> Interesting theory. If the universe is *not* quanta, how do you
> explain the particle nature of light that we observe? (e.g.
> sensitive photo-sensors can record independent "quanta" of light as
> they strike it)
...we begin with the assumption that wholes are composed of parts. We then look for parts. Unsurprisingly, we find them.
> Yes! This is what I have been saying!
...but I think you missed his point too - nothing at all can be
excluded from the term "UNIVERSE". The universe, by definition,
containts EVERYTHING, every potential thing, every possible thing,
several impossible things, more than one incredibly improbable thing
and a great deal of stuff for which we do not have tags, concepts,
words or indicators.
...just because something does not exist in the set [things which can be encountered physically through the senses or measured directly] does not mean it is outside the set [universe]