[quote=Bob Campbell;41172]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Profpat;41077
[COLOR=seagreen Hi Bob;[/color]
Here is my comment to your comment
Hi Pat,
Excuse me for interjecting a comment. There is a problem with the concept of universal wholeness This is apparently part of your theotywhich any TOE must accommodate in some way. There are acknowledged self-contradictions in the big bang beginning in space and time to space and time.Actually I believe it started space and time. I don't believe it started in space and time And any linear development in thought also presumes that space and time are a priori.You are right it is a priori, which doesn't prove it's existence. I believe reality is an illusion, but that the illusion is real It is very easy to overlook this with our language bound left brain.
2nd para I deleted. I couldn't see how it related to my Idea
Now neither the inside nor the outside can be known as a "thing" distinct from the other. That would be a dichotomous twoness not Oneness. The boundary MUST be an ACTIVE interface involving an energy process between the universal inside and the universal outside.I believe my " particle " meets this description. The positive and negative spaces would be the same inside and outside This means that all we can know in phenomena is active energy processes at active interfaces between inside and outside. Everything that we see and sense is an active interface and our nervous system integrates experience via active interface processes between neurons. There is nothing else possible in physical phenomenal experience.
This means that the primary requirement for Universal Wholeness to be possible is that all things that we perceive as active interfaces MUST share both a universal common inside and a universal common outside.Again I think my " particle " does have a common inside and outside There is NO OTHER structural possibility to experience of any kind anywhere in the universe consistent with universal wholeness. And no amount of intellectual bootstrapping can circumvent this fundamental dilemma of the creative process.
Para 5 & 6 again deleted, in that it seamed to relate to your theory and not my Idea
Best regards,
Bob |
I did give your link a look at and while it appears interesting, I don't know if you'll win the OCCAMS RAZOR PRIZE for simplicity. I believe most of your comments probably would be better expressed at your thread describing your theory. If you have any questions or comments regarding my Idea I'll be pleased to answer them. Best to you, Pat