Quantum fluctuations and Godless miracles

with respect to my blonde moments..

explain how you are using the term quantum fluctuations.

i seem to be missing a basic point, with regard to your proposition (does it mean anything that i just tried to spell it propoosition?)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Browne, Malcolm W. (1990-08-21). "New Direction in Physics: Back in Time". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/21/science/new-direction-in-physics-back-in-time.html?pagewanted=all.

"According to quantum theory the vacuum contains neither matter nor energy, but it does contain fluctuations, transitions between something and nothing in which potential existence can be transformed into real existence by the addition of energy.(Energy and matter are equivalent, since all matter ultimately consists of packets of energy.) Thus, the vacuum's totally empty space is actually a seething turmoil of creation and annihilation.."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

so you are contemplating IF the matter could appear in the correct configuration to form a working toaster (ignoring the probabilities of such)..according to that it wouldn't last that long as an anti-toaster would come along and destroy it..

as far as where...if you can get how first, then where can be anywhere..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I know I'm going to mention emulation theory here again, but in regards to emulation theory a "Quantum Fluctuation" is actually the discrepancy between a particle existing in one models space and a waveform effecting another model. You wouldn't have a particle exist in both models, if there was a way to allow a particle to exist in both, you'd like generate an intermittent method whereby the particle can only exist in one model at any given time.

I'm sure this is what is seen at subatomic levels.

For those that don't understand emulation theory, it implies that the universe is a composite of an infinite number of emulated composites that are emulated within a worlds computer networks. Perhaps simplified, many parallel universes working together to create the single composite we observe as a universe.

In any event, the term "Model" refers to a non-volatile emulation volume that is limited to the size of it's volume and a specific quanta. Models can interact with one another but they can never violate one another, in the sense that one model overwrites the other.

 

But likewise, social institutions or group-endeavors have to necessarily posit themselves as actively existing independent of any single individual composing them. And since such public efforts either formulate or approve the explicit knowledge distributed to private minds, solipsism can acquire no serious foothold or acceptance in our formal knowledge or its frameworks. Again, there is that division between what is possible for society and what is possible for the individual, and the latter must resultingly be "silent" about any speculations open to it where the be-ing or importance of other minds is diminished by the be-ing or importance of a lone one. Or "silent" as far as having a legitimate belief stance about -isms like solipsism.

One could say that the only place where a world is still presented, represented or conceived in the human way is with that remaining person; but since s/he is still thinking with language and knowledge concocted by the now defunct society, s/he is arguably dependent upon on what was formulated by society just to arrive at the notion of being in a solipsistic situation.