Different points of view.
11 views
Skip to first unread message
socratus
Nov 24, 2009, 1:41:48 PM11/24/09
to Epistemology
Different points of view.
1.
In Physics we trust. / Tarun Biswas /
and plus millions of other believers .
2.
Science is not always as objective as we would like to believe.
/ Michael Talbot. / and plus few others.
3.
Religion or Physics ? Faith or Knowledge ?
/ some doubtful people. /
4.
Science and God just do not mix, both defy each other.
Science and religion are like oil and water, you can't
mix them together and expect a solution.
/ most people /
5.
Science and religion in tandem can become a great force
to liberate the mind and help the humans to a fuller and better
understanding of reality.
/ G. S. Sidhu / and plus some individuals .
===== .
P.S.
In Physics we trust.
Is it correct ? Of course, it is logically correct.
Because only Physics can logically explain us
the Ultimate Nature of Reality.
==========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
========================
1.
In Physics we trust. / Tarun Biswas /
and plus millions of other believers .
2.
Science is not always as objective as we would like to believe.
/ Michael Talbot. / and plus few others.
3.
Religion or Physics ? Faith or Knowledge ?
/ some doubtful people. /
4.
Science and God just do not mix, both defy each other.
Science and religion are like oil and water, you can't
mix them together and expect a solution.
/ most people /
5.
Science and religion in tandem can become a great force
to liberate the mind and help the humans to a fuller and better
understanding of reality.
/ G. S. Sidhu / and plus some individuals .
===== .
P.S.
In Physics we trust.
Is it correct ? Of course, it is logically correct.
Because only Physics can logically explain us
the Ultimate Nature of Reality.
==========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
========================
socratus
Nov 25, 2009, 12:47:58 AM11/25/09
to Epistemology
‘ The idea that the universe can be viewed as the compound
of two basic orders, the implicate and the explicate, can be
found in many other traditions.
The Tibetan Buddhists call these two aspects the void and
nonvoid. The nonvoid is the reality of visible objects. The
void, like the implicate order, is the birthplace of all things
in the universe, . . .
. . . only the void is real and all forms in the objective world
are illusory, . . . .
The Hindus call the implicate level of reality Brahman.
Brahman is formless but is the birthplace of all forms in
visible reality, which appear out of it and then enfold back
into it in endless flux.
. . . consciousness is not only a subtler form of matter,
but it is more fundamental than matter, and in the Hindu
cosmology it is matter that has emerged from consciousness,
and not the other way around. Or as the Vedas put it, the
physical world is brought into being through both the
‘ veiling’ and ‘ projecting’ powers of consciousness.
. . . the material universe is only a second- generation
reality, a creation of veiled consciousness, the Hindus
say that it is transitory and unreal, or ‘ maya’.
. . .
This same concept can be found in Judaic thought.
. . . . in shamanistic thinking . . . . . .
. . . . . .
Like Bohm, who says that consciousness always has its
source in the implicate, the aborigines believe that the
true source of the mind is in the transcendent reality of
the dreamtime. Normal people do not realize this and
believe that their consciousness is in their bodies.
. . . . .
The Dogan people of the Sudan also believe that the
physical world is the product of a deeper and more
fundamental level of reality . . . . . .’
=== .
Book / The Holographic Universe.
Part 3 / 9. Pages 287 – 289.
By Michael Talbot. /
==================== . . .
My questions after reading this book.
Is it possible that Physics confirmed and proved the
Religion philosophy of life ?
How is it possible to understand the Religion philosophy
of life from modern Physics view?
#
My opinion.
Fact.
The detected material mass of the matter in the
Universe is so small (the average density of all
substance in the Universe is approximately
p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it cannot ‘close’ the
Universe into sphere and therefore our Universe
as whole is ‘open’, Endless Void / Nothingness /
Vacuum : T=0K.
Quantum Physics says the Vacuum is the birthplace
of all ‘ virtual’ particles . Nobody knows what there are,
but ‘the virtual particles’ change the Vacuum in a
local places and create Non Void / Material / Gravity
World with stars, planets and all another objects and
subjects in the Universe.
=== .
Without Eternal/ Infinite Void / Vacuum physics makes no sense.
But as Paul Dirac said:
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum,
in my opinion, is the basic problem now before physics.
Really, if you can’t correctly describe the vacuum,
how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex ? "
=== .
#
But there is a strong tradition ( scientific and religious) that
insists
that any time we say we know who God is, or what God wants,
we are committing an act of heresy.
== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
== .
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
ornamentalmind
Nov 25, 2009, 1:56:45 AM11/25/09
to Epistemology
“…The Tibetan Buddhists call these two aspects the void and
A slight addition to this statement…while most schools of Tibetan
Buddhism do make a synthetic separation, call it void/not-void for
now, how these two truths are apprehended/understood varies from one
school to the next. That is, the very notion of ‘reality’ and what
‘visible objects’ are differs greatly from one system to another.
For a simple overview, see:
“Appearance & Reality, The Two Truths in the Four Buddhist Tenet
Systems” by Guy Newland, Snow Lion.
nonvoid. The nonvoid is the reality of visible objects. The
void,…” – soc
A slight addition to this statement…while most schools of Tibetan
Buddhism do make a synthetic separation, call it void/not-void for
now, how these two truths are apprehended/understood varies from one
school to the next. That is, the very notion of ‘reality’ and what
‘visible objects’ are differs greatly from one system to another.
For a simple overview, see:
“Appearance & Reality, The Two Truths in the Four Buddhist Tenet
Systems” by Guy Newland, Snow Lion.
socratus
Nov 25, 2009, 2:43:07 AM11/25/09
to Epistemology
Science or Religion ?
Religion tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!
That is the truth.
So, what is Religion?
Religion is the poor man's philosophy.
Modern Physics tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!
That is the truth.
For example: One Galaxy can eat another Galaxy.
#
Cosmic cannibalising:
Images show one galaxy engulfing another
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/cosmic-cannibalising-images-show-one-galaxy-engulfing-another-1780652.html
#
The Discovery of one Galaxy "Attacking" Another
http://www.astronomyexpert.co.uk/the-recent-discovery-of-one-galaxy-attacking-another.html
. . .. etc
So, what is Physics?
