Imparticle Theory.

[Imparticle]

It begins with the imparticle. The imparticle is invisible, having no distinct qualities, having no energy or value. Since we can't identify an imparticle, we have to imagine one. Together with an infinite number of imparticles, it constructs the world. Imparticles have no inherent qualities and can never be scrutinized or quantified in themselves.

Since an imparticle has no value or distinct qualities, it is actually equal to every imparticle, an infinite amount, and it cannot be said to be distinct from any one of them. They are altogether interchangeable. Because imparticles have no distinction, they are forced to bond together, and because they have no value, it takes no energy to do this, and so it happens instantaneously. It takes no time for imparticles to bond.

That said, imparticles cannot stay bound because they have no energy, thus they disband from each other. And again, this takes no energy and occurs instantaneously. So every single imparticle throughout the world convulses instantaneously, each one of them being identical to an infinite number of them, putting every pattern in the world together and breaking it down. Not only biological patterns, not only atomic patterns, and radio wave patterns, but also mental patterns, mathematical patterns, and even abstract patterns.

This engenders to law of imparticle singularity, which consists that nothing can ever be separated because it is composed of imparticles and all imparticles are effectively contained within each other (more or less). I call it the Imparticle Singularity Principle. In so many words, it means everything is intrinsically intertwined at the most fundamental level. *Indeed, this principle is where all my theoretical understanding of science begins.

This also explains why alterations in patterns, and time, or duration, occurs. The imparticles convulse into every possible pattern simultaneously--why every possible pattern?--there cannot possibly be an actual order to the convulsion of imparticles. Moreover, any convulsion occurs instaneously and cannot be consecutive. All patterns occur at the same time, at once. But our brains, being composed of patterns themselves, naturally do not perceive the world this way. Thus there is time. So it is that imparticles compose the world, invisible empty particles that cannot be identified but must be there in order for things to exist.

 

Feedback on this would help me. See, I've been trying for a long time to branch out from this theory, to reach other conclusion besides the Imparticle Singularity Principle (as described previously). Time is very important in regards to this, and might represent several branches of imparticle theory. I have speculated for many years and continue to speculate that all time is simultaneous, and is somehow generated by imparticles, or rather the convulsion thereof--WHOA. What I need is stepping stones.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What predictions does this model make that could be tested in an experiment?

[Imparticle]

What predictions does this model make that could be tested in an experiment?

 

Hm. Perhaps after some discussion I could begin to formulate some sort of experiment. At this stage, it's been largely speculative and it's difficult to find grounds for an experiment insofar as I've tried. Thanks for the suggestion.

Juju.

[Imparticle]

What predictions does this model make that could be tested in an experiment?

I think the most obvious theoretical prediction would be, no matter what process you use, you cannot ultimately separate any two events. You also can't isolate any two objects from one another, at their fundamental level. In one way or another, any two objects have an indirect, fundamental relationship that cannot be broken. To my thoughts, the truth of this prediction doesn't need to be observable, because it seems given to me. Although there are many observable examples of this throughout our everyday life...

I'm finding it difficult to identify the part of an experiment that is: "the infinitely valueless hyper-quantum particle." I can't think of a process in an experiment that would indicate the involvement of the imparticle. That's why I think it's limited to speculation, inasmuch as I understand it... Although I do consist that imparticles must be said to exist, in spite of their supposed undetectability.

Juju.

[Bignose]

It begins with the imparticle. The imparticle is invisible, having no distinct qualities, having no energy or value.

 

If it has no distinct qualities, energy or value, and can't be seen, how would anyone even know if it exists?

 

-Or-

 

If there is no observable effect, then there isn't anything there.

[A Tripolation]

Although I do consist that imparticles must be said to exist, in spite of their supposed undetectability.

 

Why? What compels you to believe in these particles?

[Imparticle]

-Or-

 

If there is no observable effect, then there isn't anything there.

 

I didn't say that at all. In fact, just the opposite. The observable effect is all order and all things that exist; in a word, the effect is the pattern.

 

Why? What compels you to believe in these particles?

