Metaphysics and something from nothing

[Lacy33]

Is anyone working on defining nothingness as a possible physical force with an unbelievably explosive nature do to its infinitely great potential for smallness in definition?
Please forgive the wording, this was the best way I could think to create SOMETHING from NOTHING!

 

[RingoKid]

nothing is perfect
in the space where nothing exists
will one find perfection
the perfect nothing

seek

 

[wuliheron]

Tools

Thirty spokes meet at a nave;
Because of the hole we may use the wheel.
Clay is moulded into a vessel;
Because of the hollow we may use the cup.
Walls are built around a hearth;
Because of the doors we may use the house.
Thus tools come from what exists,
But use from what does not.

(popular chinese poem ca. ~500 bc)

What you seem to be asking about is known as Zero Point Energy. There are attempts to harness it as a kind of endless source of energy, but thus far no one has managed to tap into it usefully. Most physicists believe it cannot be used without violating the laws of thermodynamics, cause and effect.

 

[pocebokli]

now that's a great poem.

 

[Philocrat]

A better version of your poem should read:

And the VOICE said let in Nothing be this
Let in this be now
Let in Now be that
Let in that be Nothing
And, truely, in that was Nothing

...that would be the day!

 

[sol2]

...that would be the day!

No...that would be nothing?

 

[Matter]

More please

Great pome! I would love to read more. Can you sagest where!
(Chines Pome)

 

[Lacy33]

Here we go!

A better version of your poem should read:

And the VOICE said let in Nothing be this
Let in this be now
Let in Now be that
Let in that be Nothing
And, truely, in that was Nothing

...that would be the day!

A voice= harmonics= information feeding strings. The rest gives beautiful dimensionality. Where does Voice originate? Come on...We can do it!

 

[wuliheron]

Great pome! I would love to read more. Can you sagest where!
(Chines Pome)

That particular poem was incorporated into the Tao Te Ching. Because the original is in chinese, there are a number of different english language translations available. Just select a different translation at the top and you'll see what I mean.

http://www.edepot.com/tao6.html

 

[pocebokli]

what can we do? that poem seems like a paradox to me...

 

[Lacy33]

global perspective

what can we do? that poem seems like a paradox to me...

Perhaps we can us this poem or another insighful statement to progress our thinking. This poem is rather good as it gives, even though not directly, dimensions we observe on the side of our everyday consciousness and luckily we all share the same consciousness with a slightly different perspective.
We live in a "PARADOX". That is part of the beauty and the FUN. Everything is actually before us..We need only be clever enough and lighthearted enough to identify it, collectively name it and hold it as continuation of truth. Yes there is much in our view that will pull us back into our own personal concerns separating us from the collective effort to work in the revelation of the kinder more gentle energies. We need each other in a global interaction to support one another and burst ahead with our, (every) persons desire to find enlightenment.
Again, with our senses we do not usually use, what could have come before VOICE and WHAT is voice as this voice is most probalbly continuing to animate the world we are acostom to observing.
Best

 

[wuliheron]

what can we do? that poem seems like a paradox to me...

Exactly, it is a paradox. So is the idea of getting something for nothing.

The black and white worldview of classical formal logic tends to rule various cultures, but that is not to say it is the only way to look at the world that has proven valuable. Paradoxes are quite useful in their own rite, as the success of QM has demonstrated for over a century now.

However, paradoxical are holistic and their foundations are much more difficult to formulate than reductionist theories. In other words, if you want something for nothing you have to work hard to get it (sic). :rofl:

 

[pocebokli]

yes but are we even able to get the POV of a paradox from "above" or are we forever trapped in them? in the latter case i'd just quit now and start wondering about more percievable things. and i do not feel compelled to accept it as perhaps god or something similar.

 

[Eh]

Is anyone working on defining nothingness as a possible physical force with an unbelievably explosive nature do to its infinitely great potential for smallness in definition?

It's like asking if anyone is working on defining nowhere as a possible physical place. Pure nonsense.

 

[Lacy33]

Nothingness!

It's like asking if anyone is working on defining nowhere as a possible physical place. Pure nonsense.

You are absolutely correct as far as I can imagine. NOWHERE would be the location of Nothingness and It is PURE-NON-SENSE. But we have to do better than that if we are going to place this thing on the map.
TA!

 

[Lacy33]

Point Of View

yes but are we even able to get the POV of a paradox from "above" or are we forever trapped in them? ... and i do not feel compelled to accept it as perhaps god or something similar.

