The amount of variation might be large or small - it is the system involved is so impossibly complex to deal with practically].
Put in these terms, it all is beginning to make perfect sense. Practically speaking, I mean. Things are just so impossibly complex. Leave true thinking for those so equipped.
A
Stands for all possibilities, absolute, authority, affluence, and, abundance. The true nature of our ground state and that of the universe is that it is a field of all possibilities. In our most primordial form, we are a field of all possibilities. From this level it is possible to create anything. This filed is our own essential nature. It is our inner self. It is also called the absolute, and it is the ultimate authority. It is intrinsically affluent because it gives rise to the infinite diversity and abundance of the universe.
The question that has intrigued great thinkers: “are life and mind irrelevant to the structure of the universe, or are they central to it?” Are we living in a “participatory,” conscious universe, a cosmos in which all of us are embedded as co-creators?
The question becomes mute for those who believe purely in the material, anything metaphysical nonexistent. But for those of us who recognize consciousness, the ultimate question is one of a shared experience or not? If so- all this stuff floating about becomes a lot less random.
"If we were living in a different Universe to this one and that Universe had no randomness, then by definition it would be possible to accurately predict the moves in a game of chess before it had been played."
the problem is that determinism is not about the ability to predict. that's where you confuse terms from your own field with those in philosophy. lets assume for a moment that our universe is deterministic. (as defined below). the results of the game are going to be fixed ahead, but you still incapable of making any predictions about the game because QM wont allow it. lets take one bite at a time.. do we agree on this? we should, because i only stated the facts.
Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.
"If we were living in a different Universe to this one and that Universe had no randomness, then by definition it would be possible to accurately predict the moves in a game of chess before it had been played."
the problem is that determinism is not about the ability to predict.
It is about the ability to predict given sufficient information. "Predict" being a term meaning inference of some information from other information.
that's where you confuse terms from your own field with those in philosophy. lets assume for a moment that our universe is deterministic. (as defined below). the results of the game are going to be fixed ahead, but you still incapable of making any predictions about the game because QM wont allow it.
QM is incompatible with determinism, with only very mild and reasonable assumptions.
lets take one bite at a time.. do we agree on this? we should, because i only stated the facts.
Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.
Yes. So if you had that information about the past, the future state would be implied by it, by "natural law".
To be very thorough, there are two ways that this might not mean practical predictability. The first is that some of the necessary information about past state is absolutely inaccessible. This can be described as "hidden variables". The other (really pedantic?) is that the process of inference is impractically difficult. The latter is usually ignored and it is reasonable to do so. One reason is that the prediction does not have to be made in a timely manner: rather the past information can be collected, the inference done at leisure and then the result compared to the actual event (which may now have long passed). It is important to the scientific method that this is legitimate: what matters is the flow of information.
So, if we are happy to not worry about practical complexity of inference, we need only be concerned about hidden variables. The key result from physics is that such hidden variables cannot explain experimental results if they are causal. If they are not causal, all of scientific inference (including falsifiability and all statistical inference) is unreliable, so very few people are willing to consider that as a possibility.
Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law. -sillver1
Yes. So if you had that information about the past, the future state would be implied by it, by "natural law". -Elroch
It’s a true art form, the rewriting. What was really meant is explained - and handily agreed upon !
my cyberdonut is bogota colombia.. almost there, im counting on your spells : )
so. how did u meet her ?...online ?
The dictionary definition is too imprecise for this context, IMO. To clarify, I meant "implied" here in the sense of logic. Some information can be deduced from other information, without any uncertainty.
The question that has intrigued great thinkers: “are life and mind irrelevant to the structure of the universe, or are they central to it?” Are we living in a “participatory,” conscious universe, a cosmos in which all of us are embedded as co-creators?
The question becomes mute for those who believe purely in the material, anything metaphysical nonexistent. But for those of us who recognize consciousness, the ultimate question is one of a shared experience or not? If so- all this stuff floating about becomes a lot less random.
When pondering on this it's worth bearing in mind the four and a half billion years of the history of planet Earth before humans existed (mostly with only primitive life), and the further nine billion years or so when the Earth and its life did not exist.
Well, when A has long pre-existed B, it is safe to say A's structure does not come from B.
I'm very intrigued to see how this forum has evolved since the last time I posted.
"so. how did u meet her ?" i wish. my stepbrother lives there and its one of those things i want to do once my thing is over. your touch is a rare quality in this strange place..
"I'm very intrigued to see how this forum has evolved since the last time I posted." nothing changed : )
B
Stands for better and best. Evolution implies getting better and better in every way with time, ultimately getting for ourselves the best of everything. People with wealth consciousness settle only for the best. This is also called the principle of highest first. Go first class all the way and the universe will respond by giving you the best.
Nice speech. Telling us what is best and all. Randomly made up. Perhaps debate evolution in E’s thread- implies getting better overtime??? (Evolution makes no reference to the term “better”.) You make it sound as if the U has set a mandate fit with your interpretation of religious agenda. All rather deterministic. The preaching is best left for the experts on Sunday morning ... oh wait a sec 🛎
every single legal game of chess (to be precise, an infinite number of branches for each of them)
uhh, wrongoloid. u have "ervis precisely" (20) moves on move one for white. and black has a finite # of responses. and short draws are legal games.