| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Joseph H" |
| Date: |
27 Oct 2005 04:27:16 PM |
| Object: |
The Lineaments of Existence |
Energy exists, Is energy eternal? I don't know - though I like the
phrase. I don't see how energy could have emerged: emerged from what?
It begets matter. I don't know how. The E=MC thing always seems too
pat. Can the creation of matter really be that precise?
On at least one occasion matter spools out to produce the thing we call
universe. Over time this matter condenses or coalesces into planets
etc.
On at least one such planet a replicating entity emerges,needing
sustenance to continue replicating. What is sustenance? Why should
something be designated a food? Is "food" just something that provides
energy to a replicating entity?
Countless replicating entities down the ages honed survival strategies.
Such patterns of behaviour were an intrinsic element of the
replication. Amazing stuff.
Knowledge, so called, didn't arise. Some perception arose over time. I
wouldn't dare surmise what creatures knew - or know.
Eventually a creature emerged who could know the lineaments of
existence. But knowledge first had to overcome error. Sanctified error
dominated perception. Such error was unavoidable - but led to tragedy
and gross inefficiency and the destruction of countless human beings
who glimpsed a truth.
Excuses could be made for error up to the present day. And the cost of
error wasn't too high - if one discounted the destruction and
corruption of millions. But now the species stands or falls as a unity.
The cost of error could be horrific. Global error threatens us all. We
know our situation. We must be allowed use that knowledge. We must not
pander to past erroreous views of existence. We must not indulge
deeply-held nonsense. Life is valuable and preciuous and meaningful
enough not to need to seek meaning elsewhere. The human being has the
capacity to know all the foregoing lineaments of existence and to endow
them with as much meaning and value as we could ever require. we are on
the brink of such an age. We have carved out fundamental freedoms
worldwide. Now indifference on the one hand and an obsession with self
on the other - all allied to greed on a global scale - allows reactive
and regressive forces to hinder our advance. We must fight such forces.
But we must fight them not with some empty formula for freedom or
democracy but with a vast committment to a better life for human
beings.
Joseph H
www.humanisation.org
.
|
|
| User: "Turtoni" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
23 Nov 2005 11:34:54 AM |
|
|
Bob:
As Einstein asked Bohr while they were walking together one Moonlit
night, "You don't seriously believe the Moon disappears when you stop
looking at it?" Bohr was profoundly affected by that encounter and
tried to fix his Copenhagen Interpretation but was unable to.
Bohr should have said: "What moon?"
He would have made a fool of himself. Anyway Einstein knew better - he
asked Bohr if he saw the Moon before he asked if Bohr thought it would
disappear when he stopped seeing it.
Oh, that thing we measured with our senses and called the moon. Yes, I
believe it exists, since that is necessary for my survival but the why of it
all is beyond us Big Al, but I agree we should keep looking.
If Bohr had said "What Moon?", Einstein would have told the physics
community that Bohr was definitely psychotic. As it was the worst you
could call Bohr was "very confused". That's because Bohr made the
classic mistake of adopting Idealism (Phenomenology) as his Worldview
because he did not know any better. He should have studied metaphysics
before he tried to engage in it.
Most people mistakenly adopt the Worldview of Idealism when attempting
to do physics or metaphysics. That's because most intellectual
endeavors are subjective, like mathematics or psychology. But physics
and metaphysics are not subjective at all. They are as Realist as it
comes for a very obvious reason - they describe the real objective
world and not concepts in the mind.
The idealism carries the realism to the moon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
23 Nov 2005 01:16:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:34:54 -0500, "Turtoni" <turtoni@alt.philosophy>
wrote:
The idealism carries the realism to the moon.
The realism of the Moon carries to our conceptualization of the Moon.
But the laws of physics governing the behavior of the Moon are
ontological otherwise they would not be able to predict the future
behavior of the Moon accurately.
That's why physics is ontological.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Turtoni" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
23 Nov 2005 01:21:43 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:4384bfa4.103686765@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:34:54 -0500, "Turtoni" <turtoni@alt.philosophy>
wrote:
The idealism carries the realism to the moon.
The realism of the Moon carries to our conceptualization of the Moon.
But the laws of physics governing the behavior of the Moon are
ontological otherwise they would not be able to predict the future
behavior of the Moon accurately.
That's why physics is ontological.
The "laws of physics" do not govern the behavior of the Moon.
The laws of physics are an idealized measurement of some properties.
