[ebBPxIai]

In the course of the discussion on another note regarding that which is (usually derisively) referred to as “Creation Science,” it became apparent to me that some were not familiar with the two theories of time, presentism and eternalism. Therefore, I thought I would start a new note by copying a response I made to another poster which offers a brief historical summary of the two theories as well as an excellent link which one may read if one has an interest in a more extensive overview of the issues involved.

Many believe that creationism is limited to those who are doctrinaire adherents of various scriptural accounts of creation, most especially the Judeo-Christian Bible. The issues are far more complex than Biblical literalism and the denial of evolution to account for the myriad life forms which populate our planet.

Here’s a question for all to ponder: When does now happen?...

__________________________________________________ _____________

Presentism is the belief that time constantly flows (metaphorically) from the past through the present and into the future. Only the present (“now”) actually exists. The past no longer does and the future does not as yet. This “flowing” is constant motion propelled by the laws of physics as a series of actions and reactions.

That only now exists was formulated by Aristotle (predicated upon Heraclitus’s concept of eternal change). Later, St. Augustine wrestled with this consideration and concluded that the present moment must have no duration at all. The reason is that just as if a, for example, line has any length at all, then it can be divided into left and right or up and down, then if the present moment has any duration at all, it could be divided into past, present and future parts. The problem, however, is that presentism positions that only the present moment exists. Therefore, the only conclusion can be that the present moment has no duration; it does not exist for any length of time at all. If you have a problem understanding or accepting this concept, then you are not alone.

This Aristotelian view of time stood in contrast to that of the Eleatic school as formalized (though not founded) by Parmenides, its most renowned philosopher. He argued that existence was one unchanging entity. Later, Parmendies’s most famous disciple, Zeno, constructed his famous paradoxes in support of his mentor’s point of view. For centuries, the Aristotelian viewpoint held sway with Zeno’s proofs being dismissed as mere word games having no existential substance. Presentism is, after all, the intuitive and common sense notion of time for that is how we experience it.

There matters rested until the advent of one Albert Einstein and his formulation of his Special Theory of Relativity, and later, in 1908, Hermann Minkowski's (Einstein’s former math teacher) address to the 80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians with the famous introduction: “…Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.” Thus, the concept of a four-dimensional block universe was born.

In this view (eternalism), the past, present and future all exist eternally and concurrently. The past still exists and the future already does. Time is reduced to a mere fourth dimension embedded in the structure of the universe along with the three dimensions of space to form “spacetime” or “the block universe” as Minkowski's concept came to be known. There is no one moment in time privileged to call itself the present or “now.” Every moment in time is now.

Minkowski discerned that certain predictions of STR, such as length contraction and time dilation at higher speeds, fitted most naturally into a four-dimensional framework of reality. However, neither Einstein nor he ever came right out and stated that these aspects of relativity mandated the necessity of a four-dimensional reality (only that it was the more natural view). Eisntein did eventually come close to making such an assertion in 1952 in his fifth appendix to the fifteenth edition of his book: Relativity: The Special and General Theory. He stated: “It appears…more natural to think of physical reality as a four-dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three-dimensional existence.”

For quite awhile after the formulation of Minkowski spacetime, most, if not all, scientists believed that Minkowski was merely formulating a mathematical model of reality rather than presenting an ontological paradigm. One of the first to discern the true depth of Minkowski’s arguments and his true intent was the German mathematician Hermann Weyl who about two decades after Minkowski delivered his famous speech made a defining observation regarding what came to be known as the block universe that has significant relevance to what you are asking here. He observed: “The objective world simply is, it does not happen.”

This is the view of the block universe that Vonnegut adopted for his novel Slaughterhouse-Five. That is, “The moment is structured that way.” In other words, my Catholic indoctrination of: “God always was, always is and always will be” has, in this viewpoint, now been attributed to the universe instead. It “just is,” which is what you are implying when you inquire why a (Lorentzian) manifold need necessarily be embedded in something a priori to itself. (I shall address that question presently in a subsequent response. As you correctly discerned, the question is the cornerstone of my proof.)

