petrushka.googol

Symphony is a metaphor for something of deeper import...i am not sure how the terminology actually works...

I infer that you are an optimist .....

Need I be explicit... The best metaphor I have that involves God is "God helps those that help themselves." Does that insinuate the existence of free will ?

How many particles can coexist as entangled states ? How many such sets can coexist as a symphony ? Any theories on this ?

Fully endorse this...space and time though complementary are totally different when viewed independantly. That is my viewpoint.

Time by itself has no meaning. Space does. If i say you have an object that looks like a box you can be sure what to expect. If I say I saw an object at T = 3 units it means very little, except that the object was in motion for 3 s. This could be 3 s from any origin that you choose to select. Space on the other hand always completely describes the nature of the object irrespective of where you choose the reference axes. A box at rest or a box in motion is always a box. Just contemplate the same.

It makes me cringe when I see innocent people suffer. Would a caring God partake of such injustice? What conclusion does this lead us to? Please advise.

Yes..

One doubt : Can entropy really be zero at initial state? Zero entropy implies perfect symmetry but it is plausible relative to the initial conditions of the Universe and infinite density that density was very nearly infinity but not quite there. Some infinitely small deviation from the same. This inherent instability precipitated the Big Bang. Without this infinitesimal inequality time would not have unraveled space and the Universe as we know it would not have existed.

Time according to me is notional. As a control experiment consider a cubical box placed at an origin at some time T0. Even if the box has not translated in space it may translate in time because the observer sees it that way. Space is real and time is virtual. That is why we speak of space-time. Even a stationary object translates in the time axis even if it does not move in space. The converse of course is not true. According to me time is the driving virtual vector dimension and space the following scalar dimension. Just my thoughts running riot....

My own simple visualization is thus : the 4th dimension is coupled collectively to the 3 dimensions in space (not to an individual axis) and translation in this space is experienced as time. Time cannot be visualization as another plane but should be thought of as a curved space that mimics the lower orders of magnitude. (in this case 3 dimensional space).

Is the lion truly the king of beasts ? Or is this a misnomer? Why not the elephant for its size, the chimpanzee for its intelligence or the humble ant for its networking (social) intelligence? (I personally think an ant colony is the precursor to social networks). Please advise.

....

My thoughts on this : As I have said before time is relative to the observer and our choice of reference axes are purely arbitrary. If we consider the direction of increasing entropy to be negative (correlated with state of greater disorder) then the big bang becomes our origin and we could assume that time actually is moving backwards with respect to it. (negative is correlated with increased magnitude of entropy). Hence we could assume that we are actually moving back in time. It is purely subjective. Back to the future anyone ?

I visualize time as a kind of virtual 4th dimension. In Hinduism Shiva is said to have had a third eye that was endowed with extra-sensory perception. Time exists as long as a "third-eye" is there to observe it. Recall that there is no such thing as absolute time. Time is observer dependent and without one, time ceases to exists (or could be visualized to be decoupled from space time) to leave space which is temporal and perceptible regardless of the observer. I visualize time as "quantum time" !!! Time is what the observer sees depending on what he wants to see, (frame of reference dependent). Time both does and does not exist. It exists when a observer conceptualizes it related to his frame of reference but in essence it actually does not exist !!!

To illustrate - Religions like Judaism and Buddhism span the globe and are not ethno-centric. Religion and "God" represents the super-ego which is above the individual ego. So it implies humility even if the orientation is purely by circumstance.

I picture it as a kind of thermodynamic potential energy that follows a potential gradient (moving from a quasi-stable state to a stable one. (not in the conventional sense mind you).

To me religion serves a dual purpose. Firstly it focuses attention away from oneself and extrapolates it on some other entity (G_d in Judaism, the Cosmos in Buddhism etc.). It is not necessarily ethno-centric. This serves to make a person look outwards, rather than inwards, which I think is good in a way. Secondly it serves as a kind of serotonin stimulator. Picture yourself in an austere Gothic Cathedral prostrating yourself (usually in a group) before an object of veneration. There is definitely a feel-good element in all of this. Just my random musings...

Quantum computing uses collapse of a wave function to translate a fuzzy sequence of bits into a read value. This according to me is at least partly simulated in the cloud where the network of computers represents a fuzzy state and the computer selected for processing is totally random depending on availability. This is a model of peer to peer computing at the macro level using QM as the algorithm for device selection among multiple devices.

Why do raindrops take their typical pear shape? Please provide some insight.

"ubiquitous"...

If the cloud were truly universal could it be a prototype for a universal quantum computer ? Please advise.

Is the electron cloud a tangible entity or just a mathematical construct to aid in visualization? Please advise.

We usually associate centrifugal force with Newtonian dynamics. Does this applied at the micro level manifest itself at the atomic scale. if so how ? Please explain.

Why do clouds look the way they do ? I mean, even Wordsworth said, and i quote : "I wondered lonely as a cloud..." and the imagery is very vivid and striking. Why do they resemble cotton wool clumps of more or less predictable size ? How does fluid mechanics play a role in all of this ? Please advise.