Soon, I hope
Joseph Humming
observe in our universe, source also of the forms and symmetries and
the mathematical links that connect all of existence. I have no idea
of the nature of this power. Certainly, I would never designate it as
"god". I have an intuitive sense of some intrinsic supersymmetry
ripped apart, the torn components fated to seek a restored symmetry
forever afterwards. But that could be a romantic view. Or a whimsy. Or
both.
I see these particles gradually combine, pushing at all the laws and
possibilities of physics, stretching amalgamation and combination as
far as possible....until eventually a form arrived that exceeded
itself so perfectly that when it split it was two. The essence of this
form - called life - was survival. Life pushed at all the
possibilities on this planet...until eventually a form of life emerged
that could know the nature of the entire process.
This form - called humanity - had/has the crucial capacity to create a
form of ersatz knowledge - called belief - that would suffice until
true knowledge eventually emerged. But the capricious nature of
belief, allied to the tenacity of custom and possession, caused human
beings to contest vigorously. Regulation and restriction was the
result...until eventually a form of society evolved that allowed
individual human beings the freedom to express themselves in a manner
hitherto impossible.
But this frreedom was as dependent on a fallacy as the earlier deluded
autonomy of peoples. Freedom was constructed on the - necessary -
fiction of rights. So now we have the fictional freedom of
individuality. As if we can all do exactly what we want to do and the
world will be fine. Whereas, in reality, in a teeming world
cooperation and intelligence was never more required.
So how does sense arise? Which Aspergered person will stand up and cry
out THAT IT ISN'T TRUE, THERE IS NO GOD AND THERE ARE NO RIGHTS, THERE
IS ONLY A GIFTED SPECIES WITH THE CAPACITY TO SEE THE TRUTH AND IT IS
TIME THIS SPECIES WOKE UP AND VALUED ITS UNIQUE PLACE IN THE
UNIVERSE. ...?
Soon, I hope.
Joseph Humming
David Iain Greig
> Joseph Humming
I want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Are you listening?
Lithium.
--D.
jillery
Lithium is a good word to know.
marks...@yahoo.com
Lithium is good in batteries . It has other uses ?
Desertphile
<jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> I presume a primordial power, source of the energies and forces we
> observe in our universe, source also of the forms and symmetries and
> the mathematical links that connect all of existence. I have no idea
> of the nature of this power.
It's called "Gravity."
You're welcome.
Sheeeish.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
"Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22
Joseph Humming
That's really clever.
Caranx latus
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:33:51 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Humming
> <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
>> I presume a primordial power, source of the energies and forces we
>> observe in our universe, source also of the forms and symmetries and
>> the mathematical links that connect all of existence. I have no idea
>> of the nature of this power.
>
> It's called "Gravity."
Not "graaaaaavity!!!11!"? Weird.
Kleuskes & Moos
Good advice, too...
David Hare-Scott
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:33:51 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Humming
> <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
>> I presume a primordial power, source of the energies and forces we
>> observe in our universe, source also of the forms and symmetries and
>> the mathematical links that connect all of existence. I have no idea
>> of the nature of this power.
>
> It's called "Gravity."
>
> You're welcome.
>
> Sheeeish.
It couldn't be that, it's not nearly mystical enough.
David
Joseph Humming
wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:33:51 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Humming
>
> <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > I presume a primordial power, source of the energies and forces we
> > observe in our universe, source also of the forms and symmetries and
> > the mathematical links that connect all of existence. I have no idea
> > of the nature of this power.
>
> It's called "Gravity."
Gravity exists as one of the forces in the universe. I see it as a
manifestation of the original power. But perhaps not. Maybe in the pre-
universe situation the force we know as gravity drew in whatever
matter was present and precipitated the Big Bang. Maybe all the forces
we know are inherent in matter. Maybe matter is the mystery.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> Sheeeish.
>
> --http://desertphile.org
Joseph Humming
I don't believe one bit in anything mystical. The universe we are
beginning to know and the matter we are beginning to know both
transcend mysticism in their vastness and complexity. We don't need
mysticism. If an original force or power or fact exists, it exists.
