Reality Is An Illusion

[TruthSeeker]

We often think that some things are "optical illusions". When we smoke too much weed or snore too much rock (not me! :D ) we often see "hallucinations". Little children can be synaestesic and we call those perceptions illusions as well. We are in the middle of a desert and we see an oasis and that is also an illusion.

Well, maybe not. What makes something an illusion? How do you know the entire world we live in is also an illusion? It is just because we don't all perceive completely different things!? How do you know? You cannot see with others' eyes. You cannot hear with others' ears. So how can you be so sure!? ;)

Even if we would do tests, that doesn't really override the concept that something is real. If you perceive it, it is essentially real. We can barely grasp this universe and yet we classify some things as illusions?

Why would something that we would perceive be an illusion?

Take for instance this example. I'm walking down a street. The sun is shining in the horizon. A mirror is placed on the right side and I can perceive too suns. Which one is real? They both hurt my eyes, because the light is very bright. So how can you call the one reflected in the mirror an illusion? Doesn't it behave the same way as the other one? Doesn't it have the same attributes? Doesn't it "go away" with the sun, when the sun goes down, and comes back when the sun is back? How can you call it less real then the sun!?

When you start thinking about that, you might want to take a closer look around you. What are you perceiving? Atoms? Molecules? You don't see them, do you? But those things are the actual "reality". So how can you call an object real, if your perception is different from the actual Truth? ;)

Now try to perceive it. I've been able to perceive how relative space is and how odd matter behaves- specially when I was a child. SO maybe we are capable of it. Maybe what we consider "illusions" are just a part of reality that we are usually unaware of.

What is real? ;)

[TruthSeeker]

http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/bored.gif

http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/sleep.gif

[TruthSeeker]

:lol:

[Winfried]

You seem bored...

Well, I believe reality exists. Definetely. Reality is the common illusion. So if I see a cat and everyone around me sees a cat, I may assume there is a cat. There me be no cat at all, I may not be here at all, but I see and smell a cat, and i can definetely feel and smell myself, so to me, Both me and the cat exist.

[Oli]

Today I heard a theory about reality and existance; that reality does not exist, instead we all exist in our own existances and these all lines, that interlink and cross over. Such that my existance is now crossing into you yours as you are reading that which I am typing. I do not know the name of the theory, but I did find it interesting and it does make sense to me.

I'll give an example to make it more clear. I do not know what you did this morning when you woke up, because that did not cross my existance, so to me, it did not exist. It is in a way that we all live in our own universe and these cross over when we interact with one another. Most of the time other existances do not affect us in any way, therefore they do not exist to us.

[scameter]

I personally believe that reality exists, but I do not believe this with the certainty and absolutism many do. The reason I believe it exists is because I do not think everything revolves around us; I think everything we know depends on our perception and subjective experiencial capability, but I do not believe that everything is simply in our minds; but, I also do not believe that reality is as definite as scientists wish to think, in that if something can be physically proven it is real and truthful, and if it cannot be proven or found evidence for it does not exist. This is far too absolute for a being such as ourselves with such lack of real certainty and such individually relative subjectivity. We simply cannot know anything with entire certainty beyond doubt; many may believe we can, but that is quite different from how things actually are. I could believe anything; but, I do believe there are some objective truths even with our extremely subjective existence, such as that nothing is definite, and that there is more to existence than what we currently know.

[TruthSeeker]

Today I heard a theory about reality and existance; that reality does not exist, instead we all exist in our own existances and these all lines, that interlink and cross over. Such that my existance is now crossing into you yours as you are reading that which I am typing. I do not know the name of the theory, but I did find it interesting and it does make sense to me.

I'll give an example to make it more clear. I do not know what you did this morning when you woke up, because that did not cross my existance, so to me, it did not exist. It is in a way that we all live in our own universe and these cross over when we interact with one another. Most of the time other existances do not affect us in any way, therefore they do not exist to us.
Yes, that's a big part of what I'm saying... :)

[TruthSeeker]

scam,

Yes. There must be an objective reality, otherwise, the universe wouldn't be as stable as it is. :think:

[scameter]

Well, it could simply be the illusion of stability.

[abaris]

Scientifically speaking, reality is the result of irreversible processes. As such it is as solid and undisputable as it gets. Unlike the artificial reality of a computer game, objective physical reality does not have a reset button. No rewind, no playback. The current status of each atom in the universe is determined by an infinite chain of causes and constitutes itself a cause for future effects.

Sentient beings may have perceptions which are not triggered by real physical sensations but emanate from the Self. Those are called illusions.

