The Perfect

[lucaspa]

I wouldn't buy a dictionary from you.

Neither would I. Michali is stretching words out of all recognition. As usual when you do this, communication becomes impossible.

 

[Michali]

let us say for simplicity that our number system starts on a one dimensional ring. you cannot stap off the ring. the ring is of finite length, and does not require a containing infinity.

Because something is finite, it is in infinite. Infinite, I believe, to be the only true constant in existence. Whatever is not infinite is in infinite. If it can be measured, it is in infinite's "parameters".

you haven't even outlined why, or for that matter how it can. you haven't even validated the necessity of an infinite yet.

I believe that I have done so in previous posts. If there is any value in an infinite reality, there will always be a value greater than it, and perhaps less than it. This implies everything can happen. If there are an infinite amount of possibilities, then there is nothing that is impossible.

epistemic, you are sticking in arbitrary qualities to something that does not even nescessarily exist.

Please note that I am only hypothesizing here. I propose that if there is an infinity, there is a Perfect. The Perfect (an ever great value) would be infinite and "above" everything in potency. I believe that it has the qualities of a being because it would be able to "top" itself in potency and control its own "actions". Some proof includes stability in existence through laws of physics, and dimensions. Such things are limits set upon an omnipotent infinity.

huh? it's existance hasn't even been necessitated yet.

I'm sorry, I thought you were confused over the use of this word. The Perfect is the value that is always greater than the greatest value in infinity. It is infinity. But saying it is something, limits it. If it be possible, it is greater than the concept of infinity. Everything is made "imperfect" in comparison to it. Perhaps even when compared to itself.

we do not nescessarily require an infinity. and say we do, the infinity does not need extra properties... say for some reason time has to be infinite... why should it have properties any different to time? it certainly does not need any other abilities.

No, but it does have qualities. For instance, time is a dimension in which matter has the capability to move through space as it progresses. As I mentioned earlier, it is difficult to say "time is infinite", because time is a limit imposed on chaotic infinity. Inifnity also has qualities, and I was only attempting to define them.

I think all you are doing is using the epistemic argument, and that is flawed.

I suppose it is epistemic, but at the time, we know very little about the First Cause and it's possible extra-universal origins. I think such an argument presents closure to questions while coinciding with proof. It should atleast be considered for development.

 

[Michali]

Neither would I. Michali is stretching words out of all recognition. As usual when you do this, communication becomes impossible.

Hahaha. Should I say, "Monkey looks."?

So you finally reveal your age, Paul?

 

[lucaspa]

I think I would just like to go ahead and state all of my proposal's plainly:
(this is lucaspa's suggestion)

1.)The infinity is a system in which the universe expands in.

2.)Infinity is omni-potent.

3.)Infinity is "perfect". Perfect, meaning it is greater than anything that is compared to it.

4.)Infinity, being perfect, can effectively top itself. Therefore imposing limitations on its own actions, rather than spontaneously performing actions of chaotic proportions. This is the attribute of a being. Infinity is a being.

5.)God is infinte.

-edit- I changed the 5th one from "Infinity is God"

Good Lord! What a mess.

1. The universe is not required to expand into anything. In fact, the data indicate that there is no system in which the universe expands into. Premise 1 down the tubes.

2. How can infinity be omnipotent? Just what can "infinity" do? In Premise 1 infinity just sits there and waits for the universe to expand. Can "infinity" part seas, heal the sick, even boil water for tea? Not according to your definition of "infinity". Premise 2 down the tubes.

3. Why are redefining "perfect"? You are making a tautology. What is the definition of 'infinity'? "3 a : the limit of the value of a function or variable when it tends to become numerically larger than any preassigned finite number " Since "infinity" already means larger than anything it is compared to, you've just said infinity is infinity. Unless you want to use the real definition of "perfect" as "unblemished" or "without flaw". But now you can't because you defined "perfect" without these qualities.

4. Infinity has no actions! Infinity is simply a passive receptacle into which the universe expands and will always be larger than the universe. It doesn't do anything! It just sits there. By your logic. Of course, by the data that type of "infinity" doesn't even exist. (Which means you've just shown in #5 that God doesn't exist.) Therefore your conclusion -- infinity is a being -- is invalid by even your own logic.

5. God doesn't exist, since there is nothing there for the universe to expand into -- going back to #1 and your definition of 'infinity'. Good job! Just proved atheism. Going to Disneyworld next?

 

[Michali]

Lucaspa, I suggest reading the entire thread before you begin quoting previos posts.

