New Age physicists?
Hawk
highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
(Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
Thanks a lot
jmfb...@aol.com
New Agers have digressed quite a bit.
When does a person, who practices three religions, sleep?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Dirk Bruere
"Hawk" <giuff...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:3d3ffd04...@news.tiscali.it...
> In your opinion, can a scientist, expecially a physicists, be an
> highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
> (Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
Depends whether the religion is patently and testably false, or requires
beliefs that are contrary to known science.
Almost all votive religions or philosophies (eg Buddhism, Taoism) are
acceptable.
Most steeped in miracles and 'magick' aren't.
Dirk
Gregory L. Hansen
Besides practicing his profession, a scientist can be pretty much whatever
he wants.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Sam Wormley
Dirk Bruere
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3D402047...@mchsi.com...
The problem with 'pop surveys' such as 'do you believe in God?' is that
there is an unconscious assumption that it is the Xian God that is being
referred to.
replace 'God' with 'an underlying unifying principle or process' and you'd
likely get 100% yes.
Dirk
Sam Wormley
>
>
> The problem with 'pop surveys' such as 'do you believe in God?' is that
> there is an unconscious assumption that it is the Xian God that is being
> referred to.
>
I don't thing there is that ambiguity!
Dirk Bruere
So, when asked that question Odin springs to your mind eh?
Dirk
Bruce Scott TOK
That is no more (maybe less) a problem than the scientist being a really
serious follower of Christianity.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
Dirk Bruere
"Bruce Scott TOK" <b...@rzg.mpg.de> wrote in message
news:ahpd6v...@subds.rzg.mpg.de...
> In article <3d3ffd04...@news.tiscali.it>,
> Hawk <giuff...@softhome.net> wrote:
> >In your opinion, can a scientist, expecially a physicists, be an
> >highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
> >(Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
>
> That is no more (maybe less) a problem than the scientist being a really
> serious follower of Christianity.
I don't know of any scientist who is so stupid as to be an Xian
Fundamentalist believing in the literal truth of the bible.
Dirk
Pmb
> In your opinion, can a scientist, expecially a physicists, be an
> highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
> (Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
Sure. Why not? As Einstein said "Science without religion is lame,
religion without science is blind"
Pmb
Dirk Bruere
"Pmb" <pm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ac61757.02072...@posting.google.com...
And when there's conflict science should get the priority.
Dirk
Gregory L. Hansen
Not all Exxians are Exxian Fundamentalists believing in a literal truth of
the Bible.
Leo Sgouros
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ahpjts$l0q$2...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <ahpf78$uivcn$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de>,
> Dirk Bruere <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >"Bruce Scott TOK" <b...@rzg.mpg.de> wrote in message
> >news:ahpd6v...@subds.rzg.mpg.de...
> >> In article <3d3ffd04...@news.tiscali.it>,
> >> Hawk <giuff...@softhome.net> wrote:
> >> >In your opinion, can a scientist, expecially a physicists, be an
> >> >highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
> >> >(Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
> >>
> >> That is no more (maybe less) a problem than the scientist being a
really
> >> serious follower of Christianity.
> >
> >I don't know of any scientist who is so stupid as to be an Xian
> >Fundamentalist believing in the literal truth of the bible.
>
> Not all Exxians are Exxian Fundamentalists believing in a literal truth of
> the Bible.
>
No more than Odin worshippers are all Nazi's.
Which is where I first crossed paths with Dirkless-not that anyone notices.
Oriel36
Yes,even a cursory glance at our history suggests that our ancestors
concerned themselves with the idea that a greater Life encompassed
their own,this is a fundamental tenet of all religions,only in the
direction those beliefs take do they differ.Contrary to what most here
would have you believe,our ancestors neither feared nature or the
unknown,the chances are that presently our contemporaries fear it and
look for comfort in the certainties of 'fact',but religion in its most
developed form does not answer with fact,nor is it a
theory,opinion,socially derived,culturally conditioned (at least up to
a point),nor will men outgrow it for although they may deny
religion,God,life -Eternal and temporal,they will just be setting up
another form of religion.William Blake wrote that "men will have
religion even if it is the religion of the devil",in religious
symbolism the devil was always the striving for the self,the me,the
mine and in this respect the devil is real.Look about you in this
forum and perhaps take note of the words of the 14th century Theologia
Germanica and for right or wrong see if his words apply,again noting
that it is religion in its highly developed form and far removed from
denominational religion.
"CHAPTER XX
How, seeing that the Life of Christ is most bitter to Nature and Self,
Nature will have none of it, and chooseth a false careless Life, as is
most convenient to her.
Now, since the life of Christ is every way most bitter to our outward
nature and the Self, the Me and the Mine (for in the true life of
Christ, the Self, the Me and the Mine and nature must be forsaken and
lost, and die altogether), therefore, in each of us, nature has a
horror of it, and thinks it evil and unjust and a mistake, and grasps
after such a life as shall be most comfortable and pleasant to
herself, and says, and believes also in her blindness, that such a
life is the best possible. Now, nothing is so comfortable and pleasant
to nature, as a free, careless way of life, therefore she clings to
that life, and takes enjoyment in herself and her own powers, and
looks only to her own peace and comfort and the like. And this happens
most of all, where there are high natural gifts of reason, for that
soars upwards in its own light and by its own power, till at last it
comes to think itself the true Eternal Light, and gives itself out as
such, and is thus deceived in itself, and deceiving other people along
with it, who know no better, and also are thereunto inclined."
Apart from denominational Christianity which I do not comment on,there
is another form of Christianity where those with no courage would
hesitate to look upon for it takes the full blast of every question
ever asked without destroying the individual,only those who are
prepared to go through the storm of 'not' knowing and reach the
eye,within this eye only love prevails and not intellectual
knowledge.For Dante as for Joyce,for all their knowledge and
creativity it is the will for good and not for certainty is all that
is ever asked.
"I saw that in its depth far down is lying
Bound up with love together in one volume,
What through the universe in leaves is scattered;
Substance, and accident, and their operations,
All interfused together in such wise
That what I speak of is one simple light
Not because more than one unmingled semblance
Was in the living light on which I looked,
For it is always what it was before;
The Love which moves the sun and the other stars. "
Dante 'Paradisio'
http://www.ku.edu/~hisite/carrie/dante_paradise.html
. My leaves have drifted from me. All. But one clings still. I'll bear
it on me. To remind me of. Lff! So soft this morning, ours.
Joyce 'Finnegans wake'
grelbr
> When does a person, who practices three religions, sleep?
Heh heh heh! During church services of course!
grelbr
Dirk Bruere
"Leo Sgouros" <hpa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6uY%8.277488$iX5.14...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
> "Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:ahpjts$l0q$2...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
> > >> >highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
> > >> >(Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
> > >>
> > >> That is no more (maybe less) a problem than the scientist being a
> really
> > >> serious follower of Christianity.
> > >
> > >I don't know of any scientist who is so stupid as to be an Xian
> > >Fundamentalist believing in the literal truth of the bible.
> >
> > Not all Exxians are Exxian Fundamentalists believing in a literal truth
of
> > the Bible.
Then the Fundies would claim they are not Xian.
> No more than Odin worshippers are all Nazi's.
True.
> Which is where I first crossed paths with Dirkless-not that anyone
notices.
Not anyone here.
Dirk
Oriel36
> In article <3d3ffd04...@news.tiscali.it>,
> Hawk <giuff...@softhome.net> wrote:
> >In your opinion, can a scientist, expecially a physicists, be an
> >highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
> >(Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
> >Thanks a lot
>
>
> Besides practicing his profession, a scientist can be pretty much whatever
> he wants.
