The philosophy of Quantum Wave Cosmology is that the universe is an eternal sameness of endlessly changing energy density across infinite and infinitesimal space and time where limits and thresholds govern processes that assure the perpetual existence of intelligent contemplative individuals among which are those who suspect and seek confirmation of an eternal transcendent immanence* through faith and trust that acknowledgment can be abundantly received and through which individual purpose can emerge from humble contemplation and meditation on the nature of being done with the conviction that the universe is as it should be and could be no other way. *A universal and eternal sum of all energy that manifests in all aspects of the physical universe and transcends to the realm of energy density that perpetually occupies all space and that maintains one connected eternal presence in nature from which individuals can seek acknowledgment and with which they can seek oneness.
I'll distill it down : The philosophy of QWC is q_w invents his own narrative of how the universe is without heed to experiments, models or the scientific method.
Wow... That's much easier than hard work and brain straining! Hey! I got a great idea! Let's all do what HE said!
Maybe this phrase was the start of the big words used improperly so as to come out as gibberish in your view: "an eternal sameness of endlessly changing energy density"? First of all, you being a transplant from BAUT where we seemed to tolerate each other (I was Bogie as you may recall from the "Quantum Wave Cosmology" threads there), you seem to have jumped in with an attitude that you don't have to be specific here at SciForums, you can just toss out mindless generalities and act like you were so smart and the target (my post) has no thought behind the words. My approach has always been different. I try to understand what someone is saying before I act so superior. I am interested in what the universe might be like beyond the scientific consensus and that is what QWC is about. It is not proved and tested science, it is speculation about what the answers might be to questions science cannot answer. For AN to say I disregard the scientific method is incorrect. I am speculating and if you don't consider that part of the scientific method then you don't understand the scientific method. For AN to say I make up narrative is insincere. I speculate based on what science does know and starting from where science leaves off. I am not disregarding any experiments because the things that science does not know are not tested and proved by experiments. AN approaches my speculation from the standpoint that I have no quantification, no proof, no testable hypotheses, and so he says I have nothing. Yet he has never been able to show that my speculations are not reasonably and responsibly connected to departure points in the accepted scientific consensus. He calls anything that cannot be quantified or tested fairy tales and offers ad homs to describe us who employ speculation. I used to return his flames but now I just let him be. (Note the halo on my avatar Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) I used to look like this: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "An eternal sameness of endlessly changing energy density" is right from my various threads about Quantum Wave Cosmology. "Eternal" refers to one of the axioms of QWC, i.e. the universe has always existed. I start with that assumption as part of my personal view. I can't prove it and you can't prove otherwise. It is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or at least subject to necessary decision, a starting point for my speculations. "Eternal sameness" refers to the characteristic of an eternal universe that operates through repeated processes, the natural laws of physics. Keep in mind that in QWC the universe is greater than the known observable expanding universe of Big Bang Theory. The QWC universe is composed of a potentially infinite landscape of arenas and processes in which our known expanding universe equates to a single active arena. The "sameness" refers to the invariant laws of nature and in QWC I speculate from the basis that the physics are the same across all arenas. Those of you familiar with QWC know that I view each arena to be the result of the intersection and overlap of "parent" arenas where gravity over takes expansion to cause galactic matter to collapse and so big crunches result from the overlap of two arenas. I speculate that our expanding arena was preceded by a big crunch. "Endlessly changing energy density" is a reference to the speculation that the universe is composed of energy. Energy can be quantized and unquantized. Matter, the physical "stuff" of the universe is composed of energy in quantum increments and quantization of energy is one of the processes that I speculate about in my threads about QWC. Quantized energy exists within a range of energy density and so the reference to "changing energy density". If the energy density of matter changes too much, the matter ceases to function and is negated to unquantized energy. That occurs under the heat and pressure of a big crunch. So the phrase, "an eternal sameness of endlessly changing energy density", isn't really big words misapplied, and I hope that I have been able to resolve some the "gibberish" by this explanation.