I knew that after posting so little information, I would be asked questions. Through these questions I clarified my statement.

 

[lucaspa]

If there is any value in an infinite reality,

Which begs the question whether reality is really infinite or simply Vast. Vast being a VERY large but finite number.

This implies everything can happen. If there are an infinite amount of possibilities, then there is nothing that is impossible.

We've been this route before. This does not follow. Say the universe is indeed expanding forever and will therefore be "infinite" in size. The data is clear that some things will forever be impossible in it.

I suppose it is epistemic, but at the time, we know very little about the First Cause and it's possible extra-universal origins. I think such an argument presents closure to questions while coinciding with proof. It should atleast be considered for development.

There are 5 hypotheses currently on the table for First Cause. There is insufficient data to falsify any of them.

This argument does not present closure because it is based on 1 faulty premises and 2 faulty logic.

When you say "closure" what you mean is "logical and evidential proof God exists". Sorry, don't have that. You haven't eliminated logical and mathematical necessity as being infinite. And yet it isn't God the way we think of a being that can interfere in history and communicate with humans. You haven't eliminated quantum fluctuation as being "infinite". Again, that is not "God" by our other concepts.

So, even if we take your logic as valid (which we don't) all you have done is rename whatever turns out to be First Cause "God". But in doing so you have stripped the concept of "God" of all current meaning. It's simply another way of destroying God.

Finally, closure by itself is not desirable. You need to learn to live with unanswered questions. You are like most people and want the answer and want it now. Instead, learn to wait for the data to decide. If you don't have data, keep waiting.

 

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa, I suggest reading the entire thread before you begin quoting previos posts.

I knew that after posting so little information, I would be asked questions. Through these questions I clarified my statement.

I did. It didn't help your logic or your premises. Would you care to respond?

 

[Michali]

Good Lord! What a mess.

1. The universe is not required to expand into anything. In fact, the data indicate that there is no system in which the universe expands into. Premise 1 down the tubes.

2. How can infinity be omnipotent? Just what can "infinity" do? In Premise 1 infinity just sits there and waits for the universe to expand. Can "infinity" part seas, heal the sick, even boil water for tea? Not according to your definition of "infinity". Premise 2 down the tubes.

3. Why are redefining "perfect"? You are making a tautology. What is the definition of 'infinity'? "3 a : the limit of the value of a function or variable when it tends to become numerically larger than any preassigned finite number " Since "infinity" already means larger than anything it is compared to, you've just said infinity is infinity. Unless you want to use the real definition of "perfect" as "unblemished" or "without flaw". But now you can't because you defined "perfect" without these qualities.

4. Infinity has no actions! Infinity is simply a passive receptacle into which the universe expands and will always be larger than the universe. It doesn't do anything! It just sits there. By your logic. Of course, by the data that type of "infinity" doesn't even exist. (Which means you've just shown in #5 that God doesn't exist.) Therefore your conclusion -- infinity is a being -- is invalid by even your own logic.

5. God doesn't exist, since there is nothing there for the universe to expand into -- going back to #1 and your definition of 'infinity'. Good job! Just proved atheism. Going to Disneyworld next?

1.)Please state the data that indicates the universe does not expand in an external system. And are you sure they mean anything close to the system I am speaking of? Its a mathematical necessicity to have an infinity on which finite values exist.

2.)I am proposing that the infinite Perfect, which is infinite, has omnipotency because it contains the highest potency. Nothing can acheive potency higher than it can, and if there is an infinite amount of "things" and "possibilities", these finite things are infact it, while it still surpasses them.

3.)Perfect means the same thing. It is used for comparisons. You have only stated the second meaning of the word at dictionary.com. Why did you do that?

1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.
2. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.
3. Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.
4. Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part.

1. <LI type=a>Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.
2. Accurately reproducing an original: a perfect copy of the painting.
3. Complete; thorough; utter: a perfect fool.
4. Pure; undiluted; unmixed: perfect red.
5. Excellent and delightful in all respects: a perfect day.
6. Botany. Having both stamens and pistils in the same flower; monoclinous.
7. Grammar. Of, relating to, or constituting a verb form expressing action completed prior to a fixed point of reference in time.
8. Music. Designating the three basic intervals of the octave, fourth, and fifth.

Perfect is the greatest of a pool of other things. In infinity, its greatness is almost undefinable.

4.)That is why I purposely use the Perfect term. It is infinite, and it has certain qualities because it is. Such as omnipotency.

5.)That is your assertion. I believe God (the infinite Perfect) to be the system in which the universe expands.

