Hi Mike,

The link:

This might make more sense.... - DOLPHIN - November 14, 2003 - 11:49 UTC

It might be easier to follow if read the nearby post "If you read this..."

Re: rigor:
I do not claim to tie all arguments down; some connections are loosely described or are postulated....

"seem" is rigorous enough: I may be "rigorously" stating my intention not to impose an association but saying it may be open to debate

In fact "rigor" implies "precision; but that just requires economy with words: "A" is; not "A" rigorously is (which involves extra word baggage it seems).

I was not particularly arguing much from authority; but referring to others arguments and the detail they have given?

Regarding:

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.

Implication: you can rise from the partial-dead.
Clarification: by total internal honesty and non-denial of "what exists" you can become "transparent" and not "stretched thin across time" but fully alive in consciousness.

You would still have "virtual stem cells" in the present so could repair your body.

Regarding:

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 idea could be applied to medicine.

-dolphin

• That rhetoric, contrary to statistical probability, 'seems' okay - carefuluniverse - November 19, 2003 - 19:52 UTC