Re: Science versus Religion, or Science _and_ Religion?

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

On 10月22日, 下午2時54分, "Albert K. Fung" <akwf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> TheInquirer:
>
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcxDAJ8eU3w
>
> > Science versus Religion, or Science _and_ Religion?
>
> > what do you all think?
>
> Science and religion ....
>
> Contrary to popular opinions and the above insinuations, are
> not opposites. Nor are they mutually exclusive. In fact they
> they are quite congruous and compatible.
>
> science is a religion - with its own deities, and churches.

Sciences is based on intersubjective experience, religion is on
subjective experience.
>
> And has its own doctrines, dogmas, priests and bishops. Both
> require leaps of faith. A case in point - Sir Issac Newton's
> proposal to use his own mathematical invention, calculus, as
> a means to solve complex and intractable motion problems, in
> celestial mechanics, and its acquiescence acceptance, by the
> scientific community, in clear violation of well established
> principles in mathematics and logic, was a ginormous leap of
> faith by all.
>
> In his seminal work, Philosophi Naturalis Principia Mathem-
> atica, the gentleman perpetrated his theory of Universal Gra
> -vitation. It was the gentleman's attempt at a unifying theo
> -logy for the terrestrial and the celestial. In which one is
> offered an invaluable glimpse into the mind of science relig
> -ion's high priest. The foundation of his theology was force
> -at-a-distance.
>
> To wit: black magic .... :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Albert K. Fung
> Rancho del Canto, Paso Robles, CA, USA.

[TheInquirer]

On 23/10/2012 7:21 AM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 10月22日, 下午2時54分, "Albert K. Fung"<akwf...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> Sciences is based on intersubjective experience,

science? intersubjective?

you have heard of the double slit experiment, havent you?

religion is on
> subjective experience.

--
I ask, becos I'm curious.

[ Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't presume.
My personal matters are none of your business. I ask, you answer.
If you don't know the answer, can you please "pass" to more capable
person(s) to answer? Thanks. ]

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

On 10月23日, 上午12時46分, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> On 23/10/2012 7:21 AM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 10月22日, 下午2時54分, "Albert K. Fung"<akwf...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
> > Sciences is based on intersubjective experience,
>
> science?  intersubjective?
>
> you have heard of the double slit experiment, havent you?

Yes. So?

[Albert K. Fung]

ltlee:

> Sciences is based on intersubjective experience,

TheInquirer:

> science? intersubjective?
>
> you have heard of the double slit experiment, havent you?

Moreover, in canonizing a martyr ....

Church rules require no stone unturned, and miraculous deeds
performed by the saint-to-be be intersubjective: independent
-ly reported, eye-witnessed and vouched by multiple sources.
Sir Issac Newton, OTOH, when asked about the nature of force
-acting-at-a-distance axiom in his universal gravitation the
-ology, simply said "trust me". Which, is "sola fidelis" in
English. If that is not subjective experience.

One wonders, what is? .... :)

[AntiDabianchenVirus]

On Oct 23, 6:25 am, "Albert K. Fung" <akwf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Moreover, in canonizing a martyr ....

(remainder of pompous pansy homo troll-post snipped)

BULLSHIT!!

Up yours, you pansy old faggot! Still smelling jasmine from your
asshole? You are nothing but a liar and a fraud, and NOTHING you write
bears any semblance to the truth. Where is the jasmine revolution
which you have been predicting for China since February last year that
would topple the Chinese government? Go stuff your ginormous asshole
with all the jasmine you've collected, and plug it with your Tesla
handbag.

[TheInquirer]

On 23/10/2012 5:44 PM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 10月23日, 上午12時46分, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
>> On 23/10/2012 7:21 AM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 10月22日, 下午2時54分, "Albert K. Fung"<akwf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Sciences is based on intersubjective experience,
>>
>> science? intersubjective?
>>
>> you have heard of the double slit experiment, havent you?
>
> Yes. So?

when the wave function collapses due to a conscious observer,
is that intersubjective or subjective? what the heck is going
on?

which interpretation is correct? Copenhagen or many-worlds? or others?

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

On 10月23日, 下午1時33分, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> On 23/10/2012 5:44 PM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 10月23日, 上午12時46分, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions>  wrote:
> >> On 23/10/2012 7:21 AM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> On 10月22日, 下午2時54分, "Albert K. Fung"<akwf...@hotmail.com>    wrote:
> >>> Sciences is based on intersubjective experience,
>
> >> science?  intersubjective?
>
> >> you have heard of the double slit experiment, havent you?
>
> > Yes. So?
>
> when the wave function collapses due to a conscious observer,
> is that intersubjective or subjective?  what the heck is going
> on?
>

Can a second experimenter/observer, and a third, and a fourth, so and
so forth reproduce similar wave function collapse under similar
experimental
conditions? If yes, the observation is inter-subjective.

[Albert K. Fung]

TheInquirer:

> when the wave function collapses due to a conscious observer,
> is that intersubjective or subjective? what the heck is going
> on?

ltlee:

> Can a second experimenter/observer, and a third, and a fourth, so and
> so forth reproduce similar wave function collapse under similar
> experimental
> conditions? If yes, the observation is inter-subjective.

A resounding no .... :)

Therein lies the fallacy of the salient dogma of the science
religion - the causality theology. Contrary to its fundament
-al tenet, observed reality has no existence.

Idependent of the observer ....

PS: No one could sum up that bewilderment of the science re-
ligion better than its most eminent high priest - Albert
Einstein.

"God does not throw dice." exclaimed His Eminence.

[AntiDabianchenVirus]

On Oct 24, 7:59 am, "Albert K. Fung" <akwf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A resounding no ....

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

On 10月24日, 上午10時59分, "Albert K. Fung" <akwf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> TheInquirer:
>
> > when the wave function collapses due to a conscious observer,
> > is that intersubjective or subjective?  what the heck is going
> > on?
>
> ltlee:
>
> > Can a second experimenter/observer, and a third, and a fourth, so and
> > so forth reproduce similar wave function collapse under similar
> > experimental
> > conditions? If yes,  the observation is inter-subjective.
>
> A resounding no .... :)
>
> Therein lies the fallacy of the salient dogma of the science
> religion - the causality theology. Contrary to its fundament
> -al tenet, observed reality has no existence.
>
> Idependent of the observer ....

Don't know what you mean. But let me eliminate some possibilities.
1. Is the observation a fluke?

If the observation cannot be reproduced at all, how can one tell it
is
not a fluke?

2. If one throws a dice with N sides, one will get a random outcome
from 1 to N. And a series of outcomes each one between 1 to N
if he throws the dice multiple times. It is also obvious that a
second
and a third thrower and so on are unlikely to reproduce the exact
sequence.

3. If one throws a dice with N sides as above with a twist, once the
dice
stops, it number on top will immediately change to a different one
randomly
such that two observers will see a different outcome because they are
observing the outcome from slightly different location.

[TheInquirer]

if that is/were the case, could you explain all the quantum phenomena
(e.g. tunnelling, non-locality, duality ... etc.) to me? it's all very
puzzling to me.

[TheInquirer]

On 24/10/2012 11:29 PM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:

>> Idependent of the observer ....
> Don't know what you mean. But let me eliminate some possibilities.
> 1. Is the observation a fluke?
>
> If the observation cannot be reproduced at all, how can one tell it
> is
> not a fluke?
>
> 2. If one throws a dice with N sides, one will get a random outcome
> from 1 to N. And a series of outcomes each one between 1 to N
> if he throws the dice multiple times. It is also obvious that a
> second
> and a third thrower and so on are unlikely to reproduce the exact
> sequence.
>
> 3. If one throws a dice with N sides as above with a twist, once the
> dice
> stops, it number on top will immediately change to a different one
> randomly
> such that two observers will see a different outcome because they are
> observing the outcome from slightly different location.

if _individual_ outcomes are not reproducible, but the aggregate
_statistical_ distributions are reproducible, then ... what?

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

On 10月24日, 下午2時17分, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> On 24/10/2012 11:29 PM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Idependent of the observer ....
> > Don't know what you mean. But let me eliminate some possibilities.
> > 1. Is the observation a fluke?
>
> > If the observation cannot be reproduced at all, how can one tell it
> > is
> > not a fluke?
>
> > 2. If one throws a dice with N sides, one will get a random outcome
> > from 1 to N. And a series of outcomes each one between 1 to N
> > if he throws the dice multiple times. It is also obvious that a
> > second
> > and a third thrower and so on are unlikely to reproduce the exact
> > sequence.
>
> > 3. If one throws a dice with N sides as above with a twist, once the
> > dice
> > stops, it number on top will immediately change to a different one
> > randomly
> > such that two observers will see a different outcome because they are
> > observing the outcome from slightly different location.
>
> if _individual_ outcomes are not reproducible, but the aggregate
> _statistical_ distributions are reproducible, then  ... what?

