Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

John Fazio · 11-04-2016, 09:59 PM

(11-04-2016 05:41 PM)loetar44 Wrote:
(11-04-2016 12:11 PM)John Fazio Wrote:
(11-04-2016 05:24 AM)loetar44 Wrote: KEES:

YOUR SCENARIO IS POSSIBLE, ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT ALMOST ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, BUT IT IS UNLIKELY. THE SCENARIO I HAVE LAID OUT SEEMS TO ME TO BE MORE LIKELY, INDEED MUCH MORE LIKELY.

JOHN

John,
I feel that we almost have reached a consensus. Almost anything is possible, there is no final “absolute truth”. It reminds me of the “many-worlds interpretation” in quantum physics, which states that there is an infinite web of alternate possibilities (in physics we speak of “wavefunctions”). Many-worlds implies that all possible scenario’s are real, each representing an “actual world”. Everything that could possibly have happened in our past has occurred in “another world”. A scenario (wavefunction) collapse (becomes the only scenario) only by “observation”, scientifically said it reduces to a single eigenstate. In other words: your scenario could be true, my scenario could be true, all possible other scenario’s could be true. Everything could possibly have happened. Each scenario is subjective. If you “observe” your scenario, your scenario (wavefunction) collapse (reduces to an eigenstate), and becomes suddenly the only scenario and is therefore true, because it is the only scenario that is left. This does not mean that that scenario is the absolute truth (correct at any moment), or near the absolute truth, it's only true (correct for one moment). The same goes for my scenario and all other possible scenario’s, when they collapse. As said, we live in a many-worlds world. I know that it's a serious claim, that carries some rather serious scientific, philosophical, and existential baggage. But as a physicist I believe in quantum physics and can live with a many-worlds scenario. Do we agree?

Kees:

Asking me understand quantum physics is like asking an Eskimo to understand monsoon rains. But, yes, I do agree that any scenario re O'Laughlen's role in the assassination may be right, inasmuch as so little is known with certainty.

I did not know you are a physicist. Perhaps you can help me. I have long pondered the origin of the universe and of life on earth and, in fact, have written an essay on both subjects. Forget the second for now. Please share your thoughts on the origin of the universe. I am an agnostic precisely because I cannot imagine how the universe could have created itself out of nothing, but nor can I imagine the origin of a god or gods from nothing. I read Steven Hawking (A Brief History of Time) and Lawrence Krauss (A Universe From Nothing) and was not satisfied with either author's explanation. I wrote to Krauss at length, expressing my objections to his analysis and conclusions, but never received a response. I know this subject is beyond the scope of this Symposium; nevertheless, I am most interested in your thoughts.

John

John,

I'm more a mathematician than a physicist, but I've an answer how I see it. In short: I believe in eternal inflation. In our beginning there was nothing but infinite potential, dense and hot, maybe 10^30 degrees, wildly experimenting with every possibility that quantum uncertainty permits. There were billions and billions events in eternal tiny moments expanding from every spark point for all eternity, unlimited by the speed of light or lack of space. One spark point that fell out of eternity (and entered time) became our universe. Other spark points that fell out of eternity became other universes, completely separate of our universe. I've a nice metaphor which can help to better understand this all, but I think this is indeed beyond the scope of the symposium and it is a much lengthier story. If you want I can send you a private e-mail.

Back to Stanton...
Is it possible that O'Laughlen went to Booth to talk him out of his wild plans? He already separated himself from the plot, returned to Baltimore, but came back to DC after Booth visited him there on April 13. I mean, its the opposite you say. Not Booth wanted him back, but O'Laughlen wanted Booth to stop. Seems to me more logic. What do you think?

(11-04-2016 02:17 PM)Gene C Wrote:

(11-04-2016 12:11 PM)John Fazio Wrote: Kees:

Asking me understand quantum physics is like asking an Eskimo to understand monsoon rains. But, yes, I do agree that any scenario re O'Laughlen's role in the assassination may be right, inasmuch as so little is known with certainty.

I did not know you are a physicist. Perhaps you can help me. I have long pondered the origin of the universe and of life on earth and, in fact, have written an essay on both subjects. Forget the second for now. Please share your thoughts on the origin of the universe. I am an agnostic precisely because I cannot imagine how the universe could have created itself out of nothing, but nor can I imagine the origin of a god or gods from nothing. I read Steven Hawking (A Brief History of Time) and Lawrence Krauss (A Universe From Nothing) and was not satisfied with either author's explanation. I wrote to Krauss at length, expressing my objections to his analysis and conclusions, but never received a response. I know this subject is beyond the scope of this Symposium; nevertheless, I am most interested in your thoughts.

John

IF you can't imagine, and you haven't found an answer through nature you are satisfied with,
the alternative is to consider an answer that is beyond your imagination and above the laws of nature.

nice said Gene ! IMO it's better to say "above the known laws of nature". There a lot of laws we still don't know ....
[/quote]

Kees:

Thank you for your offering. Frankly, I cannot make sense of it. That leaves two possibilities: either it doesn't make sense or I am not equipped to understand it. How can "potential", which is an abstraction, i.e. not material, be "dense and hot". Further, I do not understand what "spark points" are; I do not know where the "space" came from; and, according to Sagan, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Still further, Sagan says that the laws of nature, as we know them, must be the same everywhere. Please send your metaphor, etc., to 3420 South Smith Rd., Fairlawn, Ohio 44333. Thank you in advance.

As for O'Laughlen, yes, your theory is possible, but I believe it is highly unlikely. I find it hard to believe that Booth's friend from childhood, who enjoyed a special relationship with Booth, would betray him or do anything that was contrary to his interests, including trying to talk him out of his mission. Booth was boss; the leader of his immediate action team. O'Laughlen was merely a subordinate. If he wanted to talk him out of it, he would have done so in Baltimore when Booth came there on the 13th to fetch him. The fact that he went to Washington and then, while there, went twice to the National, proves, to me, that he was still playing Booth's game.

Gene:

My thinking (and everyone else's) is limited by the capabilities of my brain. That is to say that our brains are not capable of going beyond their imagination. We are not capable of sensing, in any way, anything that is not part of our universe, assuming there is something that is not part of our universe. If I can't sense it any way, I cannot justify belief in it. I believe it atoms, even though we cannot see them, because we have other means of sensing that they are there. Sagan said that the laws of nature must be the same everywhere. Our brains are not capable of going outside the laws of nature, assuming there is something outside such laws. Our brains, and the tools we use to make them aware of what is not immediately apparent to our senses, are all we have. Faith, which is almost a perfect synonym for belief, must be based on some reality.

John