« "The One" is a fresh look at the meaning of quantum mechanics | Main | Einstein: "It is the theory which decides what can be observed" »

July 12, 2023


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Speaking of points, what's yours? What it is the point you're drying at with all these essays about oneness, physics, non duality, etc?

If the entire creation was made outside of time then there is no necessity for branching timelines. If all that was, is and will be has already happened, then the time we experience is simply the needle in the groove on the vinyl at one point. But you could have endless needles at any number of points on this album. Just because they would generate multiple sounds at once does not mean they are in fact separate or multiple. We are living in a discrete series of static points that, because of time, appear moving. But all the points are part of a single curving string of infinite length and depth.

The entire debate about multiple universes, or evolution vs creation makes no sense. There is no point to comparing one slice of life to another when it was all baked as a single cake in one infinite instant. We eat it one slice at a time, but that is how we cut it, how our brain translates it, how the quality of time and space inflate it. It's the same cake it always was.

Enjoyed reading this article.

Much of the QM part is something most here would know already, I guess; but still, you did well to review it, Brian. The quantum decoherence thing, that’s something I hadn’t come across before this. Your own brief discussion of it pretty much covers it; and I checked out a few external references as well, to get a somewhat rounded idea about it.

As far as the core thesis of Oneness, that Heinrich Pas’ book is all about: I don’t want to jump the gun, and rush prematurely to some half-baked judgment about this; but still, basis what you’ve covered so far, Brian, this idea seems to be …well, simply conjecture, is that right? I suppose it does hold up, in the sense that it wouldn’t actually contradict the actual observations so far, else a bona fide physicist like Heinrich Pas wouldn’t have written a whole book about it; but, while it may not be impossible that something like this might actually turn out to be true; but Pas isn’t actually suggesting that the current science actually points directly to something like this, does he?

But like I said, not to jump the gun on this! Let’s see what the rest of your articles on the book reveal.

…Fascinating stuff, this! And very far-reaching --- to put it mildly! --- if there’s any truth to this idea beyond merely tentative conjecture.

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed. Even transformed from light to dark matter and vice versa, and from potential to energy and back again...

"This isn’t the whole story of matter, however, it’s the story of visible matter. Scientists have learned that about 25 percent of the universe’s mass consists of dark matter—matter that cannot be seen but can be detected through its gravitational effects. The exact nature of dark matter has yet to be determined. Another 70 percent of the universe is an even more mysterious component called dark energy, which acts counter to gravity. So “normal” matter makes up, at most, five percent of the universe."

Not even information can be destroyed, only transformed, at least on the sub-atomic level:


"(PhysOrg.com) -- In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem.

"A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. Physicists Samuel L. Braunstein at the University of York, UK, and Arun K. Pati of the Harish-Chandra Research Institute, India, first proved the no-hiding theorem in 2007. Until now, however, the no-hiding theorem has been a purely theoretical concept.

"Now for the first time, a team of physicists consisting of Pati, along with Jharana Rani Samal (deceased) and Anil Kumar of the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, India, has experimentally tested and confirmed the no-hiding theorem."

If matter and information cannot be created nor destroyed, but simply transformed from one state to another, there is your connection. These are all one thing living in different states, moving through different states, like steam, water and ice.

The total amount of energy, matter, dark matter and dark energy in the entire creation is exactly the same as it always was. It was never more nor less. It's form changes, that is all.

In a similar way, there was no more H2O on planet earth during the ice ages, or any of the intervening warming periods. The number of H2O molecules on planet earth is pretty much the same through all ages.

When there is less ice, there is more steam and liquid water, etc.

How can it be the same amount? Because it is the same thing in different forms. If if were not the same, you could have different amounts at different times.

But matter and energy, combined amount to the same total. They cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed. Basically, the first law of thermodynamics.

I have the same question as Sant ?
I’m curious Brian …… are you more of an idealist or materialist ?

Can't speak for him, obviously, Cassiodorus, but from what I understand, I'd say he's a realist. That's what I am. That's the only reasonable and rational thing to be. That you weigh the evidence, rationally, scientifically, and arrive at your conclusion, your position, wherever it takes you.

As it happens the current state of human knowledge takes us to a worldview that is materialistic, and atheistic as well. But that can change any moment. And we're prepared to update our understanding if it does.

So, one isn't a priori any "ist". Only a closed-minded dogmatist would be that. But reality, so far, it does appear material, and not theistic. That's what one believes it is, provisionally.

(Apologies if I've misrepresented your position, Brian. Although I doubt I would have!)

Surely you recognize that one need not be unreasonable nor dogmatic to reject philosophical materialism ?

I personally don’t accept physicalism , but I don’t think that those who do are necessarily unreasonable or dogmatic . I’m sure you’ll find folks like that among believers of every worldview .

I think that there simply is genuine philosophical disagreement .

That's possible, sure. Occasionally it is true. It may be, in your case.

But take someone like SM64. He's very well informed. He can reason very well when he wants to. But oftentimes he resorts to blatant non sequiturs, blatant trolling, blatant poking-the-libtards, and simply ignoring sound arguments. That's disingenuous misdirection, the only resort of those trying to defend the indefensible, like the grotesque orange turd for example, or homophobia for example. No way to defend the lowlife Trump rationally, or defend homophobia. Likewise, with more ...rarefied disagreements, as well.

