science = determinism?
kpaulc at earthlink.net
Sat Nov 27 05:37:26 EST 1999
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> * Will Dwinnell wrote:
> > My point is that this belief that there is no randomness in reality is
> > an assumption.
> And an assumption that has been generally understood to be wrong for
> about 70 years, since the discovery of quantum mechanics. There are
> `deterministic' explanations of QM -- in particular the many-worlds
> theory -- but they don't help you actually predict things as you can't
> tell which world you'll end up in until you make the experiment.
my view is that there's no randomness because physical reality is
continuous, excat and deterministic. energy is an extreme-fluid that just
flows. what have been referred to as 'atoms' are just energy 'trapped',
during some creation violence, into spherical harmonic interaction with
surrounding energy be-cause there's more energy in-there than can escape
through the surface area before the escaping area causes the surrounding
energy to 'solidify', with a resulting 'rebound' which initiates the next
'compression' phase of the 'atom'.
to 'cut to the chase', i know of no experimental results that cannot be
explained in accord with this continuous, deterministic stuff.
radioactive decay, for instance, occurs because the surrounding energy does
work in sustaining the existenses of the energy harmonics (spherical
standing waves; SSWs), and because of this, there's a net flow of energy
toward disorder which is experienced as a decrease in 'pressure', which is
evidenced in 'atomic decay'.
when an 'atom' disintegrates, it releases energy back to the surrounding
extreme-fluid, bolstering it's 'pressure', so that other 'atoms' don't
it has the appearance of being 'random' because the extreme-fluid's
'pressure' variations aren't taken into account, only disintegration events.
but such 'pressure' variations are readily observable in the 'cosmological
red-shift'... instead of red-shift 'meaning' "moving-faster", it means
More information about the Neur-sci