Re: Free will (was: Re: Nucleus Accumbens Transplant)

Michael Lorrey (
Mon, 07 Dec 1998 18:10:44 -0500

Zenarchy wrote:

> >My only question to those who simultaneously believe in many worlds, while
> also believing
> >in conservation of mass and energy: Where does all of the mass and energy
> come from?
> It comes from anti-matter's reflection, like an echo from another time-space
> continuum.

You can only reflect once. After that, the antimatter is gone. This reflection occured at the moment of the big bang. That antimatter all went backward in time from the point of the big bang, and we all went forward...Reflect more than once and you are violating conservation.

> >Where is the mass and
> >energy for these universes coming from?
> The circular nature of reality makes it possible for mass and energy to
> enter a black hole and come out as a new universe. Why is there anything
> rather than nothing? Because without anything to ask, the question does not
> exist. Inertia occurs in brains as well as in inert matter.

Oh really? Prove that there is a circular nature to reality. We now know that the universe is open, for example, so there will not be a great crunch. We know that with the calculated quantity of dark matter, as well as with the latest measurments of accelerated expansion, that we are still some 80 or 90% short of the mass needed for a closed universe. The anthropic principle is irrelevant to this debate, nor is insults.

> That there is no apparent source for this, then
> >either conservation is maintained and Many Worlds is bunk, or it isn't and
> there should
> >be measurable phenomena which we can observe which show where the mass and
> energy is
> >coming from outside the universe or out of the zero point field (in which
> case over-unity
> >energy sources should be possible). Many Worlds is nice and fanciful, and I
> like it
> >myself, but that doesn't make it true.
> Okay, so it comes down to what you like most: your present concept of the
> universe or one that includes more possibilities.

No, it comes down to the concept that best fits the facts as they are, not as we want them to be. Wishing otherwise is merely denial of truth. Not very Tao of you....

Mike Lorrey