Continued Discussion With Lnc

[centauri]

And Paul contradicted God, who declared that repenting and keeping the law would provide salvation, which one does for themselves, not via faith in a pagan human sacrifice.

Righteousness is through the law, not faith in a pagan humans sacrifice.

Paul was promoting a replacement theology, which is why Paul’s musings mean nothing to me.

 

Again, you say that Paul contradicted God but don't give evidence of any contradiction.

Psa 119:1-4, Ezek 18:20-27, Psa 103:17-18.

 

There is no pagan human sacrifice, Jesus gave himself to be crucified, not as the pagans did to appease their idols, but as God to fulfill his own law.

It’s a form of volcano god sacrifice, where a god-man is sacrificed to appease a god.

The law wasn’t fulfilled by a sacrifice that violates the law.

 

Can you tell me where the Bible says that a person can be justified by keeping the Law? So far, you have not and are merely making assertions based upon your own misunderstanding of the Bible.

The misunderstanding is yours.

Ezek 18:20-27 provides the formula for salvation and Luke 1:5-6 shows people justified by keeping the law.

 

So, you have not proved that Paul was teaching anything other than that which he received from Jesus. Also, Paul tested his message with the other Apostles and found that he was on the same page as them. So, if he was wrong so were they, but they got their message from Jesus as well.

 

The bottom line is that you have to do more to prove your assertion as it doesn't match with what is in the Bible. And if it doesn't match what is in the Bible, what will you use to prove your assertion?

That all depends on what parts of the Bible you take seriously.

Paul contradicted God, and if Jesus is God, then it’s dubious that he received it from Jesus.

In Acts, Paul was forced to cave in to the demands of the Apostles, something he didn’t divulge in Galatians

I don't expect to prove anything to you nor do you set conditions on what I have to prove in this forum.

[centauri]

Jesus implies it in Matt 5:18-20.

And if Jesus is God, then he declared hundreds of years before Paul came along that repenting and keeping the law were the keys to salvation.

God declared over and over that his people were to keep the law and not deviate from it.

The NT character called “Jesus of Nazareth” didn’t live a perfect life.

And contrary to your assertion, a person doesn’t have to be perfect to be saved, nor do they have to be perfect to keep the law.

Jesus didn’t fulfill the law nor the role of king messiah, so the preaching slogans displayed here are empty.

.

 

Did the thief on the cross go to be with Jesus as Jesus said he would, or was Jesus lying? Did the thief keep the law? If not and he was going to be with Jesus in paradise, how does that fit with what you are promoting?

And why should I believe that a thief went to paradise?

How does the promise of a cult leader override God’s mandates concerning keeping the law?

 

James said that if anyone stumbled in just one point of the law they were guilty of all of it (James 2:10), so can you give me an example of anyone who kept the whole law (other than Jesus) during their lifetime? Surely, the thief on the cross did not, yet, Jesus said "this day you will be with me in Paradise", so how did that happen?

It’s a story that has no validation.

At least two people kept the whole law as Luke writes in Luke 1:5-6.

Jesus undermined parts of the law and gave false information to a high priest about his teaching activity, so this claim about Jesus keeping the whole law would have to excuse his being contrary to some of its principles.

Is undermining the law keeping the law?

According to God, false prophets are not a valid authority and Jesus engaged in that as well.

 

centauri:

Paul said repeatedly that one could not be saved by keeping the law.

 

LNC:

It is not my assertion that a person has to be perfect to be saved, that is the definition of righteousness according to Jesus, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." You aren't arguing with me, but with Jesus.

The sayings of a cult leader who represents a replacement theology don't trump the word of God, even though Christianity wants it to be that way.

According to God, a person doesn’t have to be perfect to find salvation.

They have to trust in God, repent, and keep the law.

 

How do you know that Jesus didn't fulfill the Law or the role of King and Messiah? Where is your evidence of this? You seem to make sweeping assertions, yet I don't seem much evidence to back them up. Am I to take your word on faith? On what basis? Sorry, I need more than just your word on it.

The evidence is in the Bible.

Jesus undermined parts of the law, his sacrifice wasn’t valid according to the law, he altered parts of the law, and didn’t perform the functions of a messianic king.

He did not lead people into great compliance with the law, did not usher in an era of peace and prosperity, and never sat on the throne of David.

