Life - How Should It Be Viewed?

[Bob Armstrong]

Life - How to View It



1. We are blessed to be, rather than not.
2. Life events are, generally, random, not by design.
3. We are to manage all situations to the best of our ability in this life, which IS struggle. Our main guide is altruism.
4. We are entitled to all the healthy enjoyment of life we can glean while negotiating the chaos.

Theist Community
Core Belief

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064817052277

What other points of view are held by other CT'ers?

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

Question

Do you think "ethics/morality" have been declining in society?

Bob A

[Fred Henderson]

Altruism: "the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others."

Those are your beliefs? Or you are speaking on behalf of the "theist community" (belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures. "...our main guide is altruism". That's quite a claim to make.

What's that Facebook link?

Life events are random. Why do you say that? Does that not mean we have no influence on them?

My views...

• Life is what you make of it. I liked what I read once somewhere: "Life is what you think about all day"
• I see a lot of people who call themselves theists who don't appear to take personal responsibility for what happens in their lives, saying "It's God's will", or "It's in God's hands". I feel very uncomfortable with that one.
• As for whether or not I am a "theist", It's not something I think about. At all. If there is a god, I have never felt the need to taIk to him. I tried praying once, decades ago, but I stopped very quickly. Belief on yourself comes first. If you don't love yourself, then you aren't likely to find the love you are looking for.
• as for ethics and morality, it depends on your morals. People can do what they want as long as no-one gets hurt. I don't see that it's any worse than it ever was, but I suppose coming out of the lockdown there are a lot of people looking for something, and not getting it.

[Bob Armstrong]

Fred:

Thanks for taking the time to post a different point of view.

We all are unique individuals, having lived unique lives - this informs how we view "Life".....and our differences are what make the world go round!

Other views CT'ers would like to share?......this issue is not agreement; the issue is to give each other new concepts to consider.

Bob A (Theist Community)

[Bob Armstrong]

Theist Community (TC)

1. Fb Page - https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064817052277 - Theist Community - This is where the Community sets out some of its simple approach to Religion.

2. Fb Group - https://www.facebook.com/groups/6579...ref=nf&__xts__[0]=68.ARBPgftXHCO1yVfGVVSsm8bFkSm5X5qQg-X2uXyf6VEUHZLEW65g-IEFXKRB4x-W3mOJcMD9Q60UUBIq6T0_ve7eO-NexVUbpWIDC2z4rWYC2BpC___8fFTq8Rx6M9vxkJiYr5nweWlFsoBXpgU55U0PX7eq-OOCotDEbtQk5k-Wyvg-AcgKzkwhHJ0wamiZl0_PPzLgpMdHVrUP9i_xh_1JVgHn0_S48byksjXXOwX6tArN21q-t_4zaN5XmORvf3Ovdxev2R3wjMzxtJ0T8hlWteLH3P7u8cxW3mhWtypHFx5pHHHIwV7EXlrtmbrfmbQzug - Spiritual/Religions Discussion Club - a wide-open forum where all aspects of spirituality and various Religions can be discussed. There is no attempt to proselytize for members for the Theist Community........everyone has to decide these things for themselves. Some interesting discussions.

3. Statement # 2 of the Theist Community "Core Beliefs" - "2. Life events are, generally, random, not by design."

Random here does not mean that there are no causes - we are effective beings; we can cause good things or bad things; material things can break down and cause damage and death - getting caught under a breaking tree branch.

But "Random (generally) means that the Supra-Natural has not determined/ grand designed all that is going to happen. Most things are just random events in a material multi-verse. Most events don't happen for any "reason" - that they are planned by God to achieve some certain result. TC does not believe in Karma - that one gets compensated in the future for having undergone some trauma in the future (May or may not happen - just pure luck). There is no "What goes around, comes around" - again, maybe, maybe not. It is dependent on the causes operating randomly in the multi-verse.

Does this generate any ideas that might continue this discussion?

Bob

[Dilip Panjwani]

The scientific world-view holds that the history and future of the entire universe, including so-called 'living' creatures (see the Scientific American article: Does Life really exist? and my posts on 'consciousness') can be exhaustively represented as a progression of events, one after the other, as cause and effect. There is no need to postulate a 'first event' if one considers the 'big bangs to dark holes to big bangs cycles' going on for ever. 'Randomness' is the term we use when we do not understand the laws and complexity of this cause and effect. This determinism is incompatible with free will (as proven scientifically, when one decides to raise any one arm of the two, it is not an act of volition but an act of complex, subconscious, determinism).