The subject of every philosophy is the unity of perception and existence and thereby the elimination of illusions. To say reality is an illusion is to say that philosophy is an absurdity.

[TruthSeeker]

That's why such philosophy is called "absurdutism"... ;)

Scientifically speaking, reality is the result of irreversible processes. As such it is as solid and undisputable as it gets. Unlike the artificial reality of a computer game, objective physical reality does not have a reset button. No rewind, no playback.
How do you know? You are only perceiving time. That's only a subjective perspective. It ignores objectivity.

The current status of each atom in the universe is determined by an infinite chain of causes and constitutes itself a cause for future effects.
What was the first cause?

Sentient beings may have perceptions which are not triggered by real physical sensations but emanate from the Self. Those are called illusions.
The Self and the universe are one. :tao:

[abaris]

How do you know? You are only perceiving time. That's only a subjective perspective. It ignores objectivity.

The current status of each atom in the universe is determined by an infinite chain of causes and constitutes itself a cause for future effects.

This is how classical thermodynamics and quantum mechanics define reality. Thermodynamics and Quantum mechanics are build on an objective unidirectional concept of time. Relativity and it's subjective definition of time represents an anomaly in this respect.

What was the first cause?

That's the answer we all seek. Isn't it?


The Self and the universe are one.

There is something about consciousness which we fail to understand. I don't know what it is, but it seems to be related to Free Will. Our actions are not just following causality. Our unpredictability has not yet been explained.

[TruthSeeker]

The current status of each atom in the universe is determined by an infinite chain of causes and constitutes itself a cause for future effects.
Infinite chain of causes? Well, then it follows that there is an infinite amount of time in the past. How is that possible? ;)

This is how classical thermodynamics and quantum mechanics define reality. Thermodynamics and Quantum mechanics are build on an objective unidirectional concept of time. Relativity and it's subjective definition of time represents an anomaly in this respect.
This anomaly indicates a higher truth which is beyond your causal focus. ;)

That's the answer we all seek. Isn't it?
Every cause is preceded by the effect of a previous cause. So how can there be a "first cause"?
It's like asking "which came first- the chicken or the egg"? ;)

There is something about consciousness which we fail to understand. I don't know what it is, but it seems to be related to Free Will. Our actions are not just following causality. Our unpredictability has not yet been explained.
That unpredicatability is due to the union of the self and the universe. Unfortunately, I haven't yet been able to find out why God is conscious, despite my constant efforts... <_<

[abaris]

The universe is obviously a dynamic entity. In other words everything is in motion. What we call physical change is the redistribution of mass and energy caused by motion. There is not a single instance of change in the physical world that does not involve the exchange of mass and energy. Those who know of perfectly adiabatic changes are welcome to point them out.

Time is not an entity by itself it is an indicator of change. It's definition is always based on motion. Thermodynamics defines it by increase in the randomness of motion. Relativity defines time as the quotient of a distance divided by the speed of light.

The relativity of time is nothing but the consequence of the universal constancy of c introduced by Einstein. Since special relativity requires all observers to measure the same value for c, something has to give. Einstein trades absolute space and time for the absolute constancy of c. Relativity contains a circular argument. The value of c is 300.000.000 meters per second and a universal constant. But since time and length are relative and subject to dilation and contraction neither meter or second are absolutely defined. In other words each observer claims the value of 300.000.000 meters per second for c but each observer uses his meter and his second.

The thermodynamic definition of time is independent of the observer. But it does depend on the borders of the system in question. From a physical standpoint it describes the declining energy potential of a closed system. From a philosophical standpoint it indicates that a system left to itself is doomed to decay.

Now if you look at the universe as a thermodynamic system you have two choices. Either you assume it is infinite in which case it also has to be eternal. Or you assume it is finite which requires it to have a beginning and an end.

Infinity requires eternity and vice versa because only an infinite system can produce dynamics eternally . A closed system would start out with minimum entropy and reach a level of maximum entropy where all energy differentials are effectively zero.

Current cosmology supports the finite universe model. Universe starts with the Big-Bang where all energy is concentrated in one spot and expands indefinitely to a low energy mush. But if all mass and energy of the universe was at some point concentrated in one primordial black hole what made it expand or if you like: go Bang? Relativity on which the big Bang theory is based can't provide a mechanism for that.

If you ask about what came before the Big-Bang modern cosmology offers nothing more then mathematical speculations like Branes, Super strings and plenty of spatial dimensions. The scientific approach to those questions is not all that different from religious speculation.

