lifegazer said:
(1). "I can explain the duality between classical and quantum physics,".
OK, great, but there is no duality, there is no classical physics, just classical physics do not actually exist, they are merely an approximation. So unless you are about to explain that classical physics is an approximation of quantum physics, you would be wrong (I can show you mathematically how this is true if you would like)
The Mind (of God) has free-will. Therefore, the energy of God is essentially unpredictable.
A) God does not have energy, if he did, he would be existing within an existence where energy is a property. Is god existing within an existence, or is he existence?
Second, what does it mean for energy to be unpredictable. The roll of a die can be said to be unpredictable in one sense, you will always get anywhere from a 1 to a 6. However, in another sense, it is predictable, there is an equal chance you will get any number 1 to 6, and you will NEVER get any other number. True unpredictability would not have these limitations, and I am guessing, that since your god's free-will is complete or whatever, then would it have these limitations of predictability?
I think not, however, energy within our universe does have these limitations. Also, it makes no sense to compare whatever property energy would be where god exists, with energy in the "universe" since they are not the same thing.
But the Mind is the source of its own perceived order. The "things" we perceive through our everyday sensations conform to the general order of classical physics.
No, they don't. I sense things everyday that do not conform to classical approximations of quantum equations.
Yet we all know that, fundamentally, the constituent energy of the forms we see is essentially unpredictable. Hence the duality between what is observed and the reality of its constituent energy. Hence qm and classical.
You haven't explained anything. You haven't even understood the problem to begin with.
(2). "and even between the particle and the wave".
There is no duality because there is no particle.
"Things" do not exist, definitely and singularly, until seen within consciousness/awareness.
But then you are saying that things do exist, and before you said they do not exist. Which is it?
We see "things". Until we observe anything, it behaves as a wave.
Everything always behaves like a wave.
Hence, without conscious observation no "thing" exists anyway.
Conciousness has no effect on QM. The word "Observation" in physics does not refer to consciousness, no one needs to know the result of an "observation" for the observation to have an effect.
There's an experiment where they emit a single electron and give it the opportunity to traverse two paths. Until observed, the electron traverses both paths, simultaneously, affecting receptors along those paths. Interestingly, once the experiment is observed, the electron behaves as a singular/definite entity and traverses only one path. The electron becomes a singular "thing" within our sight.
There are so many things wrong with this statement, I'm not sure where to begin. Firstly, consciousness could not have an effect, because by the time the information from any receptor reaches any technitian, the electron has already completed it's path. So by the time the experiment is observed by anyone, the electron has already been obsorbed in the target area, the conscious observation could not have any effect on the electron's path.
Second, there is no experiment where an electron traverses two paths and is detected by receptors along both paths . If a receptor "picks up" the precence of an electron, then the wave function is collapsed, we know which path the electron took, and the other receptor will not detect anything.
Third, the process of a receptor (whatever that receptor may be, even another particle) "picking up" the precense of an electron IS what is refered to as an observation.
Fouth, an electron is never a singular defined entity, it is always described as a wave. The description of an electron as a particle is an approximation.
(3). "I can also explain the apparent weirdness inherent within relativity."
I contend that light is imposed upon awareness by the Mind itself.
You contend that everytnhing is imposed upon awareness by the Mind itself. [Side note: This means that we are always perceiving a reality outside our awareness, the reality that the Mind is imposing on our awareness. This runs counter to many, many of your other statements that try to shoot down any possiblity of a reality outside our awareness]
This is a fact since whatever we perceive is just the abstract sensation itself, imposed upon awareness by that Mind.
That seems rather cicular doesn't it? A is a fact because A?
Hence, the Mind is the true source of the light we perceive and not the "thing" we actually see as a result of this light. For example, I contend that the Mind is the source of the Sun's light... not that the Sun is the source of that light.
But if I crash into the Sun, I will see that the "thing" the sun is no more or less real than the light that I percieve. Hence, you contend that the Mind is the source of both the Sun, and the light. Also, by our current understandings of "Things" and light, light is just as much of a "Thing" as a "Thing". energy<->matter
Remember that my philosophy contends that "things" are seen from the sensations. First the sensation, then the "thing". So, the Sun in itself is the source of nothing.
Yes it is, in the conceptual view of the universe by the Mind. In the Mind's imagination, the "Sun" is emenating rays of light.
The light we see gives the awareness/appearance of a "thing" we label 'the Sun'.
Hence, acceleration towards or away from an object will not alter the way you see the speed-of-light since the object is not the source of that light.
OK, but then the same argument would apply to sound. Sound is a sensation impressed upon our awareness by the Mind. The "thing" is not the source of the sound, the Mind is. Hence, acceleration towards or away from an object will not alter the way you see the speed-of-sound since the object is not the source of that sound.
I fail to see you being able to rectify that inconsistency, I much more likely see you ignoring it completely, since you (or anyone) is totally incapable of explaining it. You will instead, go on your merry way, and repeat your whole relativity tripe over and over. Your philosophy predicts the speed of sound is absolute.
Also, if the speed of light is a property, so is it's color. And the color of light coming from a source most certainly changes as we accelrate towards or away from an object. Are you saying the doppler shift doesn't exist?
The Mind itself is... and one truly cannot accelerate from or towards the Mind itself. Thus, the constancy of lightspeed 'c'.
...but we aren't trying to accelerate towards or away from the mind, we are trying to accelerate towards or away from what we perceive as things, even if our perception of things are only our imagination.
oh, btw,
Thus, the constancy of the speed of sound
(a). You are a formless being, without bounds. Hence, it is ludicrous to even contemplate a reality beyond your own true identity/nature.
So if we assume your philosohpy, it is pointless to assume otherwise. Seems to be the position you've taken up.
We know this because any entity which experiences a completely subjective/abstract reality must be the primal-cause of that reality.
Unless something/someone else created that being. Also, primal-cause assumes that time exists outside of reality.
The external-universe (even if it did exist) neither cares nor knows about sensations, thoughts & feelings.
Ok, it doesn't care, which proves...
Hence, any entity which is aware of such things must be the primal-cause of them.
Simply because you don't care about something, doesn't mean you can't cause it to happen. Ice does not care if it melts, and yet it does.
Also, as I have said, it is ludicrous to discuss a reality external to the Mind. Hence, we can be sure it has created the whole universe, as perceived.
hehe, because my philosophy is true, it is crazy to entertain any other ideas, hence, I can be sure that I am right, and will sleep soundly at night.