 

My response to that is:

Everything that possibly can occur, does occur--why?--because that's what the word possible means. And everything that can occur is interconnected--why?--because it all originates in the same principle, that is to say, possibility. And what creates this possibility? You can use many words to point at this thing, this principle, but inherently it recluses from them, it does not hold onto words, because that which originates all possibility has no possibility of its own. All this possibility, all this infinite variation must come from something, everything has origination.

[Bignose]

I didn't say that at all. In fact, just the opposite. The observable effect is all order and all things that exist; in a word, the effect is the pattern.

 

Imparticle, you may not have said "there is no observable effect" directly, but isn't that the logical conclusion of what you did write "The imparticle is invisible, having no distinct qualities, having no energy or value."?

 

As in, if there is "no energy or value" (not quite sure what that means, BTW), then there is no test possible to determine if and where they exist -- because there is no energy to detect or any 'value'. Hence, no test to observe them, either directly or indirectly.

 

So, finally, if there is no test, then how could be know if there are there or not? I mean, if I replace your 'imparticles' with 'faerie wishes', how if it any different.

 

Your test above doesn't work, because 'faerie wishes' can also lead to 'the effect is the pattern' because the faeries wish it so. You need to come up with a test that discriminates between imparticles and faerie wishes.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Bignose

[Imparticle]

Imparticle, you may not have said "there is no observable effect" directly, but isn't that the logical conclusion of what you did write "The imparticle is invisible, having no distinct qualities, having no energy or value."?

 

As in, if there is "no energy or value" (not quite sure what that means, BTW), then there is no test possible to determine if and where they exist -- because there is no energy to detect or any 'value'. Hence, no test to observe them, either directly or indirectly.

 

So, finally, if there is no test, then how could be know if there are there or not? I mean, if I replace your 'imparticles' with 'faerie wishes', how if it any different.

 

Your test above doesn't work, because 'faerie wishes' can also lead to 'the effect is the pattern' because the faeries wish it so. You need to come up with a test that discriminates between imparticles and faerie wishes.

 

 

At the risk of being frank, you are assuming a lot and favoring your own conclusions about my complete theory without having first understood even the very basis of it. No need to jump to things like that. Needless to say, the way you learn about a new idea, a different idea, is by opening your mind and trying to understand the reasons for it, not by insisting it isn't true at every vague spot. I'm asking you as a scientific-mind, to be respective of thinking in a different direction.

Your first question, stating that you don't understand what "no energy or value," means. Energy is the potential to do work. The imparticle (an abstract hyper-quantum particle) has no such energy, no potential to do in its own accord. Therefore, in an equation, or any scheme of values of any sort, the imparticle can carry no value of its own, nor can it be exclusively subject to value.

You then go on to say that there is no test possible to determine if or where they exist. The word quantum can be used in a sense to describe ideas or processes that physically occur, but cannot be observed in the conventional sense. There are all kinds of processes and ideas that occur in our universe, that are not observable, not concrete, but they are still real. Imaginary numbers, for example. These parts of reality are simply abstract. The basis of my theory simply suggests that at the fundamental level of all things in our universe, there lies something that is not only quantum in the physical sense, but abstract as well. Now, is that seriously owed to be compared to "faerie wishes"? Not hardly.

After reiterating this logic, I elaborate on the process of imparticles. I call this process convulsion. It is simple reasoning. If something has no energy and is indistinguishable from it's counterparts, it cannot be dissociated from them, they are contained within one another and yet, being infinitely valueless, they disband from each other simultaneously. Having no energy, having no concrete dimension, they do not interact with us in continuity (time), they simply undergo their necessary process.

You would like an experiment? Confounding as the concept of imparticle singularity may sound at first, it explains a lot of things about reality. It explains why no thing--concrete or abstract--can ever be utterly dissociated from anything else (a fact which is not plainly observable, but is abstractly understood nonetheless). I have spent years trying to figure out how they are not there, convulsing, instantaneously intertwining all ideas at their most fundamental level. The truth is, what if they weren't there? If nothing was intertwining all ideas at the fundamental level, then all ideas would be dissociated, and nothing further could evolve. Reality would consist a void of no ideas. Here is my experiment: The hypothesis is something intertwines all ideas fundamentally, thus allow further building of reality. You test this hypothesis with a thought-experiment, much like the popular "Schrodinger's Cat" experiment. You think logically, are all ideas in reality fundamentally intertwined, are they unable to be dissociated, do they appear to be connected abstractly through one way or another if they are observed? Then you recognize this concept as an abstract concept that is not comprehended without logical thought. I have simply reached the conclusion, time and again, that these invisible things must be there, fundamentally intertwining all ideas that make up reality. I don't choose to "believe" in them, I scientifically find cause to identify them as being there. One last time, imparticle singularity is an abstract concept, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. It's reasonable and explains things in a physical way--that is to say, physics in the hyper-quantum sense--that are HARDLY explained at all. The reason they are hardly explained is because most scientists don't want to "go there". To put it simply, I have.

