[michellemfry]

Is there some closer connection between probability and premonition? Could they be one and the same on a particle level? This is interesting to think about anyway, even if others aren't thrilled with the concept.

[baudrunner]

Originally Posted by michellemfry Is there some closer connection between probability and premonition?

When you think about it, there seems to be a connection. But insomuch as a premonition presupposes the event contained within its content the probability of the event is guaranteed otherwise the idea would not be a premonition. Probability implies degrees of chance of the event happening.

[michellemfry]

I'm glad to see you are keeping your sense of humor and thank you for your patience as I come to understand your theory.

[baudrunner]

Thank you, Zeroca, for your welcome and your insight. It is apparent that much preparation has gone into your reply and I appreciate that.

I would like to clear up one thing. The quoted extract taken from within one of the sentences from one of my posts implies that I believe that God made the Universe. I would appreciate it if you didn't take information out of context when you pull a quote from my posts. I forgive you this time, but next time use the entire sentence.

As for God having made the Universe, we derive that information from the bible and if you believe that, then you must believe that we are made in His image. Then of course if you believe that then I must ask you how is it that God evolved arms and legs as necessary adaptations to an environment that he had yet to create?

Of course God did not create the Universe. He is no more representative of the consciouness that predisposes the premonition that did create the Universe than we are. However, I am steadfast in my belief that He does exist, as does that spiritual realm wherein He finds himself supreme. I believe that he tampered with this world to prepare it for the evolution of life upon it and when suitable candidate life forms appeared he tampered with their DNA in order to bring them closer to the potential for achieving spiritual growth over the evolutionary timeframe. He was once like you and I, in keeping with our being made in His image. And he encouraged the development of this world, so it can be said that God made the world and God made man. Some of us are taught that our bodies are a temple. If that is so it is because we have a little bit of Him in us.

Project this human race a billion years into the future. Where would we find ourselves, given what we know today and given what we are capable of doing now, if we continue to progress and develop higher technologies and acquire more advanced knowledge?

As I've said, at one time, God was like you and I. He and His people developed the ideal society on a world which they made perfect save for one thing. The rules to which the anthropocentric nature of this Universe subscribes precludes the attainment of immortality of beings on the physical plane. God and His people devised the technology to identify the corporeal and finite energies that nature provided to produce life and separate them from those energies that define consciousness and the manifestation of that consciousness in the individual identity of the spiritual self. They succeeded.

My reason for believing in the existence of God is that there is just too much direct experience in the way of visitations and miraculous healings documented by the medical profession and attributed by patients to "divine" intervention. There is just too much evidence to support the existence of God. It is through the application of knowledge of Him that has given us all the great institutions of all of our great civilisations.

And yes, before you ask, I do indeed believe that Jesus was conceived without human intervention. The same kind of technology was used to do this as provides for those miraculous healings.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by David Maes The second law of thermodynamics is not only about temperature, it's also about spreading. Just a question, when you take a glass, and first fill it with a layer of salt, afterwards fill it with a layer of pepper. Then... shake it. When you keep on shaking.. do you think you automatically will get the two layers apart again??

David Maes;
Thermodynamics is all on the concepts and actions of temperature even though it is also defining the motion behavior of physical bodies and entities. You seem to have your facts confused.


If the universe behaved like inert particulate objects, your salt & pepper analogy may have some merit, but the substance of the universe is more akin to fluidic dynamics.

BTW: if you vibrate the salt and pepper mixture at the right frequency they will separate. Random shaking however will not do the trick.

An event occurred to produce the formation of the universe. I don't think your belief system will change that fact.

[baudrunner]

The expanding Universe

Curiously, someone has yet to come forward to explain just what happens when the acceleration of the Universe achieves that rate of atomic interaction commonly referred to as light speed. According to Einstein, anything that attains the speed of light has infinite mass and occupies a place where time stands still. In describing what happens when the Universal expansion achieves this milestone we apply quantum theory to describe the result.

The expansion of the Universe can be described as a wave form, as all things in nature co-exist in resonance and all obeys the laws of quantum physics. This wave cycles from a place of "rest", ie. where time stands still and mass has infinite value, to the beginning of the next cycle, ie. where time stands still, and mass has infinite value. That place is represented by what I llike to call a "black crust" or shell. This is depicted in a partial cross-section of the Universe below. We place ourselves for the sake of argument after the fourth cycle of the wave of creation has begun.

The result of this behaviour is such that all the matter within this observable Universe will eventually collide with the shell that represents the end of this cycle or that place where time stands still and matter has infinite mass. On the other side of this shell is the next cycle of the creation process, another universe if you will, but actually a part of the same universe of which we will never be a part, beginning from a still frame of reference. The scope of our observable universe is just so immense that the scale of the above graphic representation cannot be described. The end of our Universe will come about when all the matter within our cycle has collided with that black crust and we are left with a great void existing between two shells.

We can then see that the continual process of cosmic generation also occurs in pulses, or quanti of energy, and that this conforms to the principles of quantum physics.

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by baudrunner I would like to clear up one thing. The quoted extract taken from within one of the sentences from one of my posts implies that I believe that God made the Universe. I would appreciate it if you didn't take information out of context when you pull a quote from my posts. I forgive you this time, but next time use the entire sentence.

Excuse me this time, but I can’t guess what kind of mistake I made. Sure it’s result of my low language-skills, as English isn’t my native and is learnt by myself (except for little period, when I used to go to teacher).
I believed that to quote means to take the whole, or part of expressions (sentence), which makes complete sense, and at the same time the original form of which is preserved, so I didn’t mean to insult anybody!, but after having read the whole thread, I choose the most interesting parts of it to discuss, and after revising my post the second time I find that all quoted sentences of my post express complete idea, that was really interesting for me.
I expected to receive interesting replies on each topic to discuss later on, but I’m disappointed a little…
Anyway, I apologize to you.

[dleviwing]

baudrunner;
Science is based on our ability to perform measurements and thus Relativity and Quantum Physics are gauge theories that reflect our ability to measure phenomena. Objects traveling at the speed of light are beyond our ability to measure their inertial property and thus the math values are interpreted as infinity. Since we do not truly know what the numbers for mass represent, we cannot truly impose limits to control the equations.

It is not wise to do a literal interpretation of the mathematical terms of Relativity nor QM. This tends to lead to unfunded and ambiguous conclusion.

You have quite a unique approach that I have not encountered before. Your concept is as good if not better than most others I've read.

[michellemfry]

Baudrunner, I get something new everytime I reread your stuff. That is a style of writing that is hard to find.

[baudrunner]

Thank you, Michelle. I aspire to be recognized as a writer and you are contributing to my satisfaction.

To me, witing must have purpose. There must be a component within the content that generates thought upon the reading of it. To write properly one must avoid rambling and diatribe. It is absolutely permissable to write about things one knows nothing about so long as there is an elegance within. My secret device is logic. I believe that all things in nature are expressions of the same inherent pattern. For example, a sentence is constructed from subject and predicate and contains nouns, adjectives, verbs, conjunctions etc. All these more or less are organized in a logical format and framed by proper punctuation, beginning with a capital and ending with a period or other form to express intent. This literal concept of organization is extended to paragraphing and further to chaptering. In the end a large document is framed by its title page, prefaced, foreworded and wrapped neatly in a cover. The format of a story follows introduction, where the scene is set, to plot and sub plot description, to climax/anti-climax and thence to resolution. So you see that there is a logical plan to the generation of a finished product that stands out above other writings that have no organization. If the writing contains within it an elegantly logical theory based on the extrapolation of data derived from empirical evidence then that work is noteworthy because it will make a new sense to an intelligent reader and that gives the reader a sense of satisfaction. What better way to generate noteworthyness then to submit posts to a discussion forum? Keep stroking my ego. I like it.

Let me know your thoughts on The TOE part four.

------------------------------------------------------------
The cigarette before it is lit has the same entropy. That is, it has the same thermodynamics, volume, mass, density, etc. When the cigarette is lit and allowed to burn down, its entropy is changing, that is, its thermodynamics is changing, its volume and so on are changing. When the cigarette has reverted to the state of a butt, after it has been extinguished and it is just lying there in the ashtray, it has the same entropy, that is, its thermodynamics is the same, its volume is the same and so on.

Entropy is just a word. It is a generic term which can be applied to all systems, of which a cigarette is just one. It is a convenient adjunct to all the other words in the English language.

I repeat, in physics entropy is a state variable.