There must be some onus on people to explain the emergence of a
universe. There must be some onus to explain the inherent precision.
If I posit an inherent capacity it is because it seens to me to be the
only possible explanation, given our current level of knowledge. To
dismiss what I write as incipient mysticism is itself a flight from
thought.
Desertphile
<jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> On Mar 15, 11:22 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:33:51 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Humming
> >
> > <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > > I presume a primordial power, source of the energies and forces we
> > > observe in our universe, source also of the forms and symmetries and
> > > the mathematical links that connect all of existence. I have no idea
> > > of the nature of this power.
> > It's called "Gravity."
> Gravity exists as one of the forces in the universe. I see it as a
> manifestation of the original power.
There is no such thing as "the original power."
Joseph Humming
wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:11:14 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Humming
>
> <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 11:22 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:33:51 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Humming
>
> > > <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > > > I presume a primordial power, source of the energies and forces we
> > > > observe in our universe, source also of the forms and symmetries and
> > > > the mathematical links that connect all of existence. I have no idea
> > > > of the nature of this power.
> > > It's called "Gravity."
> > Gravity exists as one of the forces in the universe. I see it as a
> > manifestation of the original power.
>
> There is no such thing as "the original power."
So the universe sprang from the loins of nothing? Form and symmetry
and force and energy appeared unbidden out of the blue? The existence
of everything is perfectly explicable by virtue of everything actually
existing?
>
> > But perhaps not. Maybe in the pre-
> > universe situation the force we know as gravity drew in whatever
> > matter was present and precipitated the Big Bang. Maybe all the forces
> > we know are inherent in matter. Maybe matter is the mystery.
>
> > > You're welcome.
>
> > > Sheeeish.
>
Steven L.
"dgr...@ediacara.org" <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote in message
news:cabal-slrnhpt5...@darwin.ediacara.org:
Or Depakote (valproic acid) if he's allergic to lithium.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Joseph Humming" <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote in message
news:12c2f99b-4a79-457b...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
It sounds like you could have a lot in common with Frank Tipler.
The exponential increase in human knowledge, if it continues for more
millennia, will one day result in our knowing everything that can be
known about our Universe.
Humanity will be God.
-- Steven L.
jillery
That's quite a metaphysical claim, that there is a finite amount of
things that are knowable.
chris thompson
Or...lorazepam, if he is experiencing DT's
Chris
John Wilkins
<1fa13455-4448-4860...@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
How does he know that?
raven1
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:33:51 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Humming
><jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
>> I presume a primordial power, source of the energies and forces we
>> observe in our universe, source also of the forms and symmetries and
>> the mathematical links that connect all of existence. I have no idea
>> of the nature of this power.
>
>It's called "Gravity."
Careful here, George Hammond thinks that gravity somehow proves "God".
>
>You're welcome.
>
>Sheeeish.
raven1
<jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>I presume a primordial power
And we should care why?
raven1
<jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>On Mar 16, 1:36 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
>wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:11:14 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Humming
>>
>> <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>> > On Mar 15, 11:22 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:33:51 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Humming
>>
>> > > <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>> > > > I presume a primordial power, source of the energies and forces we
>> > > > observe in our universe, source also of the forms and symmetries and
>> > > > the mathematical links that connect all of existence. I have no idea
>> > > > of the nature of this power.
>> > > It's called "Gravity."
>> > Gravity exists as one of the forces in the universe. I see it as a
>> > manifestation of the original power.
>>
>> There is no such thing as "the original power."
>
>So the universe sprang from the loins of nothing?
Wow, that's pretty kooky. Care to rephrase that?
Wombat
wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:33:51 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Humming
>
> <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > I presume a primordial power, source of the energies and forces we
> > observe in our universe, source also of the forms and symmetries and
> > the mathematical links that connect all of existence. I have no idea
> > of the nature of this power.
>
> It's called "Gravity."
>
> You're welcome.
>
> Sheeeish.
Gravity is a myth - the Earth sucks.
Wombat
Moist Lipwig
news:hJGdnfAfY4opdAPW...@earthlink.com...
Which apparently comes with its own list of
drawbacks, cautions & risks. Coping with
severe mental illness is not an easy task.