IMO.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
23 Nov 2005 04:08:01 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:21:43 -0500, "Turtoni" <turtoni@alt.philosophy>
wrote:
That's why physics is ontological.
The "laws of physics" do not govern the behavior of the Moon.
Then what does? You conceptualization of the Moon?
The laws of physics are embedded in the Universe. I am not talking
about their expression in physics.
The laws of physics are an idealized measurement of some properties.
The laws of physics do not involve measurement. The planets would
rotate around the sun the same whether humans existed or not.
The notion that measurement affected the outcome of quantum events is
part of the Copenhagen Interpretation. While no one doubts that
measurements do affect the outcome, the Copenhagen metaphysics was
based on a form of Idealism called Phenomenology and was therefore
wrong.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Turtoni" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
25 Nov 2005 10:10:52 AM |
|
|
That's why physics is ontological.
The "laws of physics" do not govern the behavior of the Moon.
Bob:
Then what does? You conceptualization of the Moon?
"Everything" does.
The laws of physics are embedded in the Universe. I am not talking
about their expression in physics.
Then you're not talking about the "laws of physics".
The laws of physics are an idealized measurement of some properties.
The laws of physics do not involve measurement. The planets would
rotate around the sun the same whether humans existed or not.
Or whether the "laws of physics" existed or not.
The notion that measurement affected the outcome of quantum events is
part of the Copenhagen Interpretation. While no one doubts that
measurements do affect the outcome, the Copenhagen metaphysics was
based on a form of Idealism called Phenomenology and was therefore
wrong.
I'm not denying we can't describe our reality and use those descriptions to
operate in our reality but that isn't the whole story.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
26 Nov 2005 03:14:56 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:10:52 -0500, "Turtoni" <turtoni@alt.philosophy>
wrote:
The laws of physics are embedded in the Universe. I am not talking
about their expression in physics.
Then you're not talking about the "laws of physics".
Do you really believe that the reason the planets travel in (nearly)
elliptical orbits is because you see them doing it?
The planets behave that way because the laws of physics cause them to
behave that way. The laws of physics are embedded in the Universe -
they are part of its mode of Being.
The laws of physics do not involve measurement. The planets would
rotate around the sun the same whether humans existed or not.
Or whether the "laws of physics" existed or not.
You are once again confusing the expression of these laws with the
real objective laws themselves. The laws of physics are part of the
way the Universe operates. They are part of the Universe. You cannot
abstract them out of its mode of Being.
You breathe. Do you do that because I enunciate the fact that humans
breathe or is the"law of breathing" embedded in your human nature?
I'm not denying we can't describe our reality and use those descriptions to
operate in our reality but that isn't the whole story.
What is the rest of the story?
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Turtoni" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
27 Nov 2005 06:47:34 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:43882622.192588375@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:10:52 -0500, "Turtoni" <turtoni@alt.philosophy>
wrote:
The laws of physics are embedded in the Universe. I am not talking
about their expression in physics.
Then you're not talking about the "laws of physics".
Do you really believe that the reason the planets travel in (nearly)
elliptical orbits is because you see them doing it?
The planets behave that way because the laws of physics cause them to
behave that way. The laws of physics are embedded in the Universe -
they are part of its mode of Being.
The laws of physics are a point of view.
The laws of physics do not involve measurement. The planets would
rotate around the sun the same whether humans existed or not.
Or whether the "laws of physics" existed or not.
You are once again confusing the expression of these laws with the
real objective laws themselves. The laws of physics are part of the
way the Universe operates. They are part of the Universe. You cannot
abstract them out of its mode of Being.
You breathe. Do you do that because I enunciate the fact that humans
breathe or is the"law of breathing" embedded in your human nature?
Currently are bodies need oxygen to survive.
I'm not denying we can't describe our reality and use those descriptions
to
operate in our reality but that isn't the whole story.
What is the rest of the story?
Keep looking.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
28 Nov 2005 10:50:26 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:47:34 -0500, "Turtoni" <turtoni@alt.philosophy>
wrote:
The laws of physics are a point of view.
That's the epistemological characterization. The laws of physics are
also ontological in that the Universe is governed by them.
When I state Newton's Second Law, namely, that F = ma (Force is equal
to mass times acceleration), I am doing two things. I am describing
the behavior of matter in motion - that's the epistemologial
characteristic of that statement. And I am also telling you that F =
ma is how the Universe actually behaves, which is ontological. I am
telling you much more than just a description or model. I am telling
you that the Universe is governed by F = ma.
