That's just it. It does not explain anything. It really only is nothing more than Einstein's theory or equation -- Just from a different point of view. This is nothing new what-so-ever. I just have yet to see anybody write Einstein's equation this way.



Like this Escher picture "3 Worlds"

When I first saw this, I couldn't possibly see how anybody could saw a fish in the water. Now I can't possible see how you can't see the fish.

Now this is strange. I think the forum may have just straddled two parallel realities. In the old one, Neo made a post telling you that you can edit without losing points. In the new reality, that post doesn't exist. But the forum shows that Neo made the last post. That is, of course, until I post this, at which point the Forum's memory gets erased. Curious indeed. Neo, where are you?

In what can only be viewed as modern holy scripture, the books of "Special Relativity" and "General Relativity" are sacrosanct. One adds to, questions or nuances them at peril of everlasting (well, at least long-term) damnation.

Humor does indeed make such damnation tolerable, in my personal experience.

Tinfoil hats are most effective when grounded, should you become a target of "special interest."

Ah yes, the good old 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Got a spare fortnight? Google "violations of the second law of thermodynamics"

Personally, I rather like Maxwell's idea that it is a statistical argument, not an absolute one. And that there are instances of 2nd Law violation in a closed system. Not unlike the infinitesimal probability that someone's constituent atoms suddenly line up in such a manner that they can walk through a door (see latest blog topic), so could a system become more coherent as time moves to the future. But it's much more likely in a small closed system, than a large complex one.

That being said, there are those who cite life and evolution as examples of building order out of chaos. What about lowering temperature to the point where superconductivity occurs? Isn't that less random than non-superconductivity. One might argue that the energy that it takes to become superconductive exceeds the resulting decrease in entropy. However, I would argue that since the transition from conductive to superconductive occurs abruptly, there must be a time period, arbitrarily small, during which you would watch entropy decrease.

Arguments? Thoughts? Other examples?

Hmm, seems like a good topic for a blog post.

And...

done. See Entropy and Puppies - like a Hand and a Glove

Well this thread which began with the topic "the existence of nothing" has certainly evolved.

It has certainly taken a lot of strange turns, but perpetual motion machines (violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics) and arrows of time seem to be leading us back to the overall thesis -- that of a programmed reality.

Light cones and Planck lengths should tell us something about the nature of our reality. Reality definitely has its limits. e.g. http://www.ted.com/talks/george_smoot_on_the_design_of_the_universe.html

Returning to my theme, then:



We simply need to recognize those limits in our mathematical formulas and accept reality for what it really is -- nothing.

So objectively, the physical existence of something is probably even less plausible than the existence of nothing.

Yet subjectively, there must be the metaphysical existence of the I AM.

Then, the probability for us to be so imperfect as to be the constant victim of deception would require an external power at least in proportion to the power possessed by the cause of such a deception. Thus, there is nothing believed to be true which is impossible to doubt, where faith and doubt are merely two sides of the same coin. So, when we consider our own doubt then, we must doubt the truth of all things with equal vigor as we would doubt their falsity.

Yet, things cannot be what the mind alone perceives them to be, because even though in a constant state of change, it would be insane to suggest that every thing is imagination only. This is not a circular logic, rather it introduces the concept of extension, whereby extension means that things exist in space only as an extension of our perceptions. Yet empty space, which we perceive as nothing, is abhorrent to believe as something that exists. Thus this empty space is only an extension of those things that are contained in it and those things contained in it are extensions of our perceptions of what we perceive them to be. This state of extension is the existence of our corporeal (physical) world, as we perceive it. Yet the question remains, whether our perception is the least bit necessary in order for the corporeal world to exist, i.e. the age-old adage, "if a tree falls alone in the woods, will it make a noise?"

Until this point in our analysis, there has not been one iota of proof that we could ever use an affection to cast out error or to cast truth onto any of our ideas. And there seems to be no such power to allow us to use affection, such as hope or faith, with such power to decide unequivocally the truth of physical existence or of its falsity. Faith and hope are but affections on the sides of the same coin, opposite of doubt and fear. Falsity also arises when our ideas represent what is nothing as if it were something.

But if we owe one causes existence to another cause, then we demand again, for a similar reason, whether this second cause exists of itself or through another being, until, from stage to stage, we at length arrive at an ultimate cause. Therefore, let us re-convince ourselves of the certainty of the following statement and with purpose and conviction; let us reconvene to tell ourselves: we are not alone. This world is a created virtual realm -- a program if you will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Ey2WYvprA