POV:
This is a subject of intense scholarly debate.
From a graduadate student lecture I attended years ago in the physics department at Columbia U, I noted with the rest of the students that the speaker had places massless gluons on a grid with infinite degrees of freedom yet he was still stuck on the line. He was stuck with the problem of fazing out the containment wall. I thought that in order to bypass the infinities, one would need to go perpendicular off the line at (zero). In doing this one finds a free standing domain with ASSOCIATION being it's only connective property. If we raise a system through zero to detail it's expansion menchanism, there is nothing to prevent us from experiencing infinity endless while standing outside of it.
After that if we consider infinity as an imitation of (zero)(nothingness) we can begin a dialog that can become a mathematical model for the supporting dimensions of physicality. The dimensions that feed information into strings and a force of (nothing) that will be compatible with any agreed upon model at every point.

 

[wuliheron]

It's like asking if anyone is working on defining nowhere as a possible physical place. Pure nonsense.

Only when it has no specific context. Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. If someone asks me, "What's happening" and I tell them, "Nothing" it makes perfect sense. Likewise, in this case he asks a physical question about energy from nothing. Whether or not it really is energy from nothing is not the issue on the table.

 

[Eh]

But the negative isn't being used in that proper context you posted. Here we have the reification of nothing. As per the example you provided (What's happening" and I tell them, "Nothing), its clear that words have a proper use in this language. Nothingness is a reification of the negative here which leads to countless other ludicrous notions.

Asking if energy can come from nothing is a valid question. In other words, can energy just appear without having to come from somewhere? Or the question could be phrased to ask if energy can just come from nowhere. However, asking if nothing or nothingness is some kind of force is equally silly as asking if nowhere is an actual place the energy comes from.

Discussions about nothingness seldom have much to do with serious philosophy, and is usually more a matter of raping the english language.

 

[Lacy33]

Discussions about nothingness seldom have much to do with serious philosophy, and is usually more a matter of raping the english language.

Perhaps we are not discussing philosophy in the classical sense. I would only hope the the mind unfolds as fast as the rest of nature and with as much grace and excellence.
If you feel uncomfortable with this topic then please allow me and perhaps others gain useful insights that only this kind of exchange can produce.
YES! The subject is difficult, perhaps impossible, but I prefer to extend myself in the arena where there are individuals who are obviously many times more intelligent then I ever hope to be for just a moment in the light.
Thank you
S

 

[Lacy33]

Exactly, it is a paradox. So is the idea of getting something for nothing.

if you want something for nothing you have to work hard to get it (sic). :rofl:

Never was any good at mixed fractions. I have no business looking for the common denominator. But I'm a pretty strong donkey. Someone hook me up with a cart, I will "Work hard" to pull it a short distance.

 

[magus niche]

surely this discussion has its essence rooted in the concept of language more than anything else. For it is language that gives us all the ability to argue on some sort of common ground where there is no such thing. In fact i wonder whether or not there is any point using energy to debate the paradox when poetry , art, and the perception of the physical world by our own sensory organs, combined with thought processes making sense of it all, gives us the pleasure we seem to need to survive. oh, there's a paradox in itself... he he he

oh well if you can't beat them, accept them (and forever ask yourself why you ever wanted to beat them anyway!)

experience made meaningful is nothing, but nothing made into a meaningful experience is a fallicy.
but then again, personal truths are all that there is, wrong?

 

[Lacy33]

Not Giving Up

surely this discussion has its essence rooted in the concept of language more than anything else. For it is language that gives us all the ability to argue on some sort of common ground where there is no such thing. In fact i wonder whether or not there is any point using energy to debate the paradox when poetry , art, and the perception of the physical world by our own sensory organs, combined with thought processes making sense of it all, gives us the pleasure we seem to need to survive. oh, there's a paradox in itself... he he he

oh well if you can't beat them, accept them (and forever ask yourself why you ever wanted to beat them anyway!)

experience made meaningful is nothing, but nothing made into a meaningful experience is a fallicy.
but then again, personal truths are all that there is, wrong?

