Cyprus-Forum.com

[Lordo]

Now you are turning into GR. He believes in god but not the one believed in church. Pull the other one RW.

There is one set of elements on Earth.

You can talk about elements elsewhere but for instance. Body is made up of 50 to 75% water. That is H2O. That is two hydrogen elemt to on Oxygen elemet. All otehr subjects all use same elemts.

Yopu have opened up the word to mean topics. There are no elements in thought. What there is are chemical reactions in the brain converted to thought. So even there you actually have real elements involved and it is the same elements.
At some point a new element may arrive from outer space.

So here is a question what are the differences between daimond and gold. Something very distinct.

[repulsewarrior]

...now who is being silly.

Indeed elements describe components of thoughts and physical things which cannot be broken down further, but chemistry is not the exclusive domain of this word's usage. What are the basic elements of literature but its plot and theme? Chemistry, as in love, exists too; its elements are not the Periodic Table.

[Lordo]

...now who is being silly.

Indeed elements describe components of thoughts and physical things which cannot be broken down further, but chemistry is not the exclusive domain of this word's usage. What are the basic elements of literature but its plot and theme? Chemistry, as in love, exists too; its elements are not the Periodic Table.

you what? shiiiiiiiiiit

[repulsewarrior]

...construction theory; when fundamentals clash.

wot? fundamentals clash; what is this place?

...you say there is no "god", do "you" have any mathematics to prove it?

[Lordo]

You are funny RW.

You will notice that Newtons theroy of motion is not the same formula as Einstein theory. Thats not a problem that is called Physics. And it is open to improvement anytime especially at quantum level.

Do you know what the quantum level is?

As to god it is upto you to prove it exists. I do not have to prove jack shit. And just saying we are here is not good enough, you need a few millions more words and calculations.

[Pyrpolizer]

...construction theory; when fundamentals clash.

wot? fundamentals clash; what is this place?

...you say there is no "god", do "you" have any mathematics to prove it?

Extremely interesting. Very similar to Langan's CTMU theory. However Langan goes beyond that. Compare from what he says in page 7 to 9. Physivs today works in discovering the true reality which is NOT what we experience as humans. As soon as that discovery is made, we will learn what God is.