So why not accept the obvious: The universe is infinite and eternal it always was it always will be.
No need for superstrings or 38 unobservable dimensions, or singularities.

The term Prima Causa would indeed be misleading in this case. Una Causa would be more appropiate. And as for our unpredictability i would rather say it stems from our disconnection from the universe.

[TruthSeeker]

There are way too many contradictions and problems with the Big Bang hypothesis to even list here. For example, the Big Bang is clearly a Prima Causa.

Btw... I've seen people with many different views. Some believe in a Prima Causa but don't believe on Big Bang. Go figure... :dunno:

[abaris]

There are way too many contradictions and problems with the Big Bang hypothesis to even list here. For example, the Big Bang is clearly a Prima Causa.

Agreed.

But that still leaves us without an answer. I for one like to think that the universe is eternal and infinite. I can't back this position scientifically. It is rather an emotional preference if you like.

[TruthSeeker]

Yes. It is possible to perceive it, btw...

[Thomas Knierim]

To say that "reality is an illusion" is nonsensical in my view. You can say that "perception is illusion", or "your body is an illusion", or "the world is an illusion". But you cannot say that reality is an illusion, because reality is -by definition- that which is real, i.e. that which is not an illusion. The statement is a contradiction in itself.

TruthSeeker: There are way too many contradictions and problems with the Big Bang hypothesis to even list here.

Well, maybe you just list a few then. I happen to think that Big Bang theory is quite free of contradictions. Looking forward to a nice technical argument.

TruthSeeker: For example, the Big Bang is clearly a Prima Causa.

If this should be one of its flaws, I cannot perceive why. The question whether Big Bang is a prima causa is disputable, because you first need to clarify whether space and time are preconditions for causality.

Cheers, Thomas

[buzzlightyear1982]

"To say that "reality is an illusion" is nonsensical in my view. You can say that "perception is illusion", or "your body is an illusion", or "the world is an illusion". But you cannot say that reality is an illusion, because reality is -by definition- that which is real, i.e. that which is not an illusion. The statement is a contradiction in itself."

By definition at dictionary.com, reality is:

The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence B)

So if I take this definition and apply it to what I consider to be reality than I have to disagree. For as far as I'm concerned perception, body, and the world is reality. Perception possessing actuality and existence in the aditudes we take. Your body has essence because over seventy-five percent of teenage girls starve themselfs over it. And finally, the world has existence because were not randomly floating in space right now :boxing:

[Thomas Knierim]

buzz (quoting dictionary.com): The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence...

Yes, that's one of the possible definitions. That which "possesses actuality, existence, or essence" is just another way of saying "that which is not an illusion", so there's no contradiction here. The sentence reality is an illusion is still illogical.

buzz: For as far as I'm concerned perception, body, and the world is reality.

No disagreement here.

I did not say that I actually do question the reality of perception, body, and the world. I said that these things can be challenged. This means a valid case can be made to call their reality into question, as many philosophers have previously done, for example Pyrrho and Descartes. This position is called scepticism; it is notoriously difficult to attack by logical argument.

Cheers, Thomas

[Gesiwuj]

Wow - this really hurts my brain. How do I know others exist? How do I know anything exists? Do I even exist? :o

[sonrisa]

do u think?
cuz if u think there4 u r

[abaris]

Thomas,

Here are a few problems i see with the big bang theory:

Even the staunchest proponent of general relativity can not deny the fact that it completely fails to predict Galaxy Rotation. So how can a theory that fails to describe the dynamics of a single galaxy be trusted to correctly predict the dynamic evolution of the whole universe?

Gravity is the only resident force within general relativity, and it is an attractive force. A relativistic universe is doomed to collapse into nothingness unless there is some repulsive force to keep it inflated. Einstein was aware of this, so he introduced and tuned the arbitrary cosmological constant in order to keep the relativistic balloon inflated. Or if you like: first he abolishes the Ether in 1905 only to return in 1917 and fill the relativistic void with his own “Gas”. But the farce of the cosmological constant did not end there.

In 1931, as Edwin Hubble showed that the universe is actually expanding, Einstein abandons the idea of the cosmological constant and calls it his “greatest blunder”. He didn’t need it any more in order to counteract the pull of gravity. That task fell now to the momentum of the receding matter in the universe.

Later, as observations indicated an accelerating expansion of the universe, the cosmological constant came back, now as the driving force behind the acceleration. It became the magic knob of cosmology. Every possible scenario during the evolution of the universe can be accounted for by twisting this cosmological knob.