Physics is the poor man's philosophy.
== .
What to do?
I think we must answer to the simple classic question:
what did come first the chicken or the egg ?
If somebody didn’t understand this question, I will ask it simpler:
What was before Vacuum or Gravity ?
Does Gravity exist in Vacuum or vice versa?
Why I ask these questions.
Because the Universe ( as a whole ) is Two- Measured,
there are two Worlds: Vacuum and Gravity.
=== .
Israel Socratus.
archytas
Nov 25, 2009, 9:36:34 PM11/25/09
to Epistemology
I always wonder why we don't know more, if there is so much more to
know. Perhaps the information we are able to carry about is limited
and has to be for reasons beyond current thinking? What religion
becomes as a means of social control is dubious, yet before this it
may be a truly questioning experience.
On 25 Nov, 07:43, socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Science or Religion ?
> Religion tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!
> That is the truth.
> So, what is Religion?
> Religion is the poor man's philosophy.
>
> Modern Physics tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!
> That is the truth.
> For example: One Galaxy can eat another Galaxy.
> #
> Cosmic cannibalising:
> Images show one galaxy engulfing anotherhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/cosmic-cannibalising-images...
> #
> The Discovery of one Galaxy "Attacking" Anotherhttp://www.astronomyexpert.co.uk/the-recent-discovery-of-one-galaxy-a...
know. Perhaps the information we are able to carry about is limited
and has to be for reasons beyond current thinking? What religion
becomes as a means of social control is dubious, yet before this it
may be a truly questioning experience.
On 25 Nov, 07:43, socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Science or Religion ?
> Religion tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!
> That is the truth.
> So, what is Religion?
> Religion is the poor man's philosophy.
>
> Modern Physics tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!
> That is the truth.
> For example: One Galaxy can eat another Galaxy.
> #
> Cosmic cannibalising:
> #
> The Discovery of one Galaxy "Attacking" Anotherhttp://www.astronomyexpert.co.uk/the-recent-discovery-of-one-galaxy-a...
nominal9
Nov 27, 2009, 11:57:18 AM11/27/09
to Epistemology
while most schools of Tibetan
Buddhism do make a synthetic separation, call it void/not-void for
now, ... etc./ ornamentalmind
Buddhism do make a synthetic separation, call it void/not-void for
I'm lazy, Orn, especially when it comes to the "meditative religions-
philosophies" named....can you save me some reading and give me a
notion of what is contained in the "void" or whatever else the
different views may care to call it?.... and what is the character or
the special way in which the "synthesis" interaction you speak of
takes place between the two... void .. non-void...
nominal9
>
> - Show quoted text -
ornamentalmind
Nov 27, 2009, 3:57:33 PM11/27/09
to Epistemology
I can, but will not. I will let you have the pleasure of doing your
own research.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
own research.
Serenity Smiles
Nov 27, 2009, 2:32:37 PM11/27/09
to episte...@googlegroups.com
Madhayamaka Buddhism vis a vis Hindu vedanta - this is a very good site to
visit. have not studied it fully myself yet
--------------------------------------------------
From: "nominal9" <nomi...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 4:57 PM
To: "Epistemology" <episte...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [epistemology 10995] Re: Different points of view.
> while most schools of Tibetan
> Buddhism do make a synthetic separation, call it void/not-void for
> now, ... etc./ ornamentalmind
>
> I'm lazy, Orn, especially when it comes to the "meditative religions-
> philosophies" named....can you save me some reading and give me a
> notion of what is contained in the "void" or whatever else the
> different views may care to call it?.... and what is the character or
> the special way in which the "synthesis" interaction you speak of
> takes place between the two... void .. non-void...
> nominal9
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 25, 1:56 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ��The Tibetan Buddhists call these two aspects the void and
>>
>> A slight addition to this statement�while most schools of Tibetan
>> �visible objects� are differs greatly from one system to another.
>> Systems� by Guy Newland, Snow Lion.
>> > � The idea that the universe can be viewed as the compound
>> > but �the virtual particles� change the Vacuum in a
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Epistemology" group.
> To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
>
>
>
visit. have not studied it fully myself yet
--------------------------------------------------
From: "nominal9" <nomi...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 4:57 PM
To: "Epistemology" <episte...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [epistemology 10995] Re: Different points of view.
> while most schools of Tibetan
> Buddhism do make a synthetic separation, call it void/not-void for
> now, ... etc./ ornamentalmind
>
> I'm lazy, Orn, especially when it comes to the "meditative religions-
> philosophies" named....can you save me some reading and give me a
> notion of what is contained in the "void" or whatever else the
> different views may care to call it?.... and what is the character or
> the special way in which the "synthesis" interaction you speak of
> takes place between the two... void .. non-void...
> nominal9
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 25, 1:56 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> nonvoid. The nonvoid is the reality of visible objects. The
>> void,�� � soc
>>
>> A slight addition to this statement�while most schools of Tibetan
>> Buddhism do make a synthetic separation, call it void/not-void for
>> now, how these two truths are apprehended/understood varies from one
>> school to the next. That is, the very notion of �reality� and what
>> now, how these two truths are apprehended/understood varies from one
>> �visible objects� are differs greatly from one system to another.
>>
>> For a simple overview, see:
>>
>> �Appearance & Reality, The Two Truths in the Four Buddhist Tenet
>> For a simple overview, see:
>>
>> Systems� by Guy Newland, Snow Lion.
>> > � The idea that the universe can be viewed as the compound
>> > of two basic orders, the implicate and the explicate, can be
>> > found in many other traditions.
>> > The Tibetan Buddhists call these two aspects the void and
>> > nonvoid. The nonvoid is the reality of visible objects. The
>> > void, like the implicate order, is the birthplace of all things
>> > in the universe, . . .
>> > . . . only the void is real and all forms in the objective world
>> > are illusory, . . . .
>> > The Hindus call the implicate level of reality Brahman.
>> > Brahman is formless but is the birthplace of all forms in
>> > visible reality, which appear out of it and then enfold back
>> > into it in endless flux.
