Marcus, it does sound like I am outdated on this matter. This, I am rather pleased to hear, and I will thus cede need for discussion. Not to sound childish, but I'm not quite sure how out-dated is the same as "fantasy" though. For the sake of cordial conversation, it is always worth watching...
I can not cite my personal experience, nor do I need Individual A purporting a certain belief to argue against the belief. Were I arguing that a large number of people do this, this would be true, but it is not. If one disagrees in the extent of this occurrence, then maybe there is no need for...
Thanks Marcus. And I'm afraid books on "hyperscience" are what sell and make money while hardline theoretical work by itself doesn't hah... so good luck on Greene. You're roughly right on what I meant, though I wouldn't exclude it only to public domain. One doesn't necessarily have to be talking...
But if there was another factor, say vacuum energy, would it not imply this? If you were to pretend space were expanding into a vacuum, it need not decelerate. Thus as you overcome the forces of gravity, I would expect to begin to see an acceleration. Am I wrong in this thinking?
You should go back and reread the last post in this thread where I already explained this wasn't quite what I meant in the OP.
All the same, I do disagree with you on at least one facet. Our human instinct and intuition are certainly not always reliable, and they can by no means be used to...
I believe you largely misunderstand me, but I think my statement about explaining a system to someone might be why. Take that from the context of whether or not a system seems complicated at face value and move it to the context of what is being proposed for unknown facets of a system. Perhaps...
Thank you for giving a considerate and supported reply. Off of what you said, I looked back up at the forum rules, and it seems there may be a better place to move this thread (I have no intention of hiding any subjectivity in my post). As to what I was referring to, I strictly meant when...
We may just be arguing semantics here. The way I see it though is that the "merged" system, as you stated, might be complex in that there are many laws and functions which it details built from many individual principles. I think, however, one could suppose a likelihood that the individual...
By your argument, the basics premise for how evolution works would really be in trouble. Sure our world is highly complex. The interactions of one atom with another to form a molecule aren't quite like how one would play with legos, but the individual fundamentals behind the interaction can be...
Agreed. The current trend does not seem to be to look for a physics that makes sense, but to find the equations that work and hope/assume it will make sense sometime. The later is certainly a pragmatic approach, but I still believe in logic, even if it is bizarre logic. If we extrapolate too far...
I'll start off by admitting that just because the "laws of the universe" go against what we might intuit them to be is no grounds to assert their falsehood, but I do have to pose a subjective question:
Do you guys feel that perhaps our current stabs at a ToE are just getting a bit outlandish...
I was assuming as stated earlier that when it "bounced" some of that energy would be transferred.
Really though what I was interested in was if gravity could pull it to the bottom.
If that explanation you heard were true, it would seem very similar to being an information-deal ordeal like the others. I'm sure we're all actually wrong though anyways :)
I'm not sure how it could decohere partly as you are saying. If it decoheres to entangle with a specific "set" within the superpositions, then only that "path" must exist in that...well, let's go ahead and call it a "reality" just for sake of ease. Any interaction before the detector would thus...