tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8833513835263060395.comments2017-05-04T12:06:45.728+01:00Jason Wade HowardJason Wade Howardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968987933637386754noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8833513835263060395.post-22692785803197804062017-05-04T12:06:45.728+01:002017-05-04T12:06:45.728+01:00That's a point. If a particular quantum state ...That's a point. If a particular quantum state for a said sphere of influence has been repeated over and over within an infinite existence ... do the quantum states link/entangle automatically and resonate amongst each other, as in a type of quantum entanglement? Jason Wade Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08968987933637386754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8833513835263060395.post-17193169046826616632017-01-29T16:03:19.493+00:002017-01-29T16:03:19.493+00:00Hey brother, been awhile.
But, in answer to your...Hey brother, been awhile. <br /><br />But, in answer to your post. I think it is more that there is the potential that everything has happened (considering Quantum Mechanics Superposition and Many-Worlds theory). <br /><br />All stories, and all things, have happened, but only as a potential "Superposition" of what has actually happened. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13178771324837592479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8833513835263060395.post-65378622014077775112014-02-11T07:31:35.266+00:002014-02-11T07:31:35.266+00:00It's cool that you write about this because it...It's cool that you write about this because it's something that we should be thinking about a lot more regularly. I'm teaching a history course this school year, which is new to me, and I'm trying to approach it as a subject that's a mix between human systems and human nature. If we factor in the ebb and flow nature of things, I think we find that amoral human nature is more or less a byproduct of a particularly strong human system (one that's been reinforced over time, one that people "believe" in) and a particularly strong ebb. Simply put, when things are bad people go bad. Is that an oversimplification?AJ Snookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12268937863131362137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8833513835263060395.post-59581419255071131512013-08-12T14:53:35.595+01:002013-08-12T14:53:35.595+01:00In the context of the whole of humanity, such a mo...In the context of the whole of humanity, such a model falls down . . . however if one was to have a small-scale community then anything could work if sustainable. However, this is never enough for a representative cross-section of humanity, as there will always be those with ambition and unhappiness with living a technologically, philosophically, and generally sociologically dead-end existence.Jason Wade Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08968987933637386754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8833513835263060395.post-85024631211147727282013-08-11T08:03:14.284+01:002013-08-11T08:03:14.284+01:00Nice, but just to play devil's advocate, could...Nice, but just to play devil's advocate, could a sustainable world (or a pocket of it) with very little productivity (besides the cultivation of food, shelter, medicine, and art) work? Hasn't so far, but who knows?AJ Snookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12268937863131362137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8833513835263060395.post-64163331474314566152013-01-13T02:17:46.611+00:002013-01-13T02:17:46.611+00:00Your context is trying to redefine my context. In ...Your context is trying to redefine my context. In your example (which is just a conceptual translation of 3d into 2d for conceptual purposes) if one travelled out into infinity one would eventually end up moving back into the same area. This is a closed loop in which one can travel for an infinite amount of time but through a finite amount of space. You would need to cut the circle and extend the lines out to create a truly infinite existence. <br /><br />My context was specifically talking about an infinite spread of three dimensional space where one never comes back to the beginning and where one always moves into new further away from starting-point volumes. That was my axiological structure. You can't argue within my axiological structure (as in prove my claim that questions the validity of middle as a concept within my axiological structure is wrong by changing the very axiological structure/assumptions I am working under).<br /><br />Of course if we choose to change the parameters to your framework then I would agree with you :DJason Wade Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08968987933637386754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8833513835263060395.post-68582282468206769332013-01-13T01:34:24.721+00:002013-01-13T01:34:24.721+00:00Infinity could, potentially have a "center.&q...Infinity could, potentially have a "center."<br />Think of a mathematical line, by its definition, its infinite. but, a circle is simply a line curved in on itself, and travel along this line is infinite. But, this circle, this "continuum," still has a center, though it does not lie on this line; the place that is equidistant from all points of the curved line. This is the center, the "nexus" of the infinite universe.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13178771324837592479noreply@blogger.com