>> > . . . consciousness is not only a subtler form of matter,
>> > but it is more fundamental than matter, and in the Hindu
>> > cosmology it is matter that has emerged from consciousness,
>> > and not the other way around. Or as the Vedas put it, the
>> > physical world is brought into being through both the
>> > � veiling� and � projecting� powers of consciousness.
>> > found in many other traditions.
>> > The Tibetan Buddhists call these two aspects the void and
>> > nonvoid. The nonvoid is the reality of visible objects. The
>> > void, like the implicate order, is the birthplace of all things
>> > in the universe, . . .
>> > . . . only the void is real and all forms in the objective world
>> > are illusory, . . . .
>> > The Hindus call the implicate level of reality Brahman.
>> > Brahman is formless but is the birthplace of all forms in
>> > visible reality, which appear out of it and then enfold back
>> > into it in endless flux.
>> > . . . consciousness is not only a subtler form of matter,
>> > but it is more fundamental than matter, and in the Hindu
>> > cosmology it is matter that has emerged from consciousness,
>> > and not the other way around. Or as the Vedas put it, the
>> > physical world is brought into being through both the
>> > . . . the material universe is only a second- generation
>> > reality, a creation of veiled consciousness, the Hindus
>> > say that it is transitory and unreal, or � maya�.
>> > reality, a creation of veiled consciousness, the Hindus
>> > . . .
>> > This same concept can be found in Judaic thought.
>> > . . . . in shamanistic thinking . . . . . .
>> > . . . . . .
>> > Like Bohm, who says that consciousness always has its
>> > source in the implicate, the aborigines believe that the
>> > true source of the mind is in the transcendent reality of
>> > the dreamtime. Normal people do not realize this and
>> > believe that their consciousness is in their bodies.
>> > . . . . .
>> > The Dogan people of the Sudan also believe that the
>> > physical world is the product of a deeper and more
>> > fundamental level of reality . . . . . .�
>> > This same concept can be found in Judaic thought.
>> > . . . . in shamanistic thinking . . . . . .
>> > . . . . . .
>> > Like Bohm, who says that consciousness always has its
>> > source in the implicate, the aborigines believe that the
>> > true source of the mind is in the transcendent reality of
>> > the dreamtime. Normal people do not realize this and
>> > believe that their consciousness is in their bodies.
>> > . . . . .
>> > The Dogan people of the Sudan also believe that the
>> > physical world is the product of a deeper and more
>> > === .
>> > Book / The Holographic Universe.
>> > Part 3 / 9. Pages 287 � 289.
>> > Book / The Holographic Universe.
>> > By Michael Talbot. /
>> > ==================== . . .
>> > My questions after reading this book.
>>
>> > Is it possible that Physics confirmed and proved the
>> > Religion philosophy of life ?
>> > How is it possible to understand the Religion philosophy
>> > of life from modern Physics view?
>> > #
>> > My opinion.
>> > Fact.
>> > The detected material mass of the matter in the
>> > Universe is so small (the average density of all
>> > substance in the Universe is approximately
>> > p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it cannot �close� the
>> > ==================== . . .
>> > My questions after reading this book.
>>
>> > Is it possible that Physics confirmed and proved the
>> > Religion philosophy of life ?
>> > How is it possible to understand the Religion philosophy
>> > of life from modern Physics view?
>> > #
>> > My opinion.
>> > Fact.
>> > The detected material mass of the matter in the
>> > Universe is so small (the average density of all
>> > substance in the Universe is approximately
>> > Universe into sphere and therefore our Universe
>> > as whole is �open�, Endless Void / Nothingness /
>> > Vacuum : T=0K.
>> > Quantum Physics says the Vacuum is the birthplace
>> > of all � virtual� particles . Nobody knows what there are,
>> > Quantum Physics says the Vacuum is the birthplace
>> > but �the virtual particles� change the Vacuum in a
>> > local places and create Non Void / Material / Gravity
>> > World with stars, planets and all another objects and
>> > subjects in the Universe.
>> > === .
>> > Without Eternal/ Infinite Void / Vacuum physics makes no sense.
>> > But as Paul Dirac said:
>> > " The problem of the exact description of vacuum,
>> > in my opinion, is the basic problem now before physics.
>> > Really, if you can�t correctly describe the vacuum,
>> > World with stars, planets and all another objects and
>> > subjects in the Universe.
>> > === .
>> > Without Eternal/ Infinite Void / Vacuum physics makes no sense.
>> > But as Paul Dirac said:
>> > " The problem of the exact description of vacuum,
>> > in my opinion, is the basic problem now before physics.
>> > how it is possible to expect a correct description
>> > of something more complex ? "
>> > === .
>> > #
>> > But there is a strong tradition ( scientific and religious) that
>> > insists
>> > that any time we say we know who God is, or what God wants,
>> > we are committing an act of heresy.
>> > == .
>> > Best wishes.
>> > Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
>> > == .- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> --
>> > of something more complex ? "
>> > === .
>> > #
>> > But there is a strong tradition ( scientific and religious) that
>> > insists
>> > that any time we say we know who God is, or what God wants,
>> > we are committing an act of heresy.
>> > == .
>> > Best wishes.
>> > Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
>> > == .- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Epistemology" group.
> To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
>
>
>
archytas
Nov 28, 2009, 1:06:08 AM11/28/09
to Epistemology
I would doubt Nom that any of this kind of void has anything to do
with thoughts in physics about the nature of emptiness. This is about
essential conditions in being. I'd admit to some similarities with
relativity. There is stuff to learn from these sources though I don't
see it boiling down to much.
On 27 Nov, 19:32, "Serenity Smiles" <gentle.esse...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
> head[1].gif
> 15KViewDownload
with thoughts in physics about the nature of emptiness. This is about
essential conditions in being. I'd admit to some similarities with
relativity. There is stuff to learn from these sources though I don't
see it boiling down to much.