Regards,
Klaus Hellnick
Lithium Deuteride?
John Vreeland
Prescribed for certain mood disorders. Some salt of Lithium, I
suppose.
--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.
John Vreeland
wrote:
What can be known about that? All we know for sure is that
1) We can never be sure that we know everything about nature until we
can measure everything to infinite precision to confirm our theories.
The better the theory, the longer the gap between it's formulation and
the time when instruments catch up with it to prove it incomplete.
2) We don't seem to be any closer to the "final" theory of everything
than we thought we were in 1900.
3) I would hate to live in a universe where theoretical physicists had
nothing to do. Imagine a world in which the only college departments
doing new research were in media, abecause that was the only thing
that was new under the sun. Oh, or stamp collecting.
Will in New Haven
I would have suggested dirt-nap but didn't know whether it is one word
or two.
--
Will in New Haven
David Iain Greig
Welcome to Castle Bravo
--D.
Kilmir
> On Mar 16, 1:36�am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:11:14 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Humming
>
> > <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > > On Mar 15, 11:22�pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:33:51 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Humming
>
> > > > <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > > > > I presume a primordial power, source of the energies and forces we
> > > > > observe in our universe, source also of the forms and symmetries and
> > > > > the mathematical links that connect all of existence. I have no idea
> > > > > of the nature of this power.
> > > > It's called "Gravity."
> > > Gravity exists as one of the forces in the universe. I see it as a
> > > manifestation of the original power.
>
> > There is no such thing as "the original power."
>
> So the universe sprang from the loins of nothing? Form and symmetry
> and force and energy appeared unbidden out of the blue? The existence
> of everything is perfectly explicable by virtue of everything actually
> existing?
Yup. Quantum Theory states that "nothing" will eventually produce
"something".
If one of the dozens of experiments currently running detects Dark
Matter we'll have decent evidence to say that the sum of all forces in
the universe is basically zero. That in turn will be evidence that the
universe really popped into existence out of nothing, without a cause.
And in case you're wondering, yes science is already that far.
Desertphile
<jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 1:36 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:11:14 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Humming
> >
> > <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > > On Mar 15, 11:22 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:33:51 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Humming
> >
> > > > <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > > > > I presume a primordial power, source of the energies and forces we
> > > > > observe in our universe, source also of the forms and symmetries and
> > > > > the mathematical links that connect all of existence. I have no idea
> > > > > of the nature of this power.
> > > > It's called "Gravity."
> > > Gravity exists as one of the forces in the universe. I see it as a
> > > manifestation of the original power.
> > There is no such thing as "the original power."
> So the universe sprang from the loins of nothing?
No.
> Form and symmetry and force and energy appeared unbidden
> out of the blue?
No.
> The existence of everything is perfectly explicable by
> virtue of everything actually existing?
Yes.
There is no such thing as "the original power."
--
Desertphile
Or something very close to nothing.
> If one of the dozens of experiments currently running detects Dark
> Matter we'll have decent evidence to say that the sum of all forces in
> the universe is basically zero. That in turn will be evidence that the
> universe really popped into existence out of nothing, without a cause.
>
> And in case you're wondering, yes science is already that far.
It is amazing what scientists have discovered. The YouTube channel
"MIT" has many lectures on classical; and quantum physics.
--
Desertphile
wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:hJGdnfAfY4opdAPW...@earthlink.com...
> >
> >
> > "dgr...@ediacara.org" <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote in message
> > news:cabal-slrnhpt5...@darwin.ediacara.org:
> >
> >> Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> >> > Joseph Humming
> >>
> >> I want to say one word to you. Just one word.
> >>
> >> Are you listening?
> >>
> >> Lithium.
> >
> > Or Depakote (valproic acid) if he's allergic to lithium.
> >
> > -- Steven L.
> Which apparently comes with its own list of
> drawbacks, cautions & risks. Coping with
> severe mental illness is not an easy task.
>
> Regards,
One of the worse things about being crazy is knowing one is crazy.
