TED Conversations

William Humphrey

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

My quantum theory of everything "Quantum Philosophy"

Quantum philosophy is a metanarrative. There are 3 major categories for all that exists. 1) Physical things i.e. things with atoms (Manifesting Consciousness). 2) Things that think (Coherent Consciousness). And finally the fifth fundamental force 3) That which allows thinking things to interact with physical things (Perceptible Consciousness). Perceptible Consciousness is a totally revolutionary concept found in the book Quantum philosophy meanings, answers and Promises. By thinking in terms of Perceptible Consciousness you find answers to life's great mysteries. It is a indescribable enhancement to modern theories of Quantum Physics, Quantum Mechanics and Metaphysics.

Topics: God metaphysics philosophy quantum mechanics quantum physics theory of everything
0
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb

    Edwin Tjoe

    • 0
    Aug 4 2012: I think you should read Laura Ruetsche's research on the foundations of physical theories, particularly quantum theories. I think the quantum theory approach to quantum mechanics is very insightful.

  • William Humphrey

    • 0
    Jul 31 2012: Popular belief is that life arose from the proper mix of chemical compounds which created single cell organisms. If evolution is true which I do believe then that would mean, like the rest of you have argued that the egg came first as a mutation.

    Do you believe that there are any true paradoxes?
    • thumb

      douglas macrae smith

      • 0
      Jul 31 2012: Paradoxes are a product of the thinker getting twisted up in his thoughts

      • William Humphrey

        • 0
        Jul 31 2012: in that case what is the origin of existence? Does everything have to come from something else?
        • thumb

          douglas macrae smith

          • +1
          Jul 31 2012: I can only see 2 answers: No, everything always was (eternal existence of the whole) and Yes, cause and effect (no intrinsic existence of anything)

          whoops - to avoid a paradox, I suppose the best answer is I dont know

    • paul Ashton

      • 0
      Aug 1 2012: Dividing Pi, which is and infinite number, yields an even greater Infiniti. A second can be infinitly divided and yet time passes. Take a line divide it onto thirds then remove the middle section. Repeat this division ino thirds with the remaining two segments. This division is infinite. There is no number of divisions that will result in a line of 0 length only more minute units measured. These are true paradoxes and their nature forms the fundamental foundation of the universe. True paradoxes are at the heart of modern physics and we will most likely never reconcile them. Check out the doc. "how long is a piece of string".

      • William Humphrey

        • 0
        Aug 1 2012: the book Quauntum Philosophy is a theory of everything and it reconciles all thought including all paradoxes. it answers the measurenment problem and any otherquestions you may have.

      • Gordon Barker 10+

        • +2
        Aug 3 2012: You can't divide something an infinite number of times (except memtally) because you would eventually go lower (shorter) than the limit of Plank length. Nothing can be shorter or smaller than plank length, which is natures way of saying, get on with it.
        There are no real paradoxes. There may be lots of things that are counter intutive, but they are not paradoxes.

  • paul Ashton

    • +1
    Jul 30 2012: I think The answer is the egg. Evolutionarily speaking the origin of a species is rooted in mutation that can intially define a new successful breed or spieces. The expression of new traits would initially start with the egg in unison with a perceived new adaptation. So I think it was the egg. And frankly I'm pretty sur I'm right. Something tells me you were alluding to something more profound though. I am going to have to check that book out!
    • thumb

      douglas macrae smith

      • +2
      Jul 30 2012: The egg came first
      Oviparous animals predate chickens
    • thumb

      James Zhang 30+

      • 0
      Jul 30 2012: I think it's the chicken.

      Say, germs were the most basic forms of life. These germs split asexually to reproduce and multiply. However, let's say there are other germs that can take over these germs now. So perhaps in order to protect themselves, some of these germs developed a new mechanism to protect themselves from takeover. Eventually one of these defense functions become the "egg."

      So the egg is like a defense mechanism. Some animals have different mechanisms with eggs. For example, a spider will create eggs that contains thousands of spiders. The reason is that most of these spiders die and only a few can survive, so you need a higher number of baby spiders to increase the chance of legacy carrying.
      • thumb

        douglas macrae smith

        • 0
        Jul 30 2012: u say chicken - then u argue egg
        • thumb

          James Zhang 30+

          • +1
          Jul 30 2012: It depends how you see it really. The way I see it is this:
          The germ itself is what I consider the "chicken."
          The "egg" is a defense mechanism of that chicken.