On 27 Nov, 19:32, "Serenity Smiles" <gentle.esse...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
> Madhayamaka Buddhism vis a vis Hindu vedanta - this is a very good site to
> visit. have not studied it fully myself yet
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "nominal9" <nomin...@yahoo.com>
> visit. have not studied it fully myself yet
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> 15KViewDownload
archytas
Nov 28, 2009, 1:13:55 AM11/28/09
to Epistemology
'Holes' come in for much philosophical treatment too. Early atomist
theories made much of them and voids. Newton got rather a long way by
construing space as separate from body. If the experience of
emptiness is to make all relative then I can't make it as I'm sure I
wouldn't stay here if all was such.
theories made much of them and voids. Newton got rather a long way by
construing space as separate from body. If the experience of
emptiness is to make all relative then I can't make it as I'm sure I
wouldn't stay here if all was such.
ornamentalmind
Nov 28, 2009, 2:25:50 AM11/28/09
to Epistemology
“… If the experience of emptiness is to make all relative then I can't
make it as I'm sure I wouldn't stay here if all was such.” – archy
No need to leave then Neil!
As far as I can tell, there is no ‘making’ involved…such activity
would be like standing before one of Van Gogh’s Starry Night paintings
and tagging it (spray painting it). In this sense, what is …is.
In an apparently different sense, any such analysis of anything
apprehended through the senses will include a related conceptual
nature (as well as a contextual nature). Emptiness merely means the
truth that anything is empty of inherent existence. No thing/thought
arises out of nothing. Further, such things have component parts. If
they are conceptual or perceptual, specific thoughts/words etc. are
involved and have direct links to it and those so linked things are a
part and parcel of the thing currently under investigation. Thus, it
is related to other things/thoughts/concepts etc. Being so related
directly implies a relationship and relative nature. This all
identifies the set of relative/subjective ‘mind’.
There also exists that which has no components or movement. This is
the absolute/objective ‘mind’.
And, we have in fact produced a synthetic separation here too.
On a more mundane level, Albert E.’s addition of relativity to western
thought has helped to support and change previous anti-metaphysical
views. The result is the philosophical corner currently most find
themselves painted into. A more practical level helps one to
understand how politicians, educators, thinkers etc. now find no
‘center’…no ethos other than one without a possibility of actual
ethics. This because ‘everything is relative’. Well, it is for their
thinking…but not in any other way.
> > > 15KViewDownload- Hide quoted text -
make it as I'm sure I wouldn't stay here if all was such.” – archy
No need to leave then Neil!
As far as I can tell, there is no ‘making’ involved…such activity
would be like standing before one of Van Gogh’s Starry Night paintings
and tagging it (spray painting it). In this sense, what is …is.
In an apparently different sense, any such analysis of anything
apprehended through the senses will include a related conceptual
nature (as well as a contextual nature). Emptiness merely means the
truth that anything is empty of inherent existence. No thing/thought
arises out of nothing. Further, such things have component parts. If
they are conceptual or perceptual, specific thoughts/words etc. are
involved and have direct links to it and those so linked things are a
part and parcel of the thing currently under investigation. Thus, it
is related to other things/thoughts/concepts etc. Being so related
directly implies a relationship and relative nature. This all
identifies the set of relative/subjective ‘mind’.
There also exists that which has no components or movement. This is
the absolute/objective ‘mind’.
And, we have in fact produced a synthetic separation here too.
On a more mundane level, Albert E.’s addition of relativity to western
thought has helped to support and change previous anti-metaphysical
views. The result is the philosophical corner currently most find
themselves painted into. A more practical level helps one to
understand how politicians, educators, thinkers etc. now find no
‘center’…no ethos other than one without a possibility of actual
ethics. This because ‘everything is relative’. Well, it is for their
thinking…but not in any other way.
Georges Metanomski
Nov 28, 2009, 2:29:50 AM11/28/09
to episte...@googlegroups.com
--- On Sat, 11/28/09, archytas <arch...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> From: archytas <arch...@live.co.uk>
> Subject: [epistemology 11002] Re: Different points of view.
> To: "Epistemology" <episte...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Saturday, November 28, 2009, 6:06 AM
> I would doubt Nom that any of this
> kind of void has anything to do
> with thoughts in physics about the nature of
> emptiness.
=============
G:
There are no "thoughts in physics about the nature of emptiness".
Physics never met her.
Georges
================
socratus
Nov 28, 2009, 5:56:40 AM11/28/09
to Epistemology
On Nov 28, 9:29 am, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Sat, 11/28/09, archytas <archy...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > From: archytas <archy...@live.co.uk>
> > Subject: [epistemology 11002] Re: Different points of view.
> > To: "Epistemology" <episte...@googlegroups.com>
> > Date: Saturday, November 28, 2009, 6:06 AM
> > I would doubt Nom that any of this
> > kind of void has anything to do
> > with thoughts in physics about the nature of
> > emptiness.
>
> =============
> G:
> There are no "thoughts in physics about the nature of emptiness".
> Physics never met her.
> Georges
> ================
I would doubt Nom that any of this
kind of void has anything to do
with thoughts in physics about the nature of
emptiness.
/ archytas <archy...@live.co.uk> /
> > From: archytas <archy...@live.co.uk>
> > Subject: [epistemology 11002] Re: Different points of view.
> > To: "Epistemology" <episte...@googlegroups.com>
> > Date: Saturday, November 28, 2009, 6:06 AM
> > I would doubt Nom that any of this
> > kind of void has anything to do
> > with thoughts in physics about the nature of
> > emptiness.
>
> =============
> G:
> There are no "thoughts in physics about the nature of emptiness".
> Physics never met her.
> Georges
> ================
I would doubt Nom that any of this
kind of void has anything to do
with thoughts in physics about the nature of
emptiness.
=============== .
#
Don’t be doubt ‘ archytas <archy...@live.co.uk> ‘
1.
Thermodynamics meets with the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
2.
Maxwell electrodynamics meets with the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
3.
SRT meets with the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
4
GRT meets with the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
5.
Atom meets with the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
6.
Outer space meets with the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
7.
Religion doesn’t exist without the Void/ Emptiness/ Vacuum.
== .
#
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless
infinite void.
http://discovermagazine.com/topics/space
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
!!!!!!!!!!!
================ . .
archytas
Nov 28, 2009, 8:09:06 AM11/28/09
to Epistemology
Surely there are some thoughts Georges, otherwise how do we arrive at
the notion of something 'empty' only on average?
> infinite void.http://discovermagazine.com/topics/spacehttp://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-o...