You probably don't need god to explain the observation.

[TheInquirer]

On 25/10/2012 2:33 AM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 10月24日, 下午2時17分, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:


>>> 3. If one throws a dice with N sides as above with a twist, once the
>>> dice
>>> stops, it number on top will immediately change to a different one
>>> randomly
>>> such that two observers will see a different outcome because they are
>>> observing the outcome from slightly different location.
>>
>> if _individual_ outcomes are not reproducible, but the aggregate
>> _statistical_ distributions are reproducible, then ... what?
>
> You probably don't need god to explain the observation.

how is your answer relevant to the question of whether science
is subjective or inter-subjective?

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

On 10月24日, 下午3時23分, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> On 25/10/2012 2:33 AM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 10月24日, 下午2時17分, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions>  wrote:
> >>> 3. If one throws a dice with N sides as above with a twist, once the
> >>> dice
> >>> stops, it number on top will immediately change to a different one
> >>> randomly
> >>> such that two observers will see a different outcome because they are
> >>> observing the outcome from slightly different location.
>
> >> if _individual_ outcomes are not reproducible, but the aggregate
> >> _statistical_ distributions are reproducible, then  ... what?
>
> > You probably don't need god to explain the observation.
>
> how is your answer relevant to the question of whether science
> is subjective or inter-subjective?

I don't think I have to answer that question. The following is from
Wikipedia:
"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic
enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable
explanations and predictions about the universe.[1]"

As long as any observation is predicable(reproducible), it belongs to
sciences. It is, more or less, a matter of definition.

[TheInquirer]

On 25/10/2012 3:52 AM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:

> I don't think I have to answer that question. The following is from
> Wikipedia:
> "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic
> enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable
> explanations and predictions about the universe.[1]"
>
> As long as any observation is predicable(reproducible), it belongs to
> sciences. It is, more or less, a matter of definition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

see especially 3:48 and afterwards


why is it that when the "eyeball" was put there by observers,
the electrons behaved differently, as if the electrons knew
that there was a conscious observer observing it?

[ note: it's not a trivial question. top physicists, even Einstein, was
baffled by it. please do your homework before answering this one.
thanks. ]

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

On 10月24日, 下午4時19分, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> On 25/10/2012 3:52 AM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > I don't think I have to answer that question. The following is from
> > Wikipedia:
> > "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic
> > enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable
> > explanations and predictions about the universe.[1]"
>
> > As long as any observation is predicable(reproducible), it belongs to
> > sciences. It is, more or less,  a matter of definition.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
>
> see especially  3:48 and afterwards
>
> why is it that when the "eyeball" was put there by observers,
> the electrons behaved differently, as if the electrons knew

> that there was a conscious observer observing it?I

>
> [ note: it's not a trivial question.  top physicists, even Einstein, was
> baffled by it.  please do your homework before answering this one.
> thanks.  ]
>

If you question is why the electron moved in a way as if it knew that
there was a conscious observer observing it, I don't know the answer.
However, the "as if..." by itself does not preclude a scientific
explanation.
And the phenomenon belongs to the realm of sciences as long as it is
reproducible and therefore inter-subjective.

Inter-subjectivity would require scientific explanations not to
contradict
each other. In comparison, religious explanations from different
religions
often contradict each other. Otherwise, scientific explanations could
be
every bit as fantastical as religious explanations.

[TheInquirer]

On 25/10/2012 5:00 AM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 10月24日, 下午4時19分, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:

>> see especially 3:48 and afterwards
>>
>> why is it that when the "eyeball" was put there by observers,
>> the electrons behaved differently, as if the electrons knew
>> that there was a conscious observer observing it?I
>>
>> [ note: it's not a trivial question. top physicists, even Einstein, was
>> baffled by it. please do your homework before answering this one.
>> thanks. ]
>>
>
> If you question is why the electron moved in a way as if it knew that
> there was a conscious observer observing it, I don't know the answer.
> However, the "as if..." by itself does not preclude a scientific
> explanation.
> And the phenomenon belongs to the realm of sciences as long as it is
> reproducible and therefore inter-subjective.
>
> Inter-subjectivity would require scientific explanations not to
> contradict
> each other. In comparison, religious explanations from different
> religions
> often contradict each other. Otherwise, scientific explanations could
> be
> every bit as fantastical as religious explanations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

did you do your homework before coming to class for discussions?

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

Either you agree with my answer or you don't.
Whether you has done your homework before you ask and I has done
my homework before I answer is irrelevant.

>
> --
> I ask, becos I'm curious.

I answer, because I know.

[TheInquirer]

On 25/10/2012 6:02 AM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
>>
>> did you do your homework before coming to class for discussions?
>
> Either you agree with my answer or you don't.

can you at least read the wikipedia link?

--
I ask, becos I'm curious.

[TheInquirer]

On 25/10/2012 6:02 AM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
>>
>> did you do your homework before coming to class for discussions?

can you at least read the info provided by the wikipedia link?

--
I ask, becos I'm curious.

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

On 10月24日, 下午11時04分, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> On 25/10/2012 6:02 AM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
>
> >> did you do your homework before coming to class for discussions?
>
> can you at least read the info provided by the wikipedia link?

Alright, I open up the link and read the title.

To the extent that quantum mechanics has an interpretation problem
among the physicists, it confirms my point that sciences, as opposed
to religion, is guided and constrained by intersubjectivity. Christian
Crusaders and Islam Jahadists don't have comparable interpretation
problems. They and their group's interpretation is always Right and
BEYOND DOUBT per their God's teachings.

If some other part of the article is important, please cut and paste.

[TheInquirer]

On 25/10/2012 6:26 PM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 10月24日, 下午11時04分, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:

> To the extent that quantum mechanics has an interpretation problem
> among the physicists, it confirms my point that sciences, as opposed
> to religion, is guided and constrained by intersubjectivity. Christian
> Crusaders and Islam Jahadists don't have comparable interpretation
> problems. They and their group's interpretation is always Right and
> BEYOND DOUBT per their God's teachings.

oh! i see. as long as there is fire from above, it is not
intersubjective? how about scientific reaseach threatening the profits
of the pharmaceutical companies and oil companies?

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

On 10月25日, 上午11時59分, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> On 25/10/2012 6:26 PM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 10月24日, 下午11時04分, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions>  wrote:
> > To the extent that quantum mechanics has an interpretation problem
> > among the physicists, it confirms my point that sciences, as opposed
> > to religion, is guided and constrained by intersubjectivity. Christian
> > Crusaders and Islam Jahadists don't have comparable interpretation
> > problems. They and their group's interpretation is always Right and
> > BEYOND DOUBT per their God's teachings.
>
> oh!  i see.  as long as there is fire from above, it is not
> intersubjective?  how about scientific reaseach threatening the profits
> of the pharmaceutical companies and oil companies?

Some of these researches were suppressed by the management
which want to maximize profit. But this does not change the
difference
between sciences and religion.

[TheInquirer]

On 26/10/2012 12:20 AM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 10月25日, 上午11時59分, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:


> Some of these researches were suppressed by the management
> which want to maximize profit. But this does not change the
> difference
> between sciences and religion.

why?

[Tak To]

Well, we don't have to go by "sola fide" [note spelling]
with respect to _your_ words. To wit, we doubt that
if Isaac Newton uttered such a response.

Perhaps Poet has confused "sola fide" with "sola gratia",
and Isaac Newton with John Newton (who wrote "Amazing
Grace"). :-)

That, in a nutshell, is how science works. We _don't_
_have_to_ take your, or Sir Isaac Newton's words for it.

Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

On 10月25日, 下午5時31分, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:
> On 10/23/2012 9:25 AM, Albert K. Fung wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ltlee:
>
> >> Sciences is based on intersubjective experience,
>
> > TheInquirer:
>
> >> science?  intersubjective?
>
> >> you have heard of the double slit experiment, havent you?
>
> > Moreover, in canonizing a martyr ....
>
> > Church rules require no stone unturned, and miraculous deeds
> > performed by the saint-to-be be intersubjective: independent
> > -ly reported, eye-witnessed and vouched by multiple sources.
> > Sir Issac Newton, OTOH, when asked about the nature of force
> > -acting-at-a-distance axiom in his universal gravitation the
> > -ology, simply said "trust me".  Which, is "sola fidelis" in
> > English. If that is not subjective experience.
>
> > One wonders, what is? .... :)
>
> Well, we don't have to go by "sola fide" [note spelling]
> with respect to _your_ words.  To wit, we doubt that
> if Isaac Newton uttered such a response.
>
> Perhaps Poet has confused "sola fide" with "sola gratia",
> and Isaac Newton with John Newton (who wrote "Amazing
> Grace").  :-)
>
> That, in a nutshell, is how science works.  We _don't_
> _have_to_ take your, or Sir Isaac Newton's words for it.

Let me add "unless they make sense."

[Albert K. Fung]

ltlee:

> Sciences is based on intersubjective experience,

> TheInquirer:

> science? intersubjective?
>
> you have heard of the double slit experiment, havent you?

AKF:

> Moreover, in canonizing a martyr ....
>
> Church rules require no stone unturned, and miraculous deeds
> performed by the saint-to-be be intersubjective: independent
> -ly reported, eye-witnessed and vouched by multiple sources.
> Sir Issac Newton, OTOH, when asked about the nature of force
> -acting-at-a-distance axiom in his universal gravitation the
> -ology, simply said "trust me". Which, is "sola fidelis" in
> English. If that is not subjective experience.
>
> One wonders, what is? .... :)

Tak To:

> Well, we don't have to go by "sola fide" [note spelling]
> with respect to _your_ words. To wit, we doubt that
> if Isaac Newton uttered such a response.
>
> Perhaps Poet has confused "sola fide" with "sola gratia",
> and Isaac Newton with John Newton (who wrote "Amazing
> Grace"). :-)
>
> That, in a nutshell, is how science works. We _don't_
> _have_to_ take your, or Sir Isaac Newton's words for it.

ltlee:

> Let me add "unless they make sense."

Outside of China ....

Quite fortunately, no one can be forcing anyone into accept-
ing words of others', period. Whether those words make sense
or not is quite immaterial. Is it not? The above two netters
seem blissfully unaware of this. Sir Isaac Newton, would not
mind one bit if nobody thought his words did not make sense.

He always scribble "sola fidelis" on the cover of his works.

BTW: Netter Tak To, quite clearly does not know Latin and he
/she/it confuses "fide" with "fidelis". The former, is faith
in English. And, "sola fide" was an important Lutheran doct-
rine. Which, is Latin for "faith alone". Moreover, he/she/it
appears blissfully ignorant of histories of both science and
religion.

OTOH "fidelis" is Latin for "faithfuls/followers". Sir Issac
Newton habitually wrote those two words on covers of all his
works.

The brilliant, insightful theologian authored some important
works on the subject. He amassed, quite possibly the world's
largest collection of bibles. From this ginormous collection
he went about scientifically and systematically deriving the
exact date when the world would come to an abrupt end: 2060.

Not a Trinitarian himself, it was only sensible for the Tri-
nity College professor of Cambridge University for not wish-
ing his works be published, and circulated, beyond his faith
-fuls. Hence the gentleman's own, self imposed, intellectual
quarantine. Samples of the gentleman's works on theology:

"Introductio. Continens Apocalypseos rationem generalem"
"Notes on early Church history and the moral superiority
of the 'barbarians' to the Romans"
"A Dissertation upon the Sacred Cubit of the Jews and the
Cubits of the several Nations"

As to Amazing Grace, Sir Isaac Newton was pious and deeply re
-ligious man. Here is his moving tribulation to God along the
same vein as the Amazing Grace, right at the beginning of his
monumental work, the Principia:

"When I wrote my treatise about our Systeme I had an eye upon
such Principles as might work with considering men for the be
-lief of a Deity and nothing can rejoyce me more then to find
it usefull for that purpose."

To wit: Force-at-a-distance, is divine manifestation .... :)

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

On 10月23日, 上午9時25分, "Albert K. Fung" <akwf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ltlee:
>
> > Sciences is based on intersubjective experience,
>
> TheInquirer:
>
> > science?  intersubjective?
>
> > you have heard of the double slit experiment, havent you?
>
> Moreover, in canonizing a martyr ....
>
> Church rules require no stone unturned, and miraculous deeds
> performed by the saint-to-be be intersubjective: independent
> -ly reported, eye-witnessed and vouched by multiple sources.
> Sir Issac Newton, OTOH, when asked about the nature of force
> -acting-at-a-distance axiom in his universal gravitation the
> -ology, simply said "trust me".  Which, is "sola fidelis" in
> English. If that is not subjective experience.

From an apple falling on Newton's head to universal gravitation
is kind of mysterious. But if one saw a piece of rock thrown forward
from a high tower and followed its trajectory, it is not difficult to
visualize
the moon is likewise continuously falling toward the earth with a
curved trajectory but it is constantly missing the earth because of
the moon's height and consequently it is constantly circling around
the earth. Instead of faith, common sensibility is needed to get a
rudimentary understanding of gravity.

[Albert K. Fung]

ltlee:

> Sciences is based on intersubjective experience,

TheInquirer:

> science? intersubjective?
>
> you have heard of the double slit experiment, havent you?

AKF:

> Moreover, in canonizing a martyr ....
>
> Church rules require no stone unturned, and miraculous deeds
> performed by the saint-to-be be intersubjective: independent
> -ly reported, eye-witnessed and vouched by multiple sources.
> Sir Issac Newton, OTOH, when asked about the nature of force
> -acting-at-a-distance axiom in his universal gravitation the
> -ology, simply said "trust me". Which, is "sola fidelis" in
> English. If that is not subjective experience.
>

> One wonders, what is? .... :)

ltlee:

> From an apple falling on Newton's head to universal gravitation
> is kind of mysterious. But if one saw a piece of rock thrown forward
> from a high tower and followed its trajectory, it is not difficult to
> visualize
> the moon is likewise continuously falling toward the earth with a
> curved trajectory but it is constantly missing the earth because of
> the moon's height and consequently it is constantly circling around
> the earth. Instead of faith, common sensibility is needed to get a
> rudimentary understanding of gravity.

"Common sensibility" ....

Is the excuse of the intellectually lazy, satisfy with their
unexamined lives. Another way of saying the exact same thing
is the proverbial "God's will". Therein, lies the very Deity
of the science religion - man himself.

No Chinese would yell "down with the CCP", in Bejing's TAM.

Not that the Chinese citizens are unaware of their rights as
specified in China's constitution. But because they're fully
aware that they are bound to follow a political "trajectory"
defined by the CCP for them. And that it has a massive plain
-clothes security apparatus as well as a ginormous informant
network watching over them to ensure they don't deviate from
their invisible political "trajectory". They're fully aware,
in other words, of a dark acting-at-a-distance force.

Never mind about the moon and earth, a rock isn't duty bound
nor forced to follow any r . Is it not? If so, then one can-
not help but wonders: What compels a rock to forsake its own
free will to follow an invisible "trajectory", just like the
Chinese? Could it have been "persuaded" by a dark invisible,
magical and mysterious acting-at-a-distance force?

Just like the one in China .... :)

[AntiDabianchenVirus]

On Oct 27, 1:40 am, "Albert K. Fung" <akwf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Common sensibility" ....

[rst9]

Albert Fung, you are brainwashed down to the core. No one gives a
shit if a single individual yells "down with the CCP" in Bejing's
TAM. People would probably think this particular person is crazy more
than anything else.

>
> Not that the Chinese citizens are unaware of their rights as
> specified in China's constitution. But because they're fully
> aware that they are bound to follow a political "trajectory"
> defined by the CCP for them.

The same as in the U.S., We are bound to follow a political
"trajectory" defined by the our government. So what's the difference?

> And that it has a massive plain
> -clothes security apparatus as well as a ginormous informant
> network watching over them to ensure they don't deviate from
> their invisible political "trajectory".

Are these "massive plain-clothes security apparatus" bigger than our
FBI, Secret Service agents, CIA, ATF, ICE, Border Patrols,...?

If these "massive plain-clothes security apparatus" are so effective,
how come they can't even prevent one blind lawyer from escaping
detention?

If these "massive plain-clothes security apparatus" are so effective,
how come they can't even prevent one little building inspector from
amassing 21 apartments worth over 6 million dollars with a monthly
salary of $1,500/month?

Albert Fung, you are brainwashed down to the core.

> They're fully aware,
> in other words, of a dark acting-at-a-distance force.