Desertphile
Of course Professor Tipler is nuts. I ate eight doughnuts when
attending one of his lectures at CalTec, which is the only thing
that made the lecture bearable.
jillery
I saw, but can't now find, a video from a physics professor that
showed the ratio of matter and energy in the Universe is 1. It was
introduced by Richard Dawkins. Do you know which one I mean?
Desertphile
No, I do not. Unfortunately I am limited in how much I may
download each 24 hours.
John Stockwell
> I presume a primordial power, source of the energies and forces we
> observe in our universe, source also of the forms and symmetries and
> the mathematical links that connect all of existence. I have no idea
> "god". I have an intuitive sense of some intrinsic supersymmetry
> ripped apart, the torn components fated to seek a restored symmetry
> forever afterwards. But that could be a romantic view. Or a whimsy. Or
> both.
>
> I see these particles gradually combine, pushing at all the laws and
> possibilities of physics, stretching amalgamation and combination as
> far as possible....until eventually a form arrived that exceeded
> itself so perfectly that when it split it was two. The essence of this
> form - called life - was survival. Life pushed at all the
> possibilities on this planet...until eventually a form of life emerged
> that could know the nature of the entire process.
>
> This form - called humanity - had/has the crucial capacity to create a
> form of ersatz knowledge - called belief - that would suffice until
> true knowledge eventually emerged. But the capricious nature of
> belief, allied to the tenacity of custom and possession, caused human
> beings to contest vigorously. Regulation and restriction was the
> result...until eventually a form of society evolved that allowed
> individual human beings the freedom to express themselves in a manner
> hitherto impossible.
One of the great attributes of humans is the ability to deliberately
conceive of things that don't exist, or that are not true. As an asset
it allows us to create new things. As a liability, it allows us to go
off the deep end. How's the water Mr. Humming?
>
> But this frreedom was as dependent on a fallacy as the earlier deluded
> autonomy of peoples. Freedom was constructed on the - necessary -
> fiction of rights. So now we have the fictional freedom of
> individuality. As if we can all do exactly what we want to do and the
> world will be fine. Whereas, in reality, in a teeming world
> cooperation and intelligence was never more required.
>
> So how does sense arise? Which Aspergered person will stand up and cry
> out THAT IT ISN'T TRUE, THERE IS NO GOD AND THERE ARE NO RIGHTS, THERE
> IS ONLY A GIFTED SPECIES WITH THE CAPACITY TO SEE THE TRUTH AND IT IS
> TIME THIS SPECIES WOKE UP AND VALUED ITS UNIQUE PLACE IN THE
> UNIVERSE. ...?
Ah, I see, only the emotionally deficient will disagree with the
mentally
disturbed.
>
> Soon, I hope.
>
> Joseph Humming
He's Humming because he doesn't know the words.
John Stockwell
...More likely it's not exponential, but governed by the logistic
equation. We hit a peak in the rate of increase in knowlege, and
the system grows more slowly with each successive generation,
until finally we reach a sate of total stagnation. The amount
of knowledge follows an S-shaped curve flattening out as the
system saturates. That's the optimistic view. More realistically,
we will hit a state at which we lose knowledge as quickly as we
gain it, ultimately more quickly, leading to a collapse.
Then it's back
to chipping flint, and digging tubers out of the ground with sticks.
>
> -- Steven L.
jillery
That's as depressing as entropic heat death, and might happen much
sooner.
John Stockwell
It's not so much the ending that is depressing. We've been
hunter-gatherers before. It's the getting there
that is the nightmare. Don't forget that non-renewable energy
production
also follows a logistic model, which is what all of that "peak oil"
stuff is all about. Look up "peak oil" "peak oil 2014" and
"peak oil olduvia", if you would like something to be depressed about.
-John
Joseph Humming
>
> - Show quoted text -
Knowing everything won't make us "God". There is no god.
Joseph Humming
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:15:32 +1000, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article
> ><1fa13455-4448-4860-9a6b-442d3966c...@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
We may not be closer than "we thought" we were but we are much closer
in reality. Our concepts and our precepts in 1900 - before the
discovery of relativity, the quantum, anti-matter, the virtual
particles, the expanding universe etc etc - were insufficient to the
complexity of the task in hand. There may well be more than a finite
sum of knowledge - but there must one day come a point when we know
the rudiments of existence.