If I describe the workings of a clock, that is epistemological. But if
I tell you that the behavior of a clock is due to the Laws of Clock,
which includes all the inner workings of weights, pendulum,
escapement, gears, et al, I am telling you how the actual clock
behaves and why it behaves that way.
Law Of Clock:
1) Weight falls causing escapement to move.
2) Escapement moves causing pendulum to swing.
3) Periodic motion of pendulum causes periodic motion of escapement.
4) Escapement causes gears to turn at a constant rate of rotation.
5) Rotation of gears causes minute hand and hour hand to keep time.
This Law of Clock not only describes the clock mechanism but it also
specifies how the clock actually works. The clock is subject to those
laws when it operates. There is a real weight and it behaves as the
Law of Clock says it behaves. Etc. Those Laws of Clock are embedded in
the very nature of the clock and are responsible for making the clock
work. A falling weight, a swinging pendulum, a periodic escapement,
several rotating gears - there are the essential parts and their
actions for this kind of clock. Law #1 speaks about a falling weight,
which is an essential part in this kind of clock. The statement #1 can
be construed as an epistemological description but it is also an
ontological law of the clock.
You breathe. Do you do that because I enunciate the fact that humans
breathe or is the"law of breathing" embedded in your human nature?
Currently are bodies need oxygen to survive.
And a grandfather clock as I have specified needs a falling weight to
operate properly.
I'm not denying we can't describe our reality and use those descriptions
to operate in our reality but that isn't the whole story.
What is the rest of the story?
Keep looking.
Looking where?
What rest of what story?
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Turtoni" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
28 Nov 2005 06:30:57 PM |
|
|
The laws of physics are a point of view.
Bob:
That's the epistemological characterization. The laws of physics are
also ontological in that the Universe is governed by them.
As we "see" it..
When I state Newton's Second Law, namely, that F = ma (Force is equal
to mass times acceleration), I am doing two things. I am describing
the behavior of matter in motion - that's the epistemologial
characteristic of that statement. And I am also telling you that F =
ma is how the Universe actually behaves, which is ontological. I am
telling you much more than just a description or model. I am telling
you that the Universe is governed by F = ma.
If I describe the workings of a clock, that is epistemological. But if
I tell you that the behavior of a clock is due to the Laws of Clock,
which includes all the inner workings of weights, pendulum,
escapement, gears, et al, I am telling you how the actual clock
behaves and why it behaves that way.
Law Of Clock:
1) Weight falls causing escapement to move.
2) Escapement moves causing pendulum to swing.
3) Periodic motion of pendulum causes periodic motion of escapement.
4) Escapement causes gears to turn at a constant rate of rotation.
5) Rotation of gears causes minute hand and hour hand to keep time.
This Law of Clock not only describes the clock mechanism but it also
specifies how the clock actually works. The clock is subject to those
laws when it operates. There is a real weight and it behaves as the
Law of Clock says it behaves. Etc. Those Laws of Clock are embedded in
the very nature of the clock and are responsible for making the clock
work. A falling weight, a swinging pendulum, a periodic escapement,
several rotating gears - there are the essential parts and their
actions for this kind of clock. Law #1 speaks about a falling weight,
which is an essential part in this kind of clock. The statement #1 can
be construed as an epistemological description but it is also an
ontological law of the clock.
I commend you for teaching physics Bob, but physics isn't philosophy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4450208.stm
You breathe. Do you do that because I enunciate the fact that humans
breathe or is the"law of breathing" embedded in your human nature?
Currently our bodies need oxygen to survive.
And a grandfather clock as I have specified needs a falling weight to
operate properly.
Yes.
I'm not denying we can't describe our reality and use those descriptions
to operate in our reality but that isn't the whole story.
What is the rest of the story?
Keep looking.
Looking where?
Inside and out.
What rest of what story?