          If there was nothing to threaten the germ reproduction of just splitting asexually, then there would be no need for an egg that would protect themselves from a threat that doesn't exist.
        • thumb

          James Zhang 30+

          • 0
          Jul 30 2012: But if you see all types of reproduction process as the "egg" then may be a little different... hmmm...

          Maybe perhaps there were many other life forms out there that were created by the right conditions. However, most probably deceased because they had no method of reproduction. So perhaps there were a few types of germs who figured it out and that there needs to be reproduction to sustain life.
      • thumb

        douglas macrae smith

        • +2
        Jul 30 2012: I see u r a true philosopher - thats why I couldn't understand - I was talking about actual chickens and eggs
        • thumb

          James Zhang 30+

          • +1
          Jul 30 2012: I'm glad you realized what I was saying! Not many people realize that a lot of arguments are caused by things like misdefinitions.
      • thumb

        David Hamilton 50+

        • +1
        Jul 31 2012: Wow, such a simple argument, but it really made an interesting point. I always say that it is the egg, because of the identity property, the first mutation we identify as chicken, came from the first chicken egg. Based on evolution, the thing which layed the first chicken egg, wasn't quite a chicken yet... It's child was the first of a new species, a mutation.

        If however, as you did James, take it beyond actual chickens and eggs, to single celled asexual creatures... The first mutated offspring is born, a germ/chicken. I do however believe that in the sense of what comes first the "child or the adult"... "the sperm or the man"... In terms of evolutionairy identity I believe the child comes first, because the first of a new species, begins in a world which has no adults... not of its own kind.

        As far as this theory... I find myself confident in my assertion that there is perception and intent in all physical things. We want to speed up, heat up, bump into one another, bond, and reproduce at light speed : )

        • William Humphrey

          • 0
          Jul 31 2012: I am with you 100%. Your statement is intelligent and sound but the true answer, as you definitely gave is a relegation. As we advance in our understanding old expressions lose their charm. The point to my question is a paradox. Though this expression can be explained in linear views the reason for the question still brings dept. I have found profound truth about the paradigm of a paradox.
        • thumb

          James Zhang 30+

          • 0
          Jul 31 2012: I think the child came first before anything as well. Probably, there were many different children out there, but a lot of them probably didn't figure out that they needed to reproduce to keep the legacy going. Hmm so if this were true, how exactly did some figure out to reproduce while others did not? Or did all life-forms already have a reproductive mechanism already built in...

          @William, man I really hate paradoxes, they're everywhere but they don't make sense!

        • William Humphrey

          • 0
          Jul 31 2012: james - mr. douglas macrae smith says there is no true paradox.
        • thumb

          James Zhang 30+

          • 0
          Aug 1 2012: I guess paradoxes are simply things to explore and figure out eventually?

  • paul Ashton

    • 0
    Jul 30 2012: Robert Landser, bio-centrism pretty much is what you are postulating. There is a whole book and everything apparently.
    If pereption and conciousness are all of reality why would different conciousness' need o communicate or interact. Would it not be more "quantum" to describe conciousness as both he parts and the whole simultaneously. Cheers!

    • William Humphrey

      • 0
      Jul 30 2012: Qp calls substance “Manifesting Consciousness.” Substance does exist apart from coherent presences. We interact due to the same force that gives us the power to interact. Everything that exists is subject to the same ultimate laws. These laws create the paradigm we call existence.

    • William Humphrey

      • 0
      Jul 30 2012: To illuminate the nature of these laws let me ask you, which came first the chicken or the egg?
  • thumb

    douglas macrae smith

    • 0
    Jul 29 2012: Are these statements given as fundamental truth on which to build some sort of belief?

    They all seem slightly slippery for a non initiate (like myself) 1) Do things have an intrinsic existence/what is matter?
    2)Does matter produce thought - are they a seperate species? 3)Why shouldn't they all interact?

    • William Humphrey

      • 0
      Jul 29 2012: thanks for your responce.

      A belief is simply an opinion of truth. The best way to answer your first question is to say that QP is not meant to be a lie.

      QP defines matter as being a balance of Power and Consciousness.

      They interact because the essence of all things is one and the same.
Showing all 27 comments