That's STILL gibberish. How about, "A chaotic pattern of eternal finite oneness"? Not a transplant. A refuge. Finally earned my Banned from BAUT badge. I wear it with pride. "beams" BOGIE!!! Damn good to see ya, boy! Tolerate, my lilly white butt. Admit it, brother, you loved me like family even if I did deign to suggest you speculate responsiblePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! LoL ok... anyway... Don't be so defensive. What you typed was gibberish. Slinging ad homs at me just because I pointed out an aspect you don't like doesn't change the fact you used Big Words that don't even apply in the sentences. You, having familiarity with me, should be well aware that I WILL buckle down with books if necessary to get as specific as you want. You should ALSO remember that I'm aware (shamefully) of my intellectual limitations. That op is not speculation. That OP was a jumble of wiggle worms. Maybe leaving BAUT wasn't your best tactical move. I never recall you posting such haphazard stuff there... At least you were kept in check with your mind pitted against those smarter than both of us that could address inconsistencies. I remember you well enough to vouch for the times you're quite scientific. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There is a limit as to how far this can go. 'Science' doesn't test, observe or experiment with purple three headed Moon Dragons, either. But speculating about them would still be an act of futility. I don't disagree with the principle of speculation. After-all, that is how scientists raise questions that they can test. But speculation must still fall within the grounds of observational reality. In that case, he is correct. Well, you know I will be happy to discuss it with ya to the best of my ability. This assumption is in disregard with the standard model of cosmology. In the standard model, the Universe is roughly 13 billion years old. I recall that on BAUT, you did some speculating about pre-big bang physics... This is quite a step away from that... I can provide a heck of a lot of evidence otherwise! Again, the problem lies with the QWC universe, as you call it, failing to match current observation. If you're speculating responsibly, you should be examining how to account for observation- not just dismissing it offhand. Gravity is overwhelming against expansion. This is why expansion can only be observed in the large spaces between galaxies and galactic clusters. How do you account for this Gravity caused big crunch? Where does all this mass come from and where does it go? Ok. No, you haven't. I hope I was able to shed some light on why it's gibberish and where the major big fat holes are. In the meantime, it's good to see ya. Kinda like running into your old college friend/rival at a bar trying to mack on the same girl or something. I'll buy ya a beerPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
OK, we were sorta friends, but family ... I'm not so sure :bugeye:. Still can't be specific can you. I admit it, but you came in at the end of the dance. That doesn't make sense to me. We cannot be friends if you think he is correct about that Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Otherwise what? You have evidence that there was no "before" the big bang? What doesn't it match? What am I dismissing off hand? Energy has always existed and is infinite in amount as a given in QWC. Matter is composed of energy in quantum increments. You did but I didn't really expect that my OP would cover my philosophy in 100 words. I wasn't intending this thread to be a rehashing of QWC; that is all on the record in my other threads. This thread marks my departure from presenting QWC and represents my move into my view of philosophy. You have two years of threads to catch up on but I would say don't bother knowing now that you are not open to speculation that goes beyond the standard cosmology. That is all QWC is, speculation that starts where the standard cosmology leaves off. I agree that the OP was gibberish; and on top of that you are not familiar with the other threads where I have discussed the cosmology. In the shortest possible recap, this is about the philosophy of a universe that has always existed, is infinite in space, time and energy, where entropy is defeated by perpetual processes that maintain the potentially infinite arena landscape on a grand scale, and that establish the presence of mass and gravity in the quantum realm, and by defeating entropy the arena landscape is perpetual and therefore it provides a potentially infinite number of hospitable environments where life is generated by an iterative process and once it gets a foothold it evolves and eventually produces intelligent beings who contemplate the universe :itold:. It is not your standard cosmology. There is a philosophical aspect to it that I want to discuss, at least to the extent that I explain the big misused words and gibberish from the OP. If you want to look at the current status of my write up about QWC (a work in progress at best) you can go here but this thread is about the philosophy that I have purposefully made into one long imponderable sentence of exactly 100 words in the OP as a discussion starter. I have discussed the first part of the 100 words in my last post for you. I'm talking philosophy on this thread and if you want to discuss my view of cosmology we can do that on another thread. Good to have you over here; too bad I'm pretty much wrapping things up here. I not looking to try to convince you about anything and after I get the philosophy bit out of my system I am going to make everyone happy by not having much more to say about QWC here.