Greg
Joyce left a commentary for you.A scientist such as you designate
yourself cannot be a poet nor understand poetry,nor a composer or
appreceate music for you stand opposed to those elements of the soul
from which these creative endeavors emerge.
". My great blue bedroom, the air so quiet, scarce a cloud.
In peace and silence. I could have stayed up there for always only.
It's something fails us. First we feel. Then we fall. And let her rain
now if she likes. Gently or strongly as she likes. Anyway let her
rain for my time is come. I done me best when I was let. Think-
ing always if I go all goes. A hundred cares, a tithe of troubles and
is there one who understands me? One in a thousand of years of
the nights? All me life I have been lived among them but now
they are becoming lothed to me. And I am lothing their little
warm tricks. And lothing their mean cosy turns. And all the
greedy gushes out through their small souls."
'Finnegans Wake'
Greg your religion is described below,while it was written by the
commies and for them,it aims are to keep the soul as represented by
the highly developed form of religion out of view.The thing is that
once man finds his absolute nature,even partially,you cannot box him
in again.For me,knowing how the world works is not enough and no
consolation,I can put the description below in context of scientific
enquiry in regard to the study of natural phenomena rather than
'psychopolitics' but ultimately both man and nature get
betrayed,people who know no better believe in the lies and the scam
but who would know it apart from the few that show up here and fight
tooth and nail against a bunch who are too well aware of where they
stand with opposition for the most part and parrots and likeminded.
[The commies idea of the Church may not be as bad as yours for it
lumps all denominations,the good along with the spurious into one
heading however lately this approach has become more prevalent in your
circles by conveniently tarring all Christians with the creationist
brush].
"CHAPTER XIV
THE SMASHING OF RELIGIOUS GROUPS
You must know that until recent times the complete subject of mental
derangement, whether so light as simple worry or so heavy as insanity,
was the sphere of activity of the church and only the church.
Traditionally in civilized nations and barbaric ones the priesthood
alone had in complete charge the mental conditions of the citizen. As
a matter of great concern to the psychopolitician this tendency still
exists in every public in the Western World and scientific inroads
into this sphere has occurred only in official and never in public
quarters.
The magnificent tool wielded for us by Wundt would be as nothing if it
were not for official insistence in civilized countries that
"scientific practices" be applied to the problem of the mind. Without
this official insistence or even if it relapsed for a moment, the
masses would grasp stupidly for the priest, the minister, and the
clergy when mental condition came in question. Today in Europe and
America "scientific practices" in the field of the mind would not last
moments if not enforced entirely by officialdom.
It must be carefully hidden that the incidence of insanity has
increased only since thee "scientific practices" were applied. Great
remarks must be made of the "the pace of modern living" and other
myths as the cause of the increased neurosis in the world. It is
nothing to us what causes it if anything does. It is everything to us
that no evidence of any kind shall be tolerated afoot to permit the
public tendency toward the church its way. If given their heads, if
left to themselves to decide, independent of officialdom, where they
would place their deranged loved ones the public would choose
religious sanitariums and would avoid as if plagued places where
"scientific practices" prevail.
Given any slightest encouragement, public support would swing on an
instant all mental healing into the hands of the churches. And there
are Churches waiting to receive it, clever churches. That terrible
monster, the Roman Catholic Church, still dominates mental healing
heavily throughout the Christian world and their well schooled priests
are always at work to turn the public their way. Among Fundamentalist
and Pentecostal groups, healing campaigns are conducted, which,
because of their results, win many to the cult of Christianity. In the
field of pure healing the Church of Christ Science of Boston,
Massachusetts excels in commanding the public favor and operates many
sanitariums. All of these must be swept aside. They must be ridiculed
and defamed and every cure they advertise must be asserted a hoax. A
full fifth of a psychopolitician's time should be devoted to smashing
these threats. Just as in Russian we had to destroy, after many, many
years of most arduous work, the Church, so we must destroy all faiths
in nations marked for conquest.
Insanity must be made to hound the footsteps of every priest and
practitioner. His best results must be turned to jabbering insanities
no matter what means we have to use.
You need not care what effect you have upon the public. The effect you
care about is the one upon officials. You must recruit every agency of
the nation marked for slaughter into a foaming hatred of religious
healing. You must suborn district attorneys and judges into an intense
belief as fervent as an ancient faith in God that Christian Science or
any other religious practice which might devote itself to mental
healing is vicious, bad, insanity-causing, publicly hated and
intolerable.
You must suborn and recruit any medical healing organization into
collusion in this campaign. You must appeal to their avarice and even
their humanity to invite their co-operation in smashing all religious
healing and thus, to our end, care of the insane. You must see that
such societies have only qualified Communist-indoctrinees as their
advisors in this matter. For you can use such societies. They are
stupid and stampede easily. Their cloak and degrees can be used quite
well to mask any operation we care to have masked. We must make them
partners in our endeavor so that they will never be able to crawl from
beneath our thumb and discredit us.
We have battled in America since the century's turn to bring to
nothing any and all Christian influences and we are succeeding. While
we today seem to be kind to the Christian, remember, we have yet to
influence the "Christian world" to our ends. When that is done we
shall have an end of them everywhere. You may see them here in Russia
as trained apes. They do not know their tether is long only until the
apes in other lands have become unwary.
You must work until "religion" is synonymous with "insanity."" You
must work until the officials of city, county and state governments
will not think twice before they pounce upon religious groups as
public enemies.
Remember, all lands are governed by the few and only pretend to
consult with the many. It is no different in America. The petty
official, the maker of laws alike can be made to believe the worst. It
is not necessary to convince the masses. It is only necessary to work
incessantly upon the official, using personal defamations, wild lies,
false evidences and constant propaganda to make him fight for you
against the church or against any practitioner.
Like the official, the bona-fide medical healer also believes the
worst if it can be shown to him as dangerous competition. And like the
Christian, should he seek to take from us any right we have gained, we
shall finish him as well.
We must be like the vine upon the tree. We use the tree to climb and
then, strangling it, grow into power on the nourishment of its flesh.
We must strike from our path any opposition. We must use for our tools
any authority that comes to hand. And then at last, the decades sped,
we can dispense with all authority save our own and triumph the
greater glory of the Party."
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/psychopolitics-pt2.html#anchor13"
X
Dirk Bruere wrote:
> "Hawk" <giuff...@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:3d3ffd04...@news.tiscali.it...
>
>>In your opinion, can a scientist, expecially a physicists, be an
>>highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
>>(Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
>
>
> Depends whether the religion is patently and testably false, or requires
> beliefs that are contrary to known science.
Good science would believe that everything is possible and explainable,
given the facts, even a cycle of reincarnation could be scientifically
explained, and from the perspective of "known science" it could
plausible theory, speculation or at worst science fiction. Science
should believe that everything is possible. Known science is only a
limited and sometimes flawed body of knowledge, observation, and faith,
not a blueprint for reality. I think your idea of known science is
consensus, which is just lots of people believing the same thing, based
upon very limited knowledge, which is not much more tangible than a
religion. The truth of reality is probably as strange as science fiction.
-X
X
Ideally I'd like to say yes, but in reality, possibly not. Can your
mind cope with paralell philosophies without one philosophy clouding the
other?
-X
Franz Heymann
"Dirk Bruere" <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ahpf78$uivcn$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de...
I do. And he is a Fellow of the Royal Society.
Franz Heymann
Dirk Bruere
"X" <Cont...@ThisGroup.com> wrote in message
news:3D400EB3...@ThisGroup.com...
> >>In your opinion, can a scientist, expecially a physicists, be an
> >>highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
> >>(Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
> >
> >
> > Depends whether the religion is patently and testably false, or requires
> > beliefs that are contrary to known science.