>
> 3) I would hate to live in a universe where theoretical physicists had
> nothing to do. Imagine a world in which the only college departments
> doing new research were in media, abecause that was the only thing
> that was new under the sun. Oh, or stamp collecting.
>
> --
> My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.- Hide quoted text -
Joseph Humming
> On 16 mrt, 01:45, Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 1:36 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:11:14 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Humming
>
> > > <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 15, 11:22 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:33:51 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Humming
>
> > > > > <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > > > > > I presume a primordial power, source of the energies and forces we
> > > > > > observe in our universe, source also of the forms and symmetries and
> > > > > > the mathematical links that connect all of existence. I have no idea
> > > > > > of the nature of this power.
> > > > > It's called "Gravity."
> > > > Gravity exists as one of the forces in the universe. I see it as a
> > > > manifestation of the original power.
>
> > > There is no such thing as "the original power."
>
> > So the universe sprang from the loins of nothing? Form and symmetry
> > and force and energy appeared unbidden out of the blue? The existence
> > of everything is perfectly explicable by virtue of everything actually
> > existing?
>
> Yup. Quantum Theory states that "nothing" will eventually produce
> "something".
No, no...it's not nothing. It can't be. It just appears to be nothing.
Or it did appear to be nothing. Now we know it's teeming with
particles.
> If one of the dozens of experiments currently running detects Dark
> Matter we'll have decent evidence to say that the sum of all forces in
> the universe is basically zero. That in turn will be evidence that the
> universe really popped into existence out of nothing, without a cause.
Depends what you mean by a "cause". I would suggest that the universe
"really popped into existence" because of an underlying condition -
i.e the presence of an energy that expressed itself as matter in the
preceding void - that we are only now coming to recognise.
>
> And in case you're wondering, yes science is already that far.
I'm not wondering at all. I'm just seeking.
Joseph Humming
Join the gang.
Joseph Humming
Possibly so. Possibly too we will be engulfed in the pleasures we have
created. Or in expanding oceans. All the more reason, surely, to
cotton on to our place in the history of the cosmos and to create a
system of values based on that place and on our potential?
>
> Then it's back
> to chipping flint, and digging tubers out of the ground with sticks.
>
>
>
>
>
> > -- Steven L.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
John Vreeland
<jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
Isn't that they were saying in 1890? Are you saying that we won't
always be looking for the underlying layer that explains everything we
see, especially including those experimental results that don't quite
fit the current theories, whatever they wind up being?
Actually I am not sure which I am more afraid of, the idea that we
will some day know all the fundamental laws of physics or the idea
that we will always be in search of the next, deeper explanation.
Of course the implications of fundamental physics will probably be
eternal, assuming you want to explain things like biology with respect
to Grand Unification Theory. Okay, here's a better example: what
would the universe really be like if you tweaked some constants, I
mean beyond saying something obvious like "atoms couldn't exist." I
get that, but aren't there possible universes where something else
appears that serves a similar role to atoms? Are there conditions
under which quarks could form different stable and interesting
structures other than protons, neutrons and the like? Then we could
create those universes in a lab and test the ideas.
David Hare-Scott
>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:33:51 -0700 (PDT), Joseph Humming
>>
>> <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>>> I presume a primordial power, source of the energies and forces we
>>> observe in our universe, source also of the forms and symmetries and
>>> the mathematical links that connect all of existence. I have no idea
>>> of the nature of this power.
>>
>> It's called "Gravity."
>
> manifestation of the original power.
Now that is starting to get sufficiently mystical.
But perhaps not. Maybe in the
> pre- universe situation the force we know as gravity drew in whatever
> matter was present and precipitated the Big Bang. Maybe all the forces
> we know are inherent in matter. Maybe matter is the mystery.
>>
Ooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmm
No no you have to cup your hands on top of your thighs.....and keep your
back straight. And your face.
David
Joseph Humming
In 1890 sub-atomic studies were in their infancy. Our knowledge of the
origin and the size of the universe was hardly more than speculative.