[agnosticator]

Here's a typical way christians attempt to harmonize salvation by faith vs. works within the new testament:

 

The question of faith alone or faith plus works is made difficult by some hard-to-reconcile Bible passages. Compare Romans 3:28, 5:1 and Galatians 3:24 with James 2:24. Some see a difference between Paul (salvation is by faith alone) and James (salvation is by faith plus works). Paul dogmatically says that justification is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), while James appears to be saying that justification is by faith plus works. This apparent problem is answered by examining what exactly James is talking about. James is refuting the belief that a person can have faith without producing any good works (James 2:17-18). James is emphasizing the point that genuine faith in Christ will produce a changed life and good works (James 2:20-26). James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but rather that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his/her life. If a person claims to be a believer, but has no good works in his/her life, then he/she likely does not have genuine faith in Christ (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26).

Found here

 

Another version of the "true" christian. This time it's "true" faith.

 

The role of forgiveness muddies the waters of the automatic "good works" or "fruits of the spirit" assumption. In other words, it is assumed that the christian's faith causes good works to follow. Yet, christians sin and seek forgiveness, and their good works are tainted by their humanity. The sentence in bold makes no sense. Since good works are required, nothing more can be said without twisting it into nonsense. There IS a conflict between Paul's and Jame's versions. It seems that James is being misinterpreted. Works DO play a role in salvation, according to James.

 

To say faith produces good works does not bear out in reality. The morals of christians and non-christians are indistinguishable. Christians produce good and bad works just like the rest of us. They only difference is that the christian is forgiven because of faith.

 

Salvation by the law vs. salvation by faith has a similar problem. Following the law is required, yet faith is said to somehow take its' place. The conflict is not reconcilable IMHO.

[Auracle]

 

 

Did the thief on the cross go to be with Jesus as Jesus said he would, or was Jesus lying? Did the thief keep the law? If not and he was going to be with Jesus in paradise, how does that fit with what you are promoting?

 

How's about you fly up to Heaven and come back and tell us if the thief is really there or not?

[NotBlinded]

Let me ask whether you do that with my posts as well?

Yes, LNC I have been in your mindset before even after I left Christianity. I'm not sure that you are able to view reality with the unity worldview.

 

 

I should have probably said non-rational rather than irrational as that seems to be what you were indicating, sorry for the imprecision of my words.

 

The passage has some interesting concepts, a bit oversimplified as far as I read it, but interesting. I recently took a class on the ancient philosophers from Homer to and through Aristotle and the point where the author seems to oversimplify (and I may be oversimplifying his ideas as all I have read is this section that you posted) is that he seems to categorize the West with what were considered the "atomists" (classically, the Stoics and Epicureans fell into this category) as those who see the world as made up of matter. Now, there is a growing segment within Western culture who would fit into this category, including, I'm sure, many on this site. However, I don't see that as being the dominant view in the West.

 

He also categorizes the East with more ancient philosophers, like Homer, Empedocles and others who saw the universe as consisting of these different elements with one usually the life force or empowering element. That may be an over simplification of the East these days as well. I know what the author is trying to do, but I don't think that people groups fit so easily into these categories anymore. Many in the East are atheists like many in the West as a result of Communism in countries like China and N. Korea, and from materialism in places like Japan.

 

Have you ever read any of C.S. Lewis? You may want to read a book that I am reading now, Abolition of Man. He gives a different understanding of the Tao that you may be interested in reading.

 

LNC, is it possible that you understand this intellectually, but not beyond that? It does appear superficial by the intellect indeed. This is the shift I am speaking of.

 

What do you mean by literalist? I am not sure that I fit into that category, but I need to know how you define it first.

 

I define a literalist as one that takes things literally.

 

Really, look past the symbols to what they mean in your life, not what they mean as existing outside of your life.

 

 

I can know what evil is based upon revelation and based upon my conscience, although conscience can be hardened, so it is not always accurate. Good can come from evil, but I don't believe that it is never a justification for evil. Otherwise, we could tell people to be as evil as they want because some good is bound to come from it. If evil is based upon biology, then there is no evil as we cannot determine whose biology is good and whose is bad, we can only say that they are different. If good and evil are one, then they are none as there is no such distinction. But I don't think anyone could or does live that way.

There is a distinction...superficially. It's like a agreement to disagree, but no one can know of this agreement. What is different in the world of duality, as in our existence in reality, is the same on another level.

 

 

I feel bad for your Unitarian minister on hot days. Do you believe your Unitarian minister to be a judge?

I don't think so, but the set-up is noticeable.