Take your pick:
a.. Survival, including the pursuit of immortality through scientific
means (see life extension)
b.. Sexual reproduction
c.. Natural human evolution, or contribution to the gene pool of the human
race
d.. Technological evolution, or the active development of the future human
e.. To seek happiness and flourish, experience pleasure or celebrate
f.. The pursuit of one's dreams, a sense of achievement, or one's destiny
g.. Gaining and exercising power
h.. Competition or co-operation, with others
i.. The accumulation of wealth
j.. To leave a legacy, such as work to be remembered for
k.. Serving others or doing good deeds
l.. Giving and receiving love
m.. To seek and find beauty
n.. The expression of compassion
o.. Working for justice and democracy
p.. Living in peace with each other, and in harmony with the natural
environment
q.. The search for truth, knowledge, understanding, or wisdom
r.. Relating, connecting, or achieving unity with others
s.. To seek freedom, either physically, mentally, financially, or
spiritually
t.. Serving or worshiping God, or achieving union with God or the Divine
u.. To become God, or God-like
v.. To simply live until one dies - there is no universal or celestial
purpose, existence has no meaning beyond which one chooses to give it
w.. Seeking and acquiring virtue, to live a virtuous life
x.. Learning a series of lessons and finding enlightenment
y.. Some combination of the above
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
29 Nov 2005 03:12:40 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:30:57 -0500, "Turtoni" <turtoni@alt.philosophy>
wrote:
That's the epistemological characterization. The laws of physics are
also ontological in that the Universe is governed by them.
As we "see" it..
We don't have to see anything in order for the Universe to be governed
by the laws of physics. They are embedded in the essence of the
Universe. Otherwise how would we discover them.
Newton's Laws are not a model of dynamical behavior - they are a
statement about dynamical behavior. Newton's First Law states that a
body in motion will stay in the same state of motion if it is not
acted on by a force. That means that space is uniform in the absence
of forces. Separately, in QM we find out that because momentum is
conserved space is uniform. Newton's First Law is embedded in the
fabric of the Universe. It's the way the Universe behaves if the
observer is not going too fast relative to the object being observed
(otherwise relativity must be used).
I commend you for teaching physics Bob, but physics isn't philosophy.
I am not teaching anything. I am commenting on your comments regarding
my take on existential metaphysics.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4450208.stm
LOL. There is always some kind of employment crisis which a year later
ends up being an employment glut. Remember the so-called "dot com"
boom. There was a shortfall of 1/2 million IT workers in 1999. In 2002
there was a glut of 2 million IT workers.
The BBC is one of the most blatant examples of pinko commie media run
by leftist queers. If you give it any credence whatsoever, you are
crazy.
What rest of what story?
Take your pick:
a.. Survival, including the pursuit of immortality through scientific
means (see life extension)
b.. Sexual reproduction
c.. Natural human evolution, or contribution to the gene pool of the human
race
d.. Technological evolution, or the active development of the future human
e.. To seek happiness and flourish, experience pleasure or celebrate
f.. The pursuit of one's dreams, a sense of achievement, or one's destiny
g.. Gaining and exercising power
h.. Competition or co-operation, with others
i.. The accumulation of wealth
j.. To leave a legacy, such as work to be remembered for
k.. Serving others or doing good deeds
l.. Giving and receiving love
m.. To seek and find beauty
n.. The expression of compassion
o.. Working for justice and democracy
p.. Living in peace with each other, and in harmony with the natural
environment
q.. The search for truth, knowledge, understanding, or wisdom
r.. Relating, connecting, or achieving unity with others
s.. To seek freedom, either physically, mentally, financially, or
spiritually
t.. Serving or worshiping God, or achieving union with God or the Divine
u.. To become God, or God-like
v.. To simply live until one dies - there is no universal or celestial
purpose, existence has no meaning beyond which one chooses to give it
w.. Seeking and acquiring virtue, to live a virtuous life
x.. Learning a series of lessons and finding enlightenment
y.. Some combination of the above
Jeez, and some people believe there is no meaning or purpose to life.
But most of it is irrelevant to a discussion of the nature of Being.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Seeker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
29 Nov 2005 04:01:14 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote
The BBC is one of the most blatant examples of pinko commie media run
by leftist queers.
Do you suppose that republicans tend to repress their homosexuality more
than liberals?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
29 Nov 2005 08:20:42 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 02:01:14 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:
The BBC is one of the most blatant examples of pinko commie media run
by leftist queers.
Do you suppose that republicans tend to repress their homosexuality more
than liberals?
Republican homosexuals are right wing, like those in athletics, law
enforcement and military. They have enough sense to obey the rule
"Don't ask, don't tell." Most people do not have any problem with
right wing homosexuals.
It's the FarLeft queers who want to shove their agenda down everyone's
throats. And it is for that reason alone that they are despised.
"A psychiatrist says that the gay community would not run into so much
hostility if its members did not insist on being treated like real
people."
-- Norman Liebmann
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Seeker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
29 Nov 2005 01:20:10 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 02:01:14 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:
The BBC is one of the most blatant examples of pinko commie media run
by leftist queers.
Do you suppose that republicans tend to repress their homosexuality more
than liberals?
