Starting from the end and working our way to the beginning of your comment.

"¦don't you mean, The Book of Revelation?

Yes.

When you say, "gravity is all there is" aren't you making a claim about reality? How can you make such a claim without having a global conception of reality and Truth?

Yes, the idea that "gravity is all there is" is one of many metaphysical Truths I believe. It is my opinion. That is why I started the sentence with "IMO".

The problem as I see it, is that while you may think that you are avoiding metaphysics, you are in fact smuggling your own metaphysical POV in through the back door.

I boldly (arrogantly?) bring it through the front door. That is why there have been many NOMA/OMA discussions I have participated in. (here is my guest post on TT for example). I even directly address it as part of the Third Choice.

To my explanation of religious treatment to timelessness you asked me…

So that sums up everything that theologians do?…Or, do you think that they are all ignorant and hostile toward science?

Historically, many theologians tried to understand God by focusing on the nature and trusting in the scientific method. In other words, doing a bottom up analysis. I suggest there are religious people still doing that today. Ken Miller believes that is what he is doing.

From a different comment and context I said "DNA is a quantum computer". You responded with…

Did gravity cause these DNA quantum computers to come into existence? How can gravity cause something as complex as a computer.

Science is inherently incomplete. As you indicated, it uses a bottom up approach. It looks like DNA is a quantum computer. You might have to accept that this scientific observation doesn't answer all your philosophical questions. Newton's F=ma doesn't either.

BTW, what exactly is gravity? Can you define it for us?

No, if I could it would probably get me a Nobel Prize.

How did gravity cause the universe and everything in it, including some highly specified complex things, to come into existence? Were you trying to explain something, or is this simply a baseless assertion?

Gravity's role in our material world is a scientific hypothesis based on repeatable quantum mechanical experiments and Penrose's logic and math skills.

So what am I? Who or what are you?

Good questions. I think the answers are non-deterministic because of the unknowable interconnected reality of our universe. Of course, I believe this is because I boldly embrace NOMA. Call it my "faith" if it makes you happy.

>IMO, gravity is all there is.

So what am I? Who or what are you? If gravity is all there is, then things, people and other sentient beings that populate our universe are only illusions, aren't they? But then, how can an illusion be aware of itself? But then, on the other hand, maybe you mean that gravity is the cause of everything. Okay then, explain how: How did gravity cause the universe and everything in it, including some highly specified complex things, to come into existence? Were you trying to explain something, or is this simply a baseless assertion?

BTW, what exactly is gravity? Can you define it for us?

>DNA is a quantum computer.

Did gravity cause these DNA quantum computers to come into existence? How can gravity cause something as complex as a computer

>Philosophy/theology postulates the concept of timelessness in order to reconcile large top down conflicts when discussing things like what God did before time existed.

So that sums up everything that theologians do? They just get together have a cup of tea and declare, "God did it." Can you name any modern theologians? Can you name any current theologian who said, "God did it?" Have you ever read anything written by a contemporary theologian? Or, do you think that they are all ignorant and hostile toward science?

>Will the top down philosophy/theology ever completely connect with the bottom up science? I don't think so. I think we will be forever teased with having them come closer and closer but forever alluding capture (until, of course, the events fortold in the Book of Revolution happen making everything moot).

The problem as I see it, is that while you may think that you are avoiding metaphysics, you are in fact smuggling your own metaphysical POV in through the back door. For example, WT Jones, in the glossary of his, History of Western Philosophy, says that metaphysics is: "The study of the ultimate nature of reality"¦" When you say, "gravity is all there is" aren't you making a claim about reality? How can you make such a claim without having a global conception of reality and Truth? (Which, IMO, you would have to spell with a capital "˜T'.)

Finally, don't you mean, The Book of Revelation?

You wrote…

I've been trying to follow your model as much as I can. . . that is to say, I have no clue.

Did I forget to mention this stuff is HARD?

I have had a little college training in Einsteinian physics it gave me a headache then and gives me a headache whenever I revisit it. You need to be a little masochistic to plow your way through this stuff. (Joy has been a big help).

I think you are on the right track. The Wikipedia link on Qubit is a good one.

One of the hard parts for me was equating theory to actual experimental data. While the dual slit and Aspect experiments make the connection, they still didn't make it obvious to me because they relied on probabilities. That is why I liked the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ state) experiment. While it still has probabilities the answers are more concrete.

