

The 'speed of light in a vaccuum' is not an absolute speed of anything but, perhaps, light (if you could find a true vaccuum).
The speed of 'information' can be instantaneous across great distances, lightyears, for instance. Distance is of no consequence. (See 'superposition' and 'quantum entanglement'...)

nameless wrote:The 'speed of light in a vaccuum' is not an absolute speed of anything but, perhaps, light (if you could find a true vaccuum).
The speed of 'information' can be instantaneous across great distances, lightyears, for instance. Distance is of no consequence. (See 'superposition' and 'quantum entanglement'...)

Nope. No quantum entanglement does not allow information to be transmitted faster than lightspeed.

i blame blame wrote:Nope. No quantum entanglement does not allow information to be transmitted faster than lightspeed.

You are mistaken. The 'transfer' is instantaneous.
Look it up; "superluminal communication".
It's a done deal already, not 'if' but 'how'...

I thought Bells experiment was being questioned or are you saying someone has actually created another ERP experiment?

^^^
I was refering to the obsolete notion that nothing can exceed the "speed of light in a vaccuum".
Perhaps the "absolute" speed of light in a vaccuum is an "absolute" for photons (that is argueable, though as there can be no 'motion' of any sort in timespace, and that includes 'photons', but that's another thread...).

nameless wrote:

i blame blame wrote:Nope. No quantum entanglement does not allow information to be transmitted faster than lightspeed.

You are mistaken. The 'transfer' is instantaneous.
Look it up; "superluminal communication".
It's a done deal already, not 'if' but 'how'...

The measurement in one place can instantaneously affect the result of a measurement in another, yes. But to confirm whether Alice has actually measured a certain event, she will still have to send a luminal signal to Bob.

i blame blame wrote:The measurement in one place can instantaneously affect the result of a measurement in another, yes.

Agreed.

But to confirm whether Alice has actually measured a certain event, she will still have to send a luminal signal to Bob.

Moving off-topic for a moment, why couldn't Alice send a superluminal messege via superpositional spin (or a simple 'empathic mental-gram', which is also unhindered by time/space)? A superluminal event to communicate a superluminal event? I'd rather not get involved in this, at the moment, the point is that there is that which transcends 'c' in a vacuum..
And again, if motion is truly impossible in timespace, then the whole question of 'who or what is fastest' merely measures mirrors and memories, illusions, a subject that does not interest me.
Another, perhaps, interesting read;
Does Light Exist Between Events?

nameless wrote:

i blame blame wrote:The measurement in one place can instantaneously affect the result of a measurement in another, yes.

Agreed.

But to confirm whether Alice has actually measured a certain event, she will still have to send a luminal signal to Bob.

Moving off-topic for a moment, why couldn't Alice send a superluminal messege via superpositional spin (or a simple 'empathic mental-gram', which is also unhindered by time/space)? A superluminal event to communicate a superluminal event? I'd rather not get involved in this, at the moment, the point is that there is that which transcends 'c' in a vacuum..
And again, if motion is truly impossible in timespace, then the whole question of 'who or what is fastest' merely measures mirrors and memories, illusions, a subject that does not interest me.
Another, perhaps, interesting read;
Does Light Exist Between Events?

What's an empathic mental-gram?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_cloning_theorem

Some things can travel faster than light, but information and material objects can't: Imagine you're illuminating a mountain at the "edge" of the moon (from your perspective on earth) with a laser so powerful that you can actually see the dot. If you then move the laser real quick by about half a degree, the dot will be seen travelling faster than the speed of light. However, since the light takes 1,5 seconds to get there (3 seconds until you see the dot move to the other side), you can't use it to send a message to somebody at the other edge of the moon about an event on the former edge, or anywhere else superluminally.

i blame blame wrote:What's an empathic mental-gram?

A bit like a Vulcan mind meld at a distance; an instantaneous at-one-ment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_cloning_theorem

Relevency? All Perspectives are unique.

Some things can travel faster than light, but information and material objects can't:

It is exactly 'information' that is; Mindstuff, the 'information' of the quantum probability wave collapse perceived by Conscious Perspective.

Imagine .... you can't use it to send a message to somebody at the other edge of the moon about an event on the former edge, or anywhere else superluminally.