Republican homosexuals are right wing, like those in athletics, law
enforcement and military. They have enough sense to obey the rule
"Don't ask, don't tell." Most people do not have any problem with
right wing homosexuals.
Because they are permitted to delude themselves that they don't exist.
It's the FarLeft queers who want to shove their agenda down everyone's
throats. And it is for that reason alone that they are despised.
Minorities demanding respect really annoys bigots.
"A psychiatrist says that the gay community would not run into so much
hostility if its members did not insist on being treated like real
people."
-- Norman Liebmann
My point exactly.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
29 Nov 2005 03:38:18 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Bob <spam@uce.gov> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 02:01:14 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:
The BBC is one of the most blatant examples of pinko commie media run
by leftist queers.
Do you suppose that republicans tend to repress their homosexuality more
than liberals?
Republican homosexuals are right wing, like those in athletics, law
enforcement and military. They have enough sense to obey the rule
"Don't ask, don't tell." Most people do not have any problem with
right wing homosexuals.
The "don't ask, don't tell" IS the problem. Is it OK for the military, law
enforcement, your stockbrocker, etc to ask if you're married? Of course not.
And yet that has the same effect as asking "are you straight?" So why should
there be a problem with someone responding "yes" to "are you gay?" The
people who want to get all upset with a "yes" answer have the problem. If
you ask me, it should be "there's no reason to even ask to begin with and,
if told, that information should make no difference." Should it be "don't
ask, don't tell" when it comes to race? How about religion? Or political
beliefs? Or national origin? Or any number of other things that can seperate
one group from another?
It's the FarLeft queers who want to shove their agenda down everyone's
throats. And it is for that reason alone that they are despised.
Do you walk down the street holding hands with your wife/girlfriend? If so,
does anyone sneer, stare, make rude remarks, etc? Of course not. The gays
simply want (for the main part) to enjoy the same priviledge of walking down
the street, hand in hand, without notice.
"A psychiatrist says that the gay community would not run into so much
hostility if its members did not insist on being treated like real
people."
-- Norman Liebmann
I.e. "they aren't 'real people'", right? So what is a "real person"? One who
likes only people of the opposite sex? One who only does it "missionary
position"? One who only does it once a month or does it with the lights off
or does it only in the bed or does it only under the covers or does it only
in what-ever way you think it should be done?
The bigotry here is overpowering.
--
Mike
atheism: a non-prophet organization...
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
30 Nov 2005 03:44:43 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:38:18 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
The bigotry here is overpowering.
Not bigotry. It's homonausea.
Do I really have to spell out why? Or isn't the image of what male
homosexuals do enough to make you want to barf.
If all they did is kiss and hold hands, then the worst straights could
do is call them sissies. But the act of sodomy is so disgusting from a
physiological point of view that homonausea sets in.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Turtoni" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
30 Nov 2005 01:35:13 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:438d736c.137947593@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:38:18 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
The bigotry here is overpowering.
Not bigotry. It's homonausea.
Do I really have to spell out why? Or isn't the image of what male
homosexuals do enough to make you want to barf.
If all they did is kiss and hold hands, then the worst straights could
do is call them sissies. But the act of sodomy is so disgusting from a
physiological point of view that homonausea sets in.
"A fear of sodomy is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
--Sigmund Freud
"Freud said, 'The wish is father to the fear'. I.e, the 'fear of sodomy'
often arises from an unconscious impulse or wish to do something
socially-unacceptable with it. This is combined with a lack of mature
coping mechanisms to deal with these feelings. Ever
notice just how angry and impulsive sodomy prohibitionists are."
!!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
30 Nov 2005 03:05:54 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Bob <spam@uce.gov> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:38:18 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
The bigotry here is overpowering.
Not bigotry. It's homonausea.
Do I really have to spell out why? Or isn't the image of what male
homosexuals do enough to make you want to barf.
And to some of them, doing what you do is nauseating. To some cultures,
eating a burger is nauseating. To some cultures, eating fish might be
nauseating. Do I need to continue? You ARE showing the exact meaning of
bigotry by being intolerant of another group due to their beliefs.
If all they did is kiss and hold hands, then the worst straights could
do is call them sissies. But the act of sodomy is so disgusting from a
physiological point of view that homonausea sets in.
No, it's from YOUR "physiological point of view." I happen to feel nothing
either way about someone being gay, any more than I'd care if they like anal
sex or oral sex with someone of the opposite sex. What they do is their
business, not mine.
And before you ask: no, I am not gay myself.
--
Mike
atheism: a non-prophet organization...
