Tom's theory

"The axiom that everything is fundamentally the same at all scales, differing only in detail, means yes, there is life at all scales. -|Tom|-"

The understanding of nature has gone even beyond this axiom. "Everything is everything at scales of its own [1]." Yes there is life in everything at scales of its own. Otherwise where the life would come from? Life is an interaction that occurs at the scales of observations.


1. Savov, E., Theory of Interaction, Geones Books, 2002.

Tom:

How does time work on these differing scales. Does a conscious, intelligent life experience a day in the same way. My question is that if a life form at a larger scale were to detonate a "nuclear" device using earth as the "hydrogen", what would happen here? There may be ethical issues to arise with your model.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />How does time work on these differing scales. Does a conscious, intelligent life experience a day in the same way.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In the MM, "time" is a measure of change. The smaller the scale, the more rapidly change occurs; and vice versa. So if there are living entities on the surface of a quantum particle, they might experience an entire lifetime of change in what would be the blink of an eye to us.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My question is that if a life form at a larger scale were to detonate a "nuclear" device using earth as the "hydrogen", what would happen here?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If Earth were like an electron and the Sun like a uranium nucleus, then the detonation would still take place over many revolutions, which would be many years to us. On our scale, it would be as if the solar system passed through an interstellar cloud of comets and suffered a heavy bombardment spanning centuries.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There may be ethical issues to arise with your model.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't see that. If we paid attention to other-scale consequences, that would be debilitating because we could not move or even breathe for fear of destroying microbes or entire micro-worlds. And change would be inevitable for all scales even if there were no oblivious biological entities adding to it. -|Tom|-

Tom:

Thanks for the reply. But, if your theory were to be accepted on a popular level, to no fault of your own, there would be backlash of the very nature we're discussing. People with an excessive postmodern view of "due unto others" and "love thy neighbor" would form a "Save the Atoms" campaign...maybe Ralph Nader could be there candidate. Well maybe not, but what would be your major concern if your idea changed world views and what do you think your responsibilities as the founder of MM would be to anticipate consequences on a social level. Do you plan to proceed as the great philosophers of old, because the consequences of the Meta Model being seen as true would presents enormous changes in religious, cultural and geopolitical world views.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />Do you plan to proceed as the great philosophers of old, because the consequences of the Meta Model being seen as true would presents enormous changes in religious, cultural and geopolitical world views?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Truth is always the best defense. Or as the old saying (attributed to Davey Crockett) goes: "Be sure you are right. Then go ahead."

I have little empathy for those who prefer to shelter their personal beliefs from reality testing because it would make them unhappy if those beliefs were wrong. Of course, they have no obligation to inform themselves, or to read about MM or anything else they choose to ignore. But I draw the line at insisting the rest of the world must share their invincible ignorance.

However intellectually distressing MM might be on first hearing, we see no apparent limits to what can be adapted to by the human mind. An argument used against Galileo was that the Earth must be the center because the Bible says the sun rises and sets. Would you argue that we should have kept the Cardinals' beliefs to avoid upsetting the world view of that time?

All viable ideas should be presented to the world's minds for testing and other considerations. Humans will ultimately decide what they will accept and what they will not. But good minds need to know what *all* the viable options are so they can make informed choices. -|Tom|-

Well written Doctor!