I hate Disney World.

 

[Michali]

Which begs the question whether reality is really infinite or simply Vast. Vast being a VERY large but finite number.


We've been this route before. This does not follow. Say the universe is indeed expanding forever and will therefore be "infinite" in size. The data is clear that some things will forever be impossible in it.



There are 5 hypotheses currently on the table for First Cause. There is insufficient data to falsify any of them.

This argument does not present closure because it is based on 1 faulty premises and 2 faulty logic.

When you say "closure" what you mean is "logical and evidential proof God exists". Sorry, don't have that. You haven't eliminated logical and mathematical necessity as being infinite. And yet it isn't God the way we think of a being that can interfere in history and communicate with humans. You haven't eliminated quantum fluctuation as being "infinite". Again, that is not "God" by our other concepts.

So, even if we take your logic as valid (which we don't) all you have done is rename whatever turns out to be First Cause "God". But in doing so you have stripped the concept of "God" of all current meaning. It's simply another way of destroying God.

Finally, closure by itself is not desirable. You need to learn to live with unanswered questions. You are like most people and want the answer and want it now. Instead, learn to wait for the data to decide. If you don't have data, keep waiting.

You must understand, that if the founding system is infinity, everyone of the First Causes is not the First Cause. Besides the mathematics one and the deity one (which these two might relate to this proposal). They are each a finite thing. It is because of infinity that they have existence. So, infinity pre-exists as a foundation for those arguments.

I did not say that the theory did provide closure, but rather that I think it could. It would need to be worked on.

Quantum Mechanics are also supposedly uncaused, but through this theory, we can see a medium that is in control of the quantum actions that occur.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Because something is finite, it is in infinite. Infinite, I believe, to be the only true constant in existence. Whatever is not infinite is in infinite. If it can be measured, it is in infinite's "parameters".

Other things may be 'constant' as well.

I'm sorry, I thought you were confused over the use of this word. The Perfect is the value that is always greater than the greatest value in infinity. It is infinity. But saying it is something, limits it. If it be possible, it is greater than the concept of infinity. Everything is made "imperfect" in comparison to it. Perhaps even when compared to itself.

So perfect is imperfect when compared to itself? This is a philosophical jigsaw puzzle...but its like none of the pieces fit together Michali.

No, but it does have qualities. For instance, time is a dimension in which matter has the capability to move through space as it progresses. As I mentioned earlier, it is difficult to say "time is infinite", because time is a limit imposed on chaotic infinity. Inifnity also has qualities, and I was only attempting to define them.

Actually, time is indistinguishable from the other space dimensions, except everything moves in one direction through it.

What is 'chaotic infinity'?

I think such an argument presents closure to questions while coinciding with proof. It should at least be considered for development.

What questions are closed with this? In what way should this be developed?

Maybe I'm missing the point Michali, but so far all I get from your posts is that the universe is expanding into infinity and perfect is greater than infinity. Where can this possibly take us?

 

[Mike Flynn]

Quantum Mechanics are also supposedly uncaused, but through this theory, we can see a medium that is in control of the quantum actions that occur.

No. Uncaused in QM means that the events are not determined (or caused) by pre-existing conditions either inside this reality or outside of it. If there is a medium that is in control of quantum events, then its safe to say that in every case, that medium has reliquished those controls and handed them over to a cosmic set of dice.

 

[lucaspa]

1.)Please state the data that indicates the universe does not expand in an external system. And are you sure they mean anything close to the system I am speaking of. Its a mathematical necessicity to have an infinity on which finite values exist.

In the last, no it's not. Take a number line from 0 - 10. That's finite. Yet you can have an infinite number of numbers between these finite limits. So now you not only have finite in finite, but infinite in finite.

Read A Brief History of Time. There literally was nothing before the universe. No space, no time, no matter, no energy.

2.)I am proposing that the infinite Perfect, which is infinite, has omnipotency because it contains the highest potency.

What "potency"? And here again your are simply using "Perfect" as another way of saying "infinity". I'm not playing that shell game. You defined "perfect" as being "infinite". I am not going to go with your double use of both the old and your new definition combined. Your Infinite, which is the system the universe is expanding into, does NOTHING. It has no way to affect anything in the universe. It just sits there and has the universe expand into it.

To get to anything, you have to first propose a being. You can't conclude a being from your premises. Because there is nothing in your premises to give you any action. So now you are in circular logic assuming the existence of the very entity you are trying to prove.