> Good science would believe that everything is possible and explainable,
> given the facts, even a cycle of reincarnation could be scientifically
Ah... 'the facts'. Which are?
> explained, and from the perspective of "known science" it could
> plausible theory, speculation or at worst science fiction. Science
> should believe that everything is possible. Known science is only a
Like the earth being created, literally, in six days and being only a few
thousand years old? And that humanity was a contemporary of the dinosaurs?
'Creation science'?
> limited and sometimes flawed body of knowledge, observation, and faith,
> not a blueprint for reality. I think your idea of known science is
> consensus, which is just lots of people believing the same thing, based
> upon very limited knowledge, which is not much more tangible than a
> religion. The truth of reality is probably as strange as science fiction.
And it rules out quite a few lunatic beliefs now labelled as 'faith'.
Dirk
Gregory L. Hansen
Dirk Bruere <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Leo Sgouros" <hpa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:6uY%8.277488$iX5.14...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>>
>> "Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>> news:ahpjts$l0q$2...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
>> > >> >In your opinion, can a scientist, expecially a physicists, be an
>> > >> >highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
>> > >> >(Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
>> > >>
>> > >> That is no more (maybe less) a problem than the scientist being a
>> really
>> > >> serious follower of Christianity.
>> > >
>> > >I don't know of any scientist who is so stupid as to be an Xian
>> > >Fundamentalist believing in the literal truth of the bible.
>> >
>> > Not all Exxians are Exxian Fundamentalists believing in a literal truth
>of
>> > the Bible.
>
>Then the Fundies would claim they are not Xian.
Only the Fundies care.
Dirk Bruere
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ahpqsu$9cm$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> > > >In your opinion, can a scientist, expecially a physicists, be an
> > > >highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
> > > >(Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
> > >
> > > That is no more (maybe less) a problem than the scientist being a
> really
> > > serious follower of Christianity.
> >
> > I don't know of any scientist who is so stupid as to be an Xian
> > Fundamentalist believing in the literal truth of the bible.
>
> I do. And he is a Fellow of the Royal Society.
Seems from this and other communications I have grossly underestimated the
stupidity/conditioning of what would otherwise be very intelligent rational
people. Still, Orwell had a name for it - doublethink.
Dirk
Gregory L. Hansen
Oriel36 <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
>news:<ahp3n4$j8u$5...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu>...
>> In article <3d3ffd04...@news.tiscali.it>,
>> Hawk <giuff...@softhome.net> wrote:
>> >In your opinion, can a scientist, expecially a physicists, be an
>> >highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
>> >(Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
>> >Thanks a lot
>>
>>
>> Besides practicing his profession, a scientist can be pretty much whatever
>> he wants.
>
>Greg
>
>Joyce left a commentary for you.A scientist such as you designate
>yourself cannot be a poet nor understand poetry,nor a composer or
>appreceate music for you stand opposed to those elements of the soul
>from which these creative endeavors emerge.
Joyce must not know any scientists, for she has in mind some horrible
caricature of an evil mad scientist that doesn't describe anyone I know.
As one attuned to the elements of the soul, she should know better than to
make unfounded generalizations about a group of people, or try to
pigeon-hole anyone into restrictive little groups based solely on an
avocation.
> Greg your religion is described below,while it was written by the
>commies and for them,it aims are to keep the soul as represented by
...
>[The commies idea of the Church may not be as bad as yours for it
>lumps all denominations,the good along with the spurious into one
>heading however lately this approach has become more prevalent in your
>circles by conveniently tarring all Christians with the creationist
>brush].
You have no idea what my religious views are. The only thing you know
about me is that I like physics.
Maleki
giuff...@softhome.net (Hawk) wrote in
<3d3ffd04...@news.tiscali.it> that:
Science is a small part of any religion if you
construct the religion consistently. If the religion
happens to be one that cannot be reconstructed, it is
really not a religion, it would be a cult.
Mark Fergerson
>
> In your opinion, can a scientist, expecially a physicists, be an
> highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
> (Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
I don't see why anyone should care
unless the scientist in question tries
to get Government funding to look for
miracles.
Mark L. Fergerson
Boris Mohar
If religion was self consistent than there would be only one religion.
In the mean time my god has a bigger dick than your god.
Gregory L. Hansen
Lie algebras are self-consistent, but there are more algebras than the Lie
type.
Dirk Bruere
"Boris Mohar" <borism-no...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:d761kugi89u7rekr6...@4ax.com...
One can create any number of self consistent religions.
Dirk
X
Dirk Bruere wrote:
> "X" <Cont...@ThisGroup.com> wrote in message
> news:3D400EB3...@ThisGroup.com...
>
>>>>In your opinion, can a scientist, expecially a physicists, be an
>>>>highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
>>>>(Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
>>>
>>>
>>>Depends whether the religion is patently and testably false, or requires
>>>beliefs that are contrary to known science.
>>
>
>>Good science would believe that everything is possible and explainable,
>>given the facts, even a cycle of reincarnation could be scientifically
>
>
> Ah... 'the facts'. Which are?
We do not know, but potentially it exists and potentially there's a
scientiffic explaination.
-X
X
Most of your beliefs in the sciences are based only upon the faith you
have in the source and establishment, not on first hand discovery or
experience. The name Einstein is like that of a scientific messiah, you
have faith in him because of his fame, but he is in many ways a
crackpot, a false prophet. A great deal of "modern" sciences are
lunatic beliefs.
-X
>
> Dirk
>
>
Gregory L. Hansen
Lunatic beliefs that correctly predict the results of experiments, and
tell us how to manipulate nature to exact specifications. So who cares if
they're lunatic?
2N3819
"X" <Cont...@ThisGroup.com> wrote in message
Ouch!! :c)
You don't pull punches do you. :c)
Maleki
<borism-no...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
<d761kugi89u7rekr6...@4ax.com> that:
Everyone's concern and ability about his religion is
different. One could make his religion consistent to a
lesser extent and stay satisfied with believing within
those limits only. Others might find that too crude and
construct a much larger system consistent within
itself.
Perhaps you meant to say, "there would be only one
god", in which case you're correct of course :-)
Because a religion applies to mankind and not the
people of some particular area or culture. If it was
not so, again it would be a cult and not a religion.
Anyway, a true religion can always be constructed to
hold science very neatly within itself.
X
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> In article <3D408C51...@ThisGroup.com>,
> X <Cont...@ThisGroup.com> wrote:
>
>>>And it rules out quite a few lunatic beliefs now labelled as 'faith'.
>>
>>Most of your beliefs in the sciences are based only upon the faith you
>>have in the source and establishment, not on first hand discovery or
>>experience. The name Einstein is like that of a scientific messiah, you
>>have faith in him because of his fame, but he is in many ways a
>>crackpot, a false prophet. A great deal of "modern" sciences are
>>lunatic beliefs.
>
>
> Lunatic beliefs that correctly predict the results of experiments, and
> tell us how to manipulate nature to exact specifications. So who cares if
> they're lunatic?
Tell me where they manipulate nature to exact specifications? You can't
even create new vegetables here, or have the foresight to repopulate the
oceans with fish.
-X
Maleki
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
wrote in <ahq7bj$mjh$2...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu> that:
>In article <3D408C51...@ThisGroup.com>,
>X <Cont...@ThisGroup.com> wrote:
>>> And it rules out quite a few lunatic beliefs now labelled as 'faith'.
>>
>>Most of your beliefs in the sciences are based only upon the faith you
>>have in the source and establishment, not on first hand discovery or
>>experience. The name Einstein is like that of a scientific messiah, you
>>have faith in him because of his fame, but he is in many ways a
>>crackpot, a false prophet. A great deal of "modern" sciences are
>>lunatic beliefs.