YA! Langauge is indeed what we use until we develop more effective means of communication. There are personalities in the physics community who are gifted in several kinds of commuication beside physical expression and language. Several years ago I approached perhaps the most famous linguist of our time with need for assist in communicating these abstract concepts. He unfortunately was unable or unwilling to get involved. Yet Einstein himself was attracted to mystical concepts and his work reflects the ability to pull some of what we once considered metaphysics and ground them in mathematical constructs that are still being interpitated and reinturpitated today. Toward the end of his life he was heard admitting that he wished he had looked into Kabbalah. Obviously not the Hollywood kabbalah of today, but perhaps the kind that would have given hints as to which way we might look in order to continue to unify our understanding.
My first encounter with who some people consider to be the smartest physicist alive today, was for me a profound mind meld that left me reeling for days. He said not a word to me, yet walked over and sat on the couch so close to me that I tried unsuccessful to pull my skirt out from under him. I suppose I was trapped for this transfer. Sure it did not phase him, it was proof enough to me that we will one day commicate in higher and more refined ways and we WILL succeed in unifying all of the forces. Even those that today we call impossible!
"I have little patience for scientists who take a board of wood, look for its thinnest part, and drill a great number of holes when the drilling is easy" A.Einstein

 

[wuliheron]

I have to agree with Eh on this one (I usually do). Words are of paramount importance in philosophy and physics, and the original question was very poorly formulated. However, this is a public forum and few of us are professional philosophers or physicists. As much as I may personally dislike people constantly babbling and goading people into arguments over nothing and childish plays on words, there are valid ways to discuss the subject of nothingness.

Only by encouraging the ignorant to study the subject can you hope they will stop talking about it childish ways.

 

[Impossible?]

whats the difference between epistemology ( which i love ) and metaphysics ( which i have never done before ) ?

 

[wuliheron]

Metaphysics are what differentiate one epistomology from another.

 

[nightcleaner]

Due to the Heisenburg uncertainty principle, we can have only limited knowledge of the position and of the energy of any particle. The more we know of where a thing is, the less we can know of what momentum it has. That is, if we specify the precise location of an event, we lose the ability to predict what, exactly, will happen to it next.

I have been thinking that this has to do with the fact that location is purely spatial, while momentum adds the concept of continuation in time. We generally imagine that there are three dimensions in space and only one in time, but Einstein thought that space and time are really the same thing, so we have four dimensions of spacetime. Then, I imagine, when we choose which of the three dimensions to specify as to position, the remaining one is the time dimension. However, any of the four can be time, so long as the other three are specified as position. So, the result of an event in "time", as we look backward at what has already occurred, depends on which of the four available dimensions happened to be taken up by the space determination.

In any event, then, there are several ways in which a determination (measurement) can be made. If we can arbitrarily call the four dimensions of spacetime something like A, B, C, and D, how many combinations of space and time are possible for anyone observation? We could have As Bs Cs and Dt, or As Bs Ct and Ds, and so on. If we keep the sequence ABCD, we could just say that the options are such as ssst, ssts, as shown above, and then stss, and tsss. In other words there may be four time-like options for any observed event.

Another way to look at HUP is that if we choose an extremely short time interval, we can say very exactly where an object is located, but if we choose a longer time interval, the object has enough time to squirm around a little, so we can not say as exactly where it is located. After all, over a long enough period of time, an object may occupy many different positions.

I find it interesting, altho I still do not understand it, that the scientist Max Planck was able to specify a least possible amount of time and a least possible amount of space, and these are now known as the Planck length and the Planck time, and are given rather precise values. A Planck time is something like 10 to the minus 43 seconds, and a Planck length is something like 10 to the minus 27 meters, if my memory fails me. The two quantities are related to each other by the speed of light, so that a Planck time is the time it takes light in a vacuum to cross a Planck length.

Then, I think, we may talk about a four dimensional spacetime in which minimal events occur. An object can only progress through this four dimensional spacetime in increments of one Planck length and one Planck time. This is not space and time as we know it, where objects usually experience huge amounts of Planck time for every Planck space traversed. One Planck space for one Planck time would be the speed of light, you know, and our perceived world operates at velocities far below that.

Well, to get back to the question, zero point energy, are we talking about zero time or zero space or both? If zero time, there can be no energy, because energy has to do with motion, which requires time for its existence. If zero space, there isn't enough room in there for anything to happen, so again, no energy. But if we are talking about a four dimensional zero, then we have to reconsider what we mean by time and space as I discussed above.

We do know that we exist, or at least it is necessary to suppose that we exist, and it seems reasonable to suppose that the world we experience exists in some sense also. And things seem to happen, so we may suppose that there is some potential for change to occur, and this potential must exist down to the very least elements of space and time as we know them. In fact, Planck units are sometimes spoken of as action potentials. But I think if we are to realize four dimensions, we have to carefully examine our idea of what action, or change, really is.