 

Seems that we cannot get away from the problems of language, even in describing language. So, how is this argument not self-defeating?

Once you recognize the problem, you can overlook it. It's when you don't recognize it that problems arise.

 

 

I don't know that scientifically we could describe anything if cause and effect are one. We end up in a vicious loop of circular reasoning and everything is left unexplained and unexplainable. I don't think that these ideas will stop scientists from pursuing the causes for the effects. I am enjoying our exchange and look forward to more of it.

Well, now I feel bad. When you get caught up with some of my other posts, you probably won't be saying that.

 

Cause and effect are being addressed in another thread, so we can leave it there.

[mwc]

How's about you fly up to Heaven and come back and tell us if the thief is really there or not?

But if he does that, and the thief is there, we're all going to look mighty foolish!

 

I say we all form a pact that even if it turns out LNC finds the thief in heaven we just deny it.

 

mwc

[LNC]

Corrie's view was a lot closer to what the new testament said than you are.

 

Matter (the mass of the universe) came from decaying bosons. One type of high energy bosons were photons which spontaneously decayed into particles such as protons. Another example is gamma rays which decay and produce electrons. Quantum fluctuations also produced particles that exist in a vacuum or empty space (energy does exist in nothingness). That's the simplified explanation. So matter is self created. Beyond this energy existing, nobody knows. Eternal cause? The energy could have been eternal. But it doesn't have a mind!

 

In what way was Corrie's view different from mine?

 

First, bosons would be considered particles, and therefore, matter, even though they may be technically massless (we won't know until more about bosons until the LHC gets up and running, which may take some time according to my friend who works there from time to time). BTW, quantum fluctuations happen within a quantum energy vacuum (contains vacuum energy), so technically, it is not creating something from nothing. So, you really haven't defined matter creating itself since you still assume the existence of bosons and energy in your explanations and the existence of those too need to be explained. Eternal energy also seems to violate the 2LOT, can you explain that? Maybe you could answer these questions (existence of bosons and how energy could be past eternal without violating 2LOT).

[NotBlinded]

Corrie's view was a lot closer to what the new testament said than you are.

 

Matter (the mass of the universe) came from decaying bosons. One type of high energy bosons were photons which spontaneously decayed into particles such as protons. Another example is gamma rays which decay and produce electrons. Quantum fluctuations also produced particles that exist in a vacuum or empty space (energy does exist in nothingness). That's the simplified explanation. So matter is self created. Beyond this energy existing, nobody knows. Eternal cause? The energy could have been eternal. But it doesn't have a mind!

 

In what way was Corrie's view different from mine?

 

First, bosons would be considered particles, and therefore, matter, even though they may be technically massless (we won't know until more about bosons until the LHC gets up and running, which may take some time according to my friend who works there from time to time). BTW, quantum fluctuations happen within a quantum energy vacuum (contains vacuum energy), so technically, it is not creating something from nothing. So, you really haven't defined matter creating itself since you still assume the existence of bosons and energy in your explanations and the existence of those too need to be explained. Eternal energy also seems to violate the 2LOT, can you explain that? Maybe you could answer these questions (existence of bosons and how energy could be past eternal without violating 2LOT).

Are you really as popular as you make yourself out to be LNC? You have lunch with mythologists and have friends working on the LHC. Anyway...is the entirety of space a closed system?

[Saviourmachine]

Maybe you could answer these questions (existence of bosons and how energy could be past eternal without violating 2LOT).

Is the second law of thermodynamics valid on a quantum level?

[NotBlinded]

Maybe you could answer these questions (existence of bosons and how energy could be past eternal without violating 2LOT).

Is the second law of thermodynamics valid on a quantum level?

Oh cool. You got me researching and it seems that is had been violated by Asher Peres.

[Saviourmachine]

Maybe you could answer these questions (existence of bosons and how energy could be past eternal without violating 2LOT).

Is the second law of thermodynamics valid on a quantum level?

Oh cool. You got me researching and it seems that is had been violated by Asher Peres.

I will check this Peres out. There probably will some sort of second law of thermodynamics on a quantum scale, but it might be almost unrecognizable... I skimmed already over some articles about quantum thermodynamics that pointed in that direction.

 

Like you said, such violations on a quantum level are not even necessary if it concerns an open system. Already Schrödinger stipulated that order had to came out of disorder to explain life. I was reminded of that, reading "Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics" by Schneider and Kay (1994) (see this PDF). No quantum thingies involved here.