Not suggesting every disagreement is necessarily dishonest. Yours may not be. (But in that case, IMV it's mistaken. And can be shown to be mistaken. Except that's a very very long walk, that I don't have time for. So, agree to disagree, sure. While standing by my comment. While also acknowledging scope for honest disagreement. Honest but mistaken, arguably --- but since I'm not taking the effort to actually argue this, therefore I'm prepared to qualify that qualification, and agree to disagree on that as well.)

Apologies, SM64, not looking to pick a fight! Some of what you say is very well informed, and very well argued, and that I appreciate. Used you only as example, to make my point. That point could have been made just as well, without dragging you into it. There was no call to gratuitously do that. I'd have gone back and changed how I worded that, and removed that personal reference, except there's no edit function here.

Well , I am not particularly familiar with SM64’s views , but even if your characterization of him were true , it would be irrelevant . I , too , think that you are probably an honest person and are simply mistaken regarding your workdview . And yes , that would be a long discussion - since it’s already been going for thousands of years!

I dont agree with your political remark though . Again , I think one need not be unreasonable nor immoral to prefer either Trump or Biden when those are the only two options . Same deal , there is genuine philosophical disagreement in political orientation as well .

You're right, Cassiodorus. On rereading, my comment was not very well expressed, and does come across as irrelevant. It isn't actually irrelevant, though; it is merely poorly worded.

Here's what I meant to convey. Hopefully I'll do a better job this time of explaining!

Oftentimes people latch on to some 'ism', and then hold on to it for dear life. It might be some broad philosophy, like idealism, or theism (or for that matter materialism, or atheism); or it might be some far more down-to-earth idea, like 'Trump is the greatest President ever', or that 'Trump is innocent'. The point is, that opinion is arrived at a priori, that is to say prior to having examined some evidence around it; and that opinion is then held on to for dear life, and every bit of evidence that shows otherwise is either twisted and misinterpreted and sought to be misrepresented, or else the discussion itself is sought to be derailed by resorting to all manner of non sequiturs, or else logical fallacies are introduced (deliberately or maybe inadvertently) that try to show that the evidence points to something it actually does not. Or, of course, if none of these works, then the evidence is blithely ignored, and one carries on as if the evidence had not been presented at all.

And all of this happens for one reason and one reason only. That's because instead of seeing the evidence with an open mind, and having the evidence and the discussion lead one towards whatever appears to be the reasonable conclusion; people sometimes latch on to some opinion or some position a priori, and then try to somehow, anyhow, fit the evidence to that a priori opinion or position (rather than having the opinion or position fit the evidence).

And absolutely, I'd say that the same thing can be said of someone who'd latched on to materialism and atheism as positions never ever to be budged from, no matter what.


So, when you asked Brian whether he's a materialist or an idealist, I tried to explain that he is (or I think he is) simply a realist, going where an honest assessment of reality takes him. Which happens to be materialism and atheism, sure; but not quite the same thing, as when people oftentimes see themselves as something-or-the-other-ist.

Whereupon you suggested that not all who reject materialism are deluded or dishonest, and that some might actually have followed the evidence and arrived at their worldview of idealism, or whatever. To which my response was that that was possible; but however it is unlikely, as in most cases ideas like theism et cetera are actually held a priori and clung on to; but still, I granted that you might be an exception, and that you'd honestly, basis your lights, arrived at rejection of materialism.

(In which case I'd say you were honestly mistaken. But given that I'd reasonably be expected to back up that claim with evidence and arguments pointing out that mistake; and given that that's likely to be a very long drawn out exercise; and given that I don't have time for that: therefore, I'd agreed to simply do agree-to-disagree thing. Since I cannot, in good faith, expect you accept that you're mistaken, merely on my unsupported say-so.)


Heh, sorry, that was one long-winded explanation, wasn't it? But my briefer effort last time --- my second comment, that you said was irrelevant (quite rightly so, because while it wasn't actually irrelevant, but certainly my poor wording of it did express my thoughts very badly and did give the impression of being completely irrelevant) --- so I wanted to make sure I'd actually convey my thoughts better this time, even if that means a (much) longer comment!

(And even if you don't agree with my characterization of Trump --- although how anyone could honestly do that, given the mountain of evidence now available, baffles me! --- but even so, I hope I've been able to convey my meaning to you. Think of it, if you like, as an a-priori materialist, or an a-priori Trump-hater, who's force-fitting the evidence that actually shows otherwise to try to argue that idealism isn't true, or that Trump isn't the best Prez ever.)

(Again, I believe I could show you you're mistaken about materialism. Except it would take much too long. Not quite thousands of years, but certainly a week or a month or so of solid comment discussion. Likewise, I'm sure I could actually show you you're mistaken about Trump. And that latter, while not quite as long-drawn out, would still take a while, and in any case would be completely off-topic. All I wanted to do here is to convey to you why I suggested that while it is generally unlikely that some theist or some idealist would, in this day and age, have arrived at their position not a priori but by properly evaluating evidence, but no doubt there are some who do that, even if mistakenly, and you might well be one of them, absolutely. And I hope I've now done that, as far as the principle of it and not its specific application to these questions, even if you don't see eye to eye with me as far as Trump.)


Thanks for your clarification . Sure , there are folks who do more rationalizing rather than reasoning . As you alluded to, that's a problem that any individual (even ourselves!) may be guilty of . After all, it's not surprising that it's always the other guy , of course , that's doing the rationalizing . Excercising epistemic humility can be challenging .

Naturally , I doubt your arguments to disabuse me of my views on materialism and leftism would succeed - your skills as a logician and my intellectual disinterestedness notwithstanding .

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.