Bogie wuvs me Bogie wuvs me Bogie wuvs me Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I was specific later in my post. I can't spell out everything about everything in one freaking post. Come on, now... End of the... !!! My post was the second one of this thread! << ETA: Yeah, yeah-- I got it later.. I'm assuming you mean the part where I said that speculation must fall within observational reality. Note in my post how I pointed out places in your hypothesis that contradict observation. You must be able to account for these contradictions, either by modifying your hypothesis into a working theory or demonstrating strongly that our observations are incorrect. ETA: Or by showing if I misunderstood you. Can too. Bite me. I can provide evidence that the current Universe has not always been here eternal. It appears that you are dismissing things offhand when you refer to the universe as eternal- etc. Always existed? Try using smaller words. Might be able to squeeze more in. See... Telling me that I'm not open to something just pisses me off. That's a cop out on your part and I'm sure you know it. Yes, I recall your speculations on BAUT. Here's MY point: If no one runs circles around your speculations that how can you maintain any level of accuracy? "My speculations cover what science cannot observe." This can apply to people talking about ghosts, goblins, fairies, gnomes... You seem to want to stay more grounded than to venture off into fairyland and I respect that. However, there are SOME observations in cosmology and it would make your speculating a lot more open to reading if you could demonstrate some accuracy to what we DO see. Otherwise, it's just a runaway train. Speculating and going off the deep end is an enjoyable thing to do. It's why people watch Star Trek in spite of it's extremely horrible, despicable, inaccurate, nonsensical gibberish it tries to pass off as science. 'Cuz it's fun. I disagree with this premise. My lack of familiarity with your wording is no excuse. You should be capable of presenting a tangible synopsis of your hypothesis at any time, without having to rely on "expressions you invented for your hypothesis." See? Easy. That wasn't gibberish. It wasn't cluttered with big sounding words and stuff that doesn't make sense. It was clear, concise and to the point. Ok, it doesn't defend the idea, but as an OP, it didn't NEED to. Very well- carry on. YOU SUCK!!
Let's get the use of the word "universe" settled. The universe is everything there is, which includes everything that we observe and anything we can't observe. If you want to refer to the known observable expanding universe, why not either call it our arena as I do in the lexicon of QWC, or refer to it as the extended Hubble volume that includes the observable portion of the universe plus any portion that is casually connected to the Big Bang. Anything that exists that is not connected to the Big Bang is outside of our arena but still part of the universe. Can you live with that? No, I'm not. Like what? Yes, that is one of the axioms of QWC. You don't have to like it but if you want to understand the QWC speculations, you have to consider that a basic speculation. OK, if will from now on. But point out a few of the words you want me to replace with shorter words Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. How are ghosts and fairies connected to a departure point in the standard cosmology? No way I pay attention to people who can't distinguish between wild or idle fantasy and reasonable and responsible speculation. I'll repeat, there is a big difference between fantasy and responsible speculation. OK, thanks. You have just accepted the first 41 words of the 100 word OP gibberish. The next 14 words are, "among which are those who suspect and seek confirmation of an eternal transcendent immanence". Any of that you think needs to be explained? No more sweet talk I see. This thread will complete my views about the universe, infinity, life and philosophy as far as SciForums is concerned. I might go back and do a thread at BAUT in the Against the Mainstream forum for the fun of it. How long is your ban?