Once this much is understood, I can move on to the more complex nature of my theory, which illustrates the dimensions, from the first self-sustaining dimension, to the last self-limiting dimension, at what an idea's point in each dimension means.

[Ophiolite]

At the risk of being frank, you are assuming a lot and favoring your own conclusions about my complete theory without having first understood even the very basis of it. No need to jump to things like that. Needless to say, the way you learn about a new idea, a different idea, is by opening your mind and trying to understand the reasons for it, not by insisting it isn't true at every vague spot. I'm asking you as a scientific-mind, to be respective of thinking in a different direction.

With the intention of being frank, this defence and the initial speculation come across as word salad. You appear to be postulating particles having no, or ill-defined, or variable properties solely because you see a need for them. This perceived need seems to be based on an improper understanding of the consensus view of reality. Certainly you have not demonstrated that there is a need for such particles and, for me at least, have failed to convince me that further consideration of the idea would be valuable. If you could offer a single way in which this hypothesis provides a better explnation of any observation than I would consider it worthwhile to look at it further. Until and unless that happens my open minded consideration of your proposal will retain a negative conclusion.

[tar]

Imparticle,

 

Well if true, and I suppose it is, there remains the fact that things we are concerned with, are in the here and now.

In that case we are conscious of our particular combination of patterns...somewhat locked away from the greater and lesser folds. It is the particular arrangement of neighboring patterns that lends the "value" to reality. To be just one imparticle, would not have any meaning. Nor would being all imparticles. It is awareness of a particular slice that gives meaning to reality.

 

That being said, an imparticle is rather incapable of explaining anything, other than a general idea of a "thing" that is both actor and stage. I think we already accept this general concept...All the world is a stage...

 

The important things, the predicates, the things that can be said about something or anything, are particular patterns. A convolution or collection thereof of particular scale and particular duration.

 

These are the things we can point to and say, "there...that is real".

 

In any case, us humans seem to be nicely in sync with each other. In scale and moment. 'course we have about 7 billion ways of looking at it.

 

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited November 9, 2011 by tar

[Imparticle]

Imparticle,

 

Well if true, and I suppose it is, there remains the fact that things we are concerned with, are in the here and now.

In that case we are conscious of our particular combination of patterns...somewhat locked away from the greater and lesser folds. It is the particular arrangement of neighboring patterns that lends the "value" to reality. To be just one imparticle, would not have any meaning. Nor would being all imparticles. It is awareness of a particular slice that gives meaning to reality.

Precisely.

 

That being said, an imparticle is rather incapable of explaining anything, other than a general idea of a "thing" that is both actor and stage. I think we already accept this general concept...All the world is a stage...

More or less.

The important things, the predicates, the things that can be said about something or anything, are particular patterns. A convolution or collection thereof of particular scale and particular duration.

 

These are the things we can point to and say, "there...that is real".

 

Much obliged.

 

OPHIOLITE:

With the intention of being frank, this defence and the initial speculation come across as word salad. You appear to be postulating particles having no, or ill-defined, or variable properties solely because you see a need for them.

Frankly I never said they have no or variable properties, nor have I defined them in a way to be called "ill". Their properties are very clear and specific. They have no energy, they have no mass or value, they cannot be dissociated from each other, they are simultaneously bonded and disbanded from each other, and they are infinitely valueless. I have also designated them as hyper-quantum, a term already used in the scientific community.

This perceived need seems to be based on an improper understanding of the consensus view of reality.

No, it doesn't seem that way. Or if it does, how about you elaborate on how it is so, please. Metaphysics: a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world. This is a metaphysical theory that involves abstract concepts and illustrates how an hyper-quantum particle is abstract.