'Entanglement' is a crude way of affirming that 'all is one'. Is one's brain 'entangled' with the foot? It can be seen that way, or we can be perceived as one integrated 'unit', a harmonious 'whole' wherein one differing feature means everythig must be different. Allopathic medicine sees isolated parts and holistic the integral approach.
Moving on;
Imagine;
I call you on the telephone, I say 'hello' and you/I say hello.
Now, we take every (Planck) moment of that scenario and, like frames from a movie, pile them all on a table (before Consciousness). If we view them sequentially, in a certain order, under certain conditions, what is perceived is that telephone call. Those same moments can be perceived (by the same Consciousness) in reverse order and it would appear to be happening (from our perspective, of course) backwards. Viewed from another Perspective the moment wherein i say 'hello' and the moment where you say 'hello' can be perceived simultaneously, as, perhaps, an instantaneous occurrence. It can be seen as an 'instantaneous transmission of information', but nothing is really 'transmitted', nothing really, actually, 'moves'. But viewing those static movie frames in a certain way sure looks like there's a whole bunch of 'motion' on the screen. No one is actually 'moving' in any of those static cells that comprise the 'movie'. Nothing 'actually' can 'move' in a moment/percept. It's all perception (of 'mindstuff')...

nameless wrote: Does Light Exist Between Events?

The emission of a photon in the visible spectrum is an event. The absorption of said photon is an event. So light connects two events and they are said to have a lightlike separation. If you choose your second event at the absorber to occur before the absorption of the photon, then the two events have a spacelike separation. If the second event were after the absorption, they are timelike separated.

nameless wrote: A bit like a Vulcan mind meld at a distance; an instantaneous at-one-ment.

Something which we do not know exists.

nameless wrote: Relevency? All Perspectives are unique.

It disproves superluminal communication in terms of modern quantum mechanics.

It is exactly 'information' that is; Mindstuff, the 'information' of the quantum probability wave collapse perceived by Conscious Perspective.

How is FTL involved here?

'Entanglement' is a crude way of affirming that 'all is one'.

Not in physics it ain't.

Is one's brain 'entangled' with the foot? It can be seen that way, or we can be perceived as one integrated 'unit', a harmonious 'whole' wherein one differing feature means everythig must be different.

Perhaps, but there's no hint of quantum entanglement going on in the physical sense.

Imagine;
I call you on the telephone, I say 'hello' and you/I say hello.
Now, we take every (Planck) moment of that scenario and, like frames from a movie, pile them all on a table (before Consciousness). If we view them sequentially, in a certain order, under certain conditions, what is perceived is that telephone call. Those same moments can be perceived (by the same Consciousness) in reverse order and it would appear to be happening (from our perspective, of course) backwards.

I'm afraid you lost me here: How can it be perceived as happening backward?

Viewed from another Perspective the moment wherein i say 'hello' and the moment where you say 'hello' can be perceived simultaneously, as, perhaps, an instantaneous occurrence.

This is almost true. Simultaneity is relative to the velocity and position of the observer. If our communication ran on a lightlike connection, which would also require my reaction to your "hello" light-pulse to be instantaneous, and an observer was travelling at the speed of light, they'd perceive us saying "hello" simultaneously. If they were travelling slightly slower than light, our "hellos" would just be closer by. Again though, this would not be superluminal, as the observer would see the distance between the two of us to be shrunken (relativistic length contraction).

If however, I said hello before your hello arrived at my location, because I anticipated it (a spacelike separation between the hellos), then a relativistic traveller could see the two hellos occur simultaneously.

It can be seen as an 'instantaneous transmission of information', but nothing is really 'transmitted', nothing really, actually, 'moves'.

The photons of the light-phone move.

But viewing those static movie frames in a certain way sure looks like there's a whole bunch of 'motion' on the screen. No one is actually 'moving' in any of those static cells that comprise the 'movie'. Nothing 'actually' can 'move' in a moment/percept. It's all perception (of 'mindstuff')...

But those static movie frames have different timestamps. And we define relative motion as change of relative position with respect to time.

i blame blame wrote:

nameless wrote: Does Light Exist Between Events?

The emission of a photon in the visible spectrum is an event.

All perceived manifestrations of existence can be considered 'events'.

The absorption of said photon is an event. So light connects two events and they are said to have a lightlike separation.

So called 'events' are discrete, as are photons. A photon perceived here and a photon perceived 'there are not the same photon. Just like the so-called jumping electron of the quantum leap. No electron 'moves' from one energy level to another. One ceases to exist on one level and one appears in existence (by perception) on another energy level. Nothing actually 'moves'. It is 'memory/thoughts' which perceive apparent 'motion'.

If you choose your second event at the absorber to occur before the absorption of the photon, then the two events have a spacelike separation.

'Before' and 'after', time, are similar perceptions related to thoughts/memory, not to anything 'out there' (there is no 'out there')...

If the second event were after the absorption, they are timelike separated.

Only in appearance.

nameless wrote: A bit like a Vulcan mind meld at a distance; an instantaneous at-one-ment.