You're speculating on something which you have no knowledge of. If you're given a bunch of experimental results then you can then speculate as to how they all fit together, that's fine. If you simply guess the results without anything to justify your guesses then its a waste of time. At least when you have information about a system you know what your speculation should lead to. If you have no information and no understanding then what is the point? This is not true. You can't speculate on something based in science since you don't know any. Reading pop science websites is so far from reading about actual science its not even funny. Furthermore since you don't know even known science its silly to think you can build on it. How can you speculate 'beyond where science leave off' about things like the expansion of the universe when you don't know what GR says about the expansion or what experiments/observations are relevant. You don't base your ideas on observations/experiments or current models. You're basing it on nothing but the most superficial of information gleened from layperson websites. You don't disregard any experiments before you don't regard them as being heed-worthy in the first place. And your statement is false anyway. If you're talking about expansion of the universe then you should have devised experimental signatures. For instance, the CMB power spectrum is an effect which depends on manner of space-time expansion in any GR based theory hence its a falsifiable idea. Furthermore if you only consider things which science cannot then tautologically you're just making up stuff which can never be examined or tested. So what is the point if you can't connect it to reality? Given your 'work' fails by any and all standards of 'science' I would say my comments are valid. Superficial drivel is, by construction, hard to refute because you never say anything clear and precise. Anyone can come up with a few pages of made up nonsense which seems, at a glance, related in some way to some mainstream research area. And besides, its not up to me to falsify your claims, its up to you to justify them. The very fact your claims are unfalsifiable by having no connection to anything measurable in science demonstrates that it is not science and thus not worth any attention from anyone who actually does science. You make no prrecise predictions and you consider things which can never be examined, directly or indirectly. The whole 'fairies' thing is to demonstrate how vapid your claims are. Its like when people who believe in God try to use some sequence of logic with concludes "And therefore God exists". If you can replace "God" with "Giant bunny rabbit" or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" then the argument is worthless since if it 'proves' the existence of anything then it proves the existence of nothing. Your work is like that. You throw around phrases like "An eternal sameness of endlessly changing energy density" but you don't precisely define what they are. Guest tried to get you to formally define what energy was in your work but you couldn't. You didn't even grasp the whole issue of giving definitions of such things. In your work I could replace "An eternal sameness of endlessly changing energy density" with "An oscillating phase through a charged membrane" or any other buzzword filled sound bite and it would be just as valid as your 'work'. Thus your work is worthless since it is indistinguishable from random guesses. If you died tomorrow no one could continue QWC because there's no logic to it, its just random guesses. How can you be sure your guesses are valid? You can't. In any other area of physics if you separately give 2 people the same postulates they'll go away and work out the same theory. If your work can't pass this test then its worthless. This isn't some personal view or me being picky its a fundamental tenant of science and logic. Get off your high horse. Speculation is an essential part of science. If you went into any physics research department in universities and asked the researchers you'd find that they all have plenty of speculative ideas on this or that but all of them will have some reason for those ideas be it tentative experimental/observational evidence or some mathematical structure within the theory. Random unjustified uninformed speculation where the speculator is deliberately ignorant of relevant information is not science. It's faith based on incredulity. Its still vapid even after your attempt to explain. Like I said, Guest tried to get you to define energy and you couldn't. And you're hardly using 'big words'. If you actually looked in the literature you'd realise just how poor your wording is. Define energy. Define energy density. Define its time dependent parameters. Define its dynamics. Justify how you obtained such dynamics. No doubt you'll just say I'm asking quantitative questions blah blah blah. In the research community you don't start talking about the wide ranging properties of systems unless you've got a clear definition of what you're talking about and you're able to provide justification for why you're approaching it the way you are. Physicists make an hypothesis, work through to its implications, compare with experiment, refine or rework areas which need improving, compare again, refine some more, compare it with other people's work, write out a lengthy and well documented description of the theory, the methods, the experiments and open problems, send it to a journal, provide further justification to any areas the reviewer might have issue with and then announce their work. You just jump to the end and make claims about an unmeasurable, untestable idea which has no logical development and you can't even describe properly. If you had ever bothered to learn any physics you'd know just how far from it you are.
Yep, makes sense, sure can. Uhh... like an eternal Universe. If QWC relies on that assumption, I might suggest you think up some ways of matching this with observation. I DO understand that your intent is to mull over the idea without being restricted. I can vouch for your knowledge of some physics, even if you seem to be not applying them here... However, current observations strongly suggest that the Universe has not always existed. At least- Our Arena. This presents a problem for your speculations. Ok, let me backpeddle. It isn't the size of words so much as you seemed to clump as many big intelligent sounding words together as you could to make it look impressive. Speculation about the unobservable or untestible is the same principle a ghost hunter uses to speculate about ghosts. All of it. It sounds like you're talking about the Pope. I know. I'm so freaking mercurial. A curse upon my astrological sign that governs my strange behavior... Forever. Banned, not suspended. This fly got swatted.
No it doesn't. Did you see the speculation about "parent" arenas that expand until they overlap? Are saying that there can be no differentiation between fantasy and responsible speculation? I'm not though. If the universe has always existed then it can be referred to as eternal. Yikes. Link me to the post that set you free Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
You may need to explain that one. My parents overlapped and I fissioned off. But none of us are eternal. I'm saying show us how your speculations relate to current observation. If... Ok so those fancy schmancy words say just that? I can't. There was no "end all Post" really, although there was a thread I had started- it was moved out of public view.
