Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
the nature of reality

the nature of reality

Ratings: (0)|Views: 13|Likes:
a brief discussion on topic
a brief discussion on topic

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: sam iam / Salvatore Gerard Micheal on Jul 08, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





the nature of reality
This essay will be broken down into asequence of statements and their opposites, implications,and related tests. All relevant concepts will be considered.We exist: no one can ever actually prove this; in science, it's usually easier to disprovesomething; we can provide circumstantial evidence/arguments that we exist; if you're dreaming,you can pinch yourself and actually feel pain - so that test fails to reliably prove 'you're notdreaming'; in much the same way, we have no direct proof what we see around us, including allour experiences, is not some elaborate dream.We don't exist: this is a dream/nightmare, depending on your perspective; this is all shareddelusion; we're just 'the stuff of dreams' - illusory,fragile, wisps of smoke,..; there's nothingsubstantial to our reality; it's all just some big complex fantasy; the fact our universe appearsconsistent and precise in physical laws means nothing - those phenomena could be simulated; wecould be living inside a giant virtual reality simulation. There's no direct proof either way.God exists: as with our existence, there's circumstantial evidence God exists; there's no direct proof, yet; in mathematics, a proof by contradiction entails the following: if you can exclude allreasonable alternatives leaving one, you are left with that idea/concept; this process of elimination can be used as a proof God exists in the following way: if all cosmological theoriesthat don't depend on God are proven incorrect, that only leaves those that do. If God exists, Itinteracts with Its creation or It does not -there's no middle ground. If God exists, It's a 'socialcreature' or It's not - there's no middle ground. Both statements are somewhat equivalent. If Godexists, It's a form of life; God is living. In our observations of life, we notice that organisms arelargely social, they interact with other organisms, so if God exists, God interacts with us.God doesn't exist: we cannot prove God doesn't exist - much like we cannot prove our ownexistence; some use the argument: there's suffering, if God existed, we wouldn't suffer, so Goddoesn't exist; but this argument is flawed: i argue suffering is largely caused by ignorance; whenhuman civilization started, times were tough, we were just beginning to learn about agricultureand medicine; before civilization, times were even tougher - drought, disease, and naturaldisasters threatened to wipe humanity out; at times, the species 'hung by a thread' just barelysubsisting; but what really threatened us? Those environmental influences or our own ignorance?If neanderthal man had machine guns and the knowledge to use them, we might look totallydifferent than 'modern human'. We had to
how to make machine guns, we had to
howto cure diseases, we had to
how to mitigate natural disasters,.. The other side of theargument: if everything was easy for us, our population would instantly explode and we'd quicklyruin Earth's resources - squandering them on our multitudes - effectively burning humanity out.So struggle is just as necessary - as suffering is due to ignorance. God did not
suffering;God did not
struggle. We suffer because we're stupid; we struggle because we needsomething to overcome.God cares about us: Christians would say God "gave his only son for our sins because He lovesus so much"; i see this as Christian propaganda and manipulation; other religions are just asguilty; no one religion owns a trademark on God; no one religion can claim special relationshipto God; the lighter side of Christianity claims "God is love" which is closer to reality in myestimation; if God exists, God interacts with us; if God interacts, it can only be in positive ways;
if God was capricious or tyrannical, we'd quickly depose Him/Her and they'd deserve it; 'interactin positive ways' is equivalent to caring so God cares about us.God's indifferent toward us: basically disproved above. The only weak link above is aboutdeposing a tyrannical/capricious God. If God exists, They're omnipotent, by definition, so itwould be 'difficult at best' to depose a tyrannical/capricious God (if not impossible). But evidenceindicates 'the God of the desert', Jehovah, is not actually 'the God of love' we've come to know inmore recent times.. Jehovah may have been a manipulative evil entity (otherwise known asSatan) pretending to be God for all we know.. Or Jehovah (and the like) may have been a productof our superstitions (combined with Jewish ethnocentrism) as we evolved toward a more balanced civilization.Spacetime is causal: there's no circumstantial evidence spacetime is acausal; there's no direct proof it's causal but all things indicate it; causal spacetime has its roots in causal time; if we couldviolate causality, this would be equivalent to backwards time travel or reversing the arrow of time; there's no circumstantial nor theoretical evidence for backwards time travel or reversing thearrow of time.Spacetime is acausal: all things indicate it is not.Spacetime is continuous: essentially this means a smooth variation from one point to another;theclassical assumption is that it is but modern quantum mechanics has some theoretical indicationsit may not be; space may be discrete/cellular; time may be discrete; John Ashmead has lookedinto this formally and has proposed some interesting 'tests of time' which relate directly to thisconcept.Spacetime is discrete: as mentioned above, there are some theoretical indications it may be.Black holes are important: string theory insists they are because of the more recent developmentcalled 'the holographic principle' which declares spacetime is holographic - a mere projection of information contained on the boundary of our universe; this idea is testable; at Fermilab, they are building the Holometer experiment which should be able to detect 'holographic noise'; therecould be other explanations for any detected noise however.Black holes are unimportant: i contend they're nothing more than heavy neutron stars with escapevelocities exceeding the speed of light; no big deal.Photons are random wave packets: this fits conventional theory but does not explain many thingswe observe: radiometer spin, Hubble Deep Field photon trajectories, photomultiplier tubes,andcircularly polarized beams producing torque; they do satisfy the double-slit experiment but this initself - does not imply inherent randomness is correct.Photons are electromagnetic-temporal wavelets: explains double-slit phenomenadeterministically; explains why photons can interact withextreme gravity - gravitational lensing;explains all deterministic features mentioned above; explains reflection and refraction; explainsthe Faraday effect; explains differential speed of light in various media; helps us understandabsorption and emission better than the model above.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->