Wheeler, an eminent and highly capable representative of those familiar with the advantages and deficiencies of our current models of reality, did not arrive at the given illustration as an isolated speculation. In conjunction with several other Wheeler concepts, the Participatory Universe, Law
7
without Law and It from Bit, the self-excited circuit amounts to a preliminary but well-considered program for describing the physical universe. According to its mandate, the true description of reality must possess two novel features not found in any dominant paradigm: (1) global structural and dynamical reflexivity or “self-excited circuitry”, with perception an integral part of the self-recognition function of reality; (2) matter-information equivalence, an identification (up to isomorphism) of concrete physical reality with information, the abstract currency of perception. Together, these features constitute a cosmological extension of cybernetics, or equivalently, a metacybernetic extension of cosmology.
Wheeler characterizes these four concepts as follows:
The Self-excited circuit: A participatory universe is a self-excited circuit in the sense that it implicates observers in (perceptual, ontological) feedback. It is a “logic loop” in which “physics gives rise to observer participancy; observer-participancy gives rise to information; and information gives rise to physics.”9
The Participatory Universe: The cognitive and perceptual processes of observers are integral to the self-excitative feedback of reality. This is asserted by the Participatory Principle (or Participatory Anthropic Principle), which Wheeler informally describes as follows: “Stronger than the Anthropic Principle is what I might call the Participatory Principle. According to it, we could not even imagine a universe that did not somewhere and for some stretch of time contain observers, because the very building materials of the universe are these acts of observer-participancy. … This participatory principle takes for its foundation the absolutely central point of the quantum: no elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed (or registered) phenomenon” [emphasis added]. Note that on some level of generality, the last sentence identifies observation with registration and thus implicitly equates human and mechanical recognition: “…an observed (or registered) phenomenon” [emphasis again added].10
Law Without Law / Order from Disorder: Concisely, nothing can be taken as given when it comes to cosmogony. In Professor Wheeler’s own words: “To me, the greatest discovery yet to come will be to find how this universe, coming into being from a Big Bang, developed its laws of operation. I call this ‘Law without Law’ [Or ‘Order from Disorder’]. (…) imagine the universe with all its regularities and its laws coming into being out of something utterly helter-skelter, higgledy-piggledy and random … If you were the Lord constructing the universe, how would you have gone about it? It's inspiring to read the life of Charles Darwin and think how the division of plant and animal kingdoms, all this myriad of order, came about through the miracles of evolution, natural selection and chance mutation. To me this is a marvelous indication that you can get order by starting with disorder.”11
It From Bit: Reality educes and/or produces itself in the form of information residing in quantum events. As Wheeler summarizes in his paper Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links, “…every physical quantity, every it, derives its ultimate significance from bits, binary yes-or-no indications…” He then goes on to discuss this concept at length, offering three questions, four “no’s” and five “clues” about the quantum-informational character of reality. The questions are as follows: (1) How come existence? (2) How come the quantum? (3) How come the “one world” out of many observer-participants? The no’s, seductive pitfalls to be avoided in answering the three questions, include no tower of turtles, no laws, no continuum, and no space or time. And the clues, which light the way toward the true answers, include the boundary of a boundary is zero; No question? No answer!; the Super-Copernican Principle; “consciousness” (including the quotes); and more is different.12
We will now give a brief account of these questions, precautions and clues.
How come existence? The ontological and cosmological thrust of this question is obvious; in some form, it has bedeviled philosophers from time immemorial. As interpreted by Wheeler, it leads to four inevitable conclusions. “(1) The world cannot be a giant machine, ruled by any pre-
8
established continuum physical law. (2) There is no such thing at the microscopic level as space or time or spacetime continuum. (3) The familiar probability function or functional, and wave equation or functional wave equation, of standard quantum theory provide mere continuum idealizations and by reason of this circumstance conceal the information-theoretic source from which they derive. (4) No element in the description of physics shows itself as closer to primordial than the elementary quantum phenomenon, that is, the elementary device-intermediated act of posing a yes-or-no physical question and eliciting an answer or, in brief, the elementary act of observer participancy. Otherwise stated, every physical quantity, every it, derives its ultimate significance from bits, binary yes-or-no indications, a conclusion which we epitomize in the phrase it from bit.” 13
How come the quantum? Why is the universe made up of apparently propter hoc nondeterministic, but post hoc informational, quantum events? As Wheeler observes, “Quantum physics requires a new view of reality.”14 What, then, is the exact logical relationship between the quantum and the new view of reality it demands? What is this new view, and how does the quantum fit into it?
How come the “one world” out of many observer-participants? Insofar as the term “observer-participants” embraces scientists and other human beings, this question invites a quasi-anthropological interpretation. Why should a universe consisting of separate observers with sometimes-conflicting agendas and survival imperatives display structural and nomological unity? Where observers are capable of creating events within the global unitary manifold of their common universe, why should they not be doing it strictly for themselves, each in his or her own universe, and never the twain shall meet? Where the observer-participant concept is generalized to include non-anthropic information-transducing systems, what is holding all of these systems together in a single unified reality?
No tower of turtles: Borrowed from William James, this aphorism means “no infinite regress to ever-prior causal domains and principles”. To this we might equate an updated version of a well-known aphorism credited to Harry Truman: “The explanatory buck stops here,” where here refers to this reality that we actually inhabit and observe. To this Wheeler adds a crucial insight: “To endlessness no alternative is evident but a loop, such as: physics gives rise to observer participancy; observer-participancy gives rise to information; and information gives rise to physics.”15 Only such an ontological loop is capable of forming a lariat wide and strong enough for the theoretical lassoing of reality; the task at hand is therefore to locate a way to make it and a medium in which to wield it.
No laws: As Wheeler states, “The universe must have come into being…without even a preexisting plan…only a principle of organization which is no organization at all would seem to offer itself.” 16 Or to reiterate: “The world cannot be a giant machine, ruled by any pre-established continuum physical law.”
No continuum: The venerable continuum of analysis and mechanics is a mathematical and physical chimera. (Usually associated with the set of real numbers, a continuum is a unified extensible whole with a distance parameter that can be infinitely subdivided in such a way that any two distinct points are separated by an infinite number of intermediate points.) As Wheeler puts it: “A half-century of development in the sphere of mathematical logic has made it clear that there is no evidence supporting the belief in the existential character of the number continuum.”17 Some numbers, e.g. irrational ones like √2, cannot be precisely computed and therefore do not correspond to any physically meaningful location on a number line or physical trajectory; they have an abstract existence only.
No space or time: Again, there is “no such thing at the microscopic level as space or time or spacetime continuum.” On the submicroscopic level, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle turns spacetime into seemingly chaotic “quantum foam”, casting doubt on the connectivity of space and the ordinality of time. Wheeler quotes Einstein in a Kantian vein: “Time and space are modes by
9
which we think, and not conditions in which we live”, regarding these modes as derivable from a proper theory of reality as idealized functions of an idealized continuum: “We will not feed time into any deep-reaching account of existence. We must derive time—and time only in the continuum idealization—out of it. Likewise with space.”18

[Lordo]

This woman is a scientist and is talking specifically about Quantum Physicss wheres your other asshole was talking out of his arse.

We don't need to reach anywhere about existance.
1. We know how the universe is made and each and every star init with each and every planet around each star.
We also know that life on earth is not pewaent whn the planet is first formed and appears at some point or other into its life. The question is ot that we exists but twhen tid we begin to habit this earth and how.

Back to your bible dear boy.

now repeat after me.

Earth was made by god in 6 days and rested on the 7th, about 6000 years ago. I wonder would god have enopugh time to actually build al the other univereses. I suspect not, so perhaps he had a few chiarakuis to help him like.

[repulsewarrior]

...again, you confuse religion with God.

[Pyrpolizer]

This woman is a scientist and is talking specifically about Quantum Physicss wheres your other asshole was talking out of his arse.

She is not talking specifically of Quantum Physics she is talking in how to bridge the gap between the classic Physics Laws which all fail at Quantum level. She too thinks we should start from square one, just like Langan, Wheeler, and many others. That square one is all about TRUE REALITY.

We don't need to reach anywhere about existance.
1. We know how the universe is made and each and every star init with each and every planet around each star.

We actually know nothing.
Did you read my quote from Langan's theory? He quotes proffessor Wheeler saying:"To me, the greatest discovery yet to come will be to find how this universe, coming into being from a Big Bang, developed its laws of operation." There are only 2 possbilities a)Either those laws were set by the Creator or b)Nothing was set, and the laws developed by themselves out of total chaos.
Langan says the later is the truth: quote "To me this is a marvelous indication that you can get order by starting with disorder"

More about Wheeler:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler

We also know that life on earth is not pewaent whn the planet is first formed and appears at some point or other into its life. The question is ot that we exists but twhen tid we begin to habit this earth and how.

Back to your bible dear boy.

Tsk, tsk, tsk....As per RW. You are unrepairable.

now repeat after me.

Earth was made by god in 6 days and rested on the 7th, about 6000 years ago. I wonder would god have enopugh time to actually build al the other univereses. I suspect not, so perhaps he had a few chiarakuis to help him like.

[Lordo]

More bullshit. Laws of physics are always reviewed as and when they are found to not explain somthing fully. And they will continue to be revied and modified.

And no RW I am not confusing religion and god you two are. You refused to accept that god was created to explain the things people did not understand thousands of years ago and organised religion was built around that to keep people subserviant to the masters and still do to this day.

When you feed bullshit to living things especially in the dark you get mushrooms.

If you have something else in mind it is best not to call it god. You cannot define god as you please when ever you feel like it.