Something which we do not know exists.

We? Perhaps you mean, "I"?
Those who perceive know, those who do not, do not.

nameless wrote: Relevency? All Perspectives are unique.

It disproves superluminal communication in terms of modern quantum mechanics.

Nonsense. See; Nonlocality
The 'communication' between 'entangled' particles (all apparent particles) is instantaneous.
"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once, in the whole Tapestry... The four-dimensional space-time manifold displays all eternity at once." - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman

It is exactly 'information' that is; Mindstuff, the 'information' of the quantum probability wave collapse perceived by Conscious Perspective.

How is FTL involved here?

All moments/percepts are perceived/manifested synchronously, simultaneously. Not 'FTL' but instantaneously, the same moment.

'Entanglement' is a crude way of affirming that 'all is one'.

Not in physics it ain't.

Actually, more so every day.

Is one's brain 'entangled' with the foot? It can be seen that way, or we can be perceived as one integrated 'unit', a harmonious 'whole' wherein one differing feature means everythig must be different.

Perhaps, but there's no hint of quantum entanglement going on in the physical sense.

Sure there is. There are many instances of such 'hocus pocus' and 'phenomena'. But where they were discounted and ignored due to the ignorance of 'classical physics', modern QM theories are integrating those 'holistic events'.
Besides, do you not consider photons to be "physical" (whatever that might be)? What do you think that 'physical' means? To what does it refer? Are our perceived thoughts and dreams 'physical'?

Imagine;
I call you on the telephone, I say 'hello' and you/I say hello.
Now, we take every (Planck) moment of that scenario and, like frames from a movie, pile them all on a table (before Consciousness). If we view them sequentially, in a certain order, under certain conditions, what is perceived is that telephone call. Those same moments can be perceived (by the same Consciousness) in reverse order and it would appear to be happening (from our perspective, of course) backwards.

I'm afraid you lost me here: How can it be perceived as happening backward?
Run the film backwards, perceive the frames as passing and in the reverse order.
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" The First Law of Soul Dynamics -Book of Fudd
Imagine a sphere with every point on the surface being one Perspective of that which is 'within'.

Viewed from another Perspective the moment wherein i say 'hello' and the moment where you say 'hello' can be perceived simultaneously, as, perhaps, an instantaneous occurrence.

This is almost true.

Actually it cannot be "almost true" as I said that something "can be perceived simultaneously".

Simultaneity is relative to the velocity and position of the observer.

'Simultaneous' is what every moment/percept of existence is. There is no 'velocity' as there is no 'motion' in timespace, and there is no 'position' of Consciousness. One Consciousness perceives all moments of existence 'simultaneously'. The 'illusions' are that of 'time' and 'motion' as being Universal, rather than 'local perceptions'.

It can be seen as an 'instantaneous transmission of information', but nothing is really 'transmitted', nothing really, actually, 'moves'.

The photons of the light-phone move.

Only as a naive assumption due to appearances.

But viewing those static movie frames in a certain way sure looks like there's a whole bunch of 'motion' on the screen. No one is actually 'moving' in any of those static cells that comprise the 'movie'. Nothing 'actually' can 'move' in a moment/percept. It's all perception (of 'mindstuff')...

But those static movie frames have different timestamps.

The 'timestamp' of any particular (particle-like, quantumly discrete) moment is merely a convenient 'address'/location.

And we define relative motion as change of relative position with respect to time.

We? No 'motion', no 'time', and nothing ever 'changes' but all moments are uniquely discretely perceived. If we see the sun at noon abd perceive memories of sunrise and the position of the sun at 10a we imagine (extrapolate) both the sun's 'motion', and 'time' in which to move. No moment in existence can ever 'change', all moments are different (non-clonable (which is a blow to 'empirical theory')), though.

Okay, so you propose a block-universe where everything's "already happened" and we just experience one dimension as time and this block is made up of discrete slices. This has no physical meaning though, as it does not give any deeper understanding of the cosmos than the view in which time and movement exists. I'm not saying your model is "wrong", as long as one cannot derive predictions from it that turn out to be wrong. But it doesn't explain anything that the time & motion theorem doesn't. The article on Nonlocality nowhere mentions that superluminal transmission of information has been done.

i blame blame wrote:This has no physical meaning though, as it does not give any deeper understanding of the cosmos than the view in which time and movement exists.

'Meaning' is in the eye of the beholder. What you are saying is that you perceive no 'meaning', others do.
It does not 'give' a deeper understanding of 'Reality', it is a deeper understanding. The street understandings of 'Reality' will catch up, as always. Few accept the 'flat earth theory' these days. Progress is made in science and philosophy and the 'street understandings' invariably follow, eventually.

