Hyper evolution in the bible

The evo assumption, without a shred of evidence, is that all things have essentially remained the same, uniformatarianism.The Bible strongly suggests in a number of places that this is incorrect, that the universe has undergone major fundamental shifts, even in what men have considered it's basic principles.Of course, it could be the real basic principles have remained the same, that what we experience is one potential for the multi-verse, but whatever the case may be, the entering in of death changed reality, and I think the separation concept you have is perfectly valid, and consistent with what we know about the world via physics.

The Bible does suggest man's lifespans began to be shortened with a withdrawal of something from the Spirit of God in the earth possibly since God says "My Spirit will not always strive with man."Simple has a point.You could argue that there was no change except God's decree, but it does make sense that there would be a physical or real change made as well, and that some of the life of God's Spirit would be withdrawn.

That depends on the type of major shift. Also, who says there are no "marks".Science views the data under certain assumptions, such as a static past, a physical world similar to what we see now, similar processes, etc,...Sure, going back science claims some major shifts, but not since man has been around.Personally, I think some work in general relativity and quantum physics can be useful. For example, when we see a photon move from acting like a wave/particle in a superpositional state to acting more in a uni-position particle, we would not observe any "marks" as it is in one state or the other.We can only see that it can exist in a different form by examining both states, by seeing it has changed.That to my mind tells us something fundamental about the property and state of physical existence. There is a hidden potential, not seen, which can manifest in different physical forms.Maybe the universe as a whole is like that as well.

Well, evidence has begun to come forth. Relativity shows us that the universe is not a thing passing through time, but that time is a function within the universe. Maybe time doesn't really exist in an absolute sense, but that's a little off-topic.Let me illustrate it this way. The earth is not a ball sitting in the universe passing through time. The earth is more accurately seen as a streak in space-time. Let's call this a pole.GR then gives us a picture of the earth more like a pole.Now, could the pole be affected as a whole, say, vibrated so that it moves from end to end? If that occurs, we would see the past, present, and future changing.Or, let's look at the universe from the photon's perspective. The perspective of measuring from any point in the universe is just as valid as measureing from our vantage point. According to GR, from the vantage point of measuring theoritically from the photon's perspective, no time exists due to a photon travelling at the speed of light, thus everything is all present, and due to length contraction, there would be no space either. So from this perspective, we don't see time and space at all. They exist as information only, which brings us to QM in my view.Most physicists believe that GR and QM have not been harmonized, and that may be true, but QM does seem to suggest that information is fundamental (information/design is what exists), and that physical form is derivative of the information energy/design.QM also contains theories concerning potential causal effects backwards in time, just as I would predict from GR.So the question is whether these ideas in physics are correct or not, and assuming they are since they are not recent ideas but have been tested, I would say there is considerable evidence for the things I am talking about, such as a non-static past.

John, my point is not to delve into the areas less understood, but to discuss the areas that are somewhat understood and supported. It's not pop-physics as you say.Of course, the grand unified theory is not there yet, but at the same time, we do see the things I have discussed.Is there any factual claim I have made that you disagree with? It's not extraordinarily vague. What part do you not understand?the time is relative?
principles of entanglement (action at a distance)
the concept of a whole picture of earth being a streak in space-time rather than a sphere in space?
the concept of physical form being derived from an information pattern?All of this stuff is weird. I admit that. But it's also all well-established physics. It's not the real advanced stuff of superstrings, 20-some dimensions, etc,...but the basics of physics discories for over 80 years that have borne out and have been amplified with experiments for over 80 years now.The rest of science ought to at least catch up with physics paradigms over 80 years old, and incidentally most physicists should as well.It's not an if and maybe, in terms of this stuff. I write if and maybe for applying this to the historical time-line. Imo, the evidence thus far is that the time-line is not static. There is no real evidence that it is, and quite a lot of evidence that it should be affected as a whole within space-time, and evidence in QM of causal effects backwards in time, and discussions within QM of transverse waves that travel backwards in time, though the transverse wave would not necessarily be considered causal in terms of real world effects.But unlike evos, imo, I say if and maybe from a scientific perspective because it's just a hypothesis or theory. For me, it's religious truth, but scientifically we should be cautious about insisting on things not fully proven (layman's term) or substantiated(like ToE).

