Logical Proof of Intelligent Design

That last link was the exact kind of detail I was looking for.It also solidified my agnosticism on whether the QM model is a full explanatory model of subatomic particles (rather than a good mathematical model). The Bell experiment was clearly hinged on Einstein's assumptions of local separability, which is NOT necessary for a world model.I can't wait to see where this goes.------------------
holmes

I seem to recall reading somewhere that scientists use 'universe' when describing everything that we can see and reach ('our' space-time), and 'Universe' (capital U), when speaking about everything that exists...or was it the other way round?Anyway, perhaps something like this would work, given that what was a fairly interesting discussion has now turned into a useless argument about definitions.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I'm not following your thinking here. Why do you think that QM might not be fully explanatory? How would a non-local non-separable hidden variable differ from a QM model?PE

Except of course for the phrase "all that exists". Honestly I have no problems using this phrase to refer to all that exists. I see no reason why another word - especially a word that's as long as the phrase itself - needs to exist to connote this phrase.In the meantime, it frees up a word to mean something much harder to describe - "the set of all physical locations to which it is possible to travel via Newtonian motion", or possibly "an area of bounded space-time."And in practice, they are equivalent - while our universe may very well be one of many, it contains everything it's possible to know about. So in practical terms there's no difference between your definition and cosmology's.

Actually your link kind of described this, but I'll try to flesh it out more.The QM is more or less a mathematical model (or predictor) of the behavior of subatomic particles. In this there is no question. According to all KNOWN ways of measuring characteristics of such particles, and then predicting future behavior (or other present conditions) this is what we have available.The question arises whether it is a real "explanatory model" or "world paradigm". This means do we say that because the QM does not allow for both momentum and position to be measured for a particle, that they DO NOT HAVE such characteristics?Well this certainly has not been shown at all. Einstein's issue, which Bell's inequalities and Aspect research investigated, was not really the above question. It was whether QM could be an accurate predictor, given the current "world paradigm" of local separability. It was within this Einsteinian world that hidden variables were introduced.The reality may be that hidden variables exist but are not bounded by local separability. The very first thought which leaps to my mind is a proof of other dimensions. That would clearly allow for interaction (or connectivity) between particles outside the "spacecone".If such a model were true it would allow that particles have both position and momentum, regardless of our ability to measure both at the same time, and explain why entangled particles can effect each other.In fact, I would be one to bring in Occam's razor at this point. An extra dimension, or faster than light (FTL) medium, would not be superfluous given the observations. The "magic" involved with the disappearance/reappearance of position/momentum when one goes to measure (like particles are pixies) would seem to be.It is possible to continue experimenting to discover the nature of the connection between entangled particles. I'm wondering if this might have any similarity to super-string theory? Maybe not.I should add I found the experiment itself problematic. They were dealing with photons which are not, and are known to not, exhibit clear particle properties. What we may be finding is that photons are bridges between energy and particles (a flux state), and perhaps while restricted to interacting with other particles in this space-time according to General Relativity that the "bridge" itself (and however many particles you entangle with it) are free from that restriction.My question to you is, do you have any problem with these other theoretical models?If so, why? What proof was given by this experiment to solidify the QM mathematical model as the sole "world paradigm".If not, should we not keep QM as a good predictor, but admit we are unsure as to the correct world paradigm at that level (or better yet, for those entities)?------------------
holmes

Spacetime has memory, therefore there is no faster than light EPR paradox.The continuing iterations of universe are holographically replicated and endomorphically projected, via the mechanics of Godellian self reference. . So it becomes a nesting of universes. Rotate the diagram 90 degrees, so the z-axis no longer artificially separates mind from reality.The artificially expanding balloon model, is not necessary, since the infinitesimally distributed tangent vector space can be be seen as being intrinsic to the manifold without a need for embedding it in a higher dimensional space. The tangent vectors are defined such that they only refer to the intrinsic structure of the manifold, not to its possible embeddings in R^n.The expansion cannot be in any absolute sense, because there is no external frame of reference, only local observations, which can be explained as relative perspective effects. So it is equally valid to explain a relative shrinking of matter and corresponding increase of the spacetime density, while from another perspective, matter and forces are constant while spacetime expands. If relativity is to be taken seriously, both explanations are correct. "Duality" is a very useful concept in theories.So the realization that the surface area of the horizon surrounding a black hole measures its entropy, leads people to derive a relation explaining that the maximum entropy of any closed region of space can never exceed one quarter of the area of the bounded[circumscribing] spacetime surface.A generalized entropy law is also given:S' = S_m + [1/4]AIf the universe is closed, the "information" or entangled quantum states cannot leak out of the closed system. So the density of entangled quantum states, continually increases, as the entropy must always increase. While to us, it is interpreted as entropy or lost information, it is actually recombined information, to the universe.Spacetime memory.In a nutshell, it is a rescaling of [space/time] that preserves Lorentz invariance.It seems that the [Space/Time] contracting model is a dual theory, that possibly gives new insights into the structure of reality itself. It definitely ties in with "T-duality" of M-theory and it resolves quantum nonlocality, because the quantized nature of "shrinking" spacetime naturally describes a quantized gravity, along with a type of spacetime memory storage. Events are recorded in the 2 dimensional boundary of space, and the information expands at the speed of light as spacelike slices are internally projected, or embedded into previous layers of 3+1 space + time. There would be no instantaneous wave function collapse as the information increases the density of spacetime, and would be within the initial event's light cone along with the second distant observer.Spacetime would be successive embeddings of quantum entangled states and Boolean functions would be the laws of physics in their most fundamental form.If spacetime has memory, then the universe is analogous to a computer simulation that is self embedding.

Hey BradI would find this to be more complicated than the understanding that science as it is today has no idea what energy is

I guess you are correct but that METAPHYSICS was written in the 40s. My guess is that no more difficultly than a cool book I saw years ago out of Russia on Galaxy shapes is needed if the ideal reference of it were epistemologically secured. I find it easier to develop than the concept of "species selection" which some Marxist's would probably prefer to do however. As it was the ontology is a bit harder to implement than some thermodynamics of today but I was never satisfied with the philosophy of final cause I heard out the mouth or writing of both Mayr and Gould and yet they do not agree as to how speciation may populationally rupture any such surface a species possess during change. I also did not like that Kant's Critique of beauty was not a part of biology of symmetric proporotions. But that is a preference not a reference.