The Big Bang theory claims, that the universe begins with the explosion and subsequent expansion of a primordial Black Hole. But why should the primordial Black Hole behave different from all other Black Holes predicted by general relativity. While the evolution of regular Black Holes is dominated by an accelerating collapse, the universe is from the very beginning governed by accelerating expansion. If nothing can escape a Black Hole, then how did the matter and energy that constitutes todays universe manage to escape the pull of the most massive primordial Black Hole? And where did this primordial Black Hole come from?

The problem of current cosmology lies in the fact that it is based on relativity. I decided to compile a list of problems i see with relativity you may find it at:

http://www.primacausa.com/relativity/

For the time beeing the interactive simulations work only in internet explorer. The whole thing is a work in progress.

[Thomas Knierim]

abaris: Even the staunchest proponent of general relativity can not deny the fact that it completely fails to predict Galaxy Rotation.

That may be so, but I don't see this as a flaw of Relativity. The evolution theory does not predict the emergence of intelligent hominids. Is that a flaw?

abaris:So how can a theory that fails to describe the dynamics of a single galaxy be trusted to correctly predict the dynamic evolution of the whole universe?

First, the Big Bang (BB) theory does not entirely rely on Realtivity. It relies on four empirical pillars: (1) The observed red-shift of remote galaxies which suggests that galaxies move apart and that space expands (Hubble law), (2) the observed cosmic background radiation which appears to be a remnant of the BB event, (3) the observed abundance of light elements throughout space which can currently only be explained with the BB model, and (4) the large scale structure of the cosmos, i.e. the distribution of matter in space. I am probably not telling you anything new, but you made it appear as if BB rests on Relativity alone, which is simply not the case. Relativity is compatible with the BB theory.

Second, the applicability of a theory to one area of a problem (such as the cosmological model) does not guarantee that the same theory solves the entire problem. In other words, we cannot expect Relativity to deliver a complete cosmology, just because it provides successful theories for some areas of the problem such as gravitation and spacetime geometry. Even evolution theory, which is one of the most universal theories ever conceived of by mankind, does not solve the puzzle of life alone. We need a bunch of additional theories, genetics for example, to understand life.

abaris: If nothing can escape a Black Hole, then how did the matter and energy that constitutes todays universe manage to escape the pull of the most massive primordial Black Hole? And where did this primordial Black Hole come from?

Black holes can evaporate, therefore it seems that matter can escape a black hole under certain conditions. But this does of course not answer the cause for the Big Bang, which is an extremely puzzling question. We don't know what caused the BB, but before we start to ask for the cause, we must ask first whether the concept of causality (and therefore our question) makes any sense at all, given the fact that space and time begins with the BB. At this time, we don't have answers to these questions. There are a lot of things we simply don't know. We don't even know whether it is knowable and whether we will ever know it. :think:

Cheers, Thomas

[abaris]

That may be so, but I don't see this as a flaw of Relativity. The evolution theory does not predict the emergence of intelligent hominids. Is that a flaw?

You overlook that evolution is based on random mutations and a subsequent selection of the fitest patterns. Randomnes is an esential part of evolution. Physics on the other hand is a rather exact science.

the Big Bang (BB) theory does not entirely rely on Realtivity. It relies on four empirical pillars

do not confuse observations with theories, the hubble effect, abundance of light elements, microwave background radiation, large scale structures, and so forth are things we observe. The cosmological model is 100% general relativity since this is the accepted theory of gravity and the evolution of the universe is gravity driven. Unfortunately it failes to account for any of the observations you mentioned above.

Black holes can evaporate, therefore it seems that matter can escape a black hole under certain conditions. But this does of course not answer the cause for the Big Bang, which is an extremely puzzling question.

Evaporation is a bit less violent then a big bang. However, I gues by evaporation you mean the Hawking Radiation. Never mind that no one has ever seen a black hole, never mind that stars fly appart as soon as they are heavier then aproximately 120 solar masses, He just goes ahead and speculates about the inner workings of a speculation.

Even evolution theory, which is one of the most universal theories ever conceived of by mankind, does not solve the puzzle of life alone. We need a bunch of additional theories, genetics for example, to understand life.

You can not compare evolution to relativity. The subject of evolution is accesible. We have the focile record, dna, anatomical data of living organisms. We can even observe evolution happen! Live on our planet. All the wonders of relativity on the other hand are either in a galaxy far far away or happend once upon a time.

