Huh? You've been reading Langan too much; you're making as little sense as he does. What you appear to be saying is: "Most people are stupid? Intelligent, rational people are valued but stupid people follow unethical leaders." This makes no sense as a reply to my statement.
Not exactly, "people", in general, are NOT stupid. I will admit though, that it is still difficult for me to fully understand the CTMU
All you did here was reiterate your unfounded assertion. Prove it.
It is not an unfounded assertion. It is basic relativity 101:
http://www.megafoundation.org/Ubiquity/March00/4DUniverse.html
QUOTE:
Time doesn't flow past Us. It's we who are moving down the time axis.
Sir Isaac Newton spoke of "time flowing like a river", and that's the way we perceive it. It seems to us as though time flows past us. But in reality, it's the other way around: it's we who are moving. Time is a dimension or direction just like the other three spatial dimensions, and everything up and down the time axis is static or frozen. It's our motion down the time axis that animates our world. It's like a 3-D Omnimax movie. The Omnimax film consists of several film reels of two-dimensional images that, when flashed in front of us on a screen, give us the illusion of a 3-D world in motion. If we stop the film(s), what we'll see are static 3-D images, with each successive image differing slightly from the preceding image. It's only when we run the films through the projectors that we get the illusion of motion.
A 3-D virtual reality simulation might be an even better example of our four-dimensional universe.
In, maybe, 10 more years or certainly in 20, we should be able to put together some really good computer simulations, with 3-D imagery perhaps fed to eye-mounted displays or a to wide-screen high-definition display, with stereo sound, tactile feedback, a "motion seat", and maybe even the release of various odors ("smell-a-vision"). Much of this is probably available right now at Wright-Patterson AFB, but in 10 or 20 years, it should be greatly improved, and maybe even cheap enough for us. And who knows what will be available in 200 or 300 years? The bottom line is that such simulations consist of successive frames of 3-D imagery flashed fast enough to give the illusion of continuous motion. There have been some virtual-reality simulations conducted in which the subject wears display goggles, earphones, and a tactile-feedback suit. The subject walks around in a large open area like a gymnasium, experiencing a virtual world. As time goes by, these simulations should become better and better and cheaper and cheaper, and most science fiction writers expect to see them become very popular--even addictive.
The point of all this is that the reality in which we actually live our lives is very much like the steadily improving virtual reality that we're gradually inventing. We are moving down the time-axis of a four-dimensional universe that consists of a continuous series of three-dimensional "frames" or cross-sections that are ourselves and the objects around us at a succession of instants. Just like 70-mm. movie frames in an Omnimax 3-D theater film, each cross-section (three-dimensional tableau) is slightly different from the cross-sections before it and the cross-sections after it. It is these changes from frame to frame, when we zip through them, that give us the illusion of continuous motion. However, whereas a movie film is two-dimensional, and an Omnimax film uses several two-dimensional film strips simultaneously to create magnified 3-D imagery, the universe in which we live consists of a 4-D objects that we perceive as a continuous succession of full-size 3-D objects. It's our mental motion along this continuous succession of gradually changing 3-D cross-sections of 4-D objects that creates the illusion of motion. And the time axis is just like a spatial axis. What makes it unique is that,
1. For some reason, we can't see the past or the future--only the present. Being able to see only the present amounts to our being to able to see only a razor-thin window revealing what lies directly perpendicular to the time axis, but not being able to actually see anything that lies behind us or in front of us in the time direction.
2. For some reason, we're moving down the time axis rather than one of the other three axes.
3. Our speed down the time axis is fixed. We can't stop, speed up, or slow down. ("Stop the world! I want to get off!")
One of the possibilities is that you're really experiencing a super-realistic computer simulation. Maybe in some laboratory beyond our present awareness, you're hooked up neurally to "God's" computer, and the life you're experiencing, including reading this presentation, is really only a hyper-sophisticated computer simulation.
END QUOTE
Please give us an independent reference to UBT, I am unfamiliar with the term and can find no sources other than Langan.
UBT is potential for every configuration state. Those states that have their own internally consistent logics possess the ontological wherewithal to sustain their own existence.
Here is a definition of quantum "potentiality":
http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/heisenberg.htm
QUOTE:
DP: In discussing the 'collapse of the wave function' you introduced the notion of potentiality. Would you elaborate on this idea?
The question is: 'What does a wave function actually describe?' In old physics, the mathematical scheme described a system as it was, there in space and time. One could call this an objective description of the system. But in quantum theory the wave function cannot be called a description of an objective system, but rather a description of observational situations. When we have a wave function, we cannot yet know what will happen in an experiment; we must also know the experimental arrangement. When we have the wave function and the experimental arrangement for the special case considered, only then can we make predictions. So, in that sense, I like to call the wave function a description of the potentialities of the system.
DP Then the interaction with the apparatus would be a potentiality coming into actuality?
Yes.
END QUOTE
Which means that you've inserted God into the equation without establishing it first.
No, "God" is the only answer that completes the equation.
Incorrect. Any finite shape must have a boundary, although that boundary may be in a higher dimension.
You will have to talk with Stephen Hawking. He discovered the "No Boundary Principle":
http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/bot.html
QUOTE:
In fact, James Hartle of the University of California Santa Barbara, and I have proposed that space and imaginary time together, are indeed finite in extent, but without boundary. They would be like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions. The surface of the Earth is finite in extent, but it doesn't have any boundaries or edges. I have been round the world, and I didn't fall off.
If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.
END QUOTE
Not if it's infinitely converging. 1/infinity = ???
Unfounded.
Elementary calculus, limits:
Limit
x--->infinity 1/x = 0
The convergence to zero is a sensible answer.
CTMU does not escape this. Self-recursion is still recursion.
You probably have a good point here Raithere, why does potential exist, even if it is not a temporal existence in itself, how can it exist?
I have my own theory, that says total nothingness is exactly equivalent to a perfect and infinite symmetry. Therefore, there "must" be a definite probability that this infinite symmetry will spontaneously start symmetry breaking .
In that regard, my theory
is superior to the Cognitive model.