I have been giving evidence of where certain assumptions are based on outdated science, assumptions about time and the nature of physical existence.You asked for evidence, and so I have been providing evidence.Physical form is derivative of a potential for multiple states of existence which all exist as potentials regardless of which form or of any form exists at all. In fact, I showed where both relativity and QM indicate existence essentially exists as information, and yet when we talk of evolution or physical history, there is no accounting for the production and maintaining of this information.In fact, the suggestion of evos seems to be that the information is a by-product or derivative of the physical form, which is totally incorrect since what we have called the physical is not the fundamental aspect to something's existence, as demonstrably proved in the areas of science I referred to.Instead, we see physicality to a large extent illusory. What is not illusory is the information pattern which governs or is the set of "rules" or parameters by which we see matter take on real form. So matter is derivative, not fundamental. The implications for this, concerning how the world can be directly affected, should be obvious.Secondly, I showed that we already have moved away from an absolute view of time. Time is relative, and there are indications causal effects are not strictly linear, and there is reason within GR to expect that, imo, because frankly, once you view time as relative, and can view objects as a whole (the streak through space-time instead of a thing in space), one should expect to see the whole affected as a whole, and not just via linear causal effects.I showed from the photon's perspective, if we could measure from there, we would observe no time at all, nor space. Since measurements from any point and speed are as accurate and valid as any other in the universe, it can be said that space and time are not absolute and fundamental to the universe.Only information is.So the question is how this information arises, where does it come from, what maintains it, and can it be directly affected by conscious choice.

I am happy to elaborate, but could be reprimanded for being off-topic, which is why I was bried and did not provide full details. But let's dig into it a little more.On the time issue, remember when I referred to the earth as a streak through space-time than a ball in space travelling through time. The image I propose to use is a long pole or rod. What if, for example, a sound resonates the rod and causes it to vibrate some?What you would have then is a changing time-line, the past, present, and future all changing at once.My hypothesis is we will discover that the past is changing, slowly, but as more time passes, the changes add up and create significantly more changes. It's sort of a multi-verse idea except not that all states exist in reality, although that could be, but that several states interact to form one single state. In other words, there is a bleed-over effect.To get into all the reasons why I think science is heading in that direction would entail a larger explanation on a different thread, but it is possible that when we look at, say, evidence of what has been past, that parts of the past have changed, or slipped together with other parts such that we are not accounting for this expansion and shift in the time-line in our evaluations.My prediction is science will discover the past is not staic.But that is not well-established. What is well-established, imo,is the nature of what we call reality consists of information. We see that in QM, and we see that in General Relativity, as I have pointed out.So physical form is derived from a design that exists outside of what we once considered normal space-time. What brings matter into form is something beyond matter, an information and energy pattern.We see the same idea when we in a thought experiment measure the universe from the photon's perspective. There is no time and space from the photon's perspective.Does that mean time and space do not exist? It means time and space exists from our vantage point, but are not fundamental to reality in the sense that time and space do not exist from every perspective within the universe. They are products of a perspective, and not an absolute quality or property, but a derived property.So when we speak of the "material world" then in reference to the natural world, reality, the realm science can discover, we are now in the awkward position of having shown fairly conclusively that what is fundamental to the "material world" is not "material" or something occupying time and space, but rather information that can exist occupying time and space or not, and at the same time.So QM and GR both indicate information or design as the fundamental property of all things which gives rise to a definite physical form in time and space.Why is this important?First, it changes our concept of what reality is, or what the natural world is. For example, the concepts of things being rooted in a world outside normal space, but real nonetheless is very similar if not identical to what religious traditions call "spiritual." So dismissing any spiritual claims as outside of the purview of science may be a moot point if our science has already begun to delve into researching the spiritual world and spiritual principles, which seem odd to the scientist or did initially, but are quite normal from a spiritual perspective. In other words, for the spiritual man, QM is not so odd as it was for scientists trying to understand the principles involved.But let's get past that. Imo, from a scientific perspective, we don't really know for sure how the design, the information, that is the fundamental root of all things came to be. We do know the physical is an immediate by-product and manifestation of the design, not the other way around.Where does the information program come from and can it be directly altered and engineered?My hypothesis is that the mechanism for design (ID mechanism) by the Creator/Designer is probably a created process embedded within reality, and that we will learn aspects of this ID mechanism and learn how to directly engineer reality in some fashion, that we can figure out how to provide direct input to the information root program of a thing and change it, not by going through the physical form, which is nothing but a derived characteristic of what the real thing is, which is an information/design, but we learn, maybe through manipulating energy within the vacuum which could be where this design is since it has no definite form but has energy, how to provide input and produce direct engineering effects, and tap into the ID mechanism used to produce and affect reality.