> !!!!!!!!!!!
> ================ . .
the notion of something 'empty' only on average?
> !!!!!!!!!!!
> ================ . .
archytas
Nov 28, 2009, 8:10:46 AM11/28/09
to Epistemology
Relativity can be traced to much earlier times than Einstein. I'm not
sure the corner is painted to anyway. Most current problems are to do
with idiot thinking.
sure the corner is painted to anyway. Most current problems are to do
with idiot thinking.
Georges Metanomski
Nov 28, 2009, 8:25:34 AM11/28/09
to episte...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [epistemology 11013] Re: Different points of view.
> To: "Epistemology" <episte...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Saturday, November 28, 2009, 1:09 PM
> Surely there are some thoughts
> Georges,
============
> To: "Epistemology" <episte...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Saturday, November 28, 2009, 1:09 PM
> Surely there are some thoughts
> Georges,
G:
Not in physics. And even in current language "empty glass" means
having no wine, but contains air. And words are there to HINT
the meaning, but taken verbatim hide it.
Georges
==============
nominal9
Nov 28, 2009, 9:31:54 AM11/28/09
to Epistemology
I can, but will not. I will let you have the pleasure of doing your
own research. / Ornamentalmind
Oh, so that;s the way of it, is it?... Well, if you're going to be
"snooty".... let me be a bit "sarcastic" in return....If I assume that
this "void" exists only in some contemplative or meditative state
attained in the mind of the Adept... does that mean that the said
Adept-practitioner is .... empty-headed?....
nominal9
ornamentalmind
Nov 28, 2009, 11:47:59 AM11/28/09
to Epistemology
...for you, the 'lazy' one, it is nom! :-)
ornamentalmind
Nov 28, 2009, 11:52:32 AM11/28/09
to Epistemology
Interesting notion archy...idiot thinking. With almost 20 million
Google hits, one would think I should know what it means. Alas, I am
lacking in that regard…having no specific tenets for this class of
thought let alone other criteria for it other than obviously I don’t
think that way. (irony)
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Google hits, one would think I should know what it means. Alas, I am
lacking in that regard…having no specific tenets for this class of
thought let alone other criteria for it other than obviously I don’t
think that way. (irony)
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
archytas
Nov 28, 2009, 7:24:42 PM11/28/09
to Epistemology
Just more shorthand on the idiot. There is a separation of truth and
meaning in scientific epistemology. We speak of holes as though they
are objects, of light as propagated with mass rather than as
disturbance in a medium. We may reason in metalanguages or move
symbols about. Such is not discussion of what it feels like to be
alone or 'at one', yet tends in its actions to have made decisions
about such feelings as piffle to the aims of science.
> ...
>
> read more »
meaning in scientific epistemology. We speak of holes as though they
are objects, of light as propagated with mass rather than as
disturbance in a medium. We may reason in metalanguages or move
symbols about. Such is not discussion of what it feels like to be
alone or 'at one', yet tends in its actions to have made decisions
about such feelings as piffle to the aims of science.
>
> read more »
Georges Metanomski
Nov 29, 2009, 6:14:29 AM11/29/09
to episte...@googlegroups.com
--- On Sun, 11/29/09, archytas <arch...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> Just more shorthand on the
> idiot.
===============
G:
Which idiot?
================
Neil:
There is a separation of truth and
> meaning in scientific epistemology.
=================
G:
Quite a separation indeed:
There ain't no sich animal as "truth" in science. There is a fuzzy
plausibility, but even that has nothing to do with "meaning".
"Meaning" (of abstraction) is the pointer to observable event(s)
it represents.
=================
Neil:
We speak of holes as though they are objects, ...
================
G:
Who speaks? About which "holes"? And what are "objects"?
===============
Neil:
... of light as propagated with mass rather than as
disturbance in a medium.
===============
G:
Which "mass"? Mass is just a mathematical coefficient having no
phenomenal meaning. Which "medium"? How "disturbed"?
Since the death of Aether light has no "medium", disturbed or
otherwise.
Present my respects to the idiot.
Georges.
==============
archytas
Nov 29, 2009, 9:33:15 AM11/29/09
to Epistemology
Sadly Georges, one can play these idiot games with words at will and
choose meaning in them having failed to grok the other's. We wouldn't
know truth if we met it, should it be possible to achieve. You ask
the usual questions about holes, though these have long been
answered. Maybe you have lost your spade? Has the Higg's Field
replaced the Aether? Does it bring about some new notion of mass?
How is it possible to make one's mind up on theories of tired light?
On 29 Nov, 11:14, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
choose meaning in them having failed to grok the other's. We wouldn't
know truth if we met it, should it be possible to achieve. You ask
the usual questions about holes, though these have long been
answered. Maybe you have lost your spade? Has the Higg's Field
replaced the Aether? Does it bring about some new notion of mass?
How is it possible to make one's mind up on theories of tired light?
On 29 Nov, 11:14, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Georges Metanomski
Nov 29, 2009, 10:47:43 AM11/29/09
to episte...@googlegroups.com
--- On Sun, 11/29/09, archytas <arch...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> From: archytas <arch...@live.co.uk>
> Subject: [epistemology 11021] Re: Different points of view.
> To: "Epistemology" <episte...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Sunday, November 29, 2009, 2:33 PM
> Sadly Georges, one can play these
> idiot games with words at will and
> choose meaning in them having failed to grok the
> other's.
=============
G:
One may, I don't. Meaning of a concept it's the structure of perceived/
recalled events, a point. So, it's given and there is nothing to
choose, unless one wants to lie to himself.
=============
Neil:
We wouldn't
> know truth if we met it, should it be possible to
> achieve.
===============
G:
Sure we wouldn't, as there ain't no sich animal as truth.
===============
Neil:
You ask
> the usual questions about holes, though these have long
> been
> answered. Maybe you have lost your spade?
===============
G:
I did not ask any questions about holes, usual or otherwise. I just
asked what you meant by "holes"
==============
Neil:
Has
> the Higg's Field
> replaced the Aether?
==============
G:
No. Knowing both you would not ask.
================
Neil:
Does it bring about some new
> notion of mass?
================
G:
No. "Mass" stays a pure mathematical, abstract coefficient without
any concrete physical meaning. BTW, what is its "old notion"?