>
>Lunatic beliefs that correctly predict the results of experiments, and
>tell us how to manipulate nature to exact specifications. So who cares if
>they're lunatic?
I saw an interview on TV with a Chinese physics Nobel
Prize winner in which the guy was describing the
experiment (or computation?) they were conducting to
see how exact one of Maxwell's equations were. He said
he was astounded to find that for something like 16
digits after the decimal point the result matched the
equation. So perhaps 'X" means you've got to read up on
such experiments before accepting anything others say.
2N3819
> highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
> (Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
> Thanks a lot
Indeed, why not. When it comes to religion it's possible for a scientist to
believe any kind of religion, and they do, because the religious scientist
is open to the notion of science not being able to explain everything.
But, there is a stronger foundation for some religious scientists other than
a notion that science cannot explain everything. Such, in my opinion would
not likely be pagan though.
Dale A Trynor
> In your opinion, can a scientist, expecially a physicists, be an
> highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
> (Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
> Thanks a lot
Me I wrote my own. All religions either don't offer much and or are
tests of ones stupidity. Many of the people here know about the theory I
have been posting about and it involves the expansion of space by
gravity. For this theory to be right also means that there are much more
probability that more than one universe exists and some are much older
than our own.
The best argument I can find for the possibility of a god and or gods is
one where a civilization became advanced enough, became capable of doing
so and then proceeded to create one. Its not hard to imagine why any
civilization would want to, just as we would wish an after life so would
we for our lost ones. Its then also a question of if it could ever be
possible to do such a thing and of course we cant know this answer just
as we have no way of knowing what the true limitations of science.
Its very likely that something along the lines of the Drake equation
could be used to guess at the possibilities that such a civilization
ever having existed. Of course it would help if anyone could also make
further predictions or validations on the theory on gravitationally
expanded space.
One also has to guess at what are the possibilities of the types of
technologies that would make it all possible and sense no one knows
anything about how a mind works, let alone what a soul is, we are just
as unable to say what might be impossible with anything that relates to
it. I have my own suspicions here and do have an idea on a few of the
possible that soul mechanics could involve. If for example, its an
entity that because it has no mass, would also not be restricted either
the speed of light and because of this may not even be fixed in time
itself for that mater. The idea that it might be possible to reach into
the past and gather up souls by a machine not yet created, would be
intriguing.
Its important to realize, at least from a scientific point of view that
the idea that one has one soul to a mind must be rather absurd. An
argument in the favor that it takes many souls to make up a mind could
be considered supported by experiments done with the divided human mind.
Wish I could tell you where to look but Scientific American did a fairly
good article on it. Find it and you will probably start to share my
opinion.
I don't want to be classed as a crank and its un avoidably that I am and
or will be. And it doesn't help that I asked some of the same questions
that Hammond has long before I ever herd of him, on if the soul or souls
have some of the properties of mass.
On a side point, I feel the greatest real killer for Hammond's
credibility has been his insistence that he has absolute and conclusive
proof of god and not just a hypothesis on the probability of god, or at
least one of the god type of experiences and or etc. I really like to go
all the way with speculation as you can see and are of the opinion that
drugs would only make me normal. So I don't use drugs :)
For example, if it has any potential gravity at all, other questions of
its behavior could be made. You probably wont have any exclusion
principle with it as one dose with matter and if this were so, what's to
keep even fantastically tiny amounts from becoming quantum black holes.
Matter wont do this because it wont collapse into itself, just as you
cant add more to a container than its volume, or at least not without a
lot of effort.
The if it has mass hypothesis, would probably rule out the time travel
possibilities so its probably forget the machine in the future gathering
souls in the past on this one, maybe.
I got to do a search again to refresh my memory on some old research
done trying to weigh beings at the moment of death. One should be able
to do a decent repeat of it just by weighting insects or any other
animal and or experience based life form. Brain and or nerve to body
mass relations i.e., think it was called, encephilation, might be the
most important thing and humans are not really the best in this regard.
By the way I haven't decided what to call the religion, what about
hypothetisism because its hypothetical or maybe speculitisim because its
based on speculation. Maybe call it Drakes-equatiism.
Bruce Scott TOK
X <Cont...@ThisGroup.com> wrote:
This is a typical seminary student's view of science, one often finds
even from well meaning students. They really have no idea about
falsifiability, because they are not taught about it. If they are not
strongly indoctrinated, it is still possible to teach them what it means
or how to understand it, and then afterwards it is up to them whether
they actually do.
If you are on broadcast mode however, you'll never get this...
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
Bruce Scott TOK
Dirk Bruere <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Bruce Scott TOK" <b...@rzg.mpg.de> wrote in message
>news:ahpd6v...@subds.rzg.mpg.de...
>> Hawk <giuff...@softhome.net> wrote:
>> >In your opinion, can a scientist, expecially a physicists, be an
>> >highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
>> >(Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
>>
>> serious follower of Christianity.
>
>I don't know of any scientist who is so stupid as to be an Xian
>Fundamentalist believing in the literal truth of the bible.
You didn't read the pieces in Physics Today back in the 1980s from that
nuclear physicist who was arguing that the 6000-year Earth of
creationism isn't really ruled out by rock age data?
Yes, it takes all kinds... I've known a lot of physicists who are true
Xian believers, all the way to an office mate (now a professor) back
then who, when I noted Frank Tippler was going to give a talk about the
possible ends of an infinite universe, told me "the universe will end
when the Lord comes."
Bruce Scott TOK
Is he the guy (Mott?) who wrote those articles in Europhysics News about
religion being "compatible" with science? He also at least ignored
anything about falsifiability.
Religion is compatible with science when it sticks to the spiritual
nature of human beings and other life forms, and refrains from making
definite statements about the physical universe.
Bruce Scott TOK
Dirk Bruere <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Seems from this and other communications I have grossly underestimated the
>stupidity/conditioning of what would otherwise be very intelligent rational
>people. Still, Orwell had a name for it - doublethink.
It is exactly that. On the other hand, Niels Bohr claimed people who
use quantum mechanics in things like solid state physics do this too :-)
Bruce Scott TOK
2N3819 <2N3...@dot.com> wrote:
>Indeed, why not. When it comes to religion it's possible for a scientist to
>believe any kind of religion, and they do, because the religious scientist
>is open to the notion of science not being able to explain everything.
>
>But, there is a stronger foundation for some religious scientists other than
>a notion that science cannot explain everything. Such, in my opinion would
>not likely be pagan though.
Why not?
My opinion is that the pagan view of nature is much more compatible with
modern science's view of it as a poorly known, strongly nonlinear
system, than Christianity's view of it as a pool which God gave Man to
use.
Dirk Bruere
If it is merely a matter of definitions, he could be tautologically correct.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
> In article <ahpsde$v9rd4$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de>,
> Dirk Bruere <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Seems from this and other communications I have grossly underestimated
the
> >stupidity/conditioning of what would otherwise be very intelligent
rational
> >people. Still, Orwell had a name for it - doublethink.
>
> It is exactly that. On the other hand, Niels Bohr claimed people who
> use quantum mechanics in things like solid state physics do this too :-)
I'd say there was a difference. The latter simply use something that works,
but they don't know why.
The scientist/fundie has to seal off part of their brain.
Dirk
jmfb...@aol.com
gre...@hotmail.com (grelbr) wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote in message news:<ahp08a$mpa$7...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>> When does a person, who practices three religions, sleep?
>
>Heh heh heh! During church services of course!