But this epistle has gone long, and by now I am probably talking to myself again, a bad habit of night cleaners, one which causes daytime observers to look askance. I will just say that these ideas have lead me through the many worlds hypothesis into the many times hypothesis, and our world looks very different to me now. I am open to discussion, if anyone is interested.

thanks,

nc

 

[magus niche]

shoshana, aha.. this is good discussion, and wuliheron you have a valid point too. as verbal (and the inherent textual) language are probably the most universal of communication tools, we need to use them to connect with as many people as possible. but i think humans should try and rid the ego driven power games that seem to accompany some higher intellectual circles and their quest to 'know' everything. it seems to me that one of the most essential questions of our time is that of relevant knowledge (maybe belief also?). out of the many cultures and varieties of knowledge and belief's on planet earth, where should we look for clues? i reckon all beliefs and 'truths' have merit under a certain light, so it is about collating what is relevant for ones self or ones community... maybe something like that

shoshana, that's interesting about einstein and the kabbala. recently I've been delving into the metaphoric world that is alchemy (both eastern and western), and c. jung's interpretations from a psychological perspective. good brain food for learning about levels of conscioussness and the way we (as humans) often delude ourselves with unconscious bias's.

anyways good chattn

 

[magus niche]

thoughts

Another way to look at HUP is that if we choose an extremely short time interval, we can say very exactly where an object is located, but if we choose a longer time interval, the object has enough time to squirm around a little, so we can not say as exactly where it is located. After all, over a long enough period of time, an object may occupy many different positions.

I find it interesting, altho I still do not understand it, that the scientist Max Planck was able to specify a least possible amount of time and a least possible amount of space, and these are now known as the Planck length and the Planck time, and are given rather precise values. A Planck time is something like 10 to the minus 43 seconds, and a Planck length is something like 10 to the minus 27 meters, if my memory fails me. The two quantities are related to each other by the speed of light, so that a Planck time is the time it takes light in a vacuum to cross a Planck length.

nc

nightcleaner, for me it seems as though the western physics ideas of space and time are often caught up in reducing things and trying to find out some sort of mythical smallest thing (or in fact some hyperthetical largest thing for that matter). i am trying consciously to stop thinking in that way. ie. the scale of space is infinite: there is no smallest point, only generalisations about observable phenomena.

note: i am not rejecting western thought on these subjects, for the language of science (mathematics) is excellent for communicating observations on the physical world and it is clearly effective and the manifestations blatantly evident as you look into your computer screen!

as for time, i think it is totally subjective to who is observing it.
look at the snail, it moves extremely slowly and its reality would be shifted in spectrum to ours. i have limited understanding of Planck time also, a mathematically calculated 'smallest time' does not seem possible to me, but i must say time is a very debatable set of four letters. your thoughts are impressive and make me think.

your theory on multiple worlds is similar to what i am starting to think. infact i believe there maybe infinite realities, but these questions are stepping into murky waters and one must surely search spiritually on such matters and never jump to conclusions. a lot of eastern metaphysics talks about the illusion that is the physical world, but this is the point at which i close my mouth.

 

[Lacy33]

Reluctanly

shoshana, aha.. this is good discussion, and wuliheron you have a valid point too. as verbal (and the inherent textual) language are probably the most universal of communication tools, we need to use them to connect with as many people as possible. but i think humans should try and rid the ego driven power games that seem to accompany some higher intellectual circles and their quest to 'know' everything. it seems to me that one of the most essential questions of our time is that of relevant knowledge (maybe belief also?). out of the many cultures and varieties of knowledge and belief's on planet earth, where should we look for clues? i reckon all beliefs and 'truths' have merit under a certain light, so it is about collating what is relevant for ones self or ones community... maybe something like that

shoshana, that's interesting about einstein and the kabbala. recently I've been delving into the metaphoric world that is alchemy (both eastern and western), and c. jung's interpretations from a psychological perspective. good brain food for learning about levels of conscioussness and the way we (as humans) often delude ourselves with unconscious bias's.

anyways good chattn

Thank you for the kinds words to everyone. Please look at my last post found on my profile. It is in response to what looked to be a promising exchange between ryokan and others including myself. I told Ryokan that I had agreed with wuliheron that my original post was poorly stated and my best explanation why it was so. I also conceded to the personalities on this forum who seemed to not want my input for the reasons stated.
But because of your continued kindness I reluctanly pop back out this time to say that it was my originial intention to rally assistance if not only start an effort by those more qualified to somehow find a way to understand higher concepts (that can truly only be understood in the absence of the majority of our ego) and communicate such to the teams to whom I am close.