===============
Neil:
> How is it possible to make one's mind up on theories of
> tired light?
==============
G:
I don't know. I ignore them and, unlike most, hate to prattle about what I ignore.
CHeers
Georges.
============
archytas
Nov 30, 2009, 6:29:14 AM11/30/09
to Epistemology
Good form Georges - shall I now accuse you of being in denial so we
can kill some more trees wondering why that isn't science? We tend to
write Curate's Eggs.
There is a serious point for me in wondering how what we can know of
science 'translates' into much more ordinary thinking that generally
leads much less conclusively to experiment. Something has to be
better than Nazi and Soviet Paradise or the dumb-irrational quasi-
capitalism that is, despite being so obviously flawed. Your notion
that words 'hint' is a good one, somewhat belied by your tendency to
silence others (though for god's sake some need a sock in the mouth)!
On 29 Nov, 15:47, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
can kill some more trees wondering why that isn't science? We tend to
write Curate's Eggs.
There is a serious point for me in wondering how what we can know of
science 'translates' into much more ordinary thinking that generally
leads much less conclusively to experiment. Something has to be
better than Nazi and Soviet Paradise or the dumb-irrational quasi-
capitalism that is, despite being so obviously flawed. Your notion
that words 'hint' is a good one, somewhat belied by your tendency to
silence others (though for god's sake some need a sock in the mouth)!
On 29 Nov, 15:47, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Sun, 11/29/09, archytas <archy...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > From: archytas <archy...@live.co.uk>
>
> > From: archytas <archy...@live.co.uk>
nominal9
Nov 30, 2009, 11:22:43 AM11/30/09
to Epistemology
Emptiness merely means the
truth that anything is empty of inherent existence. No thing/thought
arises out of nothing. Further, such things have component parts. If
they are conceptual or perceptual, specific thoughts/words etc. are
involved and have direct links to it and those so linked things are a
part and parcel of the thing currently under investigation. Thus, it
is related to other things/thoughts/concepts etc. Being so related
directly implies a relationship and relative nature. This all
identifies the set of relative/subjective ‘mind’.
There also exists that which has no components or movement. This is
the absolute/objective ‘mind’.
And, we have in fact produced a synthetic separation here too.
On a more mundane level, Albert E.’s addition of relativity to
western
thought has helped to support and change previous anti-metaphysical
views. The result is the philosophical corner currently most find
themselves painted into. A more practical level helps one to
understand how politicians, educators, thinkers etc. now find no
‘center’…no ethos other than one without a possibility of actual
ethics. This because ‘everything is relative’. Well, it is for their
Now this has some meat to it, Orn,... but I wonder if you aren't
making some sort of mistake in the way that you "posit" or define the
word-term "mind" in the one case as opposed to the other what you call
the distinction between .... relative/subjective 'mind' as
distinguished from absolute/objective "mind"?
Is a person of "two minds" (I ask in pun)?.... Now, considering the
little that I do know about contemplative or meditative philosophies
(Little, I said).....Where do the two "minds" reside?... Is the
relative/subjective 'mind' particular and peculiar to the single
person? But is the absolute/objective 'mind' somehow "outside" the
person (if northing else in the sense of having an existence or a
status apart from the particular and peculiar single person? Is the
absolute/ objective mind a "state of consciousness that the mind has
to attain... go to, to use a spatial term?
I have to say, in warning... whenever I hear anyone say "objective
mind" I pretty much automatically think, "phenomenologist"... my
personal bane, althiough it is an "epistemological option up to each
individual.s "choice" to decide.
A little disjointed as to sequence but... to get back to the relative/
subjective mind... can it "exist" (in the sense of function, if
nothing else) in the absence of those exrternal "stimuli" from
"something" external to it?... what's the separation point or the"cut-
off" betwen the outside "thing" and the stimulus to the senses or
otherwise...( intellect or emotion, as examples of otherwise). In
consequence... are all such relative/subjective "thoughts" part of the
mind or are they ONLY "specific thoughts/words etc. are
involved and have direct links to it and those so linked things are a
part and parcel of the thing currently under investigation" (your
words)?... I hope you see where I'm going with this... if my relative/
sibjective thoughts of an "outside" thing are part and parcel of the
said "thing"... then any "mistakes" I may have in my understanding of
the said thing are because the thing "Lied" to me????
nominal9
ornamentalmind
Nov 30, 2009, 11:50:24 AM11/30/09
to Epistemology
“Now this has some meat to it, Orn,...” – nom
Thanks.
“… but I wonder if you aren't making some sort of mistake in the way
First, I wish to give a philosopher, Ichazo, full credit for this
philosophy of 3 minds including the specific terms. I have studied him
for many years now and personally find that his analysis here is spot
on. So, it is not my positing, just my recognition of the truth of his
independent and original work.
This said, I find no mistake in the core integral philosophy.
You continued with specific questions, some of which I’m not sure I
can clarify. As to inside/outside, consciousness itself is neither.
Consciousness is one. Here I will conflate what is a pure presentation
by an analogy with what little I know about the Buddhist Mind Only
schools. It is a very similar view.
Now as to attainment, your questions do follow my partial
presentation. I did list two minds, the relative and the absolute.
What may clarify most of your questions including the apparent duality
is that there is a 3rd mind in this philosophy along with a coherent
praxis of so achieving. This is the ornamental mind. (Ichazo) This
mind is the union of the relative and the absolute, consubstantially.
In a nutshell, that is it. And, rather than address your valid
questions that were based on my partial presentation last time, I’ll
await your intake of the complete thing.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Thanks.
“… but I wonder if you aren't making some sort of mistake in the way
that you "posit" or define the word-term "mind" in the one case as
opposed to the other what you call the distinction between ....
relative/subjective 'mind' as distinguished from absolute/objective
"mind"?” – nom
opposed to the other what you call the distinction between ....
relative/subjective 'mind' as distinguished from absolute/objective
First, I wish to give a philosopher, Ichazo, full credit for this
philosophy of 3 minds including the specific terms. I have studied him
for many years now and personally find that his analysis here is spot
on. So, it is not my positing, just my recognition of the truth of his
independent and original work.