I'm just saying that I speculate that our Big Bang was preceded by a big crunch and the big crunch was formed when two other arenas expanded until they overlapped. In an infinite universe where the landscape is composed of arenas where the same process is taking place all the time, then there will always be new big crunches forming here and there from the overlap of expanding arenas, that themselves formed the same way prior to that. The intersection and overlap interrupts the expansion momentum of the galaxies in each expanding arena and when the expansion momentum is interrupted gravity takes control and the galactic matter collapses into big crunches. Our arena is expanding and we observe the expansion. I am speculating that the expansion began with a event 13.7 billion years ago that is now referred to as the Big Bang, but it is not the singularity that the math boils down to in BBT because I speculate that there cannot be infinite energy density. The singularity says that the energy in our expanding arena came from a zero volume point in space, i.e. infinite energy density. You mean, "transcendent immanence", Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. In philosophy those terms are used to describe some essence that is either the entire physical universe, or is separate from the physical universe but also may include the physical universe. The two terms are used in describing religious beliefs but are not exclusive to religion. I use them to address the difference between energy that is quantized and energy that is not. In QWC, matter, the physical "stuff" of the universe is energy that has been quantized, and the energy density of space refers to the energy in the universe that is not quantized. Energy that is quantized can be negated to energy that is not quantized by the process that forms big crunches. So I use the term "immanence" to refer to the energy that is quantized and that makes up the physical universe at any point in time. But energy cannot be created or destroyed and so the total energy of the universe includes both the physical universe made up of matter and the non-physical universe that is energy density of space. The term "transcendent" in QWC philosophy refers to the speculation in QWC that the processes that perpetuate the physical universe also include phases during with the energy that is physical is negated to energy density of space, and vice versa, i.e. an "eternal transcendent immanence". This is not a religious transcendence or immanence, but the non religious meaning of the words. QWC replaces the religious connotation with the concept of an eternal universe that utilizes its energy to form matter in arenas and to negate matter so it can be used again in new arenas where habitable environments form in which life is generated. Given those speculations, life and evolved intelligent contemplative individuals would have always existed across infinite space and time and as a result, the contemplation of the universe itself has always existed, i.e. a form of self awareness. They obviously have no tolerance for free thinking. I'm sure you were just saying it like it is. That doesn't go over big here in the hard science forums either. Stick to the Pseudoscience as long as Stryder is moderating and you should be OK. Now that I have explained the "eternal transcendent immanence", unless there are any other words misused in the gibberish of the OP, I should be able to have avoided being banned at SciForums Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! before I complete my presentation of the QWC universe and philosophy. Just a note to all those who have refused to let my speculations be presented without insisting that they are fantasy, thank you. My threads have been viewed thousands and thousands of times here and I have presented and developed my views of the universe, infinity, life and philosophy that I call QWC. My perspective on God is that if the universe has always exited, and since the concept that people have of God is an immanence or transcendence that has always existed, maybe God and the universe are one in the same. There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. It is a matter of faith as to what you believe.
Wow, what a come back! All you need now is to actually justify your claim with a coherent rational argument and you might look anything other than stupid. The fact you keep starting these "Lets talk about QWC!" threads when its clear no one thinks what you say is anything other than drivel suggests you're an attention whore. What's the matter, when I stopped replying to your nonsense you found no one was giving you any attention? You claim I'm 'obsessed' with you yet you're the one making thread after thread where you accomplish nothing. The fact you couldn't retort anything I said shows how weak your work is.
Just a slight change in the footnote in the OP for the record. *A universal and eternal sum of all energy that manifests in all aspects of the physical universe and transcends to the realm of self-aware and ever changing energy density that perpetually occupies all space and that maintains one connected conscious eternal presence in nature from which individuals can seek acknowledgment and with which they can seek oneness.
I was thinking (after reading some Foundation series books...) about speculation on Earth life having been seeded or a product of an alien experiment. We cannot "Prove" it didn't or did happen. Not enough evidence exists either way. And perhaps, it never will. Is it wrong to speculate about it and discuss it though? If such speculations are not proposed as a "working theory" and just for brain teasing- what's the harm?
