;;
Yes.
Check it: whoever says individual neurons don’t matter is a fool. Whoever says it is a straightforward chain reaction or perfectly discreet localized functions is also at this point a fool.
Whoever thinks more knowledge is held in the past yhan in the future is most fool.
It’s not a chemical soup. It’s also not a network in any way we understand networks.
Gah. That would have been a fun life. New Age hippies have a tall bill.
TTHence thus Einstein was wrong and QM is crucial.
The irreducibility of the smallest to the greatest.
Irreducibility only goes one way. From beings to God, not from God to being.
Precisely because there is much reduced, the future is able to suck the present into it, and this is why time exists. Time is not a giant bashing his head against a wall of no time. Time is a stream of events sucked in a consistent pull. So it is not a billiard ball situation, but rather a phantom of debris spiralling around into a core of necessity in ever more sentient patterns.
No I didn’t get that right.
Still. A void can have many forms when it enters a non-void.
Being is the resistance to direct transmitting of information.
I cannot respect a framework that purposfully gets it wrong.
Re QM
Ah yeah that actually not unlike what we now (don’t) know as Dark Matter.
Self-valuing patterns which refuse to transmit the information they’re carrying from some primordially previous encounter. Or perhaps it is simply matter waiting to be born into the electromagnetic universe.
Being able to take measurements does not a cogent hypothesis make.
But that’s the worst part. It doesn’t purport to even be a hypothesis. Just random results. It even posits itself as an impossibility of hypothesis.
Terrible. Just terrible.
All it does is acknowledge that we can not reduce a particle to a momentum and a place at the same time. To place it inside of Special Relativity, Ive added: except in its own terms, which can not be embodied by a scientific measuring instrumentarium.
Granted a lot of fools have ran with that and made up universes out of nonsense, but the original quantum mechanic, Heisenberg, was no fool. He merely forced physics to know its place, to know itself.
And indeed, any cosmological hypothesis built on that uncertainty principle can only be a pie in the sky. It can fundamentally not have to do with reality external to the observer.
In short and James S Saint put it, Quantum Mechanics is valid, but there is no such thing as Quantum Physics.
Yes. But this is directly against Einstein and goes further than Heisenberg, who was merely talking about our inability to know the exact soul of a particle.
All we can know of things is how they change.
Whatever doesn’t change cant be known.
Well I was talking about neurons. Neurons we’ve seen and observed their actions. More than can be said for these alleged particles.
There are no particles in QM, only measurements.
The measurements depend on assuming the “particle” cannot be known, yet we are all supposed to be amazed at that the measurments only work if the “particle” cannot be known. Nah.
To me, QM= raw data waiting for a hypothesis
These “particles” remain hypothetical. But even by definition lol