<grin> Not if there are alert head thumpers.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
2N3819
I was actually alluding to the concept of the Holy Ghost as the stronger
foundation and source of belief, and although Paganism might be more
compatible with modern science, I'm pretty sure it's not compatible with the
HG.
Pmb
> "Pmb" <pm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8ac61757.02072...@posting.google.com...
> > giuff...@softhome.net (Hawk) wrote
> >
> > > In your opinion, can a scientist, expecially a physicists, be an
> > > highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
> > > (Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
> >
> > religion without science is blind"
>
> And when there's conflict science should get the priority.
>
> Dirk
Was that a question or a statement of opinion?
Pmb
2N3819
> Religion is compatible with science when it sticks to the spiritual
> nature of human beings and other life forms, and refrains from making
> definite statements about the physical universe.
Could you say science is compatible with religion when it sticks to the
scientific nature of physical things, and refrains from making definite
statements about the spriitual universe. Maybe/probaby. I think in truth,
strictly speaking, science officially makes no pretentions to explain the
spiritual nature of things. But, some scientists themselves seem to think
science and religion are incompatible.
Gregory L. Hansen
Some things nobody can do. But other things, like computers and
automobiles and the electric light bulb, can be done quite well.
Dirk Bruere
"2N3819" <2N3...@dot.com> wrote in message
news:ahrfmj$vae6u$1...@ID-150848.news.dfncis.de...
Science has been carving huge chunks out of 'religion' for the past two
centuries. Once the nature and origin of life was deemed to be in the domain
of religion - but no longer. If one believes in 'spirit' in the religious
sense then maybe science is about to carve out another chunk - see Penrose
(respectable) and Sarfatti (dubious) and a whole host of physicists in
between.
Dirk
X
> automobiles and the electric light bulb, can be done quite well.
There's some nice technology, but these all have very simple concepts
behind them that are refined and refined, and there's usually only one
type of each. Where's the diversity and implementation of invention and
concept of a healthy society?
-X
>
>
X
>>
>>Most of your beliefs in the sciences are based only upon the faith you
>>have in the source and establishment, not on first hand discovery or
>>experience. The name Einstein is like that of a scientific messiah, you
>>have faith in him because of his fame, but he is in many ways a
>>crackpot, a false prophet. A great deal of "modern" sciences are
>>lunatic beliefs.
>
>
> This is a typical seminary student's view of science, one often finds
> even from well meaning students. They really have no idea about
> falsifiability, because they are not taught about it. If they are not
> strongly indoctrinated, it is still possible to teach them what it means
> or how to understand it, and then afterwards it is up to them whether
> they actually do.
>
> If you are on broadcast mode however, you'll never get this...
If that's what you're implying, I've never even been slightly religious
and if there even is a god I'd be attempting to become free of it. My
perspective is from that of pure logic and away from faith, even the
faith in modern science. Science has a very narrow view, when anything
is possible.
-X
X
>
> You don't pull punches do you. :c)
My world is just a painfully serious one.
-X
>
Dirk Bruere
"X" <Cont...@ThisGroup.com> wrote in message
> > Ouch!! :c)
> >
> > You don't pull punches do you. :c)
>
>
> My world is just a painfully serious one.
>
Ditto suffering.
Dirk
nightbat
nightbat
Old age physicists or new age physicists, ghosts can't do
experiments. They are metaphysically and theoretically conceived but
scientific proof is still out. Belief is not scientific, experimental
results are. A hunch is not a physical model, if a belief moves you,
it's the physical dance that counts. Relying on a Ghost is faith,
relying on timely proven results is science. Personal beliefs after all
are personal, a published working model, pure genius. All scientists
can't be just believers, someone has to do the actual experiments and
get the physical results. Faith that knowledge is out there is good, but
you still have to go out and actually find it yourself. Everyone's God
is hopefully truth, how you go about finding it, no matter what shape or
form, depends on how bad you want it.
the nightbat
jmfb...@aol.com
X <Cont...@ThisGroup.com> wrote:
>> Some things nobody can do. But other things, like computers and
>> automobiles and the electric light bulb, can be done quite well.
>
>There's some nice technology, but these all have very simple concepts
Simple? You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
<snip>
Franz Heymann
"X" <Cont...@ThisGroup.com> wrote in message
> > And it rules out quite a few lunatic beliefs now labelled as
'faith'.
>
> Most of your beliefs in the sciences are based only upon the faith you
> have in the source and establishment, not on first hand discovery or
> experience.
That is quite the most precise statement of the diametrical inverse of
the truth.
> The name Einstein is like that of a scientific messiah, you
> have faith in him because of his fame, but he is in many ways a
> crackpot, a false prophet.
Please provide one solitary piece of evidence in support of that fatuous
statement.
A great deal of "modern" sciences are
> lunatic beliefs.
Please detail which "great deal of Modern sciences are lunatic beliefs"
If you are trying to espouse some fundamentalist nonsense, you are
making a hash of it and you would serve your purpose better if you were
to just shut up.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"X" <Cont...@ThisGroup.com> wrote in message
>
>
> Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> > In article <3D408C51...@ThisGroup.com>,
> > X <Cont...@ThisGroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>And it rules out quite a few lunatic beliefs now labelled as
'faith'.
> >>
> >>Most of your beliefs in the sciences are based only upon the faith
you
> >>have in the source and establishment, not on first hand discovery or
> >>experience. The name Einstein is like that of a scientific messiah,
you
> >>have faith in him because of his fame, but he is in many ways a
> >>crackpot, a false prophet. A great deal of "modern" sciences are
> >>lunatic beliefs.
> >
> >
> > Lunatic beliefs that correctly predict the results of experiments,
and
> > tell us how to manipulate nature to exact specifications. So who
cares if
> > they're lunatic?
>
> Tell me where they manipulate nature to exact specifications?
How about steering a proton for a distance of six light months and
reaching your target to within a small fraction of a millimetre?
Do you know how far six light months is? Indeed, do you know what a
millimetre is?
> You can't
> even create new vegetables here, or have the foresight to repopulate
the
> oceans with fish.
Irrelevant for defending your thesis.
I am beginning to think that you are at least as stupid as you sound. I
have said previously that you might serve the cause for which you appear
to be fighting much better by shutting up.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
>
> "Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:ahpqsu$9cm$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> > > > >In your opinion, can a scientist, expecially a physicists, be
an
> > > > >highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan
religions
> > > > >(Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
> > > >
a
> > really
> > > > serious follower of Christianity.
> > >
> > > I don't know of any scientist who is so stupid as to be an Xian
> > > Fundamentalist believing in the literal truth of the bible.
> >
>
the
> stupidity/conditioning of what would otherwise be very intelligent
rational
> people. Still, Orwell had a name for it - doublethink.
He only worked a six day week as a physicist. One day as preacher.
>
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"X" <Cont...@ThisGroup.com> wrote in message
> > In your opinion, can a scientist, expecially a physicists, be an
> > highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
> > (Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
>
> Ideally I'd like to say yes, but in reality, possibly not. Can your
> mind cope with paralell philosophies without one philosophy clouding
the
> other?
I prefer to keep my mind positively as free of philosophies as possible.
After four thousand years of philosophy, not a single point has been
settled yet. That is quite a remarkable achievement.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:273f8e06.0207...@posting.google.com...
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<ahp3n4$j8u$5...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu>...
> > >highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
> > >(Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
> > >Thanks a lot
> >
> >
whatever
> > he wants.
>
> Greg
>
> Joyce left a commentary for you.
If you mean that bloke James Joyce who earned a living slinging together
randomly chosen words, his commentary would not be worth any more than
yours concerning the measurement of time.