For three similar type measurements the qubit bra-ket notation is…
|Ψ> = (|100> + |010> + |001> + |111>) / √4

For three mixed type measurements the qubit bra-ket notation is…
|Ф> = (|011> + |101> + |110> + |000>) / √4

This is the "measurement problem".

The measurements occur after the entangled particles are separated yet they force certain answers to be realised based on the types of measurements made.

The possible explanations…

1. Instantaneous effects at a distance (superluminal)
2. Retrocausual effects back to the time of entanglement
3. An explanation involving wavefunction collapse
4. Measurement forcing a choice of one of Many Worlds

If General Relativity is accepted as real, superluminal effects ARE retrocausual. Therefore #1 and #2 are the same thing for all practical purposes.

If you are going to appeal to metaphysical constructs then why limit it? Say "God works in mysterious ways" and be done with it. This is why I discard the Many Worlds interpretation as being scientific. It may be the Truth just like God's existance may be the Truth, but that is a phylosophical question not a scientific one, IMO.

The Third Choice involves the idea that all matter is really a wavefunction or multiple wavefunctions. Penrose-Hameroff's Orch OR model makes the logical (albeit uncomfortable) extension of a wavefunction by suggesting an inherent connection of all quantum effects both in space and time. They're other physicists who embrace a generalized wavefunction collapse without digging too deeply in the implications. This is generally known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I hope this has been helpful.

Explanations in the natural sciences are generally from the bottom up. In theology and philosophy they are from the top down. Someone explain to me what exactly it is that the idea of a timeless universe explains either scientifically from the bottom up, or philosophically/theologically from the top down?

Scientific hypotheses are inherently incomplete and, therefore, inaccurate. It is a given that science can never "exactly" explain anything as a Truth (capital "T"). Truth is the magisterium (ala Gould) that philosophy/theology operates within. An omnisient, omnipotent God creating everything is an absolute Truth even if it lacks detail.

Science postulates the concept of timelessness in order to create a detailed, mechanistic model that is consistant with experimental data from various fields like quantum mechanics, General Relativaty and biology. The model will undoubtably be incomplete, but it should provide details from its bottom up analysis.

Philosophy/theology postulates the concept of timelessness in order to reconcile large top down conflicts when discussing things like what God did before time existed.

Will the top down philosophy/theology ever completely connect with the bottom up science? I don't think so. I think we will be forever teased with having them come closer and closer but forever alluding capture (until, of course, the events fortold in the Book of Revolution happen making everything moot).

I wrote… "DNA is a quantum computer."

To which, you responded with…

Is it really? Let's tell the physicists who are trying to create quantum computers.

Ok let's tell them.
Here is Dr. Hameroff's overview titled Quantum Computing in DNA…
"Squids have a superconductive ring with one segment of lower conductance; current through the ring is highly sensitive to dipoles. DNA loops may serve as quantum antenna, with nonlocal communication with other DNA, and perhaps cell machinery.

Output of quantum computation would be manifest as the net electron interference pattern in the quantum state of the pi stack, regulating gene expression and other functions locally and nonlocally by radiation or entanglement."

Here is something from the Technical Proceedings of the 2005 NSTI Nanotechnology Conference and Trade Show, Volume 1 titled Fabrication of Photonic Transfer DNA-Quantum Dot Nanostructures

The primary objective of our research work is to develop nanofabrication technology which will allow functionalized nanostructures to be hierarchically self-assembled into higher-order 2D and 3D nanophotonic and nanoelectronic structures and devices. Our work involves developing nanofabrication techniques to carry out the selective functionalization of nanocomponents (quantum dots) with DNA.

From an IEEE article presented at the First International Conference on Quantum, Nano, and Micro Technologies (ICQNM'07) titled DNA and quantum theory…

In this paper we consider the DNA molecules as a quantum system. We discussed about the relation between the heredity, biology and DNA and quantum systems.

Hmm, it looks like they may already know.

To the idea of quantum effects in microtubules, you offered…

It's an interesting idea. Made me think of some research of the guy in the lab next door which showed that different personality types ("fast" and "slow") in mice are correlated with properties of neuronal cytoskeleton (interestingly, more "rigid" cytoskeleton corresponding to more "rigid" personality). Can't think of a reference right now, but will look up if so desired.