3.)Perfect means the same thing. It is used for comparisons. You have only stated the second meaning of the word at dictionary.com. Why did you do that?

Because the second definition of "infinity" is the one that corresponded to what you were saying. I didn't use the definition of "perfect" at all.

You are implying the second definition of "perfect" but your explicit definition doesn't include it. Instead of corrupting an existing word with its connotations (you do believe God is perfect as in without defect, right?), instead define a brand new term. Call it "Fin". The fin is the complete system containing both the universe and what it is supposedly expanding into. The Fin is complete and whole. And whatever else you want to add.

Perfect is the greatest of a pool of other things. In infinity, its greatness is almost undefinable.

Now you are passing judgements. "Greatness" is not an objective criteria. What is "greatness" used here?

4.)That is why I purposely use the Perfect term. It is infinite, and it has certain qualities because it is. Such as omnipotency.

This is a complete duck. Please show how Infinite has omnipotency. My objection was that Infinite as defined in #1 didn't have any actions or ability to act. You haven't countered that. Let me re-post so you can address the argument:
4. Infinity has no actions! Infinity is simply a passive receptacle into which the universe expands and will always be larger than the universe. It doesn't do anything! It just sits there. By your logic. Of course, by the data that type of "infinity" doesn't even exist. (Which means you've just shown in #5 that God doesn't exist.) Therefore your conclusion -- infinity is a being -- is invalid by even your own logic.

5.)That is your assertion.

That's following your logic. Since your entire logic for God's existence is based on the universe having something to expand into, and since that "something" doesn't exist, then the logical conclusion is that God doesn't exist.

I believe God (the infinite Perfect) to be the system in which the universe expands.

I know what you believe, but you stated this belief as a premise to your argument that God actually exists! See the circularity here: God exists because it is the system into which the universe expands and the universe expands into a system because I believe God to be the system into which the universe expands. You go in circles.

So, the whole circle depends on the premise being right. All attempts by you to establish that premise fail and the data from physics says it isn't there.

Even if you get multiple universes as in multiple 4 D universes in a larger space, that still begs whether there is a system larger than the multiverse.

It is the existence of that larger system which is your article of faith. Dress it up however you want, but it is still faith. It is not the "proof" or closure you claim. Instead of faith in God you have substituted faith in the existence of the "system".

A rose by another name ... You just gave your faith a different name.

 

[lucaspa]

You must understand, that if the founding system is infinity, everyone of the First Causes is not the First Cause. Besides the mathematics one and the deity one (which these two might relate to this proposal). They are each a finite thing.

No Boundary doesn't really need to be infinite. It simply skirts the issue and says the universe IS. No beginning. Just existence. A completely closed system.

Quantum fluctuation has it that the energy borrowed can be infinite. Infinite in both positive and negative so that they cancel out and you have no net energy. So even by your definition it fits.

In ekpyrotic, the branes could be infinite in extent. I haven't seen a limit placed on them. So I don't see where you eliminated any of them.

It is because of infinity that they have existence.

Empty assertion. Your faith again.

Quantum Mechanics are also supposedly uncaused, but through this theory, we can see a medium that is in control of the quantum actions that occur.

Mike is right. Heisenberg Uncertainty says it is impossible to know. Not possible within the universe and not possible by anything outside the universe. Just not possible. Period. In looking at radioactive decay, there really is no cause for which individual atom will decay next. And your idea doesn't provide one. Your asssertion that there is a medium in control doesn't follow from what you have said.

Again, you haven't established that a passive system that simply exists for the universe to expand into has any capability of action within the universe. When are you going to establish that?

 

[Michali]

Ok, I've gotta go see a movie tonight. I'll respond later, because people are getting me misunderstood here. Its hard to find words for this stuff.

But heres a thought:

Infinity- the system

Perfect- the Logos and the being aspect (because of its infinite nature)

These are to seperate the two terms. I now see what lucaspa's talking about. Infinity (the system) is not omni potent. The Perfect (the ever-great value and constant medium) is, and thats because it fills the system's parameters.

 

[Michali]

In the last, no it's not. Take a number line from 0 - 10. That's finite. Yet you can have an infinite number of numbers between these finite limits. So now you not only have finite in finite, but infinite in finite.

Read A Brief History of Time. There literally was nothing before the universe. No space, no time, no matter, no energy.


What "potency"? And here again your are simply using "Perfect" as another way of saying "infinity". I'm not playing that shell game. You defined "perfect" as being "infinite". I am not going to go with your double use of both the old and your new definition combined. Your Infinite, which is the system the universe is expanding into, does NOTHING. It has no way to affect anything in the universe. It just sits there and has the universe expand into it.