Oh!!yeah!!! any worse than the Predators killing innocent people in
remote Pakistan, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia,...?

>
> Never mind about the moon and earth, a rock isn't duty bound
> nor forced to follow any r . Is it not? If so, then one can-
> not help but wonders: What compels a rock to forsake its own
> free will to follow an invisible "trajectory", just like the
> Chinese? Could it have been "persuaded" by a dark invisible,
> magical and mysterious acting-at-a-distance force?

Yeah, you are a clear example of a "dark invisible magical and
mysterious acting-at-a-distance force" called Uncle Sam's propaganda
and brainwashing.

>
> Just like the one in China .... :)

Or the one in the U.S.

[Tak To]

On 10/26/2012 4:16 PM, TheInquirer wrote:
> On 26/10/2012 1:43 AM, Tak To wrote:
>> On 10/23/2012 9:29 PM, TheInquirer wrote:
>
>> Can there be a sincere discussion without a
>> discussion?
>
> are there heaven ordained rules regarding the roles people
> must take in a discussion?

Doesn't "discussion" generally implies ideas flowing in
both directions?

Cf m-w.com
Discussion: consideration of a question in open and usually
informal debate

>>> given the fact that 99% of the species of homo sapiens
>>> don't think properly, have biases, are full of presumptions,
>>> are never humble enough to learn, ... in general full of
>>> weakness why is it always the fault of the alleged instigator?
>>>
>>> who is ultimately responsible for one's emotions / reactions?
>>
>> Why is this relevant?
>
> isn't it immature to blame others for "provoking" / inciting
> anger, when one himself/herself is presumtous?

Isn't "with _intent_ to provoke" different in meaning from
"provoking"?

Isn't "borderline X" different in meaning from "X"?

> [not talking about you, but there are several of these
> maddafakkas here.]

Sorry, didn't pay much attention to those, or messages in
soc.* groups in general unless they are cross-post to
hk.politics.

>>> which part of my sig do you not understand?
>>
>> What makes you think I don't understand?
>
> do you understand "I ask, you answer."?
>
> ;-)

(OK OK, one of us has to quit first...)

[Tak To]

Those are Mr Lee's words, not mine.

> Outside of China ....
>
> Quite fortunately, no one can be forcing anyone into accept-
> ing words of others', period. Whether those words make sense
> or not is quite immaterial. Is it not? The above two netters
> seem blissfully unaware of this. Sir Isaac Newton, would not
> mind one bit if nobody thought his words did not make sense.

Now whether he minded or not is also quite immaterial,
Is it not?

> He always scribble "sola fidelis" on the cover of his works.

I don't know whether it is true or not; I tend it think
it is false, because of the problems with the grammar.
(Details below.) OTOH, whether this is true or not is
more inter-subjective than the testimony of miracle
witnesses -- and that was my main point.

Now, can you substantiate your claim by supply some
corroborative _on-line_ evidence?

----- -----

> BTW: Netter Tak To, quite clearly does not know Latin and he
> /she/it confuses "fide" with "fidelis". The former, is faith
> in English. And, "sola fide" was an important Lutheran doct-
> rine. Which, is Latin for "faith alone". Moreover, he/she/it
> appears blissfully ignorant of histories of both science and
> religion.

I am amazed by the sheer gall, not to mention the required
level of effort, of Poet trying to wiggle his way out of a
simple misspelling. Really, in this day and age, does he
still think people "who clearly do not know Latin" cannot
at least look up dictionaries and grammar references
online?

Although judging from Google, Poet is in good company if he
misuse "sola fidelis" for "sola fide". It seems to be a
fairly common mistake, perhaps due to the popularity of
Semper Fidelis".

> OTOH "fidelis" is Latin for "faithfuls/followers". Sir Issac
> Newton habitually wrote those two words on covers of all his
> works.

Wrong again. "Fidelis" is the adjective form, meaning
"faithful" (as in "Semper Fidelis", the marching band
favorite made popular by Sousa). The Latin adjective
can be used in the substantive form (cf. "the meek" in
English), albeit customarily in the plural. Hence
"the faithful_s_" would be "fideles" (as in the song
"Adeste Fideles", a.k.a. "O Come, All Ye Faithful").

Then there is the adjective "sola". Latin adjectives
are modified for gender and number, and "sola" is
singular, female. Thus "sola fidelis" refers to one
particular faithful female follower. Perhaps Newton's
wife? (The plural would be "soli fideles").

Then there is the issue with the case. "Sola fidelis"
is in the nominative case, which is used for the subject
of a sentence. As such, the meaning for this fragment
is unclear at best (c.f., "The faithful woman alone...")
"Sola fidelis" can also be in the vocative case but
does not make much sense. (c.f. "The faithful woman
alone!")

Note that "sola fidelis" _cannot_ mean, for example,
"(a book for) that faithful (person) alone"; for that
would be in dative -- "soli fideli". The plural would
be "solis fidelibus".

In any case, it is quite clear that even if Newton
had written "sola fidelis", he would not have meant
"trust me".

> The brilliant, insightful theologian authored some important
> works on the subject. He amassed, quite possibly the world's
> largest collection of bibles. From this ginormous collection
> he went about scientifically and systematically deriving the
> exact date when the world would come to an abrupt end: 2060.
>
> Not a Trinitarian himself, it was only sensible for the Tri-
> nity College professor of Cambridge University for not wish-
> ing his works be published, and circulated, beyond his faith
> -fuls. Hence the gentleman's own, self imposed, intellectual
> quarantine. Samples of the gentleman's works on theology:
>
> "Introductio. Continens Apocalypseos rationem generalem"
> "Notes on early Church history and the moral superiority
> of the 'barbarians' to the Romans"
> "A Dissertation upon the Sacred Cubit of the Jews and the
> Cubits of the several Nations"
>
> As to Amazing Grace, Sir Isaac Newton was pious and deeply re
> -ligious man. Here is his moving tribulation to God along the
> same vein as the Amazing Grace, right at the beginning of his
> monumental work, the Principia:
>
> "When I wrote my treatise about our Systeme I had an eye upon
> such Principles as might work with considering men for the be
> -lief of a Deity and nothing can rejoyce me more then to find
> it usefull for that purpose."
>
> To wit: Force-at-a-distance, is divine manifestation .... :)

Such prolixity for nothing! Typical Poet, I suppose...

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 13:24:52 -0400, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

>On 10/26/2012 4:16 PM, TheInquirer wrote:
>> On 26/10/2012 1:43 AM, Tak To wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2012 9:29 PM, TheInquirer wrote:
>>
>>> Can there be a sincere discussion without a
>>> discussion?
>>
>> are there heaven ordained rules regarding the roles people
>> must take in a discussion?
>
>Doesn't "discussion" generally implies ideas flowing in
>both directions?

There is no discussion of science vs religion, outside the imagination
of the religious who think their myths should be taken seriously by
everybody else.

Similarly there is no discussion about whether the god of somebody
else's religion exists, outside the imagination of the religious who
think their beliefs should be taken seriously by everybody else.

[TheInquirer]

On 28/10/2012 1:30 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> Similarly there is no discussion about whether the god of somebody
> else's religion exists, outside the imagination of the religious who
> think their beliefs should be taken seriously by everybody else.

could _we_ ourselves and the universe be the imagination of some
god?

[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugyrzr5Ds8o&feature=related ]

[TheInquirer]

On 26/10/2012 11:15 PM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 10月23日, 上午9時25分, "Albert K. Fung"<akwf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

by the way, i would like to ask:-
is religion really subjective or inter-subjective?
is science really subjective or inter-subjective?

is it possible that this universe (and all apparently independent
sentient beings) is the figment of imagination of One Consciousness
engaging in mega-solipcism? i.e. are our seperate "selves" just
illusions?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 01:32:21 +0800, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions>
wrote:

>On 28/10/2012 1:30 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> Similarly there is no discussion about whether the god of somebody
>> else's religion exists, outside the imagination of the religious who
>> think their beliefs should be taken seriously by everybody else.
>
>
>could _we_ ourselves and the universe be the imagination of some
>god?
>
> [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugyrzr5Ds8o&feature=related ]

Why would one even give it a thought?

Why can't people who believe in gods grasp that those who don't, don't
start off with any presumption of them?

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

On 10月28日, 下午1時32分, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> On 28/10/2012 1:30 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
> > Similarly there is no discussion about whether the god of somebody
> > else's religion exists, outside the imagination of the religious who
> > think their beliefs should be taken seriously by everybody else.
>

> could _we_ ourselves and the known universe be the imagination of
some > god?