But it doesn't explain anything that the time & motion theorem doesn't.

Yes, my theory does. If you wish to go into this farther, a new thread would be in order. It is an all inclusive theory, and has, to date, remained unrefuted and devoid of the paradoxes inherent in the notions of 'time' and 'motion'.

The article on Nonlocality nowhere mentions that superluminal transmission of information has been done.

"However, when Alice measures her particle it causes the state to collapse so that if Alice measures spin-up, Bob must measure spin-down and vice versa. Hence, either party is capable of setting the spin of the other’s particle instantaneously. Such behaviour is non-local because the measurement of one particle is able to influence the physical state of another independent of the distance between them, so that no information could travel between them." -from the Wiki article.
How do they define 'information'? Instantaneous action ('causality'?) at a distance? How can 'causality' exist in a Universe where all 'events' happen simultaneously? Nothing moves, super- or sub-luminal.
There is no 'absolute speed' as there is no 'motion'. There is that which is perceived, from certain Perspectives, to be 'motion/time'.

Rather than talking about 'transmission of information', I say that what is being described is that both, all, are inherently one. 'Information' doesn't 'travel', it is instantly perceived. It doesn't 'travel' from anywhere. Like the tail of the string following, instantaneously, the leading end. It is all that is perceived. It exists by/in perception. A photon doesn't travel from the sun to your perception. What you perceive exists exactly where it is perceived, at the moment of perception! Just like the leaping (not) electron, one disappears one moment and one appears at the observed finish-line. Not the same 'one'.
Personal perceptions might find appearances to differ.
When you can tweak a photon on earth, and an 'entangled' photon, or the same one (superposition), on the other side of the Universe is found to instantly 'respond', predictably, there must be some means of the one 'communicating' with the other, instantaneously.
If one considers that pulling one end of a string with the other end following to be 'communication', it would be an instantaneous 'communication', better described, perhaps, as a simultaneous perception of two 'events/features' of the same 'moment/percept/event'.
Science simply has not perceived the middle of the string yet.
The successful mystics and enlightened have always perceived it (the 'Oneness/unity').

Hi nameless,

nameless wrote:'street understandings' invariably follow, eventually.

They're talking about me

Don't worry nameless, as someone 'of the street' I'm keeping up just fine.

nameless wrote:Yes, my theory does. If you wish to go into this farther, a new thread would be in order. It is an all inclusive theory, and has, to date, remained unrefuted and devoid of the paradoxes inherent in the notions of 'time' and 'motion'.

Surely if 'your' theory is all inclusive it must include you in it and therefore it seems egotistical to claim ownership of something that you had no part in creating but are simply part of.

An all inclusive 'theory of everything' simply is. No Nobel Prize will be awarded to the author because the theory will show that the author wasn't and that they had no choice in the matter.

However I would be very interested in seeing your theory formally expressed so please start the thread as you suggested.

I do have to say that your context switches and word overloading do take some following, specifically when you overload commonly used temporal words like 'now' with atemporal meanings. This makes your 'Here! Now!' have the same meaning as 'Everywhere! Forever!'. If you wish to be understood by those who do not view things using a static model, then my I suggest using words which are not so highly preloaded with orthogonal or contradictory meanings.

How can 'causality' exist in a Universe where all 'events' happen simultaneously?

Context, context, context. Causality exists in perceived universes where events happen consistent with the time separating them. 'Events' is a misnomer when viewed from outside the context of the universe, where it can be seen that the Universe does not literally exist, let alone anything that is within it. Outside the context of the perceived universe the words: 'causality' 'events' and 'simultaneously' are best used sparingly to avoid confusion. Stuff just is.

nameless wrote:When you can tweak a photon on earth, and an 'entangled' photon, or the same one (superposition), on the other side of the Universe is found to instantly 'respond', predictably, there must be some means of the one 'communicating' with the other, instantaneously.

I do not know if you are for or against here. There is no 'communication', simply rather a lot of Alice & Bob pairs who, not surprisingly, agree on their results when they check with each other.

nameless wrote:It is exactly 'information' that is; Mindstuff, the 'information' of the quantum probability wave collapse perceived by Conscious Perspective.

Here you seem to be implying an 'event' where there is none. Is this thrown in to simply confuse? A specific wave collapse is only meaningful from within a single perceived reality. If your context is from within the perceived spacetime then you have a bit of a cheek to deny what IBB says when he is using that same context.

For someone who purports to support a static model you do seem to have a very strong sense of 'self'.


_________________