I would be interested in any information you are willing to share on this. Click on my name for access to my blog.

When I get the energy, I will be soon posting a case for considering quantum effects as a front loaded attribute of life on Earth. Maybe MikeGene would be interested in reposting it here.

While you posted a lot of good stuff, I'm not sure where your position is.

Near the Pacific Ocean in the early part of the 21st century, as near as I can tell.

I'm being convinced that Joy and Penrose are right in thinking that the String Theory is the last materialistic hold out.

Penrose is biased. He has a different dog in that race.

Then again, Joy is a free spirit. So there's that to consider.

Science has been looking for fundamental "atoms" for so long they are willing to consider matter as consisting of multidemensional, vibrating strings because it sounds like matter is made of SOMETHING rather than nothing.

It's made of energy.

The difficulty is in saying what energy is made of. That's where gravity comes in. It has always struck me as weird that anything should gravitate a) at all, and b) so uniformly.

It's a better appeal to the masses and those control purse-strings.

Plus, most folks think they know a fair bit about string.

IMO, gravity is all there is.

I'm not sure it's all there is. You should maybe read Simone Weil's book, Gravity and Grace.

Well, if they can get 'em that close, it's certainly good enough for me! Can you give me the Wiki link or search terms? I'd be interested to see what the mass increase is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... :

The energy necessary to accelerate a particle is γ minus one times the rest mass. For example, the Stanford linear accelerator can accelerate an electron to roughly 51 GeV [1]. This gives a gamma of 100,000, since the rest mass of an electron is 0.51 MeV/c² (the relativistic mass of this electron is 100,000 times its rest mass). Solving the equation above for the speed of the electron (and using an approximation for large γ) gives:

Hi TP,

I've been trying to follow your model as much as I can. . . that is to say, I have no clue. I, however, have run across some information that you may find of some use:

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/... (I don't have access to this, and wouldn't understand it if I did. . . but you guys may have more luck):

A mesoscopic superposition of quantum states involving radiation fields with classically distinct phases was created and its progressive decoherence observed. The experiment involved Rydberg atoms interacting one at a time with a few photon coherent field trapped in a high Q microwave cavity. The mesoscopic superposition was the equivalent of an " atom+measuring apparatus " system in which the "meter" was pointing simultaneously towards two different directions"”a "Schrödinger cat." The decoherence phenomenon transforming this superposition into a statistical mixture was observed while it unfolded, providing a direct insight into a process at the heart of quantum measurement.

This may be old-hat for you guys but I've found it useful wrt undertsanding decoherence, so thought I'd pass it along:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entr...

Also, while trying to follow along, I've come across Qubits - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q... - and saw some relevance.

Regards.

Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics. The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality. If so, then what is time? And why is it so obviously and tyrannically omnipresent in our own experience? "The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics," says Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford. "The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic."

As several others (Stuunney and Pez) have already pointed out the concepts of time, timelessness and eternity are concepts that theologians have been pondering for centuries. It has long been recognized, at least since St Augustine, that when one considers time from the context of eternity and timelessness that it creates some concepts that are by their very nature paradoxical. Now modern physics (quantum physics and Einstein's theories of relativity) discovers some things about the world out there that create similar paradoxes it gets treated triumphantly as some kind of potential breakthrough. As a skeptic and agnostic I have to ask what does it really explain? Paradoxes are neither explanations or potential explanations but rather things that in themselves need to be explained.

Explanations in the natural sciences are generally from the bottom up. In theology and philosophy they are from the top down. Someone explain to me what exactly it is that the idea of a timeless universe explains either scientifically from the bottom up, or philosophically/theologically from the top down?

Like photons, electrons travel at varying speeds in various media. In a conductor, electrons travel with application of current at 75% light speed. Electron beams [ion plasmas] are accelerated by electrical and/or electromagnetic fields to speeds so great they are only expressed in energy level [3.5 GeV, last I checked], not in percent light speed.

According to Wikipedia, in Standford they accelerated them up to 51GeV, corresponding to 0.99999999995 c (using that famous sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) factor).

They can, however, travel backwards in time, if that is how you care to view the existence of positrons.

I suppose that is one way to view it. Didn't Feynman invent his famous diagrams to view it like that?