Certainly you have not demonstrated that there is a need for such particles and, for me at least, have failed to convince me that further consideration of the idea would be valuable.

I attempted to demonstrate so. Either you didn't see the demonstration, or you aren't responding to it. If you find the demonstration is false, please explain why, then we could actually discuss it. Or am I to just babble? It would be profitable if we could explore the theory together in order to make it more tangible for you. Or if you'd rather not understand it at all, I don't care--lots of people don't want to understand things they can't immediately grasp. But I'll tell you this: if you expect to grasp the metaphysical basis of the universe in a single, immediate sitting, you are in fact living in a box.

[Bignose]

Frankly I never said they have no or variable properties, nor have I defined them in a way to be called "ill". Their properties are very clear and specific. They have no energy, they have no mass or value, they cannot be dissociated from each other, they are simultaneously bonded and disbanded from each other, and they are infinitely valueless. I have also designated them as hyper-quantum, a term already used in the scientific community.

 

There is that "no value" phrase again, that I am sorry, but I still don't know what it means. Value of what exactly? What exactly does "infinitely valueless" mean?

 

And, again, please propose a test that will clearly show their presence or lack of presence, and furthermore shows that imparticles are real but "faerie wishes" aren't.

[tar]

Big nose,

 

While I would agree that there is a similarity between imparticles and faerie wishes, faerie wishes imply faeries and wishes, neither of which imparticles imply.

 

Where imparticles fail exactly is in their ability to be part of a valid argument, but not a sound one. They could be true, but there is no "other" reason to consider that they are, other than the initial argument. In this, one could build a valid argument for faerie wishes or imparticles, and still explain everything based on them. But they both fail, till you find an "other" reason to believe they are true.

 

Perhaps this is where metaphysics is weak. It has to do with the consistency of the argument, being true to its own assumptions and logic, but not having a way to be tested against a rather consistent reality. Metaphysics being sort of an "internal" reality, that proves all to the holder, and nothing to anybody else, in an "external" way.

 

Not that metaphysics is not important to us. We all do it, to some extent. But I am thinking that meta has the appearance of being "beyond" physics, but is occurring well inside reality. So much so that it is occurring only within the holder, and has no effect on, or connection to the "greater" reality, until some "other" proof can be verified.

 

Thus the need to ask "how do we test it?", so we can consider it true (or untrue). As is done, in Physics.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited November 9, 2011 by tar

[Ophiolite]

Imparticle, allow me to make some general observations about the tenor of your posts. You seem to imagine that those who respond to you critically, lack the imagination to think novel thoughts, explore weird ideas, or embrace abstract concepts. I could argue that the lifetime I have spent doing exactly that equips me to assess hypothetical constructs from others quite rapidly. Your position seems to be that if I ultimately disagree with you or dismiss your ideas, then I simply haven't thought about your proposal long enough, or lack the intellect to understand it.

 

This approach, whether deliberate or accidental, willl not endear you to your readers. If you wish anyone to invest time in thinking more about your speculation then you damn well need to grant them some respect and to entertain the possibility that you may be mistaken.

 

Frankly I never said they have no or variable properties,

Really? You said this: "The imparticle is invisible, having no distinct qualities, having no energy or value....... Imparticles have no inherent qualities and can never be scrutinized or quantified in themselves."

Something with no distinct qualities would seem to be something that has variable properties. If the properties were not variable then they would be distinct.

 

nor have I defined them in a way to be called "ill".

On the contrary, since these particles have no discernible qualities they are, by your own definition ill-defined. As Bignose has pointed out you call them infinitely valueless, a seemingly meaningless term. If that constitutes a definition - which you say it does, and I accept - then it is a poorly, i.e. ill-defined one.

 

No, it doesn't seem that way

Excuse me! It most certainly seems that way to me. I am one of the audience whom you are trying to convince. If it 'seems that way' to me then either you abandin efforts to persaude me, or you start listening to me. Why do I think so? tar has epxressed it quite clearly for me. You are raising the possibility of a particle whose only justiifcation appears to be that you think you need it. I don;t see a need for it. Others in this thread see no need for it. The provisional conclusion is that you have misunderstood current theory and seen a gap where none exists.

 

If you find the demonstration is false, please explain why, then we could actually discuss it.