To get to anything, you have to first propose a being. You can't conclude a being from your premises. Because there is nothing in your premises to give you any action. So now you are in circular logic assuming the existence of the very entity you are trying to prove.



Because the second definition of "infinity" is the one that corresponded to what you were saying. I didn't use the definition of "perfect" at all.

You are implying the second definition of "perfect" but your explicit definition doesn't include it. Instead of corrupting an existing word with its connotations (you do believe God is perfect as in without defect, right?), instead define a brand new term. Call it "Fin". The fin is the complete system containing both the universe and what it is supposedly expanding into. The Fin is complete and whole. And whatever else you want to add.



Now you are passing judgements. "Greatness" is not an objective criteria. What is "greatness" used here?




This is a complete duck. Please show how Infinite has omnipotency. My objection was that Infinite as defined in #1 didn't have any actions or ability to act. You haven't countered that. Let me re-post so you can address the argument:
4. Infinity has no actions! Infinity is simply a passive receptacle into which the universe expands and will always be larger than the universe. It doesn't do anything! It just sits there. By your logic. Of course, by the data that type of "infinity" doesn't even exist. (Which means you've just shown in #5 that God doesn't exist.) Therefore your conclusion -- infinity is a being -- is invalid by even your own logic.


That's following your logic. Since your entire logic for God's existence is based on the universe having something to expand into, and since that "something" doesn't exist, then the logical conclusion is that God doesn't exist.


I know what you believe, but you stated this belief as a premise to your argument that God actually exists! See the circularity here: God exists because it is the system into which the universe expands and the universe expands into a system because I believe God to be the system into which the universe expands. You go in circles.

So, the whole circle depends on the premise being right. All attempts by you to establish that premise fail and the data from physics says it isn't there.

Even if you get multiple universes as in multiple 4 D universes in a larger space, that still begs whether there is a system larger than the multiverse.

It is the existence of that larger system which is your article of faith. Dress it up however you want, but it is still faith. It is not the "proof" or closure you claim. Instead of faith in God you have substituted faith in the existence of the "system".

A rose by another name ... You just gave your faith a different name.

The primary problem I was having was, I was not defining my "Perfect" and "infinity" entities well enough. The truth is, I did not want to admit that my proposal made God a subject to a system. That was my problem, and I couldn't help but dodge it until I figured it out. But thats theology, and that should come later.

But, here is the thing about that- any infinity must have the Perfect, and vice versa. The number line (infinity) is the system in which the Perfect (infinite value) exists. One does not pre-exist the other. They have to be together.

Great is used like the mathematical use for "greater than". Whatever value at all, whether that be anything, the Perfect is greater than it.

Here, consider this: There is infinity and everything is occuring instantaneously. There is everything existing in there. Well, whatever is in there (because it is in infinity), there is something doing that exact same thing but "greater" (in any sense). The Perfect is greater than any and everything in existence. This includes being capable of hindering something from being, or occuring. It is the greatest at this, and can even hinder itself. And also, since there is a being in there, it is the "greatest" type of being. "Greatest" can be used in any manner so long as it is "more than".

Now, until there is time, this is all instantaneuos: Infinity exists-> everything exists -> the Perfect cancells everything out that it "chooses" to. Instantly we have "the Perfect sets limits". Instantly, infinity is divided (limited) by the Perfect to create order. Bang! The universe (the order) is expanding (growing in all values) towards its parameters at the speed at which it is limited to (the speed of light).

In your first paragraph, you mentioned the infinitely divisble. You state that since it is infinitely divisble, it is both finite and infinite. I don't believe that can be related to the real world, because I am trespassing infinite parameters every time I do anything. There must be an indivisable unit to prove the universe is not infinite.

 

[Michali]

No Boundary doesn't really need to be infinite. It simply skirts the issue and says the universe IS. No beginning. Just existence. A completely closed system.

Quantum fluctuation has it that the energy borrowed can be infinite. Infinite in both positive and negative so that they cancel out and you have no net energy. So even by your definition it fits.

In ekpyrotic, the branes could be infinite in extent. I haven't seen a limit placed on them. So I don't see where you eliminated any of them.


Empty assertion. Your faith again.


Mike is right. Heisenberg Uncertainty says it is impossible to know. Not possible within the universe and not possible by anything outside the universe. Just not possible. Period. In looking at radioactive decay, there really is no cause for which individual atom will decay next. And your idea doesn't provide one. Your asssertion that there is a medium in control doesn't follow from what you have said.

