***I see no reason to refrain from discussing Dick's work; as it was published on the internet. He can even defend it here if he wants.***
As my title suggests, you can do whatever turns you on, but I want no part of it. It's not peer reviewed and doesn't overly interest me.
***Its not Chris Langan's IQ, but what he says, that looks quite interesting.***
I know nothing of him other than a certain crowd was wowed by his IQ. IQ's don't wow me.
***Its just that "QED" and "As you judge, so you are judged" seem similar. Matter may be a component of consciousness; it may all be about perspectives, dimensions of consciousness.***
The majority of experts in QFT reject this interpretation of field theories.
***I mean, start with "a" exists.
Now I would say there is a relationship here: "a" relating with "Existence". From here, "a" can now relate to "b". Now, "a related to b" can now relate to "c". Now, a sum of histories is happening here. (((a related to b) related to c) now relates to d).***
Sum of histories, as I understand it, is related to Feynman's path integral formulation with the superposition of the probability amplitudes. I don't see any superposition of probability amplitudes in your example. Maybe I'm missing something.
***I can see why the notion "with Existence" seems bewildering. If one supposes that God is a person Who is "Existence" ("I AM WHO AM"); then to BE is to be existing, so is to be with that person, God.***
I consider this to be more word games. If God is all that 'exists', then people and planets are not with this existence, they are composed of 'God'. For example, if atoms are composed ultimately of strings, the atoms don't exist with strings, rather the atoms are strings - i.e., an elaborate composition of strings. Now, it is possible I suppose that there are strings and there are non-string 'stuff', both exist and neither is fundamental to the other, is that what you mean? Strings (for example) and God co-exist as the fundamental components of the universe?
***If something only exists when held together by glue, for that item to exist involves it being "with glue". God must be the "glue" that holds existent entities together. This is consistent with the definition "God is love".***
This would indicate the latter interpretation. That is, there is glue and there is the stuff that is glued. The glue and the glued stuff are both fundamental. However, this idea seems to take away from the notion that God is equivalent to existence itself since there are other things that irreducibly exist besides God, which would mean that God cannot be existence itself (since he is not the stuff that is glued). Rather, God is part of those things that exist. Is that what you believe?
Warm regards, Harv