We sure could but to the extent that we cannot step aside to look at
our
universe from some god's point of view, we could not know the answer
one way or another. As a result this line of questioning will lead to
nowhere
and inherently meaningless.

If you or anyone can REALLY find a way to look at the known universe
from some god's view, I am all ears.

>
>     [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugyrzr5Ds8o&feature=related]

[TheInquirer]

On 29/10/2012 1:56 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

>> could _we_ ourselves and the universe be the imagination of some
>> god?
>>
>> [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugyrzr5Ds8o&feature=related ]
>
> Why would one even give it a thought?

you realise the narrator was Carl Sagan, an atheist?

did Carl Sagan have to believe in that thought to entertain that thought?

> Why can't people who believe in gods grasp that those who don't, don't
> start off with any presumption of them?

must i be a theist or atheist to explore alternate world views?

I ask, becos I'm curious.

btw, what are "presumptions"? are they but the beliefs of others, while
one's own are "truths"?

[TheInquirer]

On 29/10/2012 2:30 AM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:

>> could _we_ ourselves and the known universe be the imagination of
> some> god?
>
> We sure could but to the extent that we cannot step aside to look at
> our
> universe from some god's point of view, we could not know the answer
> one way or another. As a result this line of questioning will lead to
> nowhere
> and inherently meaningless.
>
> If you or anyone can REALLY find a way to look at the known universe
> from some god's view, I am all ears.

same here. actually, i am more interested in: if this is some dream,
why does it more like a nightmare?

???????? :-/

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 02:43:28 +0800, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions>
wrote:

>On 29/10/2012 1:56 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>>> could _we_ ourselves and the universe be the imagination of some
>>> god?
>>>
>>> [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugyrzr5Ds8o&feature=related ]
>>
>> Why would one even give it a thought?
>
>you realise the narrator was Carl Sagan, an atheist?
>
>did Carl Sagan have to believe in that thought to entertain that thought?

How does that answer my question, uimbecile?

>> Why can't people who believe in gods grasp that those who don't, don't
>> start off with any presumption of them?
>
>
>must i be a theist or atheist to explore alternate world views?
>I ask, becos I'm curious.

Why don't you treat tghe wicked with the same way, imbecile?

>btw, what are "presumptions"? are they but the beliefs of others, while
>one's own are "truths"?

Idiot.

[TheInquirer]

On 29/10/2012 3:04 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 02:43:28 +0800, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions>
> wrote:
>
>> On 29/10/2012 1:56 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>>> could _we_ ourselves and the universe be the imagination of some
>>>> god?
>>>>
>>>> [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugyrzr5Ds8o&feature=related ]
>>>
>>> Why would one even give it a thought?
>>
>> you realise the narrator was Carl Sagan, an atheist?
>>
>> did Carl Sagan have to believe in that thought to entertain that thought?
>
> How does that answer my question, uimbecile?

(snip) (snip) (snip) (snip) (snip)


can you please watch the video before you discuss?

otherwise, why dont you take a long walk off a short pier?

--

I ask, becos I'm curious.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 03:16:45 +0800, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions>

wrote:

>On 29/10/2012 3:04 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 02:43:28 +0800, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/10/2012 1:56 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>>> could _we_ ourselves and the universe be the imagination of some
>>>>> god?
>>>>>
>>>>> [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugyrzr5Ds8o&feature=related ]
>>>>
>>>> Why would one even give it a thought?
>>>
>>> you realise the narrator was Carl Sagan, an atheist?
>>>
>>> did Carl Sagan have to believe in that thought to entertain that thought?
>>

>> How does that answer my question, imbecile?

>(snip) (snip) (snip) (snip) (snip)

So how does your remark anout Sagan answer my question, imbecile?

>can you please watch the video before you discuss?
>
>otherwise, why dont you take a long walk off a short pier?

So you can't explain why non-theists should start of from the
presumption of the hypothetical object of somebody else's religious
belief.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You need to think outside your religious paradigm.

[TheInquirer]

On 29/10/2012 3:24 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 03:16:45 +0800, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions>
> wrote:
>
>> On 29/10/2012 3:04 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 02:43:28 +0800, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29/10/2012 1:56 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> could _we_ ourselves and the universe be the imagination of some
>>>>>> god?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugyrzr5Ds8o&feature=related ]
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would one even give it a thought?
>>>>
>>>> you realise the narrator was Carl Sagan, an atheist?
>>>>
>>>> did Carl Sagan have to believe in that thought to entertain that thought?
>>>
>>> How does that answer my question, imbecile?
>> (snip) (snip) (snip) (snip) (snip)
>
> So how does your remark anout Sagan answer my question, imbecile?

duh! you are the real imbecile.

can't you give a thought about it, just as Carl Sagan did (but not
necessarily believing in it)? can you prepare and produce a TV program
without thinking about the contents?

i am putting you in my black list. now, would you kindly fuck off?
thanks.

[z...@zz.aa]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:58:38 +0800, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions>

wrote:

>On 29/10/2012 3:24 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 03:16:45 +0800, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/10/2012 3:04 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 02:43:28 +0800, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29/10/2012 1:56 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> could _we_ ourselves and the universe be the imagination of some
>>>>>>> god?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugyrzr5Ds8o&feature=related ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would one even give it a thought?
>>>>>
>>>>> you realise the narrator was Carl Sagan, an atheist?
>>>>>
>>>>> did Carl Sagan have to believe in that thought to entertain that thought?
>>>>
>>>> How does that answer my question, imbecile?
>>> (snip) (snip) (snip) (snip) (snip)
>>
>> So how does your remark anout Sagan answer my question, imbecile?
>
>duh! you are the real imbecile.

Lie from someone who can't think outside the theist box, noted.

>can't you give a thought about it, just as Carl Sagan did (but not
>necessarily believing in it)? can you prepare and produce a TV program
>without thinking about the contents?

No, he didn't.

As an atheist it was no different to him than Santa's magic toy
factory, Zeus on Mount Olympus, etc.

Do YOU "consider that the Great Arkleseizure could have sneezed the
universe into existence"?

When you realise why you don't, you should understand why people who
don't believe in the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god don't give that a
thought either.

And that popular writers explaining reality to theists don't wonder
about it themselves, they just use the theist's language and thought
processes.

It was a rhetorical question for theists, that he answered without
needing a god because he already had better answers from observation
and investigation of reality.

>i am putting you in my black list. now, would you kindly fuck off?
>thanks.

All because you can't think outside the theist box, arrogant imbecile.

But thank you for telling us you can't explain why anybody who doesn't
already believe in a god should wonder if it did anything.

[TheInquirer]

On 29/10/2012 10:15 AM, z...@zz.aa wrote:
> Lie from someone
(snip) (snip) (snip) (snip) (snip) (snip)

what lie? you know the difference between a question and a statement?

Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't
presume. My personal matters are none of your business.

I ask, you answer. If you think my questions are stupid, you have
already proven that you are stupid, not me. If you don't know the

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:26:28 +0800, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions>
wrote:

Translation: you are in denial that you have to be a Christian. a
Muslim or a Jew to ponder whether their god did anything.

Please, pretty please, at least _try_ to think outside the theist box
when talking outside it.

[TheInquirer]

On 29/10/2012 10:15 AM, z...@zz.aa wrote:

> Do YOU "consider that the Great Arkleseizure could have sneezed the
> universe into existence"?

can you ask a question about a proposition without thinking about
it?

did your mother feed you with glass and french fries when you were young?

Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't

presume. My personal matters/beliefs are none of your

business. I ask, you answer. If you think my questions
are stupid, you have already proven that you are stupid,

not me. If you don't know the answer, can you please

"pass" to more capable person(s) to answer?

--
I ask, becos I'm curious.

[ Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't

presume. My personal matters/beliefs are none of your

business. I ask, you answer. If you think my questions
are stupid, you have already proven that you are stupid,

not me. If you don't know the answer, can you please
"pass" to more capable person(s) to answer? ]

[TheInquirer]

On 29/10/2012 10:32 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> Translation: you are in denial that you have to be a Christian. a
> Muslim or a Jew to ponder whether their god did anything.

presumption. presumption. presumption. again and again.

can you please watch Carl Sagan's documentary, and tell me whether
that idea came from Christian. a Muslim or a Jew?

Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't

presume. My personal matters/beliefs are none of your

business. I ask, you answer. If you think my questions
are stupid, you have already proven that you are stupid,
not me. If you don't know the answer, can you please
"pass" to more capable person(s) to answer?

