Reality (The Absolute) Versus Interacting Objects (The Relative)

Spellbound

Spellbound

Banned
Banned
The forces caused by interacting objects always come in pairs because they are lesser than the absolute, which interacts with nothing but itself. I am speaking about reality. According to the Ekpyrotic model, even branes or universes interact with others collapsing the wave-function and creating new universes. The interactions within each universe creates billions more as reality is a many-worlds quantum level event and this number increases exponentially unless universes are destroyed. Reality, S, being absolute, distributes over itself hologically and each and every subsystem carries the global structure of its universe S. You cannot separate reality (objects) from itself (universe in which it exists). Each universe carries its own laws or "genetic code" and each object within each universe differs according to the nature of those laws from the other universes.
 
I kept looking for the IMHO in that post. What comes to my mind is that there is just one universe. In the context of "one universe", the concept of reality being absolute seems to have some merit, to the extent that it would be governed by a set of invariant natural laws, IMHO. That does not mean that there is any way to establish or determine an absolute location in space, or that there is any way to know if there is any absolute rate of time passing.
 
Spellbound said:
The forces caused by interacting objects always come in pairs because they are lesser than the absolute, which interacts with nothing but itself. I am speaking about reality. According to the Ekpyrotic model, even branes or universes interact with others collapsing the wave-function and creating new universes. The interactions within each universe creates billions more as reality is a many-worlds quantum level event and this number increases exponentially unless universes are destroyed. Reality, S, being absolute, distributes over itself hologically and each and every subsystem carries the global structure of its universe S. You cannot separate reality (objects) from itself (universe in which it exists). Each universe carries its own laws or "genetic code" and each object within each universe differs according to the nature of those laws from the other universes.
Click to expand...
The BS is strong in this one, your Master Christopher has taught you well.
 
Spellbound said:
The forces caused by interacting objects always come in pairs because they are lesser than the absolute bla bla bla.
Click to expand...
I think it is apropos that you have a 'reality check' as your avatar since your woo-woo is on the level of the woo-woo he use to spout.
 
Spellbound said:
The forces caused by interacting objects always come in pairs because they are lesser than the absolute, which interacts with nothing but itself. I am speaking about reality. According to the Ekpyrotic model, even branes or universes interact with others collapsing the wave-function and creating new universes. The interactions within each universe creates billions more as reality is a many-worlds quantum level event and this number increases exponentially unless universes are destroyed. Reality, S, being absolute, distributes over itself hologically and each and every subsystem carries the global structure of its universe S. You cannot separate reality (objects) from itself (universe in which it exists). Each universe carries its own laws or "genetic code" and each object within each universe differs according to the nature of those laws from the other universes.
Click to expand...

What impenetrable ballocks! I bet you can't paraphrase that in normal English.

Let's see: "forces always come in pairs because they are lesser than the absolute" . Absolute what? And what has being lesser got to do with forces "coming in pairs", whatever that means?

And then it gets worse, so that I can't even find a way to ask a question about what it means. Sheer gibberish.
 
Farsight said:
"...The interactions within each universe creates billions more..."

The quacks are in charge of the circus.
Click to expand...
Clowns, you mean; the clowns are in charge of the circus? Lol.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

Ekpyrotic universe

The ekpyrotic universe, or ekpyrotic scenario, is a cosmological model of the origin and shape of the universe. The name comes from a Stoic term ekpyrosis (Ancient Greek ἐκπύρωσις ekpurōsis) meaning conflagration or in Stoic usage "conversion into fire".[1] The ekpyrotic model of the universe is an alternative to the standard cosmic inflation model for the very early universe; both models accommodate the standard Big Bang Lambda-CDM model of our universe.[2][3] The ekpyrotic model is a precursor to, and part of, some cyclic models.

The ekpyrotic model came out of work by Neil Turok and Paul Steinhardt and maintains that the universe did not start in a singularity, but came about from the collision of two branes. This collision avoids the primordial singularity while preserving nearly scale-free density fluctuations and other features of the observed universe. The ekpyrotic model is cyclic, though collisions between branes are rare on the time scale of the expansion of the universe to a nearly featureless flat expanse. Observations that may distinguish between the ekpyrotic and inflationary models include polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation and frequency distribution of the gravitational wave spectrum.[4][5]

................

Turok and Steinhardt had a model were, instead of a single big bang out of a "primordial singularity", greater regions of space called branes collide, causing regions within the greater universe like our observable arena. It is still a "one universe" model, though the term multiverse applies, since there are multiple individual occurrences of brane collisions across the greater universe.

I'm more inclined to think of the physics of the greater universe as invariant, and any multiple occurrences more likely having a "sameness" as to their physics, like multiple big bangs, expanding and intersecting, and overlapping across potentially infinite space.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, clowns.

You know, if I came out with stuff like that here, my thread would be shunted into Pseuedoscience before you could say Jack Robinson.
 
Farsight said:
Yeah, clowns.

You know, if I came out with stuff like that here, my thread would be shunted into Pseuedoscience before you could say Jack Robinson.
Click to expand...
No offense to Spellbound, but my bet is that his threads are pretty much considered unrestrained personal thinking, and you have been tagged with a "rep" that your threads come with the baggage of years of opinionated Internet activity across all the forums. However, I don't think you would post anything like what we see in the OP, so maybe it is moot :shrug:

He seems to have evolved into the many worlds view as his search for Reality continues. Though I often contemplate reality, and infinity, many worlds is too strange for even my blood.
 
I know, and that is not a criticism. We meassure our differences and our sameness by our opinions.

To you, Spellbound is a quack. To me, Spellbound and I have different opinions. And we all have taken different paths and devoted different amounts of effort to reach our current opinions. So I'm pretty open minded, but highly opinionated, based on my own efforts to understand the universe. I challenged something in the OP and added content to the discussion. Challenge something, give an alternative, support it. Disparagement is so common, lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top