I'll be working as well, but will look for more a little later.

This is where you make a fundamental mistake. First, some aspects of explaining QM have been eclipsed since it's inception. For example, I think the principle of entanglement largely has overshadowed the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, but let's don't go there because it would involve a whole new tangent.Suffice for this argument is that the randomness is within set parameters of the non-observed design. That's the point. The design and pattern exists, is fundamental, but the appearance and form is secondary or what you call "random" here. The "random" element was just an indication of exactly what I am talking about, not a contradiction. The physical form is secondary and derivative of a design pattern that exists even when the form is changing, or if not present (if you accept the contention of some quantum physicists that the particle does not exist in a form at all until observed).Either way, the information pattern is what the thing is. The physical appearance as matter is merely a derived manifestation of the pattern, which exists the same regardless of which form is manifested,

Wrong. You are not listening. The pattern is not in the randomness. You are not following the point at all.What is random?What part is non-random?If you take some time to think about and answer that, you'd get an idea of what I am talking about. You seem to have a big problem with this, and I am not sure exactly what you know and don't know, and am less sure then how to explain it to you.The particle may or may not exist in a form until it is observed. Some argue it does not exist in a form at all until observation. http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.htmlI gather some others have a problem with this and would say it does exist in one form or the other, but the act of observation causes it to take on one specific state. Still others argue all the possible states occur in an ever-expanding, or perhaps permanent or pre-existing, multi-verse.Whatever the case (I put a lot of stock in Wheeler's ideas, at least as far as I've read him), the particle is, in fact, a probability pattern. It can exist as either wave-like or particle-like, superpositionally or unipositionally, or according to Wheeler can exist without having physical form at all!It's root existence is information, the design, which is where the potential for certain forms and states come from. The act of observation does not create the particle, but rather it causes a selection to take place from among the potentials already there. The potential, the information, is the thing itself, and it's form is a derived property whether considered random or controlled by some other process.So the thing itself, the information of it's potential, has never been considered random. Only predicting what part of that potential will appear has been considered random.Edit to add a quote that highlights the "information" concept as fundamental, but you will need to read the article to get a better idea of why he says this. Page not found - Metanexusalso interesting overview (not sure if I follow all it though)http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/zeilinger/philosop.htmlNote: Maybe you could take back the following now. This message has been edited by randman, 08-24-2005 10:38 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 08-24-2005 10:41 PM

John,I feel like we are talking past one another. I understand that there were concerns in QM over just describing what we can observe and ignoring the more philosophical implications. Is that what you are referring to by saying it's a matter of language? I disgree with that. From what I have read Bohr and others went that direction to avoid speculating too much, as Planck did in openly calling it the manifestation of a Universal and Intelligent Mind.QM is about reality, not just how we describe it. It's not just "a trick" as you suggest. Wheeler is not saying it's a mathematical trick. He is actually saying, in reality, that they are "intrinsically undefined." He is not talking about just how we describe them. He is saying they are neither a wave, nor a particle, in reality, but in reality, are intrinsically undefined.I don't think then what I am talking about is a matter of langauge at all. I'd like to go further and get into consciousness-based models to explain QM as Wheeler and Zeilinger get into, but really my first point on this is much simpler.The fact is there is a probability pattern existing, which exists whether the particle is in an undefined state, a wave-like state, or a particle-like state in a discrete position. The only thing random is what potential the particle would form from moment to moment.The appearance of the particle in a definite state is not wholly random, as if no pattern exists, which seems to be what you are claiming. No, the probability pattern exists, and the particle is only random within the scope of that probability pattern, which is why things don't just dissolve and fly apart.The nature of this randomness is actually evidence for what I am talking about, that the physical appearance of matter is a derived and secondary function to it's root existence, which is an information state of probilities. It's evidence for, not against my claims.The pattern exists regardless of what state the particle is in, and the pattern dictates the potential for appearance and form that the particle can appear in and does so even within certain governing probibilities. The physical appearance of the particle does not change the probability pattern.What is therefore more fleeting and less certain is the actual physical form, and what is more permanent and the root state of the particle is the pattern, the information, which is manifested in different states according to the potential within the information design.Even if the particle exists in no definite state, as Wheeler claims, the pattern still exists, which is why information is the root feature of what something is, and physical form is a secondary feature.According to Wheeler, the particle exists even when it does not exist in a definite state of matter.