It is not that it is false, it is that it is wholly lacking in substance. Again, I think tar captures much of this in his post. I'll put it another way - I see no connection between your attempt to justify your claim and the claim itself.

[Imparticle]

OPHIOLITE:

I appreciate that. No, I'm not trying to be self-proliferating or condescending, even passively. I would like to be questioned, I would like to have discussion. What I don't want is to be refused without any discussion at all, and I'm simply discouraging that. If I come across any other way, I'm being misleading. But please understand, I can sound very misleading in written discussion.

 

 

You said this: "The imparticle is invisible, having no distinct qualities, having no energy or value....... Imparticles have no inherent qualities and can never be scrutinized or quantified in themselves."

Something with no distinct qualities would seem to be something that has variable properties. If the properties were not variable then they would be distinct.

 

Here, the words properties and qualities do not mean the same thing. In certain cases they can be similar, but not in this case. It's a matter of semantics. When I say an imparticle has no qualities, I mean that nothing concrete could be said about any given imparticle. You cannot say, in a concrete sense, that it is a certain color, taste, size, or describe it with any quality at all that behooves it any tangibility. But that doesn't mean they don't have real properties, in the sense that they have virtue of what they are (property: a characteristic trait or peculiarity, especially one serving to define or describe its possessor; the virtue possessed of a thing)

On the contrary, since these particles have no discernible qualities they are, by your own definition ill-defined.

Not ill-defined, rather they are abstractly-defined. Whether I have ill-defined their abstract definition is another question. And at any rate, I'd be happy to best define their abstract definition through discussion on them.

Excuse me! It most certainly seems that way to me. I am one of the audience whom you are trying to convince.

I'm honestly not trying to convince anyone, I'm trying to communicate a concept so as to clarify it better for people in general. I've already explained this and discussed it with dozens of my associates. I am looking for an open discussion from people who have thought through what I've said, so I can take things further here, for more depthuous analysis. I don't mean to sound preachy.

Tar:

Thus the need to ask "how do we test it?", so we can consider it true (or untrue). As is done, in Physics.

Thank you. You do seem to understand what metaphysics is. It is indeed physics, but not empirical physics, and certainly not always concrete, often abstract. Pick up any college textbook on philosophy and metaphysics, or just metaphysics, and you'll find test after test for several theories. I'm used to metaphysical testing. I've simply introduced into this field, a metaphysical particle that is in the PHYSICAL sense, abstract, and as I'm currently describing as hyper-quantum. Perhaps better testing could come out of this thread, but we'd have to actually discuss it on the same level.

There is that "no value" phrase again, that I am sorry, but I still don't know what it means. Value of what exactly

Any sort of concrete, or empirical value. In mathematical terms, infinitely valueless would be represented as [0] (absolute zero) or perhaps zero to the i (imaginary zero). There are various ways to describe infinitely valueless.

 

You are raising the possibility of a particle whose only justiifcation appears to be that you think you need it. I don;t see a need for it. Others in this thread see no need for it. The provisional conclusion is that you have misunderstood current theory and seen a gap where none exists.

 

You know what? People didn't see a need for the theory that the world was not the center of the universe, nay even the star system. And yet the theory was true. Many theories are not seen to have a need, at first. I never said I saw a gap in current theory and that I'm trying to fill it. Indeed, if there was a gap, everyone would be trying to fill it. I'm not trying to fill anything that's missing. I'm simply describing something that explains what is already there. That's why it is a metaphysical theory, it explains what's already there, it relates to the fundamental nature or being-ness, of reality itself. My justification is not that I "think I need it." My justification is as I've implied. I posited that if imparticles weren't there as the things whose property is to fundamentally intertwine all ideas, then all ideas would be randomly disconnected and even idealistic relativity would not exist, thus rendering reality a void of no ideas. I've said other things along those lines, yet you have ignored them, claiming that I am not providing any justification, yet I have implied it time and again. If you have thoughts on it, or disagree with it, or agree with it, or what have you, please post it and that's how we will all have a discussion. But you have no reason to say I am talking with empty words or "word salad".