 

By the way, I just asked the question because LNC saw the second law as generally applicable. I actually don't know anything about the Big Bang. Asking if the second law of thermodynamics is valid on a quantum level is way safer than asking if is valid across BBs. Who the hell knows that!?

[NotBlinded]

I will check this Peres out. There probably will some sort of second law of thermodynamics on a quantum scale, but it might be almost unrecognizable... I skimmed already over some articles about quantum thermodynamics that pointed in that direction.

 

Like you said, such violations on a quantum level are not even necessary if it concerns an open system. Already Schrödinger stipulated that order had to came out of disorder to explain life. I was reminded of that, reading "Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics" by Schneider and Kay (1994) (see this PDF). No quantum thingies involved here.

 

By the way, I just asked the question because LNC saw the second law as generally applicable. I actually don't know anything about the Big Bang. Asking if the second law of thermodynamics is valid on a quantum level is way safer than asking if is valid across BBs. Who the hell knows that!?

HA! I don't either!

 

Here is a little peice of what I was reading here: Of Flesh and Ghosts A Sarfatti Commentary on Self-Organization as Post-Quantum Physics

 

All signals are influences but not vice versa. A signal has the additional property that it can be locally decoded at the receiver without needing additional bits from the sender. A superluminal signal can also be used to violate the classical limit of the second law of thermodynamics. This was shown by Asher Peres. Note I use the term "classical limit" because the second law of thermodynamics has surprising consequences in the quantum regime. For example, if you connect a hot negative temperature spin system to a cold positive temperature lattice, the resulting quantum reversible Carnot engine will totally convert random heat energy, from both hot and cold reservoirs, to coherent useful work. This is greater than 100% efficiency.

 

Mind you, I can't understand most of what is said. I would have to start lower and work up to that level! There are some things I recognize, but sheesh, I'm not that educated.

 

Here is a little bit about Schrödinger in that same article:

 

 

Kauffman still thinks of an "emergent" self-organizing order, but Bohm has something much more profound. Einstein's relativity is only valid at the classical level. It is not valid for individual quantum events. Nevertheless, these nonlocal connections cannot be used for practical faster-than-light signaling or "nonlocal communication" because of a very peculiar fact about standard, or "orthodox", quantum mechanics which is:

 

"... unlike what happens with Maxwell's equations for example, the Schrodinger equation for the quantum field does not have sources, nor does it have any other way by which the field could be directly affected by the conditions of the particles. This of course constitutes an important difference between quantum fields and other fields that have thus far been used." p. 30

 

And...I have no idea what that says really.

[Ouroboros]

we won't know until more about bosons until the LHC gets up and running, which may take some time according to my friend who works there from time to time

Now, officially, I am jealous.

 

I'm going to take this topic on a whole new tangent.

 

So does he/she live in Europe or is he/she traveling back and forth? Which department? What does he/she do there? I'm curious. That's very cool though, LNC.

 

So what is his/her view on Quantum Tunneling? How does your friend explain that? And does he/she have an explanation or model of how Vacuum Energy works? Is it the same as Dark Energy? Dark Matter?

[agnosticator]

Corrie's view was a lot closer to what the new testament said than you are.

 

Matter (the mass of the universe) came from decaying bosons. One type of high energy bosons were photons which spontaneously decayed into particles such as protons. Another example is gamma rays which decay and produce electrons. Quantum fluctuations also produced particles that exist in a vacuum or empty space (energy does exist in nothingness). That's the simplified explanation. So matter is self created. Beyond this energy existing, nobody knows. Eternal cause? The energy could have been eternal. But it doesn't have a mind!

 

In what way was Corrie's view different from mine?

 

Does your faith: see the invisible, believe the unbelievable, and receive the impossible? You expect faith to base itself upon evidence. Corrie did not.

 

First, bosons would be considered particles, and therefore, matter, even though they may be technically massless (we won't know until more about bosons until the LHC gets up and running, which may take some time according to my friend who works there from time to time). BTW, quantum fluctuations happen within a quantum energy vacuum (contains vacuum energy), so technically, it is not creating something from nothing. So, you really haven't defined matter creating itself since you still assume the existence of bosons and energy in your explanations and the existence of those too need to be explained. Eternal energy also seems to violate the 2LOT, can you explain that? Maybe you could answer these questions (existence of bosons and how energy could be past eternal without violating 2LOT).