No, and here is why. The particle is one thing, not many as are the players in your example. Moreover, we are talking about the physical properties of the particle, how it comes to be, not wills of human beings. It has a governing mechanism within itself. Are you claiming that the particle is recreated every momement or something? If not, your claim doesn't make sense. We are talking about the properties of a single object, not behaviour patterns of multiple people. Completely wrong. The information about what a particle or thing is does indeed cause it to be or is one determinative factor. When the particle is not apparent, when it is intrinsincly undefined physically, it still exists within the well-defined probability pattern. Why? Just because you think it doesn't make sense is not evidence this isn't so. The fact is the thing is a probability pattern. The probility pattern exists regardless of the physical state of the particle. The pattern is not therefore a description of the physical state of the particle. No, the pattern is the particle, and the physical state of the particle is an aspect of the pattern. The pattern exists even when the particle is not in a definite physical state, and when it appears to pop in and out of physical existence. I already showed where that was not germane. Now, if we observed a murdering particle, for sake of argument, as a single entity, that appeared in various spots, murdered someone, and then disappeared and appeared somewhere else, repeating the pattern, and if we were able to deduce that at times, prior to observation, it had no definition single existence at all, then maybe you would have a point, and maybe we could say this thing indeed is a probability pattern with a derived physical function.But discussing probability patterns for behaviour instead of for both physical appearance, form and behaviour, as you are doing, is not germane to the discussion.In other words, we are talking about the nature of physical existence, and what QM has discovered is that physical states are derived from a probability pattern that exists regardless of the physical state, and as such, the pattern is the more permanent and non-random feature of which the less permanent and random appearance of matter is derived from.It doesn't make sense to you because you have a false and outdated concept of what physical reality consists of. Your concept "works" for many applications because statistically a classical perspective has a high incidence of accuracy for most of what we do here on earth, but it's nonetheless incorrect as QM shows.This message has been edited by randman, 08-26-2005 02:39 PM

Not if the thing is a probability pattern at it's root. That's the point. What constitutes the world is not very thing-like because our concept of what a thing is, was wrong. I don't know what you are talking about. One particle can give more than one result. That's part of the point here. So? What does that matter to this discussion at all? In fact, I am not even sure with millions of results, you can ever figure out the probability of getting the exact same result "the next time", whatever that means. The point is not determining the probability, but that it exists at all.I think you are greatly misreading or not understanding QM. The probabilistic nature, if you want to call it that, of particles, is merely that it can appear in various forms and places in a highly non-linear fashion unless there are extra dimensions such as in string theory, but irregardless, even when the particle does not exist in a form at all, it is still existing as a probability to appear according to a set design. Not really. Two measurements, via the 2-slit experiment, is sufficient to show what I am talking about. There is no need for numerous observations. No, it's not. That's totally wrong. Math is merely a description of the existing design, not the other way around. Really, I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp. It's a basic elementary principle. Why? You insist on this, but no where make any sense at all. You seem to miss entirely the whole point of the nature of what a particle is at it's root. Probability patterns of the nature of physical matter are relevant to matter because it has been shown that the matter exists first and foremost as a potential for appearing somewhere according to a probability pattern.Maybe we should use the term "potential" to make it clearer. The particle is a potential for various forms, more wave-like or more particle-like, superpositional or not superpositional, or to exist in undefined state, and to appear in different places. No, there need not be hundreds or thousands of discrete events at all, and just 2 events in the 2-slit experiment is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of particles in wave/particle duality. It sounds to me like you just don't know what QM is. Maybe you have a degree or some such in science and even physics, but you miss the boat entirely on this. The event itself, not thousands, but one experiment is sufficient, although it has been duplicated a lot and expanded on, well, this event shows us that the particle can exist either superpositionally or not, hence regardless of the derived, observed form, the particle is a potential for more than that. It can be wave-like and collapse to particle-like and back to wave-like, and according to Wheeler can exist in an undefined state as a potential, but not having any definite form at all.In other words, it exists as the information for it's potential prior to observation. I don't know what you are talking about since what I am saying is not dependant on the math at all, but is derived from the observations in experiments.As an end-note, I am not slinging mud and that's not meant to be an insult. You just have an old definition of what a thing is, a definition which is outdated by QM. The more classical concepts seem right to many, which is why QM seemed so weird, even to Einstein, but what you are failing to realize is that QM is weird to your perspective, and that's because it contradicts pretty much every notion you have expressed on what constitutes physical matter and "things."