Finally, what seems to constitute the final nail in the coffin for the presentist position is perhaps the most salient prediction of STR, the relativity of simultaneity. It is simply not tenable to account for this within a three-dimensional paradigm of reality (with time being an independent entity rather than embedded with the three dimensions of space to form the four-dimensional, holistic entity now called spacetime). For an excellent discussion of this point, I would commend to you the following paper by a philosopher at a Canadian university whose research and insights I have found to be invaluable in formulating my own opinions.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408...ckUniverse.pdf

(PDF – Free access)

[Zhgpavye]

Here is the subsequent response to the post I had been replying to as mentioned in my original post here. I argue within it why it is not tenable for the universe to “just is.” In conjunction with my philosophical proof of a creator:

Welcome - School Bullying and Tourette's Forum
__________________________________________________ ________________________

As noted in my last response, Einstein alluded to a spacetime that somehow “just is” when he stated: “…instead of the evolution of a three-dimensional existence.” (Note here the use of the word “existence” by Einstein as opposed to a word like “universe.” This is why I noted he came close to stating that his idea of the block universe was more than merely a mathematical representation. In other words, it actually exists in the physical sense.) When Einstein used the word “evolution,” he is clearly pointing to a reality that “just is” as opposed to one that evolved from something else. As evidenced by the quote I gave from Weyl, Weyl came right out and stated it. This appears to be the view of most non-believing (in any sort of creator) physicists; in other words, of most physicists.

I hesitate to assert that my proof is an original argument. Like anyone else, I have not read everything ever written regarding philosophy, physics and ontological matters. I would indeed be most surprised if no one else has ever argued along the same lines as do I within my proof of a creator. However, it is an independent argument in that I arrived at it from my own thought processes, and it is not based on anything I am familiar with. If someone else came up with this line of argument before me, then I agree with him, her or them. The crust of the matter is that I disagree with those who assert that our block universe of spacetime “just is.” As stated towards the end of my proof, I concede that it does appear that someone or something must “just is.” However, I argue that that entity cannot be our universe. Therefore, it sprang from something else a priori to it.

In my last post, I answered your question as to why eternalism must be true as based upon experimental evidence and deduction confirming the predictions of STR. Therefore, that leaves me to answer your question (in effect) why my argument within my proof is equally valid.

Your links concerning the nature of various manifolds and mathematical representations of the causal structure of our universe do not directly address the substance of my argument. That is, how did this casual structure come to be? A structural engineer could be brought to a building that he or she did not build, but by studying the structure could answer questions regarding its engineering and perhaps reconstruct a blueprint for it. That is all the information provided within your links attests to do. It cannot explain the answer why this causal structure is as it is. As stated in my previous response, the prevailing explanation as of now seems to be that there is no reason: it just is as it is.

This argument seems to me to be bizarre. Children don’t in actuality result from the procreative activities of their parents, but rather that just (presumably) appears to be the case: in every single instance! Again: “The moment is structured that way.” Of course children exist as the result of their parents’ existences and relations. But that fact necessitates that their parents preexisted them as a cause must precede its effect in existence. Our easily discernable ordered existence must have been created or evolved somewhere but it cannot have been in the spacetime dimension in which we live because the block universe cannot accommodate creation or evolution of any kind because it is static. Evolution requires causes and effects, motion. There is no motion in our universe. It is static and therefore cannot accommodate dynamic forces such as evolution.

In the link you provided regarding manifolds, the author speaks of the intrinsic and extrinsic. By this he is referring to viewpoints. The former refers to the view from within (or on) the manifold, the latter from the view from without. What I am arguing is that there by necessity must be an extrinsic view of the Lorentzian manifold that constitutes our block universe, a higher dimensional time to ours.

I believe that STR and eternalism have been proven scientifically as fact. Eternalism now transcends metaphysics and is science. So there is two-thirds of my argument. You might argue that my proof is still within the realm of philosophy. So be it. But also was once eternalism until Einstein came along and proved the philosophers Parmendies and Zeno correct all those centuries ago. My proof is based upon simple logic just as my hunch as a kid regarding aspirin had been. The latter was later proven to be true by medical science, and I am confident one day so will my proof. After all, no one ever thought that the famous EPR thought experiment could ever be actually performed, that is, until it was (in effect) done so by Alain Aspect (and disproved the belief of no less an exalted scientific figure as Albert Eisntein in the process!).

The alternative view that our block universe “just is” not only contradicts basic logic but also constitutes a totally bizarre interpretation of our existences by, in effect, denying causality presumably in favor of a virtually infinite series of coincidences! Yet that seems to be the “scientific” view that predominates today.

[Poreponko]

Humber Jr.?

[sestomosi]

Humber Jr.?