I do not see any scientific reason to question causality other then einsteins concept of the relativity of simultaneity. And that is far from convincing.

[sonrisa]

Prof Alan Guth talks about a false vacuum (click here) (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/uns_guth_1.html) that, as it decays creates bubble universes, one of these universes being our own. I don't know if this helps explain the BB. While I have some understanding of physics, I am not a physicist. I just find this stuff interesting.

[abaris]

I've heard of that theory. And even though it is not completely set, it still makes far more sense then the classical Big-Bang Hypothesis.

[Thomas Knierim]

abaris: You overlook that evolution is based on random mutations and a subsequent selection of the fitest patterns. Randomnes is an esential part of evolution. Physics on the other hand is a rather exact science.

So what? Physics also deals with randomness, most notably particle physics. This doesn't seem to make physics less precise. Likewise, the fact that Relativity does not explain all properties of the universe does not falsify or diminish it. It just means that Realtivity is not a TOE.

abaris: do not confuse observations with theories, the hubble effect, abundance of light elements, microwave background radiation, large scale structures, and so forth are things we observe.

The Big Bang theory came into being precisely because of these observations, in particular because of the observation of red-shifted light from distant galaxies. It did not came into being on account of Relativity. Relativity existed first and it did not entail Big Bang. For example, the steady state model can also be made compatible with Relativity. So, the situation is that Big Bang is a theory that stands for itself and it rests on the four empirical pillars I mentioned. It is not a theory that rests on another theory, such as General Relativity, although Friedmann-Lamaitre model of GR is in harmony with BB.

abaris: The cosmological model is 100% general relativity...

There is a lot more to contemporary cosmology than Relativity. For example, the assumption that physical laws are everywhere the same and that the universe is isotropic are generally accepted premises.

abaris: He just goes ahead and speculates about the inner workings of a speculation.

Yes, that appears to be the modus operandi of theoretical cosmology... where knowledge and certainty are not available, people tend to wallow in speculation... Can we blaim them? It is part of human nature.

abaris: I do not see any scientific reason to question causality other then einsteins concept of the relativity of simultaneity.

Would you agree that causality requires space and time? Can you explain what you think is wrong with relativity of simultaneity?

Cheers, Thomas

[sonrisa]

there is a theory that says the BB is the result of a collision between 2 universes. Don't know if this can be proven, however.

[TruthSeeker]

abaris,

Thank you for taliking about BB. Quite frankly, the last time I discussed BB in depth was many moons ago and I couldn't quite remember all that. :)

Besides... I have exams... :(


Thomas,

If this should be one of its flaws, I cannot perceive why.
A Prima Causa is not possible because every effect has a preceding cause. So for the universe to come to existence, there would have to be something causing it, and also causing everything that came before that. So time should be infinite.

The question whether Big Bang is a prima causa is disputable, because you first need to clarify whether space and time are preconditions for causality.
If nothingness is the abscence of space and time, is it possible that the universe could spontaneously be created from pure nothingness, at some very obscure "time" for no reason whatsoever, and with no preceding cause?


Quite frankly, there's only one thing that falls into the above scenario- imagination! :o

[schrodinger]

TruthSeeker: If nothingness is the abscence of space and time, is it possible that the universe could spontaneously be created from pure nothingness, at some very obscure "time" for no reason whatsoever, and with no preceding cause?

In one word: “YES”

In a few more words: Yes, because there is no such thing as “nothing”. The idea of a perfect vacuum is just an idea, a concept. Physicists now recognize that such a state cannot be achieved. It is the same as trying to achieve a Temperature colder than “absolute zero”. It cannot be done, and not because “absolute zero” is “absolute”. It is because that is the Minimum Temperature possible, at which all particle activity does not cease but is confined to the energy level of Boltzmann’s constant: 1.38 x 10E-23 J/K. To achieve a lower T. would require the removal of all particles, including “virtual” particles. Such virtual particles will still exist, and replace all “real” particles that have been evacuated from a given space. In other words, Boltzmann”s constant will remain constant, and absolute zero will remain a Minimum, which is NOT zero! So now we are left with a scenario with so-called empty space not empty at all but filled with virtual particles. That is as close as we can get to a state of nothingness. When we have countless billions of billions of virtual particles, in a constant state of mutual annihilation, and an infinity of time, what are the chances that ONE pair should fail to annihilate, and a real particle should escape? It seems that such an event is inevitable! And if that happens, what would follow? Theoretically, such an event would warp space-time curvature in such a way that other real particles will be pulled into this new “pocket” which would grow and grow at an ever increasing exponential rate, as quickly as an atomic explosion, only much bigger than any we can imagine.
That is just one theory of how the Big Bang could have happened, out of “nothing” and with no apparent reason. There are many other theories. As Rene Descartes said: “ In order to seek truth, it is necessary once in the course of our life to doubt as far as possible all things.” I personally like the inverse of that: to believe as far as possible all things!