Of course, but the particle can give more than one result in the sense of being wave-like. You're still not getting it. Your arguments rests on false analogies, not direct engagement of the data. You cannot see gravity, but that does not mean it is not detected.Also, the math is not the pattern. The math is a description of the pattern, and there are different equations used to try to describe the pattern. It's getting silly to go on and on with you on this.Here's a link for instance, where one quantum physicist is working on newer mathematical equations to describe the real nature and event of what a particle is and does.It's a good article overall, and I'd recommend you read it because it links the concept of information being what a particle is to the fact particles and matter appear quantized. It's taking what I am talking about to a much more in-depth level. It'll be interesting to see if Zeilinger is right and but if what I am saying is wrong and what you were saying is correct, you could dismiss him out of hand.Fortunately, that's not the case. http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/links/newscientist/bit.html John, you need to get away from analogies and consider the real science because you don't know what the debate is about here.The formula for a probability pattern is immaterial. That's not what I am talking about. What I, and QM, talks about is then nature of fundamental physical existence. You need to get your head around the idea that it's not math we are discussing here, and it's not based on thousands of calculations.If you want to create a probability formula, sure, you need lots of studies, but I am not talking about a formular. I am talking about the states of existence. In what state of existence does a particle exist fundamentally.What QM shows, which one reason it is considered so weird and paradigm-shaking, is that a particle fundamentally either does not exist (Wheeler's view) in a physical form from a classical perspective, or that it exists as a potential in a superpositional state. However, even though we cannot measure it in that state directly, we know it exists due to secondary reactions such as observation that show us a physical form. This is what Wheeler is talking about when he said the particle is intrinsincly undefined until observation.I'll google up some tidbits so you can see it's not just me saying this stuff.Here's one. I suggest you read it to get a basic concept of what this debate is about. You have denigrated my ideas, which this guy calls the "orthodox interpretation" as if they are ignorant when in reality they are the same view of QM expressed by some of the giants in the field, like Wheeler. Your claims seem to be just based on ignorance.Let me put it this way. Why do you think Feynman, Wheeler's student, said QM was so baffling? It's because it doesn't follow the conventional, classical paradigm you espouse as reality. http://suif.stanford.edu/~jeffop/WWW/wheeler.txt

John, you clearly just refuse to engage the point. Zeilinger, and you can read his papers in PDF (but I cannot cut and paste) is indeed arguing for information as what a particle is, and so is the other quote you ignored.The reason I quoted how he was working up a different mathematical equation to describe the same event was to show you that the event is real. It's not merely a mathematical equation, as you suggest, but that point went right over your head.The line of reasoning is not germane in any respect to the issue here. What you cannot seem to get your head around is that QM displays non-classical properties, not just the math, but the actual thing itself.It's be OK if you admitted as such, and considered it weird and difficult. Feynman said no one could understand QM. But you keep trying to bring up irrevalent classical analogies that don't fit in anyway to what we observe in the lab.In your 4-part scenario, you fail to realize my point is made after point 1. The math is inconsequential to my point. The observations show the wave/particle duality all on thier own.On a side-note, I think you probably do not realize that in other areas of physics, they start with the math. That's step 1.But irregardless, my point has nothing to do with predicting behaviour of quantum particles, and everything to do with the basic state particles exist in, which is something you doggedly refuse to take on. You seem to think the particle exists in a definite state all the time, and fail to recognize some of the basic qualities of what a particle is, and is not.It's a shame you consider the heart of QM and the observations made as absurd, but that's your opinion. You cling to trying to assert a classical paradigm in an arena where the paradigm does not work.As far as Zeilinger, he is going further than the basic concept I mention here. What he is saying is providing a reason for the apparent random appearance of the particle in the collapse of the wave function. Basically, he is saying the particle and the world are quantized because information is quantized and can be reduced to a yes or no response at it's most elemental level.He theorizes the particle holds an elementary level of information, meaning it can only answer yes or no, but not provide any other information, and he is working on the math to show this.So what happens with observation is that the particle shoots it's wad so to speak and the elementary answer is provided. It exists as a yes or no potential, and when the situation occurs where it to be observed, it answers by coming into a form. It doesn't exist as a form prior to that. It exists as information.The reason then it is random is it's information bit was used up, and it cannot provide more discrete answer by showing up in a definite spot. It's appearance must be random.It's an interesting theory. Too bad you ignore it. My point is that if the particle does not consist of a probability (information), then his line of reasoning would be absurd. That's the starting point of which he is elaborating.I probably do not do justice to his theory, but it does explain both the quantized facet, random appearance, and probability aspect of particles.