Hi Harv,

You're on to it!

I think the connections run so deep between "how to solve puzzles in physics" and the four Gospels
that they may be seen as harmonising.

Dr. Stafford's notion that "the laws of physics are circular" echoes "If you had faith as a grain of mustard seed, you could say "move" to this mountain, and it would move".

I found that "physics laws" seem to have force only by agreement; seem to be associated
with counting...

Chris Langan's "conspansive duality" and Dr. Stafford's "data transmission as part of explanation" remind me of "as you measure, so you are measured".

My look at physics as not just questioning "rigid space" assumptions but questioning "rigid counting" seems to link to the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

I think Christianity can reveal physics and mathematics and the relationship between them.

John Cramer's "transaction interpretation" of quantum mechanics sees a universe full of "agreements" or "handshakes": very Christian as Christianity teaches "God is Love".

Re: "heavenly state and superposition": I think "rising from the dead" (asuming that it is us living that are partly "dead") may involve a re-assignment of groups in one's body so that one's body is freely asociated as one space-time not distracted by future assumptions and fears?

Diseases: quantum medicine might see "diseases" as interference fringes within the body's definition of itself; and with the body and the environment. An internally peaceful body fully coherent with no competing for space would not be scattered through time but fully present in the present as pure space: so could teleport; would have eternal life as be outside time with time experienced freely.

The situation re: "evil" certainly looks like it might involve cancelling out of logical contradictions.

Regards,

Alan

• Everyone is praising anonymous Harv, but they're mistaken - carefuluniverse - November 17, 2003 - 06:31 UTC
  • rigor or rigor mortis? - dolphin - November 17, 2003 - 06:38 UTC
    • Case in point: Your recent post - carefuluniverse - November 17, 2003 - 17:16 UTC
      • "Seems" as "non-imposing way of debate" - dolphin - November 19, 2003 - 06:28 UTC
        • That rhetoric, contrary to statistical probability, 'seems' okay - carefuluniverse - November 19, 2003 - 19:52 UTC