They do not want to admit that any kind of "mysticism", "philosophy" or "religion" has come to their work as if it somehow contaminates, weakens its credibility and other such fears like loosing funding for not stating pure science in the modern form even though what the are doing could be called "fringe" as easily as parapshchology. And I think it must be overlooked these days how much "philosophy" Einstein was seeped in addition to his classical physics.
If you have any ideas how to collate the many varied understandings and begin to unify us. To find if only a few words, to place on paper to submit to the teams (physics). I will follow you around the cosmos taking notes and doing the legwork.
I don't care where I am personally, in or out of the stadium. I just want someone to make the touchdown!
Cheers
S

 

[nightcleaner]

as for time, i think it is totally subjective to who is observing it.
QUOTE]

Thanks, magnus. Yes, that is a problem I have been trying to encompass. In GR, it seems there is no such thing as simultanaety. No two clocks can ever really be the same. I find it very difficult to let go of the notion of coinstantaneous events, perhaps because I have already let go of so much else.

Much of eastern thought seems to me to be directed toward a social entity and its needs, where western thought is centered on the individual. I have been raised in the western tradition, so notions of the egoless state of nirvanah and such seem mysterious. Strangely, both traditions lead to the same impasse, where persons are allowed to adopt the position of "I've got mine," that is, I feel great, your suffering is an illusion. In the west, we become wealthy and shut out all that is unpleasent. Few seem bothered by the loss of depth and wisdom and human experience that comes from living within established walls. In the east, people are encouraged to find mental states that transcend personal suffering and detach the self from responsibility for worldly catastrophe. The result is less socially devastating (monks meditating in cells take up less resources than jet setters) but poverty and desperation are still not relieved, merely accepted as part of the natural process.

Well, back to physics, it seems to me that every observation requires three things, an observer, a process to be observed, and a universe in which the observer has some commonality with the process. Because the observer and the observed are in the same universe, any change in one necessarily entails changes in the other. Therefore there can be no logical consistancy in separating the observer from the observed, even though we must assume a separation, an "objectivity", in order to cause events to turn to our satisfaction. This works great for cannonballs but becomes a problem in quantum realms. Perhaps I should say, rather than problem, an opportunity.

Anyway, one must adopt a self in order to observe the other. Self then must make decisions about the boundaries between self and other. These decisions determine the outcome of the observation. There seems at first glance to be no way out of this quandry. However, in multiverse interpretations, the universal set of each self is different from the universal set of other selves. Infinite or bounded, no two universes are exactly alike. Having defined a self, one has defined the universe that self exists within. Or, having sufficiently defined the universe one exists in, one thereby defines the qualities and conditions of the definite self.

In practice, self has to have limits. Self is particular, and has size. The size of self establishes quanta...It is not possible for any universe to be larger than some finite number of selves. Having established that the universe is of a certain largeness, it has to follow that there is also some certain smallness beyond which the limits imposed by self cannot go. It is not a coincidence that the Planck space and the Planck time are related by the speed of light. However, I am still puzzled about the exact numbers. How did Max Planck know, a hundred years ago, how large the universe is?

It seems to me that there may be considerable room for adjustment in the choice of numbers, that is 10 E-27 cm and 10E-43 s. Quantum effects occur at much larger scales...even, in the experiments in Colorado with Bose-Einstein condensates, up to the visable scale. It is certain that quantum effects are prevalent on the scale of the proton, a mere 10E-9 cm.

For this reason I suspect that the universe is much smaller than Max Planck thought it was, and the size of the minimum quanta is much larger. Or, the universe is much younger, which, in inflationary terms, is to say the same thing.

I seem to recall that results of the cosmic microwave background measurements indicated an age of about 13x10E9 for the universe. Multiply that by c to get the current size of the universe. The minumum size observable then is as much smaller than we are as the universe is larger than we are. Let's see, 10E9 lightyears, what is that in meters? Memory fails me yet again. Uh, 3x10E9 m/s, x60 x60 x24 x365 is what, 6x10 x6x10 x2.4x10 x3.65x10x10x10, that would be, uh, 3x6x6x2.4x3.65x10E9+1+1+1+3 is about 108x2.5x3.5 is about 108x10 so 10E18 meters? So by my logic the Planck length should be about 10E-18 meters, or 10E-19 cm. My innumeracy has given me a headache so please forgive me if I leave it at that.

Now I wonder what the mentats would make of all this. Any comments? I have to go patch my roof before the next hurricane hits.