 

 

Your words:

"Matter came to be from an immaterial and eternal cause, since matter is not self-created (logically impossible), nor did it just pop into existence (logically improbable), nor does it make sense that it has existed from eternity past (also logically problematic, if not impossible)."

 

I don't see this as a scientifically provable statement. At least I attempted to explain how matter came to be scientifically. Energy produces matter, and I was saying energy could have been eternal. You are splitting hairs by saying high energy photons or bosons are "technically massless" so they are matter, not energy. You are inserting god based upon nothing and you have explained nothing as to how the christian god created the universe.

 

Do you assume I am a scientist? Do you think I know as much or more than your friend, or are you being sarcastic like I suspect?

[NotBlinded]

Does your faith: see the invisible, believe the unbelievable, and receive the impossible? You expect faith to base itself upon evidence. Corrie did not.

I think that is totally against what faith is supposed to be. Even the most faith-filled people will still create an image in their mind as to what God is. That is just hope and belief that God will be what they want it to be. Evidence and faith don't go together.

[Saviourmachine]

Here is a little peice of what I was reading here: Of Flesh and Ghosts A Sarfatti Commentary on Self-Organization as Post-Quantum Physics

It doesn't seem to be the best article to start with... I would rather read actual scientific papers, they address only one topic and are sometimes more clear than the text from a person who is not actually entirely versed in the subject. I can't help it, but I just don't understand why Penrose's speculations about quantum mechanics make any sense for the brain. Pun intended. Why would we need something like that? It's like reading Hermann Haken about self-organization for the brain. Those physicists do a good job in mathematics and physics, but please, let them stay there.

 

In e.g. using self-organized criticality to describe image recognition problems, very simple problems of machine learning reappear. And now they have to be solved again, in this slightly different, hopefully slightly more general paradigm! For example the stability-plasticity dilemma as defined by Grossberg. Suppose you, or a robot, has to learn a lot of visual patterns. Those patterns are sometimes slightly different from each other. Only templates have to be stored for that reason. When a new pattern is not sufficiently different the template should not be overwritten, just a bit adjusted. And a new template should only be generated when an entirely new pattern arrives. This trade-off between storing long-term memories and flexibility to accept new information/evidence is coined the stability-plasticity dilemma. This type of machine learning problems has again to be solved with a new mathematical approach, such as self-organized criticality. Of course people hope that it becomes easier to cope with them, but this does not necessarily have to be the case, in contrary! It might become suddenly a mathematically daunting task.

 

I feel the same in applying macro-scale self-organization principles to a quantum level. It might be done theoretically, but does it really exist? Another example. In theory we can by a cognitive act - by thinking a thought, then disseminate certain hormones, that go through the blood-brain barrier - reach our genes and adapt our own genome. In other words, in principle we can do biological genetic manipulation. Say, on a very rough level of gender, body build or character... However, I don't see any reason why genetic transmission (without above mentioned cognitive effects) wouldn't already do the job. I think the same about applying self-organization to quantum physics. What are we gonna gain? Do we have hypotheses that can be tested?

[NotBlinded]

Here is a little peice of what I was reading here: Of Flesh and Ghosts A Sarfatti Commentary on Self-Organization as Post-Quantum Physics

It doesn't seem to be the best article to start with... I would rather read actual scientific papers, they address only one topic and are sometimes more clear than the text from a person who is not actually entirely versed in the subject. I can't help it, but I just don't understand why Penrose's speculations about quantum mechanics make any sense for the brain. Pun intended. Why would we need something like that? It's like reading Hermann Haken about self-organization for the brain. Those physicists do a good job in mathematics and physics, but please, let them stay there.

 

In e.g. using self-organized criticality to describe image recognition problems, very simple problems of machine learning reappear. And now they have to be solved again, in this slightly different, hopefully slightly more general paradigm! For example the stability-plasticity dilemma as defined by Grossberg. Suppose you, or a robot, has to learn a lot of visual patterns. Those patterns are sometimes slightly different from each other. Only templates have to be stored for that reason. When a new pattern is not sufficiently different the template should not be overwritten, just a bit adjusted. And a new template should only be generated when an entirely new pattern arrives. This trade-off between storing long-term memories and flexibility to accept new information/evidence is coined the stability-plasticity dilemma. This type of machine learning problems has again to be solved with a new mathematical approach, such as self-organized criticality. Of course people hope that it becomes easier to cope with them, but this does not necessarily have to be the case, in contrary! It might become suddenly a mathematically daunting task.