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
30 Nov 2005 11:57:05 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:44:43 GMT, (Bob) wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:38:18 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
The bigotry here is overpowering.
Not bigotry. It's homonausea.
Do I really have to spell out why? Or isn't the image of what male
homosexuals do enough to make you want to barf.
If all they did is kiss and hold hands, then the worst straights could
do is call them sissies. But the act of sodomy is so disgusting from a
physiological point of view that homonausea sets in.
Bigots can not see their bigotry, because a bigot is always right
in his/her own mind. Any one that disagrees with a bigot, is wrong.
But why do you imagine, what gays do in private? Fantasizing?
Afraid that you will lose to the temptation? Remove the temptation so
you wont fall into it? Is your homophobia really denial?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
30 Nov 2005 12:54:31 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 11:57:05 -0600, robpar <robpar@airmaildelete.net>
wrote:
Bigots can not see their bigotry, because a bigot is always right
in his/her own mind. Any one that disagrees with a bigot, is wrong.
But why do you imagine, what gays do in private? Fantasizing?
Afraid that you will lose to the temptation? Remove the temptation so
you wont fall into it? Is your homophobia really denial?
<yawn>
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "EagleEye" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
23 Nov 2005 04:16:41 PM |
|
|
It was debunked 25 years ago with the first
quantum entanglement experiments and application of Bell's
Inequalities.
Didn't Bell's theorem demonstrate a transluminal connectedness right
across the board? Doesn't it show an acausally connected sphere of NOW
which occurs everywhere, relative to everything else?
And what of the ideas of David Bohm about a quantum holographic
universe, and is there not a corresponding view of the mind as an
emergent quantum holographic phenomenon? Thus, if there is an
entanglement between the observer and the observed, then a fundamental
relationship exists between subjective observing self and the eternally
recurrent process of observation from the perspective of light itself
as the stuff comprising objective reality.
Summary of quantum nonlinear non-locality theories and terms.
GLOSSARY:
A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
BELL'S THEOREM: A mathematical demonstration by Dr. John S. Bell, which
shows that if quantum mechanics is valid, any two particles once in
contact will continue to influence each other, no matter how far apart
they may subsequently move. This violates Special Relativity, unless
the influence between the particles is not employing any known energy.
COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION: The theory formulated by Niels Bohr,
according to which the state vector (see below) should be regarded as a
mathematical formalism. In other words-which some physicists will
dispute- the equations of quantum mechanics do not describe what is
happening in the subatomic world but what mathematical systems we need
to create to think of that world.
COSMIC GLUE: A metaphor to describe the quantum interconnectedness that
must exist if Bell's Theorem be valid. Coined by Dr. Nick Herbert.
E1GENSTATE: One of a finite number of states that a quantum system can
be in. The Superposition Principle says that, before measurement, a
system must be considered to be in all of its etgenstates; measurement
selects one eigenstate.
EINSTEIN-ROSEN-PODOLSKY EFFECT: The quantum interconnectedness as
described in a paper by Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky. The purpose of
said paper was to prove that quantum mechanics cannot be valid, since
it leads to such an outlandish conclusion. Since Bell's Theorem, some
physicists have chosen to accept the interconnectedness, however
outlandish it may seem. See QUIP.
EVERETT-WHEELER-GRAHAM MODEL: An alternative to Bell's Theorem and the
Copenhagen Interpretation. According to Everett, Wheeler, and Graham,
everything that can happen to the state vector (see below) does happen
to it.
FORM: In the sense of G. Spencer Brown, a mathematical or logical
system necessary to systematic thought but having the inevitable
consequences of imposing its own deep structures upon the experiences
packaged and indexed by the form. See COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION.
HIDDEN VARIABLE: An alternative to Bell, Copenhagen, and
Everett-Wheeler-Graham. As developed by Dr. David Bohm, the Hidden
Variable theory assumes that quantum events are determined by a
subquantum system acting outside or before the universe of space-time
known to us. Dr. Evan Harris Walker and Dr. Nick Herbert have suggested
that the Hidden Variable is consciousness; Dr. Jack Sarfatti suggests
that it is information.
INFORMATION: A measure of the unpredictability of a message; that is,
the more unpredictable a message is, the more information it contains.