--
I ask, becos I'm curious.

[ Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't
presume. My personal matters/beliefs are none of your

business. I ask, you answer. If you think my questions
are stupid, you have already proven that you are stupid,
not me. If you don't know the answer, can you please

"pass" to more capable person(s) to answer? ]

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:42:52 +0800, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions>
wrote:

>On 29/10/2012 10:15 AM, z...@zz.aa wrote:
>
>> Do YOU "consider that the Great Arkleseizure could have sneezed the
>> universe into existence"?
>
>can you ask a question about a proposition without thinking about
>it?
>
>did your mother feed you with glass and french fries when you were young?

Idiot.

>Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't
>presume. My personal matters/beliefs are none of your
>business. I ask, you answer. If you think my questions
>are stupid, you have already proven that you are stupid,
>not me. If you don't know the answer, can you please
>"pass" to more capable person(s) to answer?

It was a stupid question about something irrelevant outside the
paradigm of the Abrahamic religions.

Can't you read?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:45:29 +0800, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions>
wrote:

>On 29/10/2012 10:32 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> Translation: you are in denial that you have to be a Christian. a
>> Muslim or a Jew to ponder whether their god did anything.
>
>
>presumption. presumption. presumption. again and again.
>
>can you please watch Carl Sagan's documentary, and tell me whether
>that idea came from Christian. a Muslim or a Jew?

Idiot.

>Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't
>presume. My personal matters/beliefs are none of your
>business. I ask, you answer. If you think my questions
>are stupid, you have already proven that you are stupid,
>not me. If you don't know the answer, can you please
>"pass" to more capable person(s) to answer?

Learn to read for comprehension, imbecile.

And then explain why anybody who doesn't already believe in what is
merely somebody else's religious beief, should even give it a thought.

[TheInquirer]

On 29/10/2012 11:04 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
(CRAP SNIPPED)

And then explain why anybody who doesn't already believe in what is
> merely somebody else's religious beief, should even give it a thought.

I ask, you answer. yOU understand?

--
I ask, becos I'm curious.

[ Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't

presume. My personal matters/beliefs are none of your
business. I ask, you answer. If you think my questions
are stupid, you have already proven that you are stupid,
not me. If you don't know the answer, can you please

"pass" to more capable person(s) to answer? ]

[TheInquirer]

On 29/10/2012 11:02 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
(rubbish snipped).

I ask, becos I'm curious.

[ Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't

presume. My personal matters/beliefs are none of your
business. I ask, you answer. If you think my questions
are stupid, you have already proven that you are stupid,
not me. If you don't know the answer, can you please

"pass" to more capable person(s) to answer? ]

[Christopher A. Lee]

rOn Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:09:59 +0800, TheInquirer

<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:

>On 29/10/2012 11:04 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>(CRAP SNIPPED)
>
>And then explain why anybody who doesn't already believe in what is
>> merely somebody else's religious beief, should even give it a thought.
>
>I ask, you answer. yOU understand?

I did, moron.

[TheInquirer]

On 29/10/2012 11:02 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
(rubbish snipped).

I ask, becos I'm curious.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:10:53 +0800, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions>
wrote:

Idiot.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:11:37 +0800, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions>
wrote:

I did answer it, lying idiot.

[TheInquirer]

[TheInquirer]

you made presumptions. Don't

[TheInquirer]

[TheInquirer]

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:12:46 +0800, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions>

wrote:

>On 29/10/2012 11:10 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> rOn Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:09:59 +0800, TheInquirer
>> <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/10/2012 11:04 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> (CRAP SNIPPED)
>>>
>>> And then explain why anybody who doesn't already believe in what is
>>>> merely somebody else's religious beief, should even give it a thought.
>>>
>>> I ask, you answer. yOU understand?
>>
>> I did, moron.
>
>Don't
>presume. My personal matters/beliefs are none of your
>business. I ask, you answer. If you think my questions
>are stupid, you have already proven that you are stupid,
>not me. If you don't know the answer, can you please
>"pass" to more capable person(s) to answer?

Lies noted.

[TheInquirer]

On 29/10/2012 11:17 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> Lies noted.

is command a lie>

--
I ask, becos I'm curious.

Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't

[TheInquirer]

Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

On Oct 28, 12:38 pm, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> On 26/10/2012 11:15 PM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 10月23日, 上午9時25分, "Albert K. Fung"<akwf...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
>
> by the way, i would like to ask:-
>    is religion really subjective or inter-subjective?
>    is science really subjective or inter-subjective?

If we put all human "knowledge," ie, whatever helps us to understand
the
world along a continuum from totally subjective to totally
objective(inter-
subjective), religion and sciences would be the two poles. The
significance
of objectivity is that it allows whatever humans have discovered to
be
accumulative over time.

> is it possible that this universe (and all apparently independent
> sentient beings) is the figment of imagination of One Consciousness
> engaging in mega-solipcism?  i.e. are our seperate "selves" just
> illusions?

Not according to scientific principles. But the more important
question is
how such conception is useful in practice and in furthering our
understanding
of the world.

>
> --
> I ask, becos I'm curious.
>

> [ Just answer the damn question, not the questioner!  Don't presume.
> My personal matters are none of your business.  I ask, you answer.

> If you don't know the answer, can you please "pass" to more capable

> person(s) to answer?  Thanks. ]

[TheInquirer]

On 14/11/2012 8:21 PM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 28, 12:38 pm, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:


>> is it possible that this universe (and all apparently independent
>> sentient beings) is the figment of imagination of One Consciousness
>> engaging in mega-solipcism? i.e. are our seperate "selves" just
>> illusions?
>
> Not according to scientific principles.

why not? i thought science should be free from presumptions and biases?

But the more important
> question is
> how such conception is useful in practice and in furthering our
> understanding
> of the world.

how not?

--
I ask, becos I'm curious.

Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't

presume. My personal matters/beliefs are none of your
business. I ask, you answer. If you think my questions
are stupid, you have already proven that you are stupid,

not me. If you don't know the answer, can you please

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

On 11月14日, 上午10時02分, TheInquirer <alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
> On 14/11/2012 8:21 PM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 28, 12:38 pm, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions>  wrote:
> >> is it possible that this universe (and all apparently independent
> >> sentient beings) is the figment of imagination of One Consciousness
> >> engaging in mega-solipcism?  i.e. are our seperate "selves" just
> >> illusions?
>
> > Not according to scientific principles.
>
> why not?  i thought science should be free from presumptions and biases?
>
> But the more important
>
> > question is
> > how such conception is useful in practice and in furthering our
> > understanding
> > of the world.
>
> how not?

If you think such thinking is useful, please give some examples.

[Albert K. Fung]

TheInquirer:

> by the way, i would like to ask:-
> is religion really subjective or inter-subjective?
> is science really subjective or inter-subjective?

ltlee:

> If we put all human "knowledge," ie, whatever helps us to understand
> the
> world along a continuum from totally subjective to totally
> objective(inter-
> subjective), religion and sciences would be the two poles. The
> significance
> of objectivity is that it allows whatever humans have discovered to
> be
> accumulative over time.

Faith in human knowledge ....

On one hand, and equating it to truth on the other, are sal-
ient doctrines of the science religion. Together with the un
-wavering faith in the belief that the universe is infinite-
ly knowable, forms the holy trinity that undergirds the fam-
ed religion. In various forms, many of its peers do have the
same doctrines. For example:

It's the essence of Sola Fide in Lutheranism ....

Regards,

Albert K. Fung
Rancho del Canto, Paso Robles, California, USA.

[AntiDabianchenVirus]

On Nov 14, 8:01 am, "Albert K. Fung" <akwf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Faith in human knowledge ....

(remainder of pompous pansy homo troll-post snipped)

BULL!!

Up yours, you pansy old faggot dumb fuck! You don't even know the
superstorm was called Sandy, and referred to it as "Sally" ! Still
smelling jasmine from your asshole? You are nothing but a liar and a
fraud, and NOTHING you write bears any semblance to the truth. Where
is the jasmine revolution which you have been predicting for China
since February last year that would topple the Chinese government? Go
stuff your ginormous asshole with all the jasmine you've collected,
and plug it with your Tesla handbag.

Pansy homo troll Bertie Fungus referred to superstorm Sandy as
"Sally" !

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/108af9dec72d0429?hl=en

Hey, Dumb Fuck! Your English is so bad, that you don't even know the
difference between Sandy and Sally ! You are NOTHING but a pathetic
pompous ugly old fart begging for attention in cyber space.