If you think I came to this thread trying to convince others that these particles NEED to exist, and to follow my concept of reality like sheep, you are mistaken. I am here to discuss, for the sake of discussing and refining representation of this, the basis of my theory, and the further concepts which it composes and constrains. You may not see a need for it, but there has hardly been any argument beyond the semantic presumption. I'm not accusing anyone of being stupid or closed-minded, I'd just rather have discussion on the ideas, and not on how the concept is not empirically provable. It is METAPHYSICAL, indeed it stems into the realm of hyper-quantum physics, but it is understood through metaphysical sense and intellectualism.

[tar]

Imparticle,

 

The impractical, I mean the imparticle needs to automatically convulse into all possible combinations of ideas. Don't know why the lamp I took a look at when I first read your theory is still sitting there, very lamp like. Shouldn't it be on to other things?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Interesting to me, is the fact that we each hold a "complete" model of the whole universe in our heads.

 

It isn't really complete. It can not be. We only see it from here and now. We speculate and do transforms and make analogies and shift grain size, as appropriate, to consider things "as if" we were there and then. But what of a cave on a planet circling a star 100 ly from here. What is in the cave? We have no freaking clue.

 

 

Regards, TAR2

 

and why an "infinite" number of imparticles. Couldn't a mere handful, or lets say four, do the job of taking on all possible convolutions, given an infinite amount of time?

 

and how about this "idea" idea. Let's say the ideas that humans have are analogous representations of actual patterns that exist. The "idea" does not have to actually exist, except in its embodiment in the patterns and synapses and connections and timing of firing of neurons in the brain of the person holding the idea. It is well known that humans have a tendency to "see" patterns, and fill in the blanks, even where an "actual" pattern is not. As in seeing the face of Jesus on a grill cheese sandwich. This relagates "ideas" to something that it takes a human to have. Not something that "needs" to be actually existant in the external world. So while the patterns we have in our heads are probably taken from the external world, in several ways or senses of the word take, it does not necessitate that the "ideas" exist in and of themselves, external to a human mind.

 

Take God for instance. If in our model of the world, we need "someone" to have the whole "idea" in his (or her, or its) mind, it would be God that would have this ability. But we would more or less be projecting our own abilities onto the universe in total, to have this "idea" that the universe is capable of having an idea.

 

On the other hand the universe is capable of having an idea, because I just had one, and I am not "other than" the universe.

[Bignose]

You know what? People didn't see a need for the theory that the world was not the center of the universe, nay even the star system.

 

Incorrect, it was becoming well known that as better than better observations were being made of the movements of Mars, the Moon, etc., that Earth-centric solar system models were making worse and worse agreements with predictions. Whereas a sun-centric solar system was making better and better predictions. And that is the heart of our questions on your idea here -- what specific prediction can your idea make that can show objectively and clearly that the particles in your idea exist? This is a huge part of physics -- making predictions and seeing how well measurements agree with that prediction. It is the ultimate judge of a model -- its usefulness as to how well its predictions agree with experimental observations.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Bignose

[tar]

How do imparticles manage to form the border between Canada and the U.S.?

[Imparticle]

All of the arguments and questions posed in these messages are explained at least twice over by myself in the previous posts, quite clearly, and so that common people have generally understood. I mean, through many discussions with--let me guess-about 20 VERY different people of different ages and different backgrounds, some highly scientific, some not so at all, understood those things quite clearly.

The lamp still looks like a lamp, but it is not the same lamp as it was the first time you saw it. Do I need to tell you that everything is constantly changing, that reality is in perpetual flux and nothing stays the same from one point in time to another? There is no atom that does not change, relatively, to the rest of the universe, at any given point in time. Nor is there a subatomic particle, or any object, or any thing at all that remains unchanging. The world is made up of change, relativity. When the imparticles bond, they make up the lamp, when they are disbanded, the lamp is not "there"--in a hyper-quantum sense. But as I said very clearly, the bonding process and the disbanding process is instantaneous--why?--because the process takes NO ENERGY and therefore cannot take up any amount of "time". This simply means that by the time the lamp has been convulsed into reality, it has been both bonded and disbanded into reality, and that all the imparticles making up this lamp, have convulsed into every possible ORDER they ever could convulse into, creating an infinite, simultaneous reality made up of endless ideas--ideas like the lamp, and the new lamp you're still staring at now, and also the new lamp that will be their 3 seconds later, and the new photons that are traveling from the lamp to your eye, and your new eye, and your new brain that has gone from being what it was 3 seconds ago, to the brain it is now, made up of atoms that have slightly changed, and furthermore, an infinite number of hyper-quantum particles that have "changed" as well.

