I was going to say my posts have much rigor (PLEASE check out my sub-atomic particle map: it rocks?) but I suddenly thought "rigor mortis":
"rigor" suggests "withstands a storm" suggests "solid as a rock": but if you HAVE to buy my post that might look like you are being JAILED by numbers which looks like death or "rigor mortis" so my post is a gift...
Please forgive my not knowing where your sub-atomic particle map is. Is it recent? If so,
then I will surely find it in the past couple of days. If not, will you please show me the link again?
Is your stuff rigorous? You wrote the following in a recent post:
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.
Okay so far. It's a thesis statement you imply you will support.
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".
"Notion" is not rigorous. "Circular" is extremely imprecise, but then it is merely a notion. The rest is poetry.
I found that "physics laws" seem to have force only by agreement; seem to be associated
"Seem" and "seem are not rigorous. "Associated" is ultimately vague.
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".
"The argument from authority is the weakest," to quote Galileo. I do not mind having my ideas
criticized honestly or measured for vagueness.
I will admit when "rigor" is absent or in short supply.
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.
"Seems" is not rigorous. Every use of "seems" is at the first step of science. It means, "I don't know, but I'm looking at it, and have a
I think Christianity can reveal physics and mathematics and the relationship between them.
Fine. Let them do that. Meanwhile, can we forget that Isaac Newton, inventor of the modern age of mathematics, was an anti-Trinitarian (only at peril of being non-rigorous on this topic)?
Mathematicians have diverse views about theology.
John Cramer's "transaction interpretation" of quantum mechanics sees a universe full of "agreements" or "handshakes": very Christian as Christianity teaches "God is Love".
Way to spill the beans. Rigorous or not, it's
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?
This is worth clarifying. It is fascinating in its implications.
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.
I like it. Does it stand the test for "rigor?"
The situation re: "evil" certainly looks like it might involve cancelling out of logical contradictions.
Defining "evil" has been a theological can of worms. "Evil" has been attacked variously by
burning at the stake, burning libraries, and seizing land for the enrichment of obedient church members.
I don't think that was a storm.
Splish splash too.