[Bob Armstrong]

So we can now add in that everything is foretold if we can figure out all the factors coming into play to allow only one predetermined action to "result" from the "complex cause".

Is this a pretty good one sentence statement on it?

If so, then everyone can chew on: There is no human free will!

How does that fit into your own personal Multi-verse Paradigm (Your own personal Theory of Everything)?

Bob A (Non-determinist)

[Sid Belzberg]

The scientific world-view holds that the history and future of the entire universe, including so-called 'living' creatures (see the Scientific American article: Does Life really exist? and my posts on 'consciousness') can be exhaustively represented as a progression of events, one after the other, as cause and effect. There is no need to postulate a 'first event' if one considers the 'big bangs to dark holes to big bangs cycles' going on for ever. 'Randomness' is the term we use when we do not understand the laws and complexity of this cause and effect. This determinism is incompatible with free will (as proven scientifically, when one decides to raise any one arm of the two, it is not an act of volition but an act of complex, subconscious, determinism).

Hi Diliip,
i find your comments on determinism and science to be very interesting. Imagine two coins flipped simultaneously. Even if separated by a vast distance, if they always land with matching sides (both heads or both tails), you'd suspect some hidden connection between them. This is analogous to entanglement in the quantum world. Entangled particles exhibit a bizarre correlation – measuring one instantly determines the state of its distant partner, seemingly defying notions of distance and time.

To explain this weirdness, pilot wave theory proposes that particles are guided by an invisible wave carrying "hidden variables" – instructions that predetermine their behavior. Imagine the coins having tiny markings only visible under a special light. Those markings would dictate how they land, removing true randomness from the outcome.

The problem is that entanglement suggests these hidden instructions change instantly across distances, coordinating the entangled particles' behavior. This leads to a potentially troubling idea called superdeterminism. If everything is preprogrammed from the universe's beginning by hidden variables, it implies our choices aren't truly free. Imagine not just the coins, but our own decisions about how to measure the particles were predetermined. This challenges our intuitive understanding of cause and effect.

The alternative to the pilot wave theory, the "standard model", does not even address this idea that when one entangled particle is observed, even if the other particle is lightyears away, it instantaneously does the exact opposite of the observed particle, seemingly at speeds faster than light violating the special theory that imposes a cosmic speed limit of the speed of light. It does not explain how this is possible; it simply acknowledges this strange fact without explanation.

My partner in life, science, and business developed an interesting physics hypothesis while skipping stones across a pond at the famous Mount Royal in Montreal. Together, we worked on writing it up formally as well as an experiment to validate the hypothesis physically.

In quantum physics, entangled particles exhibit a seemingly impossible connection – changes to one particle can instantaneously affect its partner, even across vast distances. This phenomenon appears to violate Einstein's theory of relativity, which posits the speed of light as the cosmic speed limit. We propose a new model and experimental validation, introducing hidden wave structures and the disruptive influence of decoherence to explain this strange behavior while adhering to relativistic constraints.


A Nested Wave Model for Quantum Non-locality: Reconciling with Special Relativity
By Sidney H Belzberg and Alicia Belzberg

Abstract
We propose a nested wave model to address this nonlocal behavior without abandoning the fundamental principles of relativity. Our model introduces a hidden wave structure (Wave 2) interacting with conventional wavefunctions (Wave 1). As entangled particles separate by significant distances, new nested wave structures emerge within Wave 2 to mediate seemingly non-local entanglement effects. Importantly, quantum decoherence, increasing with distance, could disrupt the coherence of the Wave 2 structures. Decoherence introduces increasing "noise" into the Wave 2 system, potentially causing a delay as the entanglement signal must overcome this disruption over increasing distances. Rather than hindering entanglement, this disruption offers a potential mechanism for explaining a minuscule delay in the observed non-locality.

Mathematically, we model this process with a modified Schrödinger equation containing nested terms whose interactions scale as a function of separation distance and entanglement severity ('η'). Additionally, we introduce an exponential decoherence term, dependent on distance ('d'), to account for the potential degradation of nested wave interactions. We include a theoretical limit informed by the speed of light as a critical threshold for generating new nested wave structures:

i∂Ψ(x,t) / ∂t = [−ℏ² / 2m ⋅ ∇² + V(x) + Σ{ki f(η, ai(d), c) Φi(x,t)} + β * e^(-kd) * Ψ(x,t)] Ψ(x,t)

Here, 'c' is a proxy for the speed-of-light limit in nested wave generation dynamics. Individual nested waves ('Φi') possess scale factors ('ai') exhibiting distance ('d') and entanglement dependency through 'f(η).' Notably, the inclusion of parameter 'c' directly reflects the model's focus on a nested wave system that respects relativistic constraints for each interacting level within Wave 2."
This model aims to provide a mathematically sound approach to understanding entanglement within the constraints of Special Relativity. This novel nested wave paradigm opens new avenues for investigating a model that explains non-locality within the context of respecting special relativity, hence offering a complete standard model.