I assume you are referring to another poster who apparently made an argument along the same lines as me. Could you please be so kind as to provide the link to the relevant thread? I presume you already demolished his argument or else you would have done so here. I'd be interested in reading both of your thoughts on such matters. Thanks.

[Dumpishchaism]

"The cosmological constant was the greatest mistake of my life."
-Albert Einstein

"All the possible histories for the universe are finite in extent, any quantity that one uses as a measure of time, will have a greatest and a least value. So the universe will have a beginning, and an end. However, the beginning will not be a singularity. Instead, it will be a bit like the North Pole of the Earth. If one takes degrees of latitude on the surface of the Earth to be the anallogue of time, one could say that the surface of the Earth began at the North Pole. Yet the North Pole is a perfectly ordinary point on the Earth. There's nothing special about it, and the same laws hold at the North Pole, as at other places on the Earth. Similarly, the event that we might choose to label, as ``the beginning of the universe'', would be an ordinary point of spacetime, much like any other, the laws of science would hold at the beginning, as elsewhere."
-Stephen Hawking

String Theory is only correct if there ar 10 or 26 dimensions. Not 4.

[NETvoyne]

"The cosmological constant was the greatest mistake of my life."
-Albert Einstein

"All the possible histories for the universe are finite in extent, any quantity that one uses as a measure of time, will have a greatest and a least value. So the universe will have a beginning, and an end. However, the beginning will not be a singularity. Instead, it will be a bit like the North Pole of the Earth. If one takes degrees of latitude on the surface of the Earth to be the anallogue of time, one could say that the surface of the Earth began at the North Pole. Yet the North Pole is a perfectly ordinary point on the Earth. There's nothing special about it, and the same laws hold at the North Pole, as at other places on the Earth. Similarly, the event that we might choose to label, as ``the beginning of the universe'', would be an ordinary point of spacetime, much like any other, the laws of science would hold at the beginning, as elsewhere."
-Stephen Hawking

String Theory is only correct if there ar 10 or 26 dimensions. Not 4.

As I understand it, string theory has yielded disappointing results thus far in that it has not yielded anything new in the way of testable predictions. In any event, even if it is correct it is not intended to supplant relativity but rather to reconcile it with quantum mechanics as relativity and QM appear to present contradictions despite each yielding testable and verified predictions. As far as there being more than four dimensions, I am positioning at least a fifth, the dimension in which ours came to be. I do not claim that there are only five, and I find nothing within my views as represented within my proof that would necessary preclude the existence of such.

My personal belief is that quantum physics forms the substratum upon which the block universe, relativity and all of our perceived reality springs. However, that is a matter for another discussion and is not directly relevant to this topic.

Einstein never claimed he was infallible, true, and I have certainly not; nor have I raised him to the status of a demigod. I am simply saying that his STR has yielded predictions that have been tested empirically and have been vindicated in every single instance. It is STR upon which my proof is based, not upon Einstein personally.

As far as the quotation from Stephen Hawking, I am in full agreement. As it seems to buttress my argument, I am uncertain why you are presenting it here. If you mean that he is arguing that the universe “just is,” as I said previously that seems to be the viewpoint of many physicists today, and my proof is intended to render such a viewpoint untenable.

[User-Luser]

I read or heard something a little while back that got me thinking about time.

Does time actually exist?

Sure we can measure time. Humans have been doing it for tens of 1000s of years. We have all been brought up with the concept of time; it's core to our understanding of the world around us.

We can measure time, but does it really exist?

Animals have no perception of time, of past or future. This planet which has been around for billions of years (which seems incomprehensible to my human brain) has no perception of time. If time doesn't really exist, the universe being billions of years old might make more sense.

Time might be like lines of a map. Those boundaries are real to us humans, but not to anything else.

[Byxtysaaqwuz]

Einstein never claimed he was infallible, true, and I have certainly not; nor have I raised him to the status of a demigod. I am simply saying that his STR has yielded predictions that have been tested empirically and have been vindicated in every single instance. It is STR upon which my proof is based, not upon Einstein personally.

That wasn't the point. The point was that the cosmological constant was a key piece of the theory, and Hubble disproved it.