Today we are comfortable with the complex and protean nature of the
quantum. Our knowledge of the universe expands daily. I don't suggest
that we will ever know everything. I do suggest that the universe is
essentially knowable.
>
> Actually I am not sure which I am more afraid of, the idea that we
> will some day know all the fundamental laws of physics or the idea
> that we will always be in search of the next, deeper explanation.
>
> Of course the implications of fundamental physics will probably be
> eternal, assuming you want to explain things like biology with respect
> to Grand Unification Theory. Okay, here's a better example: what
> would the universe really be like if you tweaked some constants, I
> mean beyond saying something obvious like "atoms couldn't exist." I
> get that, but aren't there possible universes where something else
> appears that serves a similar role to atoms? Are there conditions
> under which quarks could form different stable and interesting
> structures other than protons, neutrons and the like? Then we could
> create those universes in a lab and test the ideas.
Hmmm...one universe at a time is enough for me. But I do believe that
we can - quite soon - glean a deeper sense of the inherent nature of
material reality. When we gain such a sense we should be capable of
tweaking constants to see what emerges.
>
> --
jillery
I have plenty of things to be depressed about, but I don't let that
get in the way of looking for more. As far as oil running out is
concerned, yes its a big problem and it will likely get worse before
it gets better. But this isn't the first energy crisis, and it won't
be the last. There are alternatives to oil for energy, but they are
politically and economically more expensive right now. Both of these
will change as cheap oil is sucked dry.
Nick Keighley
> On Mar 15, 3:37 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 15, 4:16 pm, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>
> > > Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
> > > > Joseph Humming
>
> > > I want to say one word to you. Just one word.
>
> > > Are you listening?
>
> > > Lithium.
>
>
nukes
jillery
wrote:
As in fusion bombs. Dr. Strangelove's big boys. Not those pissant
puny kiloton fission bombs that were dropped on Japan.
Joseph Humming
> On Mar 16, 4:33 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 11:56 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> > > >
> I have plenty of things to be depressed about,
Yes, there is much that might depress us - but not make us despondent.
But maybe we need a new vision of our place in nature...
May I explain? Much of what follows is a matter of belief.
There is an energy at the heart of all existence. Without this energy
there would be no existence. There would be nothing. We wouldn't be
having this dialogue.
This energy - the energy at the core of all existence - is shot
through with form and force. It appears as matter, itself shot through
with form and force.
Perhaps we may cathegorise the pre-universe as a fraught balance of
these forces and forms. Supersymmetry is a term to conjure with -
though I'm not sure I understand it.
Perhaps because of some imbalance or excess in these forces a universe
emerges - though I don't see this as an "accident", more an
inevitability.
The same forms and forces that existed in the pre-universe exist in
the universe itself. Why wouldn't they? These forces are profound.
Even in a universe enlarging at speed they draw matter in to create
galaxies, stars etc.
Finally life is created. What is life but matter that spilts
perfectly?
The essence of life is survival. What doesn't survive no longer
exists. Thus, there is huge emphasis on preserving forms and modes
that aid survival.
As part of this process every avenue of advantage - location,
motility, size, form, energy, disguise etc- is utilized.
Evenyally inelligence emerges.
Do we know yet what intelligence involves? How can the capacity to
know survive in the absence of knowledge?
Maybe our capacity to believe and to create and to imagine played a
huge role in our survival...?
But this meant that when eventualy we encountered each other we were
as strangers. So we fought. We were ruled. This is History. It has
lasted about one fortieth of the time we have been on the planet.
But eventually we learned - most of us - to live together. But with
gross inequalities. And gross greed. We are so primitive. Such greedy
little creatures.
And now... we could be swamped by expanding oceans; and expanding
egos; and expanding leisure; and depleted resources; and fanaticism;
and impoverished democracy....surely now we need to see how unique we
are, we need a knowledge of ourselves and our unique place in the
universe to enable us to combine intelligently to defeat these perils
that threaten us.
Now...might I suggest that to suppose there's an energy at the heart
of existence is not to suppose there's a "grand plan"? All I'm saying
is that without this energy there would have been nothing. The reason
for existence is the existence of this energy. This energy, I also
suggest, is shot through with form and force and produces matter.