[snip]
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"X" <Cont...@ThisGroup.com> wrote in message
>
>
> Dirk Bruere wrote:
> > "Hawk" <giuff...@softhome.net> wrote in message
> > news:3d3ffd04...@news.tiscali.it...
> >
> >>In your opinion, can a scientist, expecially a physicists, be an
> >>highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan religions
> >>(Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
> >
> >
requires
> > beliefs that are contrary to known science.
>
>
> Good science would believe that everything is possible
No. There are laws of impotence which have to be obeyed.
> and explainable,
> given the facts, even a cycle of reincarnation could be scientifically
> explained, and from the perspective of "known science" it could
> plausible theory, speculation or at worst science fiction. Science
> should believe that everything is possible.
Emphatically NO.
> Known science is only a
> limited and sometimes flawed body of knowledge, observation, and
faith,
> not a blueprint for reality. I think your idea of known science is
> consensus, which is just lots of people believing the same thing,
based
> upon very limited knowledge, which is not much more tangible than a
> religion. The truth of reality is probably as strange as science
fiction.
Your view on the status of science is exceedingly flawed. The status of
physics at present is not a matter of taking a poll to determine what
the concensus might be. I am afraid science is not the democratic
subject you seem to imply. What is known in science is knowledge which
is based on the results of unbiased observations, and their
codification.
Franz Heymann
X
The ultimate cop out for any government or sympathizer. Tell that to a
Jew in a Concentration Camp.
-X
X
-X
X
The ultimate cop out for any government or sympathizer. Tell that to a
Jew in a Concentration Camp, or to our nation's (US) forefathers.
-X
X
Dangerous animals are yellow, or bright colored -- snakes, tigers,
leopards, jaguars, jellyfish. Aren't turtle shells poisonous? It at
least implies at some reasoning behind nature. But god implies
perfection and that's a reach, as even our government can plan a yellow
caution sign.
-X
is
> one where a civilization became advanced enough, became capable of doing
> so and then proceeded to create one. Its not hard to imagine why any
> civilization would want to, just as we would wish an after life so would
> we for our lost ones. Its then also a question of if it could ever be
> possible to do such a thing and of course we cant know this answer just
> as we have no way of knowing what the true limitations of science.
>
> Its very likely that something along the lines of the Drake equation
> could be used to guess at the possibilities that such a civilization
> ever having existed. Of course it would help if anyone could also make
> further predictions or validations on the theory on gravitationally
> expanded space.
>
> One also has to guess at what are the possibilities of the types of
> technologies that would make it all possible and sense no one knows
> anything about how a mind works, let alone what a soul is, we are just
> as unable to say what might be impossible with anything that relates to
> it. I have my own suspicions here and do have an idea on a few of the
> possible that soul mechanics could involve. If for example, its an
> entity that because it has no mass, would also not be restricted either
> the speed of light and because of this may not even be fixed in time
> itself for that mater. The idea that it might be possible to reach into
> the past and gather up souls by a machine not yet created, would be
> intriguing.
>
> Its important to realize, at least from a scientific point of view that
> the idea that one has one soul to a mind must be rather absurd. An
> argument in the favor that it takes many souls to make up a mind could
> be considered supported by experiments done with the divided human mind.
> Wish I could tell you where to look but Scientific American did a fairly
> good article on it. Find it and you will probably start to share my
> opinion.
>
> I don't want to be classed as a crank and its un avoidably that I am and
> or will be. And it doesn't help that I asked some of the same questions
> that Hammond has long before I ever herd of him, on if the soul or souls
> have some of the properties of mass.
>
> On a side point, I feel the greatest real killer for Hammond's
> credibility has been his insistence that he has absolute and conclusive
> proof of god and not just a hypothesis on the probability of god, or at
> least one of the god type of experiences and or etc. I really like to go
> all the way with speculation as you can see and are of the opinion that
> drugs would only make me normal. So I don't use drugs :)
>
> For example, if it has any potential gravity at all, other questions of
> its behavior could be made. You probably wont have any exclusion
> principle with it as one dose with matter and if this were so, what's to
> keep even fantastically tiny amounts from becoming quantum black holes.
> Matter wont do this because it wont collapse into itself, just as you
> cant add more to a container than its volume, or at least not without a
> lot of effort.
> The if it has mass hypothesis, would probably rule out the time travel
> possibilities so its probably forget the machine in the future gathering
> souls in the past on this one, maybe.
>
> I got to do a search again to refresh my memory on some old research
> done trying to weigh beings at the moment of death. One should be able
> to do a decent repeat of it just by weighting insects or any other
> animal and or experience based life form. Brain and or nerve to body
> mass relations i.e., think it was called, encephilation, might be the
> most important thing and humans are not really the best in this regard.
>
> By the way I haven't decided what to call the religion, what about
> hypothetisism because its hypothetical or maybe speculitisim because its
> based on speculation. Maybe call it Drakes-equatiism.
>
> www.alternatescience.com
>
Gregory L. Hansen
You are not a Jew in a Concentration Camp, and you're not fighting a war.
So be happy.
Spaceman
>Dangerous animals are yellow, or bright colored
So some flowers are killer plants?
:)
dang buttercups tried to eat me the other day.
Good thing I could see the yellow coming to warn me first.
:)
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
2N3819
"nightbat" <nigh...@home.ffni.com> wrote in message
news:3D414FB8...@home.ffni.com...
> nightbat wrote
>Belief is not scientific, experimental results are.
Exactly. So physics and religion can live side by side as long as one
recognises the limits of both. An old age or new age religious scientist
knows this and that's how he can be a scientist and religious. Difficulty
for some might be on the creation of man issue though. I'm religious, but
personally the creation issue is not a problem for me.
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>From: X Cont...@ThisGroup.com
>
>>Dangerous animals are yellow, or bright colored
>
>So some flowers are killer plants?
>:)
>dang buttercups tried to eat me the other day.
>Good thing I could see the yellow coming to warn me first.
>:)
I always run when I see yellow birds.
Dirk Bruere
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ahrql8$r5u$1...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <3D4167DC...@ThisGroup.com>,
> X <Cont...@ThisGroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Dirk Bruere wrote:
> >> "X" <Cont...@ThisGroup.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3D414AC...@ThisGroup.com...
> >>
> >>>>Ouch!! :c)
> >>>>
> >>>>You don't pull punches do you. :c)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>My world is just a painfully serious one.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The world is just as serious as you want to make it.
> >> Ditto suffering.
> >
> >
> >The ultimate cop out for any government or sympathizer. Tell that to a
> >Jew in a Concentration Camp, or to our nation's (US) forefathers.
>
> You are not a Jew in a Concentration Camp, and you're not fighting a war.
> So be happy.
What's the worst that can happen? You die.
Not something worth worrying about IMO.
Dirk
X
Spaceman wrote:
>>From: X Cont...@ThisGroup.com
>
>
>>Dangerous animals are yellow, or bright colored
>
>
> So some flowers are killer plants?
> :)
> dang buttercups tried to eat me the other day.
> Good thing I could see the yellow coming to warn me first.
> :)
Yes, those are plants not animals, but they falls into the colour for
the sake of beauty category like butterflies.
-X
X
Spaceman wrote:
>>From: X Cont...@ThisGroup.com
>
>
>>Dangerous animals are yellow, or bright colored
>
>
> So some flowers are killer plants?
> :)
> dang buttercups tried to eat me the other day.
> Good thing I could see the yellow coming to warn me first.
> :)
They fall into the colour for the sake of beauty category.
I remember swimming in the ocean, and stopping short when I saw a large
bright red blur directly ahead, and just avoided the tentacles of a
really big jellyfish, and they don't make rattle bunnies.
-X
X
> So be happy.
Just say the word and you can experience the kind of stuff I experienced
in my life.