We propose a lab-scale experiment to test this model. Entangled photons will be measured at two distances with high-precision atomic clocks, seeking a consistent but minuscule delay in correlation times at the further distance. If observed consistently, this infinitesimal delay supports our nested wave hypothesis. Conversely, the absence of a consistent subtle infinitesimal delay would corroborate the instantaneous action-at-a-distance interpretation of the Standard Model.

[Bob Armstrong]

I am quite unfamiliar with quantum physics.......very interesting and informative Syd.....thanks for taking the time.

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

It seems to me, about determinism, that it may be true, if you have all the factors covered, that you can predict, with high likelihood, what a particular human being will do in a certain set of circumstances.

My issue is "with high likelihood". My life view is that "free will" is present, and gives a human being an option, though perhaps one with a low likelihood of choice. But free will allows us to go against our instincts and determinants. We are self-interested. Yet, on occasion, we will resist acting out of self-interest, and will act altruistically. And it may be very hard to predict such behaviour.

In real life, we do see this somewhat regularly........for example, in random acts of kindness.

this behaviour of humans seems to me to contest the theory that humans are 100% determined re behaviour.

Bob A (Human Free Will Advocate)

[Bob Armstrong]

Re Quantum Physics

I am still chewing on Syd's post.

But, prior to it, I had understood that the novelty of quantum physics was that it was introducing "randomness" where traditional physics was totally deterministic.

In other words, traditional physics said if you understand the "cause", then you can 100% predict the effect.

But quantum physics came along and said that the cause/effect link was sometimes open to "possible varied effects" and which effect would occur had become very difficult to calculate.......this was the new concept.

Is this a misunderstanding by me?

Bob A

[Sid Belzberg]

Classical physics gave us a clockwork universe – if you knew every tiny detail about a system and the rules governing it, you could predict its future with absolute certainty. Think of a billiard table: knowing the starting positions and how hard you hit the balls, you could calculate exactly where they'd end up.

But quantum physics, the realm of atoms and particles, throws a wrench in that machine. It turns out things can exist in fuzzy mixtures of possibilities, called superposition. An electron, for example, is a bit like a coin that's both heads and tails at the same time. It's only when you measure it that it "collapses" into one definite state.

This inherent randomness is mind-boggling. To make things weirder, "entangled" particles seem mysteriously connected. Even when far apart, measuring one instantly decides the fate of its partner, faster than any signal could travel. It's like those connected coins we discussed earlier!

Some scientists propose "hidden variables" to restore order. Imagine particles carry secret instructions dictating their behavior. If we only knew those instructions, the apparent randomness might disappear!

But here's the catch: For this to work, those instructions might have been set at the very beginning of the universe. This extreme view is called superdeterminism. It would mean everything, even our own thoughts and decisions, might be a cosmic script playing out, making "free will" an illusion.

Whether hidden variables exist and if superdeterminism is the price for getting rid of randomness are questions physicists and philosophers are still grappling with!

[Sid Belzberg]

accidental repeat post deleted

[Bob Armstrong]

thanks again Sid.......clear........but somewhat mind-boggling for some of us seniors.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Diliip,
i find your comments on determinism and science to be very interesting. Imagine two coins flipped simultaneously. Even if separated by a vast distance, if they always land with matching sides (both heads or both tails), you'd suspect some hidden connection between them. This is analogous to entanglement in the quantum world. Entangled particles exhibit a bizarre correlation – measuring one instantly determines the state of its distant partner, seemingly defying notions of distance and time.

To explain this weirdness, pilot wave theory proposes that particles are guided by an invisible wave carrying "hidden variables" – instructions that predetermine their behavior. Imagine the coins having tiny markings only visible under a special light. Those markings would dictate how they land, removing true randomness from the outcome.