And the claim that every single instance has vindicated the theory is not true. Just recently the scientists at CERN observed neutrino particles travellign faster than light, which blows a gigantic whole in the theory. Speed of light 'broken' at CERN, scientists claim - Telegraph

As far as the quotation from Stephen Hawking, I am in full agreement. As it seems to buttress my argument, I am uncertain why you are presenting it here. If you mean that he is arguing that the universe “just is,” as I said previously that seems to be the viewpoint of many physicists today, and my proof is intended to render such a viewpoint untenable. I thought you were arguing in favor of eternalism. The idea that there is a beginning and end to the universe contradicts that. Also, Hawking postulates that there could not have been a creator of the universe. Only a possibility that there is a "designer" who defined the laws of the universe, but who could not have existed outside it and therefore couldn't have created it. The designer could not predicate the moment of creation. The designer would have come into existence at the moment of creation.

The predominant scientific theories do not deny causality. They deny that the cause of the moment of creation could have survived beyond that moment. So if there was a creator, the moment of creation and resultant laws of the universe would either have anihilated the creator, or completely separated the existence of the creator from our existence.

[goldcigarettes]

That wasn't the point. The point was that the cosmological constant was a key piece of the theory, and Hubble disproved it.

And the claim that every single instance has vindicated the theory is not true. Just recently the scientists at CERN observed neutrino particles travellign faster than light, which blows a gigantic whole in the theory. Speed of light 'broken' at CERN, scientists claim - Telegraph



I thought you were arguing in favor of eternalism. The idea that there is a beginning and end to the universe contradicts that. Also, Hawking postulates that there could not have been a creator of the universe. Only a possibility that there is a "designer" who defined the laws of the universe, but who could not have existed outside it and therefore couldn't have created it. The designer could not predicate the moment of creation. The designer would have come into existence at the moment of creation.

The predominant scientific theories do not deny causality. They deny that the cause of the moment of creation could have survived beyond that moment. So if there was a creator, the moment of creation and resultant laws of the universe would either have anihilated the creator, or completely separated the existence of the creator from our existence.

The concept of the cosmological constant was not critical to general relativity, merely critical to Einstein’s notion of a static (as opposed to an expanding) universe. I am saying that either/or is not relevant to the concept of eternalism. Confusion clouds this distinction by two different usages of the word “static.” A child grows, yes. But individual photos of him or her are static once taken. I am saying that spacetime is equivalent to a photograph that has recorded the once dynamic processes that rendered reality as we perceive it today. I am arguing that the universe came to be within a dimension where motion and change is or was possible.

In regard to the CERN observations, we shall have to see if such can be replicated. This has the feel to me of the cold fusion claims throughout the years. The article also reiterates a common misconception concerning what Einstein said about faster than light travel. He said that nothing could break the light barrier. That did not preclude the possibility of particles theorized as having come into existence already traveling faster than light. These hypothetical particles are termed “tachyons."

According to Einstein’s theory, they must always travel faster than light because, just as particles that travel under the speed of light (every observed particle thus far, barring this claim) can never gain sufficient momentum to break the light barrier, tachyons would be annihilated if their speed decayed to the speed of light. So perhaps the good folks at CERN have discovered the first tachyons, though I wouldn’t bet the proverbial farm on it. There have been many possible reasons suggested for why the reading might ultimately prove inaccurate. Do you recall the claim a few years back that light was observed traveling faster than the speed of light?!

I know what Hawking says concerning his cosmological view. I read his book. (I thought it to be rather disappointing, though perhaps appropriate for people less familiar with certain concepts than myself by virtue of years of reading books on physics written for laypeople by scientists. I believe it sold so well based upon his celebrity, or at least relative celebrity for a scientific figure.)

My understanding of what Hawking is arguing is that just as calling some point (such as the North Pole) the “beginning” of our planet is completely arbitrary, so is calling the “big bang” event the beginning of the universe. Therefore, he seems to be saying exactly what eternalism asserts. The big bang event has always existed concurrently with all other points in the time-space continuum.

Regarding your last observation, this seems compatible with my argument. I am merely arguing that there was a creator of some kind and, along the lines of the deist position, it is indeed within the realm of possibility that the creator, he, she or it, is not even aware of our existence, assuming the creator is still existent himself, herself or itself. However, I wasn’t aware, I must confess, that the predominate view among scientists allows for any sort of creator or even for a higher dimensional time in which our block universe had been created. I will reiterate, however, that without the allowance for some sort of a creator—or at the very least a higher dimensional plain of reality in which the universe somehow evolved—, then scientists are merely engaging in verbal gymnastics while attempting to explain how causality can exist within a spacetime where all events exist concurrently with one another.

[JanetMorris]

I read or heard something a little while back that got me thinking about time.

Does time actually exist?

Sure we can measure time. Humans have been doing it for tens of 1000s of years. We have all been brought up with the concept of time; it's core to our understanding of the world around us.

We can measure time, but does it really exist?

Animals have no perception of time, of past or future. This planet which has been around for billions of years (which seems incomprehensible to my human brain) has no perception of time. If time doesn't really exist, the universe being billions of years old might make more sense.

Time might be like lines of a map. Those boundaries are real to us humans, but not to anything else.

The physicist I refer to within my proof is Dr. Julian Barbour, the author of The End of Time. He’s been nicknamed “time’s assassin” due to his assertion that time does not actually exist. His theory is basically a variation of the “Many-Worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics which is itself merely a super-inflation of the standard block universe model. Instead of just one such universe existing, there is a virtual infinity of them. The usual term for the whole of reality (incorporating all “parallel universes”) is called the “multiverse." It’s been awhile since I read his book. I don’t recall what name he chooses to call the concept by.

To me, his assertion that time does not actually exist is a point without a distinction when compared to the standard spacetime model of the block universe. In the standard model, the fourth dimension is merely an identification label of sorts to relate various events in a logical sequence. Dr. Barbour does not deny an objective reality composed of myriad events. He, in accordance with eternalism, denies there is any flowing entity known as time.

If you are interested in exploring his ideas, here is the link for his book on Amazon:

Amazon.com: The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics (9780195145922): Julian Barbour: Books

In regard to animals not experiencing a sense of time passing, I have heard this claim before. However, on empirical grounds I have come to doubt it, at least in regard to dogs. Our late dog would, like most such social critters, welcome each member of our family when he or she came into the house after an absence. The enthusiasm of her reaction was directly related to how long the family member had been away. When I would come home for leave while in the Navy, her welcome to me amounted to rapture! Therefore, this claim seems dubious to me.

[ChuttyAmult]

And the claim that every single instance has vindicated the theory is not true. Just recently the scientists at CERN observed neutrino particles travellign faster than light, which blows a gigantic whole in the theory. Speed of light 'broken' at CERN, scientists claim - Telegraph

It would appear as if my conjecture that CERN might have discovered the first verified tachyons is not correct due to a misunderstanding of the nature of the experiment on my part. However, as I said there have been many suggested reasons to account for the anomaly with the following link reporting on the most likely one:

Special Relativity May Answer Faster-than-Light Neutrino Mystery

[rasiasertew]

And the claim that every single instance has vindicated the theory is not true. Just recently the scientists at CERN observed neutrino particles travellign faster than light, which blows a gigantic whole in the theory. Speed of light 'broken' at CERN, scientists claim - Telegraph

Or maybe not. Even if the OPERA observations are correct, Relativity is a very big theory that can accommodate a very small particle. Perhaps light as the cosmic speed limit only applies to objects with mass--and it has long been assumed the neutrino has little to no mass. So there are reasonable explanations that don't require throwing the whole theory out. Just as Einstein showed that some of Newtonian Physics were wrong without invalidating the vast majority of Newton's work, this may simply be a small, necessary adjustment to enable us to better understand our universe.

[ambientambien]

it has long been assumed the neutrino has little to no mass.

If that were true, it would invalidate E=mc^2. Either way, it raises a whole lot of issues.

[Flikemommoilt]

I doubt that the editors of Philo (or Dr. Schick) would be interested in even reading my paper let alone publishing it. However, perhaps I shall give it a try per your suggestion. I shall have to do some editing and reconstruction in order to meet their guidelines. Before wasting the time, I shall query them to see if they would be interested in a paper not written by a member of their society or even a professional philosopher.

It's been a couple of weeks, and there has certainly been enough time for you to contact the editors of Philo and Dr. Schick about publishing or obtaining their comments on your thesis. So how did that go?

[kylsq0Ln]

Space and time are merely a construct of our imagination to enable us to interact with our environment. Only Thermodynamics relies on time, specifically Entropy, and Entropy may be a questionable construct.

Experiments have shown that time/space can't be accounted for in physics. Entanglement, for example. Another is how molecules get blasted by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, they break-apart and the debris rains down through our bodies causing genetic defects and illness. The muons that rain down on us decay harmlessly within a millionth of a sec., too quickly to survive a trip to the earth's surface, yet they reach us before their decay.

Some Scientist think that the reason the Universe exists, is because our biology is such that it perceives things in a certain way. We touch something hot and we feel the heat, but that is not what heat is. We see a blue light through that enters through our eyes and into our bran, but what we see is not what blue light is. Our brain takes many snapshots of moments that we put together in our head, but that's not what time is (if it even exists outside our head, which is doubtful).

[leflyCode]

Space and time are merely a construct of our imagination to enable us to interact with our environment. Only Thermodynamics relies on time, specifically Entropy, and Entropy may be a questionable construct.

Experiments have shown that time/space can't be accounted for in physics. Entanglement, for example. Another is how molecules get blasted by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, they break-apart and the debris rains down through our bodies causing genetic defects and illness. The muons that rain down on us decay harmlessly within a millionth of a sec., too quickly to survive a trip to the earth's surface, yet they reach us before their decay.

Some Scientist think that the reason the Universe exists, is because our biology is such that it perceives things in a certain way. We touch something hot and we feel the heat, but that is not what heat is. We see a blue light through that enters through our eyes and into our bran, but what we see is not what blue light is. Our brain takes many snapshots of moments that we put together in our head, but that's not what time is (if it even exists outside our head, which is doubtful).

You sound like a pantheist, or perhaps an idealist of some sort. I must confess that on an intuitive basis this school of thought seems the most likely candidate for the creator my proof purports to prove. It does indeed seem to answer a multitude of puzzling questions, some of which you allude to within your post.

Have you ever asked yourself: “What is the arena in which everything takes place?”

My answer: Consciousness.

Without consciousness, there would be no way to prove that anything exists.

Regarding this specific topic, a well-known Zen story comes to mind:

A Zen master at a monastery came across two of his students debating over a flag blowing in the wind. The first argues that the wind is moving, while the second that it is the flag. The master settles the issue with: “Mind moves.”

It seems to me that this answer is the only tenable way to solve Zeno’s paradoxes. I cannot see how motion and change is possible in any materialistic universe that I can imagine, including the one in which we (perhaps seem to) live.

Row, row, row your boat gently down the stream. Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but….

[CGECngjA]

Oooops. So much for Creation. BBC News - Neutrino experiment repeat at Cern finds same result

[MwhwF6bp]

Oooops. So much for Creation. BBC News - Neutrino experiment repeat at Cern finds same result

As your linked article itself mentions, this latest retest only addresses one of many areas of possible error regarding the measurement. One does not overturn a major, time-tested paradigm such as relativity at the drop of a pin. A few years ago a claim was made (I believe also at CERN) that light was observed traveling faster than the speed of light. That turned out to be just another cold fusion type claim. We shall see, but I wouldn’t bet your metaphorical farm, Bob, on this reported result being ultimately confirmed and accepted within the physics establishment.

By the way, I was amazed that on last week’s episode of The Big Bang Theory, a reference was made (by Sheldon: derisively, of course!) to the initial OPERA report at CERN. The writers must have done a quick insertion into the script.

Speaking of The Big Bang Theory, I am astonished that this gem of a sitcom actually got on the air let alone has lasted this long and was number eight in the ratings last week! It must be Penny. T’is a pity. There goes my second career aspiration. I always thought I could be an invaluable barometer for the networks (and make a bundle in the process) by screening prospective new shows. How likely a prospective series is to be a hit would be inversely correlated to how much I liked it! Until this show came along, it seemed like a virtually certain proposition!

[SQiTmhuY]

By the way, for any who have an interest in such matters, the CERN experiment is presently a hot topic of discussion on Dr. David Deutsch’s The Fabric of Realty (his book) Yahoo groups list. Dr. Deutsch of Oxford is the leading contemporary proponent of the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Dr. Deutsch often contributes to the list. It’s free to join and one may just read if one does not desire to contribute.

[appleiphoneees]

You sound like a pantheist, or perhaps an idealist of some sort. I must confess that on an intuitive basis this school of thought seems the most likely candidate for the creator my proof purports to prove. It does indeed seem to answer a multitude of puzzling questions, some of which you allude to within your post.

Have you ever asked yourself: “What is the arena in which everything takes place?”

My answer: Consciousness.

I'm just reading up on Brian Lanza'a theory of Biocentrism, and thought it relevant to the thread. It's interesting. Schroedinger's cat may well be more important than Einstein's brain. I wonder if THAT cat's whiskers would make it to the Mutter. Just keep in mind that his theory is not meant as a proof for God.