This said, I find no mistake in the core integral philosophy.
You continued with specific questions, some of which I’m not sure I
can clarify. As to inside/outside, consciousness itself is neither.
Consciousness is one. Here I will conflate what is a pure presentation
by an analogy with what little I know about the Buddhist Mind Only
schools. It is a very similar view.
Now as to attainment, your questions do follow my partial
presentation. I did list two minds, the relative and the absolute.
What may clarify most of your questions including the apparent duality
is that there is a 3rd mind in this philosophy along with a coherent
praxis of so achieving. This is the ornamental mind. (Ichazo) This
mind is the union of the relative and the absolute, consubstantially.
In a nutshell, that is it. And, rather than address your valid
questions that were based on my partial presentation last time, I’ll
await your intake of the complete thing.
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
archytas
Dec 1, 2009, 12:07:35 AM12/1/09
to Epistemology
Einstein's relativity was an enormous effort in combining maths with
the empirical in my view. Some relate Duns Scotus and Occham with a
break from authority and the opening up of possibilities in thinking
and away from the contemplation of miracles (etc). I don't associate
any of this with Eastern mysticism, but rather foot-soldiers at the
bench like Hopf. It is true that one never meets nature without being
part of it and that one can choose to meet it with a head full of the
book of spells or the books of science - or perhaps with neither other
than through 'slippage'. Given the crud around to soak up, one
probably has to spend a lot of time trying to observe and speculate as
far as one can without the baggage. Not being Einstein, my science
has been limited to taking its books on trust and doing a few things,
though I can demonstrate him doing just this in work on 'molecular
distances' and supportive critique of Planck. We neglect much if we
make the scientific model (there isn't 'one') so rigid it can't
influence the person, integrity and a place of safety in intellectual
virtue. There is something of the scientist in thinking 'fuck it, I'd
rather die than live on my knees' - though many scientists have lacked
this.
I have come tor respect Orn enough because of what he is able to say
about society. I rather hope he is not 'bowing to goat's heads', but
if he was, would have to wonder whether this were connected to the
sense he often makes.
> ...
>
> read more »
the empirical in my view. Some relate Duns Scotus and Occham with a
break from authority and the opening up of possibilities in thinking
and away from the contemplation of miracles (etc). I don't associate
any of this with Eastern mysticism, but rather foot-soldiers at the
bench like Hopf. It is true that one never meets nature without being
part of it and that one can choose to meet it with a head full of the
book of spells or the books of science - or perhaps with neither other
than through 'slippage'. Given the crud around to soak up, one
probably has to spend a lot of time trying to observe and speculate as
far as one can without the baggage. Not being Einstein, my science
has been limited to taking its books on trust and doing a few things,
though I can demonstrate him doing just this in work on 'molecular
distances' and supportive critique of Planck. We neglect much if we
make the scientific model (there isn't 'one') so rigid it can't
influence the person, integrity and a place of safety in intellectual
virtue. There is something of the scientist in thinking 'fuck it, I'd
rather die than live on my knees' - though many scientists have lacked
this.
I have come tor respect Orn enough because of what he is able to say
about society. I rather hope he is not 'bowing to goat's heads', but
if he was, would have to wonder whether this were connected to the
sense he often makes.
>
> read more »
einseele
Dec 1, 2009, 7:27:42 AM12/1/09
to Epistemology
Hi Neil,
I disagree here with you, infromation cannot be carried or limited,
because those are attributes of volumes, and information is not a
volume, to me information is just an address,
Well, one can say a volume is needed to point to that address, for
instance # 212-255 0000
But this is information as well, and can be pointed differently.
In any case we carry just the pointers, information is not a volume
I disagree here with you, infromation cannot be carried or limited,
because those are attributes of volumes, and information is not a
volume, to me information is just an address,
Well, one can say a volume is needed to point to that address, for
instance # 212-255 0000
But this is information as well, and can be pointed differently.
In any case we carry just the pointers, information is not a volume
socratus
Dec 1, 2009, 10:07:42 AM12/1/09
to Epistemology
On Dec 1, 2:27 pm, einseele <einse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Neil,
> I disagree here with you, infromation cannot be carried or limited,
>
> In any case we carry just the pointers, information is not a volume
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
=====================
#
Electron and Information
Information can transfer, for example, to this thread
only be electromagnetic waves.
But there isn’t electromagnetic waves without Electron.
Electron carries the minimum quantum of Information.
Electron itself is Quantum of Information.
===== .
socratus
Dec 1, 2009, 10:13:47 AM12/1/09
to Epistemology
#
Electron and Information
Information can transfer, for example, to this thread
But there isn’t electromagnetic waves without Electron.
Electron carries the minimum quantum of Information.
Electron itself is a Quantum of Information.
Electron carries the minimum quantum of Information.
===== .
archytas
Dec 1, 2009, 11:57:26 AM12/1/09
to Epistemology
Hi Carlos - I never really grok what you mean by information. For
that matter, I can never really understand how I can recover wads of
files from PCs even though I understand that all that was removed was
the 'address'. I can do quite a lot of things others can't without
training; are you saying this is just because I've collected a lot of
addresses?
that matter, I can never really understand how I can recover wads of
files from PCs even though I understand that all that was removed was
the 'address'. I can do quite a lot of things others can't without
training; are you saying this is just because I've collected a lot of
addresses?
einseele
Dec 1, 2009, 4:22:41 PM12/1/09
to Epistemology
Nothing is in electron like information, information needs to be read.