[TheInquirer]

On 14/11/2012 11:35 PM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 11月14日, 上午10時02分, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
>> On 14/11/2012 8:21 PM, ltl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 28, 12:38 pm, TheInquirer<alw...@ask.questions> wrote:
>>>> is it possible that this universe (and all apparently independent
>>>> sentient beings) is the figment of imagination of One Consciousness
>>>> engaging in mega-solipcism? i.e. are our seperate "selves" just
>>>> illusions?
>>
>>> Not according to scientific principles.
>>
>> why not? i thought science should be free from presumptions and biases?
>>
>> But the more important
>>
>>> question is
>>> how such conception is useful in practice and in furthering our
>>> understanding
>>> of the world.
>>
>> how not?
>
> If you think such thinking is useful, please give some examples.

Just answer the damn question, not the questioner!

I ask, you answer.

how such conception is NOT useful in practice and in furthering our
understanding of the world?

[TheInquirer]

your pansy fungus rambling actually makes more sense than
ltlee's pretentions bias. however, both answers are, to me, not ideal.
because i still cannot get the unbiased unadulterated truth that is
free from religious and scientific presumtion.

can someone else do better than these?

will i ever get to know "the ultimate truth" (whatever it is)?

--
I ask, becos I'm curious.

Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't

presume. My personal matters/beliefs are none of your
business. I ask, you answer. If you think my questions
are stupid, you have already proven that you are stupid,

not me. If you don't know the answer, can you please

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

On 11月14日, 上午11時01分, "Albert K. Fung" <akwf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> TheInquirer:
>
> > by the way, i would like to ask:-
> >     is religion really subjective or inter-subjective?
> >     is science really subjective or inter-subjective?
>
> ltlee:
>
> > If we put all human "knowledge," ie, whatever helps us to understand
> > the
> > world along a continuum from totally subjective to totally
> > objective(inter-
> > subjective), religion and sciences would be the two poles. The
> > significance
> > of objectivity is that it allows whatever humans have discovered to
> > be
> > accumulative over time.
>
> Faith in human knowledge ....

> On one hand, and equating it to truth on the other, are sal-
> ient doctrines of the science religion.

Science is not a religion in the sense it does not claim to comprise
all knowledge, let alone truth. In contrast, religious doctrines
frequently
dictates that god and his revelations comprise the totality of
knowledge
and truth.

[TheInquirer]

On 15/11/2012 12:26 AM, AntiDabianchenVirus wrote:
> On Nov 14, 8:01 am, "Albert K. Fung"<akwf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Faith in human knowledge ....
> (remainder of pompous pansy homo troll-post snipped)

yes! yes! yes! yes! yes! we all already know that
Fungus is a pompous pansy homo troller.


Can you tell us something new?

thanks in advance.

--
I ask, becos I'm curious.

Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't

presume. My personal matters/beliefs are none of your
business. I ask, you answer. If you think my questions
are stupid, you have already proven that you are stupid,

not me. If you don't know the answer, can you please

[Albert K. Fung]

TheInquirer:

> by the way, i would like to ask:-
> is religion really subjective or inter-subjective?
> is science really subjective or inter-subjective?

ltlee:

> If we put all human "knowledge," ie, whatever helps us to understand
> the
> world along a continuum from totally subjective to totally
> objective(inter-
> subjective), religion and sciences would be the two poles. The
> significance
> of objectivity is that it allows whatever humans have discovered to
> be
> accumulative over time.

AKF:

> Faith in human knowledge ....
>
> On one hand, and equating it to truth on the other, are sal-

> ient doctrines of the science religion. Together with the un

> -wavering faith in the belief that the universe is infinite-
> ly knowable, forms the holy trinity that undergirds the fam-
> ed religion. In various forms, many of its peers do have the
> same doctrines. For example:
>
> It's the essence of Sola Fide in Lutheranism ....

ltlee:

> Science is not a religion in the sense it does not claim to comprise
> all knowledge, let alone truth. In contrast, religious doctrines
> frequently
> dictates that god and his revelations comprise the totality of
> knowledge
> and truth.

Entirely understandable apology ....

Albeit not atypical, from a layperson who is completely head
over heel at awe with the science religion. Here is what one
of its highest priests, Sir Issac Newton, has to say regard-
ing its divinity, and, His/Hers/Its galactic revelations:

"this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets,
could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intel
-ligent and powerful being."

Source: Issac Newton/Principia/Second edition (in English)

[TheInquirer]

why is it an "apology"? what did L T Lee do wrong?

--
I ask, becos I'm curious.

Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't

presume. My personal matters/beliefs are none of your
business. I ask, you answer. If you think my questions
are stupid, you have already proven that you are stupid,

not me. If you don't know the answer, can you please

[Albert K. Fung]

AKF:

> Entirely understandable apology ....
>
> Albeit not atypical, from a layperson who is completely head
> over heel at awe with the science religion. Here is what one
> of its highest priests, Sir Issac Newton, has to say regard-
> ing its divinity, and, His/Hers/Its galactic revelations:
>
> "this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets,
> could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intel
> -ligent and powerful being."
>
> Source: Issac Newton/Principia/Second edition (in English)

TheInquirer:

> why is it an "apology"? what did L T Lee do wrong?

Apology - a justification/defense ....

For example, Tertullian's "Apology for Christianity". One of
many fields of Christian theology in the antiquity was Chris
-tian apologetics. The aim of that was to present a rational
basis for the Christian faith. And, to defend it against lay
objections. In that sense, Netter Lee is an apologist.

Defending is faith in the science religion .... :)

[Albert K. Fung]

In the last sentence, "is" should have been "his". A sincere
apology fro the sloppy editing is in order.

Here we go again .... :)

-----------------------------------------------------------

AKF:

> Entirely understandable apology ....
>
> Albeit not atypical, from a layperson who is completely head
> over heel at awe with the science religion. Here is what one
> of its highest priests, Sir Issac Newton, has to say regard-
> ing its divinity, and, His/Hers/Its galactic revelations:
>
> "this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets,
> could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intel
> -ligent and powerful being."
>
> Source: Issac Newton/Principia/Second edition (in English)

TheInquirer:

> why is it an "apology"? what did L T Lee do wrong?

Apology - a justification/defense ....

For example, Tertullian's "Apology for Christianity". One of
many fields of Christian theology in the antiquity was Chris
-tian apologetics. The aim of that was to present a rational
basis for the Christian faith. And, to defend it against lay
objections. In that sense, Netter Lee is an apologist.

Defending his faith in the science religion .... :)

[TheInquirer]

On 15/11/2012 2:14 AM, Albert K. Fung wrote:

> Defending is faith in the science religion .... :)

is the science religion part of the science, or is it
a world view sneaked in by the Illuminati which is
controlling the funding, promotion, tenure and awarding
of professors? what does the Illuminati know that
they don't want us to know?

can there be true unadulterated and unfettered science?

must a scientist be financially independent first, so
that he/she/it can speak the truth (esp. to the public) and pursue
research agendas of his/her/its own desire?

by being biased to certain "non-religious" but equally bigoted
world view, isn't current "science" wasting tax-payers' money
by slowing down the technological progress and biological evolution
of human beings?

[TheInquirer]

On 15/11/2012 2:18 AM, Albert K. Fung wrote:
>
> In the last sentence, "is" should have been "his". A sincere
> apology fro the sloppy editing is in order.
>
> Here we go again .... :)

ltlee talks shit. you also talk shit. so, why does it matter?

[Tak To]

Two clocks: one (A) has stopped running and the
other (B) runs 1 nano-second faster each year.
Which clock is more "accurate"?

There are many ways to measure "accuracy" -- you
have to decide for yourself and pick the one that
suits you (better). Likewise for ways to measure
"truthfulness".

Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[Tak To]

No.

Sola fide is a religious doctrine about (how one can
be granted) salvation. It has nothing to do with
philosophical questions such as know-ability.

[Albert K. Fung]

TheInquirer:

> by the way, i would like to ask:-
> is religion really subjective or inter-subjective?
> is science really subjective or inter-subjective?

ltlee:

> If we put all human "knowledge," ie, whatever helps us to understand
> the
> world along a continuum from totally subjective to totally
> objective(inter-
> subjective), religion and sciences would be the two poles. The
> significance
> of objectivity is that it allows whatever humans have discovered to
> be
> accumulative over time.

