For one thing, the universe has been around forever.
This means if any antimattter out there hasn't collided with matter yet, it's probably not going to collide with it tomorrow either.
Some of it got away, it was no big thing, same ole same ole.
It doesn't all come at once in one universal energy decay event, the universe is too big for that, there's no limit to the universe, it's infinite with infinite energy. Energy is always conserved that way.
This means if any antimattter out there hasn't collided with matter yet, it's probably not going to collide with it tomorrow either.
How long has the universe existed? How long, to the best of your knowledge, has plutonium existed? See a pattern here? Of course not, that was a leading question. I seen on TV show some of top nucular science wizards in manhattan were worried that a a u-bomb might actually set fire to the atmosphere. Boy that would suck, eh?
How long has the universe existed? How long, to the best of your knowledge, has plutonium existed? See a pattern here? Of course not, that was a leading question.
LOL.
I 'figured' all this out once I decided gravity has a static or standing wavelength relative to its source and the waves have both negative (antigravity) and positive phases. I'll call it 'bipolar' quantum gravity. Seems there could be different wavelengths of gravity too. The basic bipolar gravity wave idea could explain at least some dark energy and dark matter, I suppose.
Anti-matter has much to do with the Dirac sea, where the surface is empty space. If the sea is regular I suppose the probed surface must have some of the event qualities of a space lattice made of particles and their anti-particle twins. Maybe space is like a matter-antimatter checkerboard, and matter is like a white-square bishop. If so, maybe dark matter and energy come from anti- matter. This further suggests that maybe gravity from antimatter starts out in opposite phase relative to matter's gravity, which for example would cause gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter when both gravities predominate and are positioned within the relevant gravitational wavelengths, as with sufficiently large paired masses of the two forms.
I've always thought of matter/antimatter as almost godlike magnets, fiercely quarrelsome and unwilling to meet. It's no wonder most people prefer to worship the relatively weak magnet.
The idea lends itself to that sort of visualization where bodies of both type interact gravitationally in a bipolar way, just like with magnetic N and S. There's also a slight suggestion within the idea, along that vein, to suppose the cutoff of minimum gravity wavelength is the maximum electromagnetic wavelength, where the force particle energy is large enough to have its own significant gravitational interaction with space, as a separate gravitational entity. Perhaps thus electromagnetic force particle phase is not of the static or standing variety except for gravitationally, relative to the particle. The electromagnetic particle is I suppose skating over the Dirac sea, not pushing (probing) into it, up to a further energy threshold, where it begins to behave as a spinning charged matter-antimatter pair, apparently by the way it interacts with the Dirac sea.
Penrose claims the mind is non-algorithmic. Brain damage is non-algorithmic. The processes of novelty filtering and logical investigation ... I don't know if they're fairly describable as non-algorithmic, although that which fate permits such processes to consider is another thing.
Penrose's view would tend to dispute Kurzweil's materialist singularity
I'm not following, but I've been focusing more on global paradigm shifts than on the singularity lately. I think I'm developing an anti-singularity reflex.
Anyway, I think the brain exploits quantum randomness and classical randomness and it ends up being significantly controlled by unpredictable circumstances, but meeting goals and satisfying needs is generally algorithmic.
Anyway, I think the brain exploits quantum randomness and classical randomness and it ends up being significantly controlled by unpredictable circumstances, but meeting goals and satisfying needs is generally algorithmic.