Really good post! Thanks. You might have heard of quantum emergence theory? Really worth checking out if you haven't. The actress in the docs. is cute, too, and that never hurts.
And yes, I'm a spiritualist but an extraordinarily unique one who frames his metaphysics as speculation. Gnosticism.
Thanks for reading and commenting!
I have heard of quantum emergence theory, though I can't say I'm especially familiar with all the nuances of it. Mainly, I looked into it before (as I just did again) and felt they were drawing really elaborate and "out there" conclusions. To me, the universe is simple and does not have some hidden elaborate network of projection upon projection of different dimensional crystalline structures to produce it.
Their interpretation is the result of their attempts to merge two approximations: quantum mechanics and relativity. Neither are actual descriptions of the underlying mechanics of reality, both are approximations. When two approximations are combined, they do not merge into a more certain picture. Rather, they become an exponentially more uncertain picture. There is no combination of the two perspectives on the universe that arrives at a more accurate description because both are approximations that only apply to a small range (regardless of what the range is--next to infinite, it is nothing) of observations and are known to not apply to observations at so-called "extremes". This is because they are the best-fits of common knowledge that we have, and allow us to create many technological advancements, yet they are still not fundamental descriptions of reality.
Also, they claim non-determinism which is only really supported by quantum mechanics' claims of probabilistic functionality, which stem from misinterpreting groups of systems that function generally under a probabilistic nature when analyzed together as if they actually are probabilistic in nature. Nothing on the large scale is described to function this way; therefore, nothing on the small-scale functions this way. Probability only comes into play when many systems are analyzed together. It is a characteristic that is able to be quantified and observed and analyzed, but that does not mean it is an underlying principle of how the universe functions.
The article above is really the result of many other considerations. As you mention spirituality and metaphysics and gnosticism, you might find of interest that this model essentially states that the universe is the manifestation of infinity--having masses of an infinite range that interact with one another through gravitational forces alone, leading to the universe as we see it.
Another article I wrote on Steemit that I believe is very worth considering the details of is The Big Bang's Big Assumption. This goes into how gravity causes all distant redshifted galaxy observations as well as specifically how gravity causes electromagnetism. In so doing, it shows that the model arrives at an explanation for how one of the four supposed fundamental forces of nature is caused by another, thereby drastically reducing the complexity of the underlying model.
I'd also suggest checking out my book, The Simple Reality, with many of the same details and many others, which can be downloaded in pdf format here.
In other places, I have talked also about how gravity causes strong and weak interaction by comparing processes of atoms and stars (radioactive decay vs. supernova; nuclear fusion vs. supernova Type 1-A, for example) and demonstrating that the same mechanics occur (and that therefore they are the same processes). Thus, gravity--as a known cause of supernovae--can be said to be the only fundamental force of nature. In so doing, the universe is demonstrably all one thing. From this, it is a simple step to recognize what that one thing that everything is really is: The One, The All, The Infinite; God; a truth unavoidably interwoven throughout all of reality.
Thanks for your time and consideration of my writing!
Steve Scully
I'll get back to you on this but I agree with your initial point on approximations and untenable theories associated with them. I do applaud their research though as long as they frame it as speculative.
We may be at opposite poles in religious philosophy and that's okay. Religion and faith should also ALWAYS be framed within speculation otherwise the religious claim is dishonest. And dishonesty in religion is something we should all be concerned about.
I'm a dualist gnostic as I believe God (whatever it is if it exists) is separate and distinct from the material universe or at least the one we live in which was brought into existence via incongruity and resulted in a demiurge overlord. We are ruled by deceptive spiritual archons.
This is a complex field of inquiry and requires extraordinary amounts of objectivity...
Warning Will Robinson: not a topic for those easily triggered!
For now, I'd suggest viewing the Youtuber, Underlings, and look for his series on a case for an evil God.
Briefly, the universe will take everything and everyone you love away from you; every day the universe is actively trying to kill you in nearly unlimited ways and many of those ways are gruesome. This is no way consistent with a coherent loving God--something else is going on.