AKF:

> Faith in human knowledge ....
>
> On one hand, and equating it to truth on the other, are sal-
> ient doctrines of the science religion. Together with the un
> -wavering faith in the belief that the universe is infinite-
> ly knowable, forms the holy trinity that undergirds the fam-
> ed religion. In various forms, many of its peers do have the
> same doctrines. For example:
>
> It's the essence of Sola Fide in Lutheranism ....

ltlee:

> Science is not a religion in the sense it does not claim to comprise
> all knowledge, let alone truth. In contrast, religious doctrines
> frequently
> dictates that god and his revelations comprise the totality of
> knowledge
> and truth.

AKF:

> Entirely understandable apology ....
>
> Albeit not atypical, from a layperson who is completely head
> over heel at awe with the science religion. Here is what one
> of its highest priests, Sir Issac Newton, has to say regard-
> ing its divinity, and, His/Hers/Its galactic revelations:
>
> "this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets,
> could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intel
> -ligent and powerful being."
>
> Source: Issac Newton/Principia/Second edition (in English)

TheInquirer:

> your pansy fungus rambling actually makes more sense than
> ltlee's pretentions bias. however, both answers are, to me, not ideal.
> because i still cannot get the unbiased unadulterated truth that is
> free from religious and scientific presumtion.
>
> can someone else do better than these?
>
> will i ever get to know "the ultimate truth" (whatever it is)?

Tak To:

> Two clocks: one (A) has stopped running and the
> other (B) runs 1 nano-second faster each year.
> Which clock is more "accurate"?
>
> There are many ways to measure "accuracy" -- you
> have to decide for yourself and pick the one that
> suits you (better). Likewise for ways to measure
> "truthfulness".

Space and time ....

As Einstein discovered, are one and inseparable. "Time" only
has existence in that imaginary world of Euclidean space. In
which, "time" as universal and constant, is deemed a truth.

In the real universe, however, it is neither .... :)

[Tak To]

I have no idea what you are talking about. What
do you mean by the _existence_ of time? Does
time exist in the same sense as "emptiness" exists
(or not exists)?

And what does "world of Euclidean space" mean?
Last time I check, Euclidean space is an abstract
concept and is nothing like a "world". And "time"
is nowhere to be seen the definition of an
Euclidean space.

[TheInquirer]

On 15/11/2012 4:52 AM, Tak To wrote:

> Two clocks: one (A) has stopped running and the
> other (B) runs 1 nano-second faster each year.
> Which clock is more "accurate"?
>
> There are many ways to measure "accuracy" -- you
> have to decide for yourself and pick the one that
> suits you (better). Likewise for ways to measure
> "truthfulness".

(A) looks attractive to me: at least it's correct
twice a day ;-)

however, is there an option (C)?

[TheInquirer]

Could he be referring to the imaginary part of Complex space C^n instead
of R^n?

Is it isomorphic with my grandma's space?

Is he using the Minkowski metric or the Pythagorean one?

[TheInquirer]

On 15/11/2012 5:03 AM, Tak To wrote:
> On 11/14/2012 11:01 AM, Albert K. Fung wrote:


> Sola fide is a religious doctrine about (how one can
> be granted) salvation. It has nothing to do with
> philosophical questions such as know-ability.

i know that already. obviously, he is not bona fide. bon fire maybe.
or perhaps solar flare?

but why can't you guys just humour him and play along?

--
I ask, becos I'm curious.

Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't

presume. My personal matters/beliefs are none of your
business. I ask, you answer. If you think my questions
are stupid, you have already proven that you are stupid,

not me. If you don't know the answer, can you please

[Albert K. Fung]

Tak To:

> Two clocks: one (A) has stopped running and the
> other (B) runs 1 nano-second faster each year.
> Which clock is more "accurate"?
>
> There are many ways to measure "accuracy" -- you
> have to decide for yourself and pick the one that
> suits you (better). Likewise for ways to measure
> "truthfulness".

TheInquirer:

> (A) looks attractive to me: at least it's correct
> twice a day ;-)
>
> however, is there an option (C)?

"Correctness" ....

Must have a frame of reference. Therein lies the fundamental
problem. Science, first and foremost, is an organized belief
system. Just like all religions it has its own deities, doc-
trines and dogmas.

And faithfuls, worshipers .... :)

[TheInquirer]

On 15/11/2012 11:44 PM, Albert K. Fung wrote:
> Tak To:
>
>> Two clocks: one (A) has stopped running and the
>> other (B) runs 1 nano-second faster each year.
>> Which clock is more "accurate"?
>>
>> There are many ways to measure "accuracy" -- you
>> have to decide for yourself and pick the one that
>> suits you (better). Likewise for ways to measure
>> "truthfulness".
>
> TheInquirer:
>
>> (A) looks attractive to me: at least it's correct
>> twice a day ;-)
>>
>> however, is there an option (C)?
>
> "Correctness" ....
>
> Must have a frame of reference.

in Einsteins theory, the laws agree for all frames of
reference. you mean your Fungus-infected theory doesn't?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:44:23 -0800, "Albert K. Fung"
<akw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Must have a frame of reference. Therein lies the fundamental
>problem. Science, first and foremost, is an organized belief
>system. Just like all religions it has its own deities, doc-
>trines and dogmas.

What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.

>And faithfuls, worshipers .... :)

Why the lies?

[BYS]

Not so fast Poet, the distance between any two events in a space-time
continuum is invariant regardless the frame of reference whether it
be Euclidean or non-Euclidean.

http://www.cavendishscience.org/bks/rel/spactime.htm

I did not dabble into the mathematical part of this relativity theory
yet. But there is something invariant even in your exposition of
Einstein's space time continuum which you seem do not know.

> I have no idea what you are talking about. What
> do you mean by the _existence_ of time? Does
> time exist in the same sense as "emptiness" exists
> (or not exists)?
>
> And what does "world of Euclidean space" mean?
> Last time I check, Euclidean space is an abstract
> concept and is nothing like a "world". And "time"
> is nowhere to be seen the definition of an Euclidean space.

Non-Euclidean space just means the reference grid does
not consist of parallel lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_space

The Poet just has a penchant to throw out big words to
dumbfound people. Does he know the underlying
theory? No.

[Albert K. Fung]

AKF:

> Space and time ....
>
> As Einstein discovered, are one and inseparable. "Time" only
> has existence in that imaginary world of Euclidean space. In
> which, "time" as universal and constant, is deemed a truth.
>
> In the real universe, however, it is neither .... :)

BYS:

> Not so fast Poet, the distance between any two events in a space-time
> continuum is invariant regardless the frame of reference whether it
> be Euclidean or non-Euclidean.
>
> http://www.cavendishscience.org/bks/rel/spactime.htm
>
> I did not dabble into the mathematical part of this relativity theory
> yet. But there is something invariant even in your exposition of
> Einstein's space time continuum which you seem do not know.

Invariant ....

Is a big word. Which quite simply is faith in layman's term.
Einstein's GTR (General Theory of Relativity), is resting on
two premises:

Spacetime is a continuum and speed of light is an invariant.

Both, are not proven but accepted nonetheless in the science
religion. Which requires faith on the part of its believers.
As events are now unfolding, evidences are now mounting that
spacetime is not only not a continuum.

It may even be quantized .... :)

[Albert K. Fung]

> Space and time ....
>
> As Einstein discovered, are one and inseparable. "Time" only
> has existence in that imaginary world of Euclidean space. In
> which, "time" as universal and constant, is deemed a truth.
>
> In the real universe, however, it is neither .... :)

Tak To:

> I have no idea what you are talking about. What
> do you mean by the _existence_ of time? Does
> time exist in the same sense as "emptiness" exists
> (or not exists)?
>
> And what does "world of Euclidean space" mean?
> Last time I check, Euclidean space is an abstract
> concept and is nothing like a "world". And "time"
> is nowhere to be seen the definition of an Euclidean space.

BYS:

> Non-Euclidean space just means the reference grid does
> not consist of parallel lines.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_space
>
> The Poet just has a penchant to throw out big words to
> dumbfound people. Does he know the underlying
> theory? No.

Not quite .... :)

Non-Euclidean Space, rather unfortunately, isn't just limit
-ed to the above. Euclidean space, is a specialized case of
the more general Metric Space. It ceases to be one on cond-
ition of relaxation of the Euclidean metric, and/or the sus
-pension of Euclead's famed fifth postulate. Which is an un
-proven axiom of the above mentioned parallel lines.

For that, faith is required ....

[AntiDabianchenVirus]

On Nov 19, 5:05 am, "Albert K. Fung" <akwf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Not quite .... :)

(remainder of pompous pansy homo troll-post snipped)