This
tendency to form and this susceptibility to force, I also suggest,
carried through to the universe. The universe, by this very
speculative reckoning, possibly arose because the forces inherent in
the energy subjected it to pressures it could only relieve by
explosion
josephus
> On Mar 17, 12:15 am, jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 4:33 pm, John Stockwell<john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 16, 11:56 am, jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>> I have plenty of things to be depressed about,
>
> Yes, there is much that might depress us - but not make us despondent.
> But maybe we need a new vision of our place in nature...
>
> May I explain? Much of what follows is a matter of belief.
well belief and science are not compatible.
>
> There is an energy at the heart of all existence. Without this energy
> there would be no existence. There would be nothing. We wouldn't be
> having this dialogue.
really, could you give some textbook references?
> This energy - the energy at the core of all existence - is shot
> through with form and force. It appears as matter, itself shot through
> with form and force.
> Perhaps we may cathegorise the pre-universe as a fraught balance of
> these forces and forms. Supersymmetry is a term to conjure with -
> though I'm not sure I understand it.
that is an understatement a vacuum fluctuation is what physicists
call the state of the big bang.
> Perhaps because of some imbalance or excess in these forces a universe
> emerges - though I don't see this as an "accident", more an
> inevitability.
let me guess the is SAP theory?
> The same forms and forces that existed in the pre-universe exist in
> the universe itself. Why wouldn't they? These forces are profound.
> Even in a universe enlarging at speed they draw matter in to create
> galaxies, stars etc.
but we dont think life was created, it happened but there is no evidence
it was created.
> Finally life is created. What is life but matter that spilts
> perfectly?
a rose by any other name would smell a sweet. but matter could be
DNA that splits perfectly.
> The essence of life is survival. What doesn't survive no longer
> exists. Thus, there is huge emphasis on preserving forms and modes
> that aid survival.
is that in your manual for life? That book you seem to be reading.
> As part of this process every avenue of advantage - location,
> motility, size, form, energy, disguise etc- is utilized.
> Evenyally inelligence emerges.
> Do we know yet what intelligence involves? How can the capacity to
> know survive in the absence of knowledge?
there are folks that are looking, that is science. but your
muanderiing is only superficially science.
> Maybe our capacity to believe and to create and to imagine played a
> huge role in our survival...?
> But this meant that when eventualy we encountered each other we were
> as strangers. So we fought. We were ruled. This is History. It has
> lasted about one fortieth of the time we have been on the planet.
> But eventually we learned - most of us - to live together. But with
> gross inequalities. And gross greed. We are so primitive. Such greedy
> little creatures.
that is a backhanded way to note that we are less than protozoans on a
dust mote in a very dark and dangerous universe. (that was
acknowledging that we exist.) our SUN is very, very ordinary and not
real special. it is just the input energy to drive the reverse entropy
of life.
> And now... we could be swamped by expanding oceans; and expanding
> egos; and expanding leisure; and depleted resources; and fanaticism;
> and impoverished democracy....surely now we need to see how unique we
> are, we need a knowledge of ourselves and our unique place in the
> universe to enable us to combine intelligently to defeat these perils
> that threaten us.
>
more than global warming is the problem. there are
anti-intellectual forces in our society. a large percentage dont think
science is reliable. they are intollerant and want to overthrow the
constitution. we call them creationists.
>
> Now...might I suggest that to suppose there's an energy at the heart
> of existence is not to suppose there's a "grand plan"? All I'm saying
> is that without this energy there would have been nothing. The reason
> for existence is the existence of this energy. This energy, I also
> suggest, is shot through with form and force and produces matter.
> This
> tendency to form and this susceptibility to force, I also suggest,
> carried through to the universe. The universe, by this very
> speculative reckoning, possibly arose because the forces inherent in
> the energy subjected it to pressures it could only relieve by
> explosion
>
mysticism is not the same as physics and mathematics. the vastness
of the problem is that it had enough EMC^2 to produce all the matter we
can see and can never see. and it produced all of the space we are
stretched upon. And it spread all those islands of starlight. we just
dont have enought science to handle that problem. we can only measure
and compute little pieces of this problem.