Since systems tend to disorder (according to the second law of
thermodynamics), we can think of the degree of order in a system as the
amount of information in it. Ordinarily information is transmitted as
an ordering of energy (a signal), in which the energy and its ordering
(the message) is transmitted from one place to another. Dr. Jack
Sarfatti has suggested that the nonlocality of the ERP effect and
Bell's Theorem may entail the instantaneous transfer of order from one
place to another without any energy transfer. Thus we can have both
Bell's Theorem and Special Relativity, since Special Relativity only
prohibits the instantaneous transfer of energy and does not say
anything about instantaneous transfer of information.
NEURO-: A prefix denoting "known or mediated by the nervous system."
Since all human knowledge is neurological in this sense, every science
may be considered a neuro-science; e.g., we have no physics but
neurophysics, no psychology but neuropsychology and ultimately, no
neurology but neuroneurology. But neuroneurology would itself be known
by the nervous system, leading to neuro-neuroneurology etc., in an
infinite regress. See VON NEUMANN'S CATASTROPHE.
NONLOCAL: Not depending upon space and time. A nonlocal effect occurs
instantaneously and with no attenuation due to distance. Special
Relativity seems to forbid all such non-local effects, but Bell's
Theorem seems to show that quantum mechanics demands them. The only
solutions thus far offered to this contradiction are that nonlocal
effects involve "consciousness" rather than energy (Walker, Herbert) or
that they involve "information" rather than energy (Sarfatti).
NONOBJECTIVITY: One of the two alternatives to Bell's Theorem (the
other being the Everett-Wheeler-Graham model). In order to avoid
nonlocality, some physicists such as Dr. John A. Wheeler prefer this
option, which holds that the universe has no reality aside from
observation. The extreme form of this view says "Esse est percepi"-to
be is to be perceived.
POTENTIA: The name given to the presumed subquan-tum world by Dr.
Werner Heisenberg. Space and time do not exist in potentia; but all the
phenomena of the space-time manifold emerge from potentia. Compare with
HIDDEN VARIABLE and INFORMATION.
QUANTUM: An entity whose energies occur in discrete lumps-e.g., photons
are the quanta of the electromagnetic field. Quanta have both wave and
particle aspects, the wave aspect being the probability of detecting
the particle at a certain place and time.
QUANTUM LOGIC: A system of symbolic logic not restricted to the "either
it's A or it's not-A" choices of Aristotelian logic. Chiefly due to Dr.
John Von Neumann and Dr. David Finkelstein, this approach evades the
paradoxes of other interpretations of quantum mechanics by assuming
that the universe is multivalued, not two-valued; Dr. Finkelstein
expresses this by saying "In addition to a yes and a no, the universe
contains a maybe." See E/GENSTATE.
QUANTUM MECHANICS: The mathematical system for describing the atomic
and subatomic realm. There is no dispute about how to do quantum
mechanics-i.e., calculate the probabilities within this realm. All the
controversy is about what the quantum mechanics equations imply about
reality, which is known as the interpretation of quantum mechanics. The
principal lines of interpretation are the Copenhagen Interpretation
and/or Nonobjec-tivity and/or Bell's Theorem and/or Nonlocality and/or
the Everett-Wheeler-Graham multi-worlds model.
QUIP: The quantum inseparability principle. An acronym coined by Dr.
Nick Herbert to refer to the nonlocality implicit in the
Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky argument and explicit in Bell's Theorem.
STATE VECTOR: The mathematical expression describing one of two or more
states that a quantum system can be in; for instance, an electron can
be in either of two spin states, called "spin up" and "spin down." The
amusing thing about quantum mechanics is that each state vector can be
regarded as the superposition of other state vectors.
SUPERDETERMINISM: The approach to quantum theory urged by Dr. Fritjof
Capra in The Tao of Physics. This interpretation rejects "contrafactual
definiteness"; that is, it assumes that any statements about what could
have happened are meaningless. A consequence of this view is that all
distinction between observer and observed, or self and universe, also
becomes meaningless; I had no choice about writing this book, Dell
Books had no choice about publishing it, and you had no choice about
reading it, since there is only one thing happening and we are all
seamlessly welded into it.
SYNCHRONICITY: A term introduced by psychologist Dr. Carl Jung and
physicist Dr. Wolfgang Pauli to describe connections, or meaningful
"coincidences," that do not make sense in terms of cause-and-effect. It
is thought by some that such connections may indicate the Hidden
Variable at work or some sort of nonlocal Information System.