:mellow:

[CSwriter1]

Our sense of reality is culturally limited, and this is what brings people to terrible wars.

Different cultures have a different sense of time. Not all cultures value individual identity, but instead identify with the tribe, and communism is natural to those who have this kind of commual identity.

Some cultures value war and others abhor war. Western culture has always valued war. The exception was when the US taught for democracy in public education, and had liberal education, it was much less prone to war. A liberal education lead to liberal minded people, and liberal minded are not black and white, either/or thinkers. Rather they think in terms of personal space and peaceful relationships. However, two world wars and the military technology of the second world war, changed the perspective of the US and replaced its liberal education with education for technology for military and industrial purpose.

The present since of reality in the US today, is completely different from the culture's pervious sense of reality. In fact, with global warfare and modern weapons, and global economics with advanced technology is, changing the prespective of reality around the world.

Still there are more isolated groups whose knowledge of life is limited to religious teaching, and we are being shamefully disrespectful of this. Jesus told us to love our enemy, but what kind of love exist without knowing the other? To be truly loving we must know our enemies and their concept of reality. From there we can begin reasoning, and resolve our conflicts through reason.

Main point is, our understanding of reality is culturally limited. Disrespecting this leads to disrespecting other people and war.

[TruthSeeker]

schrodinger,

Nothingness implies abscence of potentiality. So how can anything come from it?

[buzzlightyear1982]

"Nothingness implies abscence of potentiality. So how can anything come from it?"

Nothing implies abscence...what an indivisual chooses to fill that abscence with is up to them. To say that it has to be filled with potentiality would be directing them in their own way of thinking B)

[schrodinger]

TruthSeeker: Nothingness implies abscence of potentiality. So how can anything come from it?

Here we go! :lol:
I agree, in looking over the vast plane of nothing, there are no hills and valleys, nothing obvious that would hold any potential energy. But let’s not forget about those virtual particles that are in a constant mutual embrace of cancellation. One possible way to visualize this is by using the “Black Box” analogy that electrical engineers invented. We obviously have no direct access to the virtual particles, only to the overall effect of their mutual cancellation. So we can see this as a black box that we are going to take some measurements on to figure out what is inside the thing. First we look for potential energy using a voltmeter. (In keeping with the electrical analogy). And we measure zero volts out of the box. Now we check for “substance” by measuring conductance with an ohmmeter. If there was a lot of substance such as a big copper bar inside the box, we would measure a low ohm reading, or a high conductance. But we measure infinite ohms, or zero conductance. So we must conclude that there is nothing in the box, no potential, no conductance is consistent with nothing.
But what if we could open the box and see inside? We may find two very high voltage batteries in there, connected in opposition. Each one is capable of delivering a billion billion volts, but since they are exactly equal and in direct opposition, the net result is zero. Also, such an arrangement would present an infinite amount of resistance, or zero conductance, which is exactly what we measured.
So this black box is a pretty good model for our virtual particle pair. Now, I admit that this thing has an extremely low probability of changing status. That is, for one of the batteries to break down, releasing all the potential of the other. However there are countless billions of billions of these things, so the probability of just ONE going pop is reasonably good. And one is all it takes to set off a chain reaction and we have the big bang.
Well, that’s the idea anyway. Did it happen that way? Could it? Who the hell knows!
:dunno:

[TruthSeeker]

schrodinger,

Your cat is dead. :P



... :D

[schrodinger]

Truth is, I never did like that cat. :lol:

[sonrisa]

I was wondering how long it would take for a cat joke to surface :rolleyes:

I'm guessing it was electrocuted....
:D

B)

[buzzlightyear1982]

"TruthSeeker: Nothingness implies abscence of potentiality. So how can anything come from it?"

Potentiality is not an tool...it is an resault...nothingness has no potentiality because it is in fact nothing because it is unworked and developed. However, use it, put it to use and it becomes something there for creating potentiality B)

[Smurf]

Potential is a tool, not a result. Someone has the potential to do something, potentiality is the state of being potential. B)

[buzzlightyear1982]

"potentiality is the state of being potential..."

You don't consider it a state of mind for without motivation to persue potential there is no potentiality <_<