The problem is that entanglement suggests these hidden instructions change instantly across distances, coordinating the entangled particles' behavior. This leads to a potentially troubling idea called superdeterminism. If everything is preprogrammed from the universe's beginning by hidden variables, it implies our choices aren't truly free. Imagine not just the coins, but our own decisions about how to measure the particles were predetermined. This challenges our intuitive understanding of cause and effect.

The alternative to the pilot wave theory, the "standard model", does not even address this idea that when one entangled particle is observed, even if the other particle is lightyears away, it instantaneously does the exact opposite of the observed particle, seemingly at speeds faster than light violating the special theory that imposes a cosmic speed limit of the speed of light. It does not explain how this is possible; it simply acknowledges this strange fact without explanation.

My partner in life, science, and business developed an interesting physics hypothesis while skipping stones across a pond at the famous Mount Royal in Montreal. Together, we worked on writing it up formally as well as an experiment to validate the hypothesis physically.

In quantum physics, entangled particles exhibit a seemingly impossible connection – changes to one particle can instantaneously affect its partner, even across vast distances. This phenomenon appears to violate Einstein's theory of relativity, which posits the speed of light as the cosmic speed limit. We propose a new model and experimental validation, introducing hidden wave structures and the disruptive influence of decoherence to explain this strange behavior while adhering to relativistic constraints.


A Nested Wave Model for Quantum Non-locality: Reconciling with Special Relativity
By Sidney H Belzberg and Alicia Belzberg

Abstract
We propose a nested wave model to address this nonlocal behavior without abandoning the fundamental principles of relativity. Our model introduces a hidden wave structure (Wave 2) interacting with conventional wavefunctions (Wave 1). As entangled particles separate by significant distances, new nested wave structures emerge within Wave 2 to mediate seemingly non-local entanglement effects. Importantly, quantum decoherence, increasing with distance, could disrupt the coherence of the Wave 2 structures. Decoherence introduces increasing "noise" into the Wave 2 system, potentially causing a delay as the entanglement signal must overcome this disruption over increasing distances. Rather than hindering entanglement, this disruption offers a potential mechanism for explaining a minuscule delay in the observed non-locality.

Mathematically, we model this process with a modified Schrödinger equation containing nested terms whose interactions scale as a function of separation distance and entanglement severity ('η'). Additionally, we introduce an exponential decoherence term, dependent on distance ('d'), to account for the potential degradation of nested wave interactions. We include a theoretical limit informed by the speed of light as a critical threshold for generating new nested wave structures:

i∂Ψ(x,t) / ∂t = [−ℏ² / 2m ⋅ ∇² + V(x) + Σ{ki f(η, ai(d), c) Φi(x,t)} + β * e^(-kd) * Ψ(x,t)] Ψ(x,t)

Here, 'c' is a proxy for the speed-of-light limit in nested wave generation dynamics. Individual nested waves ('Φi') possess scale factors ('ai') exhibiting distance ('d') and entanglement dependency through 'f(η).' Notably, the inclusion of parameter 'c' directly reflects the model's focus on a nested wave system that respects relativistic constraints for each interacting level within Wave 2."
This model aims to provide a mathematically sound approach to understanding entanglement within the constraints of Special Relativity. This novel nested wave paradigm opens new avenues for investigating a model that explains non-locality within the context of respecting special relativity, hence offering a complete standard model.

We propose a lab-scale experiment to test this model. Entangled photons will be measured at two distances with high-precision atomic clocks, seeking a consistent but minuscule delay in correlation times at the further distance. If observed consistently, this infinitesimal delay supports our nested wave hypothesis. Conversely, the absence of a consistent subtle infinitesimal delay would corroborate the instantaneous action-at-a-distance interpretation of the Standard Model.

Hi Sid,
The hypothesis you and Alicia have generated is quite intriguing indeed!
The phenomenon of 'Entanglement' is very close to my heart, as it gives us hope of 'living on' after death. The determinants within our brains of the electromagnetic waves which have the property of consciousness, could very well be entangled as a unit elsewhere, and as you would know, when one of the entangled units becomes less cohesive (eventually dying), the cohesiveness of the other units becomes stronger! And for all you know, our entire bodies may have an entangled counterpart elsewhere...
Deepak Chopra and others, on the other hand, believe that our consciousness merges with the other conscious electromagnetism in the universe, amazingly enhancing what 'we' experience...
Most scientists and philosophers however subscribe to the view that death marks the end of our souls (our consciousness of 'me', our memories, our thoughts, our consciousness as a whole)
By the way, stay tuned for my upcoming book: "Anatomy of the soul"...