I really appreciate that reply, Terry. It is nice to see another person agreeing on aspects I consider vital.

Let me identify my feet in this because I am standing in the knowledge that we live in a result.

Some people do not stand in that position, and rather wonder if and how it all started. They either hold on to the whole still being intact, or they simply state that we cannot know.

I do not stand with them. I stand in the position that we live in a result.

A quick look at the following scene provides the setting for the materialization process:

A toy is shattered, strewn on the floor in a room. We immediately know two things:

1. The toy is still completely there; it's just in tatters now.

2. The special trick the toy had been able to perform is gone forever.

With this, we know that Penrose cannot be correct because a result is only possible if the prior state made that possible. The prior state had to break at a fundamental level, otherwise the results could not have come about.

Let me rephrase this as a 100% original state becoming a 100% secondary state, and the secondary state capable of returning to the original state. If this were possible, then that would happen in two seconds flat. It would not endure for 13.8 billion years and counting.

What must happen is that something fundamentally different occurred before we can end up with enduring distinct aspects called matter.

So, Terry, the question is simple.

Do you believe we exist in a result, or do you believe we exist in the original state?

While there can be a transition in between these two positions, that transition cannot last all that long. Two trapeze workers, one catching the other, with just less than a second for one to catch the other. If that connection is not made, then the other falls (into the safety net).

What we start out with is therefore vital in what we see.

1. The omelet had its egg broken

2. The omelet can go back into the egg, or

3. We are still inside the egg, no omelet.

I am with #1, and consider the other options infeasible.

Thank you for your comments. I really appreciate them.