[tar]

Well my lamp has managed to convulse into exactly the same pattern it had yesterday. Idea wise, anyway.

 

Maybe a bit more tarnish, and an extra spider strand or two.

 

my point being that the imparticles seem to come up with these entities/patterns that "maintain" on some scale, at the same time as other patterns, on other levels, change

 

there is the lamp

 

tiny particles whizzing around within

 

huge suns whizziing around without

 

there sits the lamp

 

exhibit A

[Bignose]

All of the arguments and questions posed in these messages are explained at least twice over by myself in the previous posts, quite clearly, and so that common people have generally understood. I mean, through many discussions with--let me guess-about 20 VERY different people of different ages and different backgrounds, some highly scientific, some not so at all, understood those things quite clearly.

The lamp still looks like a lamp, but it is not the same lamp as it was the first time you saw it. Do I need to tell you that everything is constantly changing, that reality is in perpetual flux and nothing stays the same from one point in time to another? There is no atom that does not change, relatively, to the rest of the universe, at any given point in time. Nor is there a subatomic particle, or any object, or any thing at all that remains unchanging. The world is made up of change, relativity. When the imparticles bond, they make up the lamp, when they are disbanded, the lamp is not "there"--in a hyper-quantum sense. But as I said very clearly, the bonding process and the disbanding process is instantaneous--why?--because the process takes NO ENERGY and therefore cannot take up any amount of "time". This simply means that by the time the lamp has been convulsed into reality, it has been both bonded and disbanded into reality, and that all the imparticles making up this lamp, have convulsed into every possible ORDER they ever could convulse into, creating an infinite, simultaneous reality made up of endless ideas--ideas like the lamp, and the new lamp you're still staring at now, and also the new lamp that will be their 3 seconds later, and the new photons that are traveling from the lamp to your eye, and your new eye, and your new brain that has gone from being what it was 3 seconds ago, to the brain it is now, made up of atoms that have slightly changed, and furthermore, an infinite number of hyper-quantum particles that have "changed" as well.

 

this is a nice story and all, but I still see no specific prediction that would be objectively testable to exclusively if your idea particles are real or not. How soon could we expect that?

[tar]

Imparticle,

 

Here is a thought.

 

You perhaps had an "idea" of what the lamp's "pattern" was, the first time I mentioned it. After seeing the picture of the lamp, you now have a different "idea" of what my lamp is.

 

Your first "idea" was not correct. Your "after the picture" "idea" is true.

 

Your first idea was imaginary. Your idea now (of my lamp) conforms with reality.

 

Were any of your "imparticles" at work, to form your first idea?

 

Were they at work in your brain, or on the top of my glassed in shelf, where the "real" lamp exists?

 

You can come over and touch my lamp, see things with its light. What can we do with your first idea of my lamp?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

How much of your imparticle theory exists in your mind, and model of the world, and how much exists in reality where we can find it?

 

can we test it?

[Imparticle]

this is a nice story and all, but I still see no specific prediction that would be objectively testable to exclusively if your idea particles are real or not. How soon could we expect that?

 

That's because it is metaphysics. If you're not familiar or studious in metaphysics, this will not make scientific sense to you. It is not merely empirical physics, it is metaphysics, which is another branch of science altogether but inextricably linked to empirical physics nonetheless.

[tar]

Imparticle,

 

Kant very carefully described our "understanding" in a sound argument, that set some solid basis for metaphysics.

 

His categories describe that which can be said about anything.

 

You can not make up your own rules, without basing them on sound, (not just plausable) arguments.

 

If an imparticle has already, or is already, taken on every possible pattern it can take on, nothing at all in particular can be said about it.

 

What use is it to us, if it is such an ambiguous entity.

 

You can't make any predictions as to what one will do next, because in your scheme, it has already done it.

 

So what is left? The particular arrangement of reality as we notice it. It is THIS particular moment, at THIS particular place, and the arrangement of space and time around it, that is of any concern.

 

That is the only "the way it is" that one can say anything about.

 

Regards, TAR2