@Rambler That's great. You did well!

@SW-User Wow. Im not that good 😆 My brother Tony whos 70 though did a 800 mile cycle through france last year. Hes much fitter than me. Your grandfather sounds like he was super healthy. Kudos to him.

@Perry1968 He was a smoker, but spent his life as a carpenter.

@SW-User They say strength is the last thing to go. His career clearly kept him physically strong. I do know keeping our legs strong helps. Hence why i cycle and walk when possible.

@SW-User That was over 50 years ago.

@exexec ... as coach.

@SW-User None of today's kids would listen to me. I've tried.

@SW-User So you mean to say that the theory does not violate the laws of thermodynamics?

@Alyosha No laws for the physical plane are violated. They remain in the background of an explanation dealing in the intangible as well as tangible.

Anna, by "congruence", do you mean "equality" in the normal numerical sense? Are you arguing that you are showing that the probabilities of "afterlife" v. "no afterlife" are equal?

If so, why would existence of X v. non-existence of X depend upon the probabilities of these two outcomes being equal?

@SomeMichGuy Creation must match destruction. Otherwise the cosmos would be empty or full. It's a law for an infinite cosmos. There are two ways to depict a balanced relationship. Both are right, and I shared the one where afterliife is viable.

Ok...that does not really explain your terminology, which is crucial to understanding your argument in the manner in which you mean it. E.g., "event" has a precise meaning in relativity, and you have used that and other terms which are clearly important to your notion(s)...which is why I asked about them.

I. RE:


A) Static universe?
It seems that you are arguing for a static universe. Is that correct?

B) Rates?
Do you mean that the rates of creation and destruction have to be equal?

C) Initial condition?
If I'm understanding your argument, this implies that you posit a fully-populated universe--like the one we see about us--as a necessary initial condition of your theory. Is that accurate?

II. RE:


A) "Law"?
Your notion is a new fundamental law of nature, then, right?

B) Alternative theory?
Given the above, you are proposing a new theory as an alternative to existing scientific notions of the universe--is that correct?

C) "Infinite cosmos"?
To refine a prior question, you require an infinite, fully-populated cosmos as an initial condition to your theory?

III. RE:


A) "Balance"?
Given what you are saying, I'm going to go out on a limb and ask if your diagram is "balanced" because you have

2 D's
2 C's

(which I assume must mean Destruction and Creation "events", if I am understanding you thus far)‐‐is that correct?

B) "Two ways"?
Why are there only "two ways" to depict a "balanced" relationship?

Forgive me if I am abusing your ideas/terminology and diagram--and I'm not sure how time enters in, or if I'm using your plus sign correctly--but wouldn't

D + C

be both "balanced" and the simplest such expression?

Wouldn't a generalization of your diagram

D + { (N - 1)D's with N C's}

all be balanced for
N = 1, 2, 3, ...

??

IV. RE:


A) "Afterlife"?
Again, understanding what you mean by this is crucial to understanding your argument; I think Dyson argued, in part, about worldline diagrams when he was pushing his ideas about how existing science could provide for an "afterlife" in some sense.

B) "Viability"?
If you are taking death as a possible destruction event, is your basic claim that your "law" requires that death have balancing new creations (and another destruction) in order to maintain "balance"?

C) A philosophical theory?
This is where your theory involves the "intangible" and is a theory of "afterlife" as a part of nature due to your new "law", if I am putting together your various statements here.

Does that sum it up properly, at least in broad outline?

@Alyosha Exactly.

@SW-User

C-trinos and anti-C-trenos? 😁

@JoyfulSilence Al Pacino?

@SW-User

Yes, the Godfather particle.