-X
Spaceman
>I always run when I see yellow birds.
:)
I always got to look out for big yellow monsters
that burn deisel fuel and growl at me all day long..
but.
they come in all colors and all act the same basically.
I(we) fix their big round feets <g>
some are taller than me ,,
but not one has ever bitten me unless I was asking for it.
:)
There is cool blue monster with arms that comes and eats
our garbage and he is nice,
but is very loud.
<LOL>
then there is this red monster that runs around
screaming like there was a fire or something.
<LOL>
so many monster to learn about!
<LOL>
and little monsters with some that are
black and whites that scream and
all sort of colors with all sorts of other noises.
:)
X
> Ditto suffering.
I'll counter with another cliché: Just let go of the apple in the jar
and you can be a free monkey again.
-X
>
> Dirk
>
>
Dirk Bruere
"X" <Cont...@ThisGroup.com> wrote in message
We cannot necessarily determine our circumstances, but we can determine what
they make of us.
Dirk
Mike Simons
I'm curious, what type of accelerator can accomplish this? I know that a
cyclotron will eject its protons within a fraction of a second, but to
travel six light months surely takes even longer than six months (duh).
What wondrous apparatus is it you speak of?
Bennett Standeven
> Look about you in this
> forum and perhaps take note of the words of the 14th century Theologia
> Germanica and for right or wrong see if his words apply,again noting
> that it is religion in its highly developed form and far removed from
> denominational religion.
>
i.e. what is referred to is self-flagellation.
> "CHAPTER XX
>
> How, seeing that the Life of Christ is most bitter to Nature and Self,
> Nature will have none of it, and chooseth a false careless Life, as is
> most convenient to her.
[...]
Franz Heymann
> > In article <ahpsde$v9rd4$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de>,
> > Dirk Bruere <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >Seems from this and other communications I have grossly
underestimated
> the
> > >stupidity/conditioning of what would otherwise be very intelligent
> rational
> > >people. Still, Orwell had a name for it - doublethink.
> >
who
> > use quantum mechanics in things like solid state physics do this too
:-)
>
> I'd say there was a difference. The latter
Either you are being opaque or I am being dumb. Who are the "latter" to
which you refer?
> simply use something that works,
> but they don't know why.
> The scientist/fundie has to seal off part of their brain.
>
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
> In article <ahpqsu$9cm$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>,
> Franz Heymann <Franz....@zzzbtopenworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Dirk Bruere" <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> > >highly religious man, follower of alternative and pagan
religions
> >> > >(Wicca, Taoism, Buddhism)?
> >> >
> >really
> >> > serious follower of Christianity.
> >>
> >> I don't know of any scientist who is so stupid as to be an Xian
> >> Fundamentalist believing in the literal truth of the bible.
> >
> >I do. And he is a Fellow of the Royal Society.
>
about
> religion being "compatible" with science? He also at least ignored
> anything about falsifiability.
No. And wild horses would not extract his name from me.
>
> Religion is compatible with science when it sticks to the spiritual
> nature of human beings and other life forms, and refrains from making
> definite statements about the physical universe.
I have my doubts, but I won't get into a sweat about it.
Franz Heymann
Dirk Bruere
>
> > > >Seems from this and other communications I have grossly
> underestimated
> > the
> > > >stupidity/conditioning of what would otherwise be very intelligent
> > rational
> > > >people. Still, Orwell had a name for it - doublethink.
> > > It is exactly that. On the other hand, Niels Bohr claimed people
> who
> > > use quantum mechanics in things like solid state physics do this too
> :-)
> > I'd say there was a difference. The latter
> Either you are being opaque or I am being dumb. Who are the "latter" to
> which you refer?
The people who use QM formalism but don't want to think about meaning.
Franz Heymann
"Mike Simons" <crackedscience@-nospam-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ahrutj$723$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
An immeasurably small excess over six months, since the beams of which I
speak had speeds of 0.9995 of that of light.
>
> What wondrous apparatus is it you speak of?
In 1971 the rings of the ISR at CERN were pumped full of 30 GeV protons
circulating in opposite directions. The beam was then allowed to coast
without further injection of new particles. The particles suffered a
very tiny rate of energy loss due to synchrotron radiation, which was
made up by keeping the accelerating cavities going at low power. After
six months the machine crew got tired of this game and switched off.
Prior to dumping the beams, they still hit each other in the eight
crossing regions around the machine, in spite of having cross sectional
dimensions of only one or two mm.
As a side line, there were 30 Amps of protons circulating. Yes, I said
Amps.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"X" <Cont...@ThisGroup.com> wrote in message
> > The best argument I can find for the possibility of a god and or
gods
>
> Dangerous animals are yellow, or bright colored -- snakes, tigers,
> leopards, jaguars, jellyfish.
False generalisation. One of the most dangerous snakes in South Africa
is the night adder. It is pitch black. Jellyfish are as near
transparent as I can imagine them being without actually vanishing. The
scorpion is a humble grey-brown. The canary, on the other hand, is
bright yellow.
[snip]
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
>
> "Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:ahs6pj$4m9$5...@paris.btinternet.com...
> >
> > > > >Seems from this and other communications I have grossly
> > underestimated
> > > the
> > > > >stupidity/conditioning of what would otherwise be very
intelligent
> > > rational
> > > > >people. Still, Orwell had a name for it - doublethink.
>
> > > > It is exactly that. On the other hand, Niels Bohr claimed
people
> > who
> > > > use quantum mechanics in things like solid state physics do this
too
> > :-)
>
> > > I'd say there was a difference. The latter
>
> > Either you are being opaque or I am being dumb. Who are the
"latter" to
> > which you refer?
>
> The people who use QM formalism but don't want to think about meaning.
What meaning?
What is the meaning of Newton's laws?
Folks just use them. Successfully.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"X" <Cont...@ThisGroup.com> wrote in message
>
>
> Spaceman wrote:
> >>From: X Cont...@ThisGroup.com
> >
> >
> >>Dangerous animals are yellow, or bright colored
> >
> >
> > So some flowers are killer plants?
> > :)
> > dang buttercups tried to eat me the other day.
> > Good thing I could see the yellow coming to warn me first.
> > :)
>
> They fall into the colour for the sake of beauty category.
>
> I remember swimming in the ocean, and stopping short when I saw a
large
> bright red blur directly ahead, and just avoided the tentacles of a
> really big jellyfish, and they don't make rattle bunnies.
The only ones I have seen were transparent and left a nasty weal where
they touched you.
Franz Heymann
Dirk Bruere
>
> >
> > The people who use QM formalism but don't want to think about meaning.
>
> What meaning?
Well, problems concerning (for example) whether or not there are hidden
variable, how it integrates with SR and GTR etc.
> What is the meaning of Newton's laws?
Billiard balls.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
>
>
> In 1971 the rings of the ISR at CERN were pumped full of 30 GeV protons
> circulating in opposite directions. The beam was then allowed to coast
> without further injection of new particles. The particles suffered a
> very tiny rate of energy loss due to synchrotron radiation, which was
> made up by keeping the accelerating cavities going at low power. After
> six months the machine crew got tired of this game and switched off.
> Prior to dumping the beams, they still hit each other in the eight
> crossing regions around the machine, in spite of having cross sectional
> dimensions of only one or two mm.
>
> As a side line, there were 30 Amps of protons circulating. Yes, I said
> Amps.
How many Coulombs?
Dirk
Gregory L. Hansen
Why does quantum mechanics only become meaningful when it's been related
to billiard balls? Nobody seems to think it's astonishing, for instance,
that a baseball occupies a continuous succession of points along its path
instead of teleporting. That doesn't need to be explained. But quantum
mechanics needs to be explained because it doesn't look like billiard
balls.
