(September 14, 2008 at 11:13 pm)infidel666 Wrote: But, I think the point is that there is no "why."
Try this: All of existence is the result of the interaction of possibilties in an infinite possibility field. Does anything exist? Yes and no. There is a region of existence, where the primal "superstring" exists, and a region of non-existence. Think of it as a primal particle blinking randomly in and out of existence. In the region of existence, the existence of the particle gives rise to an infinite spacial field extending from the particle to infinity. In the region of non-existence, there is no space. But since there is only one particle and space is curved, the particle "perceives" itself at the edge of infinity in all directions. It interacts with itself. But in what way? In every way. Every thing that can possibly happen occurs. The sets of happenings are arrayed in an orderly fashion as if one thing gave rise to the next. There is an illusion of causation. In one set of happenings, an animal exists and has chemical formations in its brain that records a set of these seemingly causative happenings. In another instance next to that circumstance, another animal exists that is essentially identical to the first and has the same "memories" plus a memory of having been that first animal in the previous instance. Perhaps it is a human. Perhaps it has a "thought" that there is a God that created it. Recalling that all sets of possible interactions exist in the field, it is innevitable that such an intersection of possibilites must occur. Somewhere in the field of infinite possibility, there is another animal that has memories in its brain that record a seemingly "future" occurence, and no "past" occurences. In another place, there is an animal with memories of both past and future.
Now try devising any kind of experiment to test whether or not it is the case.
Infidel Hi
I hope you are not one of those infidels which the Illuminated forces of Ahmedinajad + Hizbullah + Hamas are seeking for.
Your highly scientific explanation which I had to make an effort in order to understand ,lacking this level of Physics,points in simpler words to the principle of indeterminism.
Have I understood you right?
If yes then that's what I am trying to forward in that forum ,uptill now with little success ,namely that science has to recognize indeterminism as a basic law of nature on an equal foot with determinism.
RD in his TGD seems to me ,may be that I'm wrong ,pretty ambiguous on this subject.
It would be very interesting to hear your opinion ,in simple words accesible to a layman of Physics,on this topic.