Thanks,

nc

 

[Lacy33]

How Small?

as for time, i think it is totally subjective to who is observing it.
QUOTE]

Thanks, magnus. Yes, that is a problem I have been trying to encompass. In GR, it seems there is no such thing as simultanaety. No two clocks can ever really be the same. I find it very difficult to let go of the notion of coinstantaneous events, perhaps because I have already let go of so much else.

Or, having sufficiently defined the universe one exists in, one thereby defines the qualities and conditions of the definite self.

In practice, self has to have limits. Self is particular, and has size. The size of self establishes quanta...It is not possible for any universe to be larger than some finite number of selves. Having established that the universe is of a certain largeness, it has to follow that there is also some certain smallness beyond which the limits imposed by self cannot go. It is not a coincidence that the Planck space and the Planck time are related by the speed of light. However, I am still puzzled about the exact numbers. How did Max Planck know, a hundred years ago, how large the universe is?

For this reason I suspect that the universe is much smaller than Max Planck thought it was, and the size of the minimum quanta is much larger. Or, the universe is much younger, which, in inflationary terms, is to say the same thing.

Now I wonder what the mentats would make of all this. Any comments? I have to go patch my roof before the next hurricane hits.

Thanks,

nc

Would something infinitely small be nothing or extreme compactification or is extreme compactification a very intense nothing? I am not joking although I may be accused of stating this poorly. Please excuse. I am severely challenged!
All this a LIFE too.
Pretty bad hurricane season!
S

 

[nightcleaner]

Hi S
I was half joking about hurricanes. I live far north and we have been having some locally severe weather, but the roof is no joke. I worked on it some today but will have to complete the job as permitted.

I think I know what you mean by infinitely small. That would be a small length divided an infinite number of times, right? There is a hot argument going on about something called zero point energy, and a lot of work has been invested in string theory which seems to depend on this very small point. The question has to do with what, exactly, is emptyness, or nothingness, or perfect vacuum. I have some thoughts on it but right now I have to go to work. I'll try to come back to this as soon as I get time.

Don't worry about being challenged. we are all little creatures in a very big universe, and it is those who don't know they are challenged who deserve our pity.

I admire your bravery in trying to think about these difficult things. Keep writing!

nc

 

[magus niche]

glimpse into the eternal.

what if, as crazy as may seem to the logical mind, space and time were infinite in the literal sense of the word? i mean, these calculated figures and small points in space could be limits to our thought processes. we think that atoms and the inherent small bits that energise them etc are fundamental, but what if our current technology and conscioussness is simply getting to a dead end: that there is no end. no beginning and no end just energy levels and tranferalls.

i know this does not seem practical, but maybe we should slow down and examine what we can examine, rather than that which we simply cannot.

just a thought, this string is fascinating.

 

[Lacy33]

Strings and...

what if, as crazy as may seem to the logical mind, space and time were infinite in the literal sense of the word? i mean, these calculated figures and small points in space could be limits to our thought processes. we think that atoms and the inherent small bits that energise them etc are fundamental, but what if our current technology and conscioussness is simply getting to a dead end: that there is no end. no beginning and no end just energy levels and tranferalls.

i know this does not seem practical, but maybe we should slow down and examine what we can examine, rather than that which we simply cannot.

just a thought, this string is fascinating.

YA! Thank you NC and Magus,
The strings are fascinating enough to keep some to the most profound thinkers busy, busy, but eventually we will need to discover, collectively, understand and agree upon the way that nature supports this Energy that is animating the universe. NOBODY wants to call it philosophy, metaphysics or worse, religion I realize from my years of experience with these researchers. But as I watch these incredible personalities around me I am beginning to think that GENIUS is what we shout back as we are falling off the cliff. They are the profundity we glimpse as we let go of all that seems logical and take that chance.
THEN we spend years working out the detail and suffering peer review.
Signed,
Walking around with the rope or (sting) in my hand. Ready to take the chance.
After all we have NOTHING to loose and NOTHING to gain!
Falling...still don't see NOTHING...n-o-t...t-o...w-e-l-l...
S

 

[RingoKid]

Well, back to physics, it seems to me that every observation requires three things, an observer, a process to be observed, and a universe in which the observer has some commonality with the process.
Thanks,

nc

those 3 things are the way, the truth and the life that leads to the creator, though not in the order you stated but nevertheless...

accept NOTHING as fact
question everything
determine your own truth
define your own reality

be your own messiah...

...I AM are you ?