But then, the only way to explain anything is in terms that you're
comfortable with, and feel need no explanation. But the set of
"comfortable terms" is not fundamental.
Dale A Trynor
> > The best argument I can find for the possibility of a god and or gods
>
> Dangerous animals are yellow, or bright colored --
The tendency to show color has often been as a warning and is usually the
reverse of camouflage, look at me I taste awful or am poisonous. It a bit of a
disadvantage that some have to have been either eaten and or sampled before
this approach works. Its a great indication that that colored frog or insect
might have some interesting chemicals to examine, provided of course its not
just an imitator of a more toxic species.
> snakes, tigers,
> leopards, jaguars, jellyfish. Aren't turtle shells poisonous? It at
> least implies at some reasoning behind nature. But god implies
> perfection and that's a reach, as even our government can plan a yellow
> caution sign.
>
> -X
Its probably obvious, that if my speculation for a god and or gods, would have
also have been the result of a natural evolution. So I am not sure how such a
civilization would view any significant interfering with natural evolution.
Besides such experiments are interesting and even we will spend considerable
effort to preserve wildlife in its natural habitat. I would personally hate to
find out I was the equivalent of a preserved ape and or even a lesser bird
species, as compared to some more advanced being. I will probably do a cartoon
of an alien game warden and biologist tagging humans to keep track of our
migrations to singles bars, in what to us humans is an alien abduction. Just
cant help seeing one of those nature shows whenever abductions are talked
about. To keep it short, personally, I tend too feel its only reasonable that
if they ever happen or have happened, its probably swamped out by all the
useless noise.
If such things as an afterlife technology could be possible, its also very
likely to work without any interference. The idea that if it could involve a
god like machine built in our future reaching into the past to gather up the
souls of the dying, then non interference could be a priority.
>
>
> is
> > one where a civilization became advanced enough, became capable of doing
> > so and then proceeded to create one. Its not hard to imagine why any
> > civilization would want to, just as we would wish an after life so would
> > we for our lost ones. Its then also a question of if it could ever be
> > possible to do such a thing and of course we cant know this answer just
> > as we have no way of knowing what the true limitations of science.
> >
> > Its very likely that something along the lines of the Drake equation
> > could be used to guess at the possibilities that such a civilization
> > ever having existed. Of course it would help if anyone could also make
> > further predictions or validations on the theory on gravitationally
> > expanded space.
> >
> > One also has to guess at what are the possibilities of the types of
> > technologies that would make it all possible and sense no one knows
> > anything about how a mind works, let alone what a soul is, we are just
> > as unable to say what might be impossible with anything that relates to
> > it. I have my own suspicions here and do have an idea on a few of the
> > possible that soul mechanics could involve. If for example, its an
> > entity that because it has no mass, would also not be restricted either
> > the speed of light and because of this may not even be fixed in time
> > itself for that mater. The idea that it might be possible to reach into
> > the past and gather up souls by a machine not yet created, would be
> > intriguing.
[snip]
Franz Heymann
You have spoilt my fun. About 100 microcoulombs yields 30 amps in the
ISR.
Franz Heymann
Bruce Scott TOK
>> In article <ahpsde$v9rd4$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de>,
>> Dirk Bruere <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Seems from this and other communications I have grossly underestimated
>the
>> >stupidity/conditioning of what would otherwise be very intelligent
>rational
>> >people. Still, Orwell had a name for it - doublethink.
>>
>> It is exactly that. On the other hand, Niels Bohr claimed people who
>> use quantum mechanics in things like solid state physics do this too :-)
>
>but they don't know why.
>The scientist/fundie has to seal off part of their brain.
True, good argument, but experience suggests that people brought up from
childhood as true religious believers (in "doctrine" as opposed to the
basic native spirituality) show remarkable emotional and intellectual
resilience against what they learn as budding scientists in university.
Many of these people are great tinkerers, but seldom are they great
scientists. Even in the 1600s, it was necessary to question one's
beliefs to be a great scientist.
Also, many fundamentalist scientists are in the "applied" areas where
they are merely working on technology (eg, diagnosticians).
Compartmentalisation of intellectual activity has a lot to do with it as
well.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
Bruce Scott TOK
Dirk Bruere <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>news:ahshes$ds3$4...@helle.btinternet.com...
>>
>> >
>> > The people who use QM formalism but don't want to think about meaning.
>>
>> What meaning?
>
>Well, problems concerning (for example) whether or not there are hidden
>variable, how it integrates with SR and GTR etc.
True, but Bohr was worried about logical consistency...
>> What is the meaning of Newton's laws?
>
>Billiard balls.
Yes, not clouds of probability without consistent identification.
(yes, QM bothers me too... luckily, my part of plasma physics doesn't
use it except for rate coefficients)
Bruce Scott TOK
>
>> Religion is compatible with science when it sticks to the spiritual
>> nature of human beings and other life forms, and refrains from making
>> definite statements about the physical universe.
>
>
>scientific nature of physical things, and refrains from making definite
>statements about the spriitual universe. Maybe/probaby.
No, science addresses whatever is falsifiable, and does not address
whatever is not... that is the distinction. Religion has and does
address both, and that is its problem.
>I think in truth,
>strictly speaking, science officially makes no pretentions to explain the
>spiritual nature of things. But, some scientists themselves seem to think
>science and religion are incompatible.
As long as religion stays away from falsifiable things, they are
compatible.
Bruce Scott TOK
>> Yes, it takes all kinds... I've known a lot of physicists who are true
>> Xian believers, all the way to an office mate (now a professor) back
>> then who, when I noted Frank Tippler was going to give a talk about the
>> possible ends of an infinite universe, told me "the universe will end
>> when the Lord comes."
>
>If it is merely a matter of definitions, he could be tautologically correct.
He made it rather clear that he was offended by physicists mixing
themselves into such questions...
Bruce Scott TOK
>> My opinion is that the pagan view of nature is much more compatible with
>> modern science's view of it as a poorly known, strongly nonlinear
>> system, than Christianity's view of it as a pool which God gave Man to
>> use.
>
>
>I was actually alluding to the concept of the Holy Ghost as the stronger
>foundation and source of belief, and although Paganism might be more
>compatible with modern science, I'm pretty sure it's not compatible with the
>HG.
At the risk of really horrible tangentialism in sci.physics, I'd be
curious to know why not...
Also, to what extent would you think gnostic Christianity got a lot of
its more esoteric elements from pre-Greek as well as pre-Christian
paganism?
Dirk Bruere
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ahsur0$ucm$3...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
> >> > The people who use QM formalism but don't want to think about
meaning.
> >>
> >> What meaning?
> >
> >Well, problems concerning (for example) whether or not there are hidden
> >variable, how it integrates with SR and GTR etc.
> >
> >> What is the meaning of Newton's laws?
> >
> >Billiard balls.
> Why does quantum mechanics only become meaningful when it's been related
> to billiard balls? Nobody seems to think it's astonishing, for instance,
> that a baseball occupies a continuous succession of points along its path
> instead of teleporting. That doesn't need to be explained. But quantum
> mechanics needs to be explained because it doesn't look like billiard
> balls.
I thought a baseball did teleport, if looked at closely enough.
> But then, the only way to explain anything is in terms that you're
> comfortable with, and feel need no explanation. But the set of
> "comfortable terms" is not fundamental.
Well, as for QM there is still quite a debate as to 'meaning' in the sense
of 'what really happens'. The arguments over MWI and quantum computers is
evidence of that. OTOH Newtonian mechanics is well understood and nobody
expects any suprises.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
Dirk