Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot
No, you're on the wrong track.
Let me give you a simple illustration. A snail's nervous system is very slow. So suppose a stone is a short distance in front of the snail. The snail sees the stone. Then you quickly put your hand in and take the stone away, in less than half a second.
To the snail, it will appear that the stone had mysteriously disappeared, all by itself. This is because your hand has moved too fast for the snail to perceive it.
You quickly dip your hand in, put the stone back, and withdraw your hand. Once again the snail cannot detect your hand. It will just appear that the stone has mysteriously reappeared.
So it is with the universe. Everything around you, including yourself, is rapidly blinking in and out of existence. Your nervous system is too slow to detect it, that is all.
From quantum physics, we know that the entire universe (or rather, those parts of it which are not empty space) is rapidly blinking in and out of existence. For that is the nature of all matter.
I'm sorry ALG but I just don't buy it. This is merely a new theory/model about the nature of matter; another Big Bang, which respectively changes completely over time whilst the name remains the same, for scientists had hoped no one was quick enough to catch the big hand snatch away the subjective stone (model) placed in front of us, and just as quickly replace it with a different subjective stone. For they will tell us over and again it is the same objective stone and has neither moved nor changed.
Objectively speaking - all that to say the least, is not especially honest, and is to me looking increasingly like religious sleight of hand manipulation designed to keep the income stream flowing whilst coping with necessity to update the dogma.
Hey I admit I don't objectively know about the nature of matter, for I'm not a scientist so my livelihood doesn't depend on repeated proclamations of objectivity in understanding. Yet I've worked out the nature of subjective scientists, of which you may well be one, so I really don't mean to offend at all. Scientists have a great penchant to talk about whatever model to which they currently adhere as if it is the entire show - the objective truth according reality. You just did it with "For that is the nature of all matter.' re your current flavour.
So whilst I earnestly respect and thank you for sharing, this is yet another observation of the difference between objective and subjective perception of reality. You will likely tell me you have a whole range of associated evidence to over and again prove the validity of this theory to your objectivity. But similarly to the evolutionsists, big bangists and string theorists who believe beyond doubt in their objectivity per their adherence to their respective religions, sorry models, yet it just plain is NOT objective.
There really is an unrecognised dissonance going on. In the end that is all they are - models, and subjective ones at that, despite proclamations to the contrary. And all subjective models by their nature will blink in and out of existence and flavour and focus and continue to be proclaimed with an iron fist from the pulpit as objective, when honestly speaking; they simply are not.
So tell me as earnestly as you like that it is "that model to which you (subjectively) adhere right now", but please don't tell me it is "the nature of matter" (objective). And please don't tell me that you know (objective) it is, especially when it goes against what I am able to see for myself (admittedly subjective), especially without some really heavy duty evidence, and btw, be reminded; the relationship your and my awareness will have to all of that, will also remain subjective.
Regrets to you if any of the above presents in any way painful to read.