The minimum structure needed for information consist of a binary
system,
You have then
1 electron,
2 absence of that electron (absence of the signal is as meaningful as
the electron)
there is a quantum of information in something which is not there,
represented in a binary system by 0s
3 a gap, a distance between electron and its absence
The minimum for information is a binary system which is made of three
elements
1. something
2. its absence
3. the limit between
The minimum structure needed for information consist of a binary
system,
You have then
1 electron,
2 absence of that electron (absence of the signal is as meaningful as
the electron)
there is a quantum of information in something which is not there,
represented in a binary system by 0s
3 a gap, a distance between electron and its absence
The minimum for information is a binary system which is made of three
elements
1. something
2. its absence
3. the limit between
einseele
Dec 1, 2009, 4:24:20 PM12/1/09
to Epistemology
Information is transferred by electromagnetic waves which print a dot
somewhere and a distance between dots, you read the dots as far as
they show separate
somewhere and a distance between dots, you read the dots as far as
they show separate
einseele
Dec 1, 2009, 4:34:53 PM12/1/09
to Epistemology
Hi Neal
Then when you look for information you tell your device to look into,
for instance:
Allow me an example within Windows' meaning reference
C\My Computer\My anything\My stuff\My hidden secrets :-)...\my.doc
You go down through a nested structure following a strict path until
you finally get "my.doc"
Then you "open" the thing and continue to read.... what? Why do you
thing that your are now doing any different.
In fact when you read you continue to travel down through language up
to...?
Well, up to that which makes senses to you in your language/knowledge
area, that final understanding is what I call information, and it is
certainly an address, a number, within a space which is unique for
you, and which sometimes we try to describe/transfere/conceive to
someone else.
Then when you look for information you tell your device to look into,
for instance:
Allow me an example within Windows' meaning reference
C\My Computer\My anything\My stuff\My hidden secrets :-)...\my.doc
You go down through a nested structure following a strict path until
you finally get "my.doc"
Then you "open" the thing and continue to read.... what? Why do you
thing that your are now doing any different.
In fact when you read you continue to travel down through language up
to...?
Well, up to that which makes senses to you in your language/knowledge
area, that final understanding is what I call information, and it is
certainly an address, a number, within a space which is unique for
you, and which sometimes we try to describe/transfere/conceive to
someone else.
archytas
Dec 1, 2009, 11:56:22 PM12/1/09
to Epistemology
I do understand to an extent Carlos, but I have the address of the
library down to the book on self-made men that decries this concept as
bollox (their own stories and myths about them turn out not to be
true). The book is material and full of words which work on me. Even
addresses in my documents turn up an equivalent, say of dross I wrote
on HRM to make a living once. Of course, in any future there might
be, someone might find this address and wonder what strange rituals I
was practising. You often have a poetic grasp of words - are we
seeking to reduce this to binary? Georges was kind enough to hint at
'dark matter' being an 'address' the other day, though I'm thinking of
it in terms of powering rockets (is it the neutralino that is its own
anti-particle, thus producing 'endless' gamma to puke out of the
back)? I appreciate that he got me thinking on a bit of a different
track. Would it be possible to write this all out in binary? I guess
so, but will leave others to this 'blessing' and continue with my
science fiction. I doubt we could be at odds on any of this. I just
wonder what the point of the reduction is outside of certain context.
On a slightly different tack, it may be possible to address points and
activity in those universes in our front rooms we never see because
light runs underneath them (though inhabitants of such addresses may
see us). Detections of such addresses would be done through gravity
observations, as this is suspected of leaking through. No doubt some
non-commutative geometry will be involved. I don't mind saying it's
beyond my grok. I'm still unable to satisfy my own logic with how I
can access deleted files with Easyrecover, even though I know it
writes the addresses back in. Are hard disks some kind of Hilbert
Hotel which can never be full? If so why do we need bigger ones? I
feel comfortable telling some cop that these are the deleted emails
that some turd accountant was trying to hide, when he did it and so
on, but I don't get why the information is still there. I sort of
know why a car goes, but feel 'out of water' with virtual space.
I've long thought that the kind of relativism used by dorks to justify
their point of view implies a realism of facts they won't address.
Our legal systems are full on donkey-logic and so on. There is much
logic and good sense should be doing in our day-to-day. Away from
this, I love speculation that the whole shebang might be the history
of an electron travelling through time, or a positron going backwards
in it. I think I glimpse something of potential difference in what
you are saying and a personal confusion in me as to whether I'm
wondering how any of this helps us understand why some people think
the likes of Blair, Bush and even Obama offer us any hope. No doubt
we should digitally re-master politics to play a different tune,
though we'd both baulk at the implications of that!
library down to the book on self-made men that decries this concept as
bollox (their own stories and myths about them turn out not to be
true). The book is material and full of words which work on me. Even
addresses in my documents turn up an equivalent, say of dross I wrote
on HRM to make a living once. Of course, in any future there might
be, someone might find this address and wonder what strange rituals I
was practising. You often have a poetic grasp of words - are we
seeking to reduce this to binary? Georges was kind enough to hint at
'dark matter' being an 'address' the other day, though I'm thinking of
it in terms of powering rockets (is it the neutralino that is its own
anti-particle, thus producing 'endless' gamma to puke out of the
back)? I appreciate that he got me thinking on a bit of a different
track. Would it be possible to write this all out in binary? I guess
so, but will leave others to this 'blessing' and continue with my
science fiction. I doubt we could be at odds on any of this. I just
wonder what the point of the reduction is outside of certain context.
On a slightly different tack, it may be possible to address points and
activity in those universes in our front rooms we never see because
light runs underneath them (though inhabitants of such addresses may
see us). Detections of such addresses would be done through gravity
observations, as this is suspected of leaking through. No doubt some
non-commutative geometry will be involved. I don't mind saying it's
beyond my grok. I'm still unable to satisfy my own logic with how I
can access deleted files with Easyrecover, even though I know it
writes the addresses back in. Are hard disks some kind of Hilbert
Hotel which can never be full? If so why do we need bigger ones? I
feel comfortable telling some cop that these are the deleted emails
that some turd accountant was trying to hide, when he did it and so
on, but I don't get why the information is still there. I sort of
know why a car goes, but feel 'out of water' with virtual space.
I've long thought that the kind of relativism used by dorks to justify
their point of view implies a realism of facts they won't address.
Our legal systems are full on donkey-logic and so on. There is much
logic and good sense should be doing in our day-to-day. Away from
this, I love speculation that the whole shebang might be the history
of an electron travelling through time, or a positron going backwards
in it. I think I glimpse something of potential difference in what
you are saying and a personal confusion in me as to whether I'm
wondering how any of this helps us understand why some people think
the likes of Blair, Bush and even Obama offer us any hope. No doubt
we should digitally re-master politics to play a different tune,
though we'd both baulk at the implications of that!
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages