williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (05/03/85)
> I believe there are people out there who understand general > relativity, but it is but one of the (so far advanced) theories > concerning the subject. What other schemes and viewpoints are > considered as having merit at the moment also? This is request > for infomation on the subject out of curiousity, not a judgement. > I would also like your thoughts concerning the models you > describe, to see other peoples intuitive picture of it too. To describe as briefly to you as is possible what other sorts of theories are available, there are many people who believe that the nature of the universe has already been documented in religion. Thus the creationists, krsnas ( who believe that the universe is a huge pulsating brain ), etc. There is another type of argument, as well, that is usually carried by agnostics ( Although I consider *myself* one, this is where I usually disagree ), that being that that since the nature of the universe can not be rigorously proved, each theory holds validity. This is comparable to stating that there will never be any known theory, or, if you will, that the absolute aspect of the universe can only be labeled as a huge unknown. This, however, neglects the probability concerning the validity of any of these individual theories. An example would apply fairly simply to creationists, who state that it is *possible* for " GOD " to create the earth in a manner that would be consistent with other theories, that is, to have created all the " evidence " along with it. If you take a closer look at it, given all the possible moments that the universe could have been created, the probability of this actually occuring at any given moment is all but completely zero, say, .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001, and that number is off by magnitudes of magnitudes. > There is but one (known) path thru the past, and that > badly understood. There is but one future, that even more > unknown. We think in terms of what we can neglect and what will > not matter. A small pebble is lost in the ocean, but one spark > in the field and all is flame. What greater things can happen > from the smallest things I do not know, and neither the great > things made small. I do know that there are things we do not > percive and understand, and from those things revealed will I > always be surpised; as will we all forever. This is an effect I call " Resolution ", which describes how any conscious entity can percieve in limited detail. The more accurate your observations, the more accurate your theories, and vice-versa, vice-versa, ad infinitum. > I have a few questions here. `Random' is used frequently in many texts > on physics and philosophy of science describing quantum events, > frequently in the same sentence with `probability'. Could be I'm > confused, but I will use them both anyway, since that's all I know. A good definition of " Random ", for the purposes of discussing physics and philosophy, might be that " Random " describes an effect of which the cause is unknown. > But that won't work either -- sooner or later it must collapse, > instantaneously, to a point, far in excess of the speed of light. > Besides, that contradicts what you said about probability distribution. Yes, but if it is true that the universe oscillates between matter and energy in localized regions, then this is not inconsistent. The size of the region, or the quantity ( as in quantum ) could reflect a harmony between regions, that is, stable quanta may be said to be comprised of smaller quanta which constructively interfere. >> There is the further possibility, in the nondeterministic model, that >> ALL probablilistic decision branches do occur--in different branches >> of the "many worlds" version of reality. If the universe is continuous, then this would in essence be a means of analysis. In order to observe the universe, you must somehow sample it. You must somehow take a region within spacetime into your internal system. This means you are only able to observe quantumly ( is that a word? ), and are unable to observe the universe continuously. John Williams < Demonstration proves Nothing > Coming Soon: The Artificial Manifesto