--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
Its what you know that aint so. -- Josh Billings
Joseph Humming
> Joseph Humming wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 12:15 am, jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 16, 4:33 pm, John Stockwell<john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 16, 11:56 am, jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I have plenty of things to be depressed about,
>
> > Yes, there is much that might depress us - but not make us despondent.
> > But maybe we need a new vision of our place in nature...
>
> > May I explain? Much of what follows is a matter of belief.
>
> well belief and science are not compatible.
I have no problem seeking to construct a plausible addition to our
current knowledge. I would suggest that much new knowledge arises from
such intuitive additions to current knowledge. Of course, testing must
eventually come into play. I can't test - but I can still construct a
plausible scenario.
>
>
>
> > There is an energy at the heart of all existence. Without this energy
> > there would be no existence. There would be nothing. We wouldn't be
> > having this dialogue.
>
> really, could you give some textbook references?
See above.
>
> > This energy - the energy at the core of all existence - is shot
> > through with form and force. It appears as matter, itself shot through
> > with form and force.
> > Perhaps we may cathegorise the pre-universe as a fraught balance of
> > these forces and forms. Supersymmetry is a term to conjure with -
> > though I'm not sure I understand it.
>
> that is an understatement a vacuum fluctuation is what physicists
> call the state of the big bang.
A vacuum flluctuation is what they suggest CAUSED the BB. But then
there is no such thing as a true vacuum. A vacuum, so called, is what
equates to my state of the pre-universe, a soup of particles held in
some suspension.
>
> > Perhaps because of some imbalance or excess in these forces a universe
> > emerges - though I don't see this as an "accident", more an
> > inevitability.
>
> let me guess the is SAP theory?
>
SAP?
> > The same forms and forces that existed in the pre-universe exist in
> > the universe itself. Why wouldn't they? These forces are profound.
> > Even in a universe enlarging at speed they draw matter in to create
> > galaxies, stars etc.
>
> but we dont think life was created, it happened but there is no evidence
> it was created.
If I put flour and water together I create dough. Let's not get
pedantic.
>
> > Finally life is created. What is life but matter that spilts
> > perfectly?
>
> a rose by any other name would smell a sweet. but matter could be
> DNA that splits perfectly.
Life is merely a particular arrangement of matter.
>
> > The essence of life is survival. What doesn't survive no longer
> > exists. Thus, there is huge emphasis on preserving forms and modes
> > that aid survival.
>
> is that in your manual for life? That book you seem to be reading.
Dr.Seuss?
>
> > As part of this process every avenue of advantage - location,
> > motility, size, form, energy, disguise etc- is utilized.
> > Evenyally inelligence emerges.
> > Do we know yet what intelligence involves? How can the capacity to
> > know survive in the absence of knowledge?
>
> there are folks that are looking, that is science. but your
> muanderiing is only superficially science.
I was trying to establish a principle here: that an intelligent
creature cannot indefinitely accept its own lack of knowledge; it must
use imagination or belief as a bridge to knowledge, investing it with
all the status of knowledge for the time being.
>
> > Maybe our capacity to believe and to create and to imagine played a
> > huge role in our survival...?
> > But this meant that when eventualy we encountered each other we were
> > as strangers. So we fought. We were ruled. This is History. It has
> > lasted about one fortieth of the time we have been on the planet.
> > But eventually we learned - most of us - to live together. But with
> > gross inequalities. And gross greed. We are so primitive. Such greedy
> > little creatures.
>
> that is a backhanded way to note that we are less than protozoans on a
> dust mote in a very dark and dangerous universe. (that was
> acknowledging that we exist.) our SUN is very, very ordinary and not
> real special. it is just the input energy to drive the reverse entropy
> of life.
All of this may be quite true. Ordinary, Dangerous etc...But we are
not ordinary. And we endlesly create value and worth and fun and
interest to drive away the demons of ordinariness.
You almost seem to be saying that because we don't know everything we
know nothing. Beware of extremes.
>
> --
> I go sailing in the summer
> and look at stars in the winter
> Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
> Its what you know that aint so. -- Josh Billings- Hide quoted text -