 

I feel the same in applying macro-scale self-organization principles to a quantum level. It might be done theoretically, but does it really exist? Another example. In theory we can by a cognitive act - by thinking a thought, then disseminate certain hormones, that go through the blood-brain barrier - reach our genes and adapt our own genome. In other words, in principle we can do biological genetic manipulation. Say, on a very rough level of gender, body build or character... However, I don't see any reason why genetic transmission (without above mentioned cognitive effects) wouldn't already do the job. I think the same about applying self-organization to quantum physics. What are we gonna gain? Do we have hypotheses that can be tested?

What? Stop talking to me like I'm smart or something. I told you I didn't understand most of that article.

 

 

 

 

 

You don't think that life and the universe is self-organized?

[agnosticator]

Does your faith: see the invisible, believe the unbelievable, and receive the impossible? You expect faith to base itself upon evidence. Corrie did not.

I think that is totally against what faith is supposed to be. Even the most faith-filled people will still create an image in their mind as to what God is. That is just hope and belief that God will be what they want it to be. Evidence and faith don't go together.

 

Right. I haven't read every single post of LNC's, but it seems to me that he expects evidence to supply his faith. Yet, he will take the leap by stating that god is the christian god who created everything. Go figure...

[MathGeek]

I have been reading Victor Stenger's book "God: The Failed Hypothesis". I think he does a good job basically slamming the Kalam Argument into the ground. He answers premise 1 by showing the possibility that there could have been a prior universe before the Big Bang using a process called "tunneling". If there is any validity to models proffered by Stenger or other scientists he cites in his book, then it is possible that there could have been an actual infinite chage of cause and effect, one that could be mathematically possible. Granted I am badly butchering Stenger's words and work here, but I think he effectively shows how the Kalam Argument is immediately defective.

 

Furthermore, since Christian apologists had to dig into Islamic theology to find the Kalam argument anyway, then they have no right to accuse any nonbeliever of being parasitic on morality or actual understanding.

[Saviourmachine]

You don't think that life and the universe is self-organized?

Yes, of course, I think that it is self-organized. And Stuart Kauffman is a really good read regarding that. However, there are forms of self-organization possible that haven't been found out by mother nature or father physics.

[Guest Davka]

Tidbit on the 2LOT and the quantum world: I read a while back that quantum physics postulates that information cannot be lost or gained, but merely changes form. As in: all the information about my fingernail is currently contained within my fingernail, but it will change form over time, and eventually be scattered around. Yet it will still exist, and could theoretically be reconstituted in the same form.

 

This goes back a few years, and has to do with why the Universe may actually be a 3D representation of an underlying 2D information database.

 

We now return you to your ongoing pointless .

[Ouroboros]

LNC, I believe you really don't know these things, and I think you should try to read more.

[NotBlinded]

You don't think that life and the universe is self-organized?

Yes, of course, I think that it is self-organized. And Stuart Kauffman is a really good read regarding that. However, there are forms of self-organization possible that haven't been found out by mother nature or father physics.

I was pretty sure you did, but I was confused...again.

[NotBlinded]

Tidbit on the 2LOT and the quantum world: I read a while back that quantum physics postulates that information cannot be lost or gained, but merely changes form. As in: all the information about my fingernail is currently contained within my fingernail, but it will change form over time, and eventually be scattered around. Yet it will still exist, and could theoretically be reconstituted in the same form.

 

This goes back a few years, and has to do with why the Universe may actually be a 3D representation of an underlying 2D information database.

 

We now return you to your ongoing pointless .

Isn't that something that David Bohm also puts forth in what he calls the implicate order? I can't remember and am guessing here. He goes on to put forth a holographic image of the universe. Is that what you are meaning when you mention the 3D representation of an underlying 2D information database?

 

I could be totally off here too.

[Guest Davka]

Tidbit on the 2LOT and the quantum world: I read a while back that quantum physics postulates that information cannot be lost or gained, but merely changes form. As in: all the information about my fingernail is currently contained within my fingernail, but it will change form over time, and eventually be scattered around. Yet it will still exist, and could theoretically be reconstituted in the same form.

 

This goes back a few years, and has to do with why the Universe may actually be a 3D representation of an underlying 2D information database.

 

We now return you to your ongoing pointless .

Isn't that something that David Bohm also puts forth in what he calls the implicate order? I can't remember and am guessing here. He goes on to put forth a holographic image of the universe. Is that what you are meaning when you mention the 3D representation of an underlying 2D information database?

 

Nailed it on the first try.