If you're a scientist who wants this laid out in a formal, syllogistic format, here's the specific bug in Einstein's work that seems to be tripping everyone up...
Special relativity is a deductive argument resting on two postulates and confirmed by experiment:
- The laws of physics remain the same in all inertial frames of reference.
- The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the source or the observer.
As soon as you invalidate one of Einstein's postulates, you invalidate the entire argument.
When Einstein asserts that the speed of light remains the same for all observers, he is assuming the fundamental existence of "speed." Speed is the distance traveled through space in a discrete period of time.
If space and time don't fundamentally exist, then neither does speed.
Using a deductive process from first principles, we know that space and time don't fundamentally exist in a non-dual universe. Therefore, Einstein's second premise is false, which renders his argument unsound.
Hence, using deduction, we know that Einstein is right at a superficial level and wrong at a fundamental level.
It's like he's right at the level of truth that we observe in the game, but wrong at the deeper level of truth that constructs the emergent illusion of the game (i.e., the lower-dimensional "codebase").
I have established Laws in the universe that make it possible for you to have — to create — exactly what you choose. These Laws cannot be violated, nor can they be ignored. You are following these Laws right now, even as you read this. You cannot not follow the Law, for these are the ways things work. You cannot step aside from this; you cannot operate outside of it.
[...]
The direct answer to your question is, yes, you may do as you wish without fear of retribution. It may serve you, however, to be aware of consequences.
Consequences are results. Natural outcomes. These are not at all the same as retributions, or punishments. Outcomes are simply that. They are what results from the natural application of natural laws. They are that which occurs, quite predictably, as a consequence of what has occurred.
All physical life functions in accordance with natural laws. Once you remember these laws, and apply them, you have mastered life at the physical level.
What seems like punishment to you — or what you would call evil, or bad luck — is nothing more than a natural law asserting itself.
If you believe that God is some omnipotent being who hears all prayers, says "yes" to some, "no" to others, and "maybe, but not now" to the rest, you are mistaken. By what rule of thumb would God decide?
If you believe that God is the creator and decider of all things in your life, you are mistaken.
God is the observer, not the creator. And God stands ready to assist you in living your life, but not in the way you might expect.
It is not God's function to create, or uncreate, the circumstances or conditions of your life. God created you, in the image and likeness of God. You have created the rest, through the power God has given you. God created the process of life and life itself as you know it. Yet God gave you free choice, to do with life as you will.
To [Bohm's] amazement he found that once they were in a plasma, electrons stopped behaving like individuals and started behaving as if they were part of a larger and interconnected whole. Although their individual movements appeared random, vast numbers of electrons were able to produce effects that were surprisingly well-organized. Like some amoeboid creature, the plasma constantly regenerated itself and enclosed all impurities in a wall in the same way that a biological organism might encase a foreign substance in a cyst. So struck was Bohm by these organic qualities that he later remarked he'd frequently had the impression the electron sea was "alive."
It’s unexpected, surprising—and for me incredibly exciting. To be fair, at some level I’ve been working towards this for nearly 50 years. But it’s just in the last few months that it’s finally come together. And it’s much more wonderful, and beautiful, than I’d ever imagined.
In many ways it’s the ultimate question in natural science: How does our universe work? Is there a fundamental theory? An incredible amount has been figured out about physics over the past few hundred years. But even with everything that’s been done—and it’s very impressive—we still, after all this time, don’t have a truly fundamental theory of physics.
Back when I used to do theoretical physics for a living, I must admit I didn’t think much about trying to find a fundamental theory; I was more concerned about what we could figure out based on the theories we had. And somehow I think I imagined that if there was a fundamental theory, it would inevitably be very complicated.
But in the early 1980s, when I started studying the computational universe of simple programs I made what was for me a very surprising and important discovery: that even when the underlying rules for a system are extremely simple, the behavior of the system as a whole can be essentially arbitrarily rich and complex.
And this got me thinking: Could the universe work this way? Could it in fact be that underneath all of this richness and complexity we see in physics there are just simple rules? I soon realized that if that was going to be the case, we’d in effect have to go underneath space and time and basically everything we know. Our rules would have to operate at some lower level, and all of physics would just have to emerge.
Abstract
This monograph attempts a theory of every ‘thing’ that can be distinguished from other ‘things’ in a statistical sense. The ensuing statistical independencies, mediated by Markov blankets, speak to a recursive composition of ensembles (of things) at increasingly higher spatiotemporal scales. This decomposition provides a description of small things; e.g., quantum mechanics – via the Schrödinger equation, ensembles of small things – via statistical mechanics and related fluctuation theorems, through to big things – via classical mechanics. These descriptions are complemented with a Bayesian mechanics for autonomous or active things. Although this work provides a formulation of every ‘thing’, its main contribution is to examine the implications of Markov blankets for selforganisation to nonequilibrium steady-state. In brief, we recover an information geometry and accompanying free energy principle that allows one to interpret the internal states of something as representing or making inferences about its external states. The ensuing Bayesian mechanics is compatible with quantum, statistical and classical mechanics and may offer a formal description of lifelike particles.