Again, you haven't established that a passive system that simply exists for the universe to expand into has any capability of action within the universe. When are you going to establish that?

Woops, I thought that the mathematical one was the Quantum Fluctuations one. Well then all three of these could be related (math, QF, deity.) The other two may not be. To tell you the truth: I do not know enough about them to say anything, but, if they have dimensions as a "just existing" system, it would be incompatible with the infinite. The infinite is unbound, and dimensions are limits on chaos. The infinite would have to come before these two things did.

Now that we have established a seperation from the Perfect and the infinite system in which it exists in, I will say something about the medium. The entire infinite system is filled (or even one with) the Perfect. The Perfect remains constant and fixed because of this. Everything is in it. Now, QM leads me to believe that it would be possible that my entire arm would pop out of existence. Or an anvil would suddenly appear above my head. It is claimed to be unpredictable and uncertain. But how is it so stable? How is it not chaotic? It is because the Perfect maintains every bit of it. My arm makes it to my shoe laces because it is kept stable by the Perfect. I hardly know anything about QM, I might be wrong.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Now, QM leads me to believe that it would be possible that my entire arm would pop out of existence. Or an anvil would suddenly appear above my head. It is claimed to be unpredictable and uncertain. But how is it so stable? How is it not chaotic? It is because the Perfect maintains every bit of it. My arm makes it to my shoe laces because it is kept stable by the Perfect. I hardly know anything about QM, I might be wrong.

It *is* chaotic...just not on the macroscopic scale. The way it works is like this: if you look at an infinitessimally small region of space, then you will notice quantum fluctuations. In order to observe them on a macroscopic scale, you would need to have billions of fluctuations occuring in a small space simultaneously over an extended time interval. This is *incredibly unlikely* but not impossible. For your anvil to appear above your head we'd probably have to wait around for something like a billions of times the age of the universe in order to see 1 event like this....even so it would probably pop-out just as quickly as it popped in (you might never even notice it).

The laws of physics are quite clear. Macroscopic order arises from the fact that QM 'wierdness' cancels itself whenever multiple particles are considered together. We are left to contend with the familiar newtonian mechanics (or to be picky...'Einsteinian' Mechanics from GR). If it is being kept stable by 'the perfect', then there is no physics to back you up here. I suppose you could say that the laws of physics were instilled by the perfect to be like this...but how is that different from 'faith'?

 

[Michali]

It *is* chaotic...just not on the macroscopic scale. The way it works is like this: if you look at an infinitessimally small region of space, then you will notice quantum fluctuations. In order to observe them on a macroscopic scale, you would need to have billions of fluctuations occuring in a small space simultaneously over an extended time interval. This is *incredibly unlikely* but not impossible. For your anvil to appear above your head we'd probably have to wait around for something like a billions of times the age of the universe in order to see 1 event like this....even so it would probably pop-out just as quickly as it popped in (you might never even notice it).

The laws of physics are quite clear. Macroscopic order arises from the fact that QM 'wierdness' cancels itself whenever multiple particles are considered together. We are left to contend with the familiar newtonian mechanics (or to be picky...'Einsteinian' Mechanics from GR). If it is being kept stable by 'the perfect', then there is no physics to back you up here. I suppose you could say that the laws of physics were instilled by the perfect to be like this...but how is that different from 'faith'?

This is absolutely beautiful. It is true that I know very little about QM, but what you have told me seems to be (in my opinion) a complete coincidence to the Perfect theory.

Now all we have to do is explain why the laws of physics exist (if that is possible). I believe they are limits on chaos. That they are laws binding infinity.

Now I see that it is in the large and the small. If so, maybe we all exist in an infinitly dividable value. This would give rise to the Perfect being the line that the assymptote will never reach. The line implies a definite value. Such as "1" rather than the indefinite "infinity".

Perhaps the universe is expanding in infinity, but infinitly both ways. In and out.

 

[Philosoft]

The laws of physics are quite clear. Macroscopic order arises from the fact that QM 'wierdness' cancels itself whenever multiple particles are considered together. We are left to contend with the familiar newtonian mechanics (or to be picky...'Einsteinian' Mechanics from GR). If it is being kept stable by 'the perfect', then there is no physics to back you up here. I suppose you could say that the laws of physics were instilled by the perfect to be like this...but how is that different from 'faith'?

Is this talking about quantum decoherence? I'm just now opening that can-o-worms.

 

[fungle]

Was that incoherence?