posted on Oct, 6 2019 @ 10:01 AM
a reply to: tgidkp
there is no doubt that you have answered the OP's questions.... i am hoping that your answers are deceptively simple, rather than merely simple or
outright empty. i say this because as i look over your writings (at the links provided), i feel i have come away with nothing.
I understand your initial reaction to my description of what's a very simple and extremely primitive default ramification event, and as I admitted in
that section of my book, I had the same initial take on it. Like most people, I've been culturally programmed to seek a much more significant, perhaps
even majestic, description of any event that launches such a profound ramification structure. The event that I describe in that excerpt certainly
doesn't rise to a level that our culture could ever embrace as being either significant or majestic in nature. It sure doesn't feature a cataclysmic
explosion of a micro-dot containing literally every material thing that our universe consists of within itself.
That said, if what we're looking at is the potential-to-actual initiating genesis of physical reality [and not just our one universe as the
physical/contextual confine that it is] once we start really examining the very concrete factor confluence requirements of such a change/event [no
material structure or physically actual actors, agencies, or participants can possibly be involved] and toss in the very real requirement that
whatever it was that happened, it must still be something that persists as integral to the ongoing progressive development of all that physically
exists [system coherence demands the ongoing presence of that same potential-to-actual process of physical emergence] as well as the logical
requirement that actuality be limited to the Relative Being State [physical existence is defined as the existent IT “standing out”
from that which isn’t IT
], we find ourselves increasingly restricted to a very small arrangement of plausible explanations.
I know that our society’s ruling scientific paradigm flatly rejects the actuality of non-material physical reality, and that my own belief in the
necessary existence of information as a true [if not material] physical substrate certainly violates that specific tenet. That said, if material
structure is only relative densities of ongoing entangled spatial change [which is what's been universally embraced as a true and proven definition of
matter and material structure] then the property set and nature of the substrate that allows/requires that spatial change entanglement has yet to be
defined by anyone. I accept that the label I chose to use as reference to the component nature of that physical substrate [Residual Fact Sets] might
be a point of controversy, but my description of the extremely simple and primitive requirements inherent with any change/event that could've launched
the first ever emergence of physical actuality can only be controversial if it challenges ones personally held view of how reality's emergence
should have occurred
I'm not troubled by the fact that you didn't find that description compelling. Believe me when I confess that all I've encountered since publishing
[in Sept 2015] has been blank looks and a few yawns here and there. Yes, my little ToE doesn't reveal anything magnificent or miraculous, but then my
own realization has been that physical reality is not mysterious, bizarre, or "weirder that we can ever imagine". Still, it makes perfect sense with
all that’s been proven to be true; all the magic having been stripped away from how that genesis instant has been defined by our many human
cultures. Physical reality is not miraculous. It's not impossible to know. And the whole of physical reality certainly isn't limited to the
ramification structure that is thermodynamics. The whole of physical reality is pretty damn simple, even if the structural complexity of necessary
ramification can appear to be overwhelming when examined.
It's a hard question. I don't expect a simple, primitive answer to be readily embraced and I’m okay with that.