Write4U:
Wow. So much added bullshit, in such a short time. I see you're floundering around, looking for excuses, backing off your original claims and making new ones that are just as silly as the first bunch. Even when you're confronted with scientific facts, you can't bring yourself to admit you didn't know something; instead, you have to invent rationalisations and try to distract with one irrelevancy after another.
I think I'll just respond in the order you posted things, even though it will mean that several topics recur. In some cases, you directly contradict yourself from one post to the next. I think you lack the ability to focus. And the ability to answer a straight question. Instead, you duck and weave and pretend. Why, Write4U? Why?
I should not have to answer questions that are common knowledge.
Your idea of "common knowledge" is your own. You're way out on a limb with your beliefs. If I ask you a straightforward question, it is often to try to establish what it is that you actually believe. I know you find this annoying, because it constrains your ability to flip-flop when things get difficult in the conversation. What I am trying to get you to do is to focus long enough on one thing to allow you to start to see the inconsistencies, the contradictions and the sheer stupidity of some of your claims. But you seem to have blinkers on, which just stop you from taking in anything that isn't already part of your religion. You're practically fact-proof.
1."there" is no outside the universe. But there is a timeless, dimensionless condition that permits the expanding universe, in whatever way that expansion is expressed.
Where is this "timeless, dimensionless condition" of yours? Is it just a
concept, or does it exist somewhere?
2. The terms are named "enfolded" as unexpressed potentials, and "unfolded" as manifest physical pattern.
What is the process that turns an "unexpressed potential" into a "manifest physical pattern"?
Can you describe
one specific example in which an "unexpressed potential" is "unfolded" into a "manifest physical pattern"? I want to see, for example, how a "mathematical function" can turn into a butterfly or a star or a turnip.
3. The fractal patterns that created all the geometrical properties of the universe.
The question I asked you was "What's a 'fractal unfolding'? Can I do a fractal unfolding of a bed sheet, say? What would that look like, and how would it differ from a regular unfolding?"
Can you answer the question I asked you? Or can you not answer it?
Yes, the double slit experiment clearly shows the interference patterns of the pilot wave the photon rides on.
....
Here is your Pilot wave interference pattern as it passes through the double slits.
The question I asked you was "Is the field due to the pilot waves directly detectable?"
Bohmian Conditional Wave Functions (and the status of the quantum state) Travis Norsen Physics Dept., Smith College, Northampton, MA 01063, USA E-mail:
tnorsen@smith.edu Abstract.
Relevance to what I asked: zero.
If the pattern is describable in relational terms it has "value".
I don't know what that means. What does a description in "relational terms" look like? Please give a specific example, and explain what you mean by "relational terms".
Complex patterns often are describable by their emergent properties above and beyond the sum of the constituent parts.
Please give a specific example of such a description.
Question to you: What do you think is the property that sets different particles from each other?
There are lots of properties we can use to distinguish different particles. They include mass, charge, spin, and others.
This, by the way, is an example of how one can briefly and succinctly answer a direct question. Please learn from this.
Well, you are arguing from that perspective aren't you? Else why should you have objection to Bohmian Mechanics? (a real contender!)
Did I say I have an objection to Bohmian mechanics?
What is it a "contender" for? Is there a competition going on?
So, you would entertain the possibility of reversing the equation and consider the quantum event being an event independent from but causal to observation.
What I asked you was: "What are you talking about when you say "result before cause"? What result came before the thing that caused it? And how could a wave function collapse
cause an observation?"
Why didn't you answer the question I asked you, Write4U?
After you answer the question I asked you, we'll find out whether I will entertain your idea of events causing observations. I don't hold out high hopes for that idea at present.