VON NEUMANN'S CATASTROPHE: More fully, Von Neumann's catastrophe of the
infinite regress. A demonstration by Dr. John Von Neumann that quantum
mechanics entails an infinite regress of measurements before the
quantum uncertainty can be removed. That is, any measuring device is
itself a quantum system containing uncertainty; a second measuring
device, used to monitor the first, contains its own quantum
uncertainty; and so on, to infinity. Wigner and others have pointed out
that this uncertainty is only terminated by the decision of the
experimenter. Compare NEURO-.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So if Bohr replied to Einstein about the moon, "not I but the God of
light" that would not be messing around with Einstein - it would be a
statement about the continuously collapsing universal probability wave
upholding the physical universe when man is "not looking".
Another modern idea that I really like which is coming of age, is the
notion of an eternally present enfolded present moment, where the very
idea of time, as existing in a past, present and future has no meaning
from the perspective of the present moment, that, in other words, here
now was there then, yet unfolded in the rolling now, which is all there
ever has been. In other words this world with us here in it now, was in
that moment then when the dynosaurs roamed the earth, enfolded, and
that is not and cannot be thought of as a past time, since THIS moment
is all there is and all there ever was.
And God "said" let there be light, and there WAS light.
To ask what was before light has no meaning once it already was, in
other words.
This leads to the idea of a strong anthropic principal as a
preconditional antecedent to consciousness, and from what I've read,
this is where Stephen Hawking is going, and he claims there there
cannot be a final GUT unless both the strong anthropic principal and
consciousness are factored into the equation. Strangly, he'll go on in
the next paragraph to say that he won't be around in the future..!
I intuit an eternally recurrent present moment framed within a boundary
which causes things to evolve and to progress along the line of an
arrow of progress or an arrow of an evolution of space time, which
would imply, I think...a cosmological constant which is dynamic and
which rises to infinity where Omega simultaneously equals both one and
infinity at the same time where infinity divided by one = infinity,
which means that one is both indivisible and infinite, meaning that
there is nothing that is "not", only what is bounded within an
eternally present moment, operating relative to an Omega Point
comprised of all information, from every possible angle and
perspective, including the unseen unseen in the realm of the unknown
unknown - that to God, the whole universe is visible at the apex of the
light cone of all light cones.
http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/summary.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "EagleEye" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
23 Nov 2005 04:57:58 PM |
|
|
Although history has no meaning, we can give it a meaning.
Karl Popper (The Open Society
and Its Enemies, Vol. 2, p.
278)
http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/physicist.html
My view is that when inquiring as to the meaning of life and history,
in terms of an answer to the almost childlike and seemingly eternally
recurrent question of "because why?" which is a question that is
ultimately asked in search of justice as to the root cause and source
of injustice, is finally answered by Christianity in the form of an
answer which states "because I love you" to which one more question of
"because why?" invokes the response, "because I chose you". In other
words, there is a terminal point in history, as far as a seemingly
endless and oftimes absurd process of victimization, absurd by a
continual negation relative to a "not" or to a should and shouldn't, as
in two wrongs don't make a right - where all "sin" and evil became
relative to a blameless and willing victim of historical circumstance,
seen taking responsibility for the entire dynamic of victimization, by
making of himself the final victim, yet one who is just and righteous
and therefore incorruptible, yet becoming the very embodiment of
corruption for the sake of the "other" as in ever other. Relative to
the human psycho-drama, the passion was an expression of a resolution
to the problem of evil in history, thereby doing justice to the
individual, by setting him/her free from the subjective bondage to the
law as "should and shouldn't", turning rebellion into a new type of
slavery in service to love, and even to a process of continued
civilization, which, unfortunately we have yet to fully "grok".
The Christians then may speak of a great truth which is true, but which
they are hard pressed to fully explain, since it is in reality, the
expression of a simple solution on the other side of almost infinite
complexity.
Absent the cross, history is something which is meaningless, and true
justice, an absurdity, which as amuzing as it may be at first glance (I
became a musclebound weightlifter because Jonny pushed me off the
monkey bars in kindergarten) when pursued in terms of an authentic and
lasting historical justice and therefore meaning and significance, it
can lose it's good humour rather quickly, terminating in a hopeless
state of indefinite imprisonment in a subjective isolation chamber of
our own making, from which we cannot escape by self will and self
determination alone, according to a so-called free will which is
trapped and entirely limited based on past experience, with no hope for
continued progress towards a brighter future. A Christian may then be
considered an eternal optimist, and the athiest the eternal pessimist.
It is really a question of - is there an oughtness to the isness of
being and becoming, or put another way, is there a transit across the
divided middle of the paradox of leadership between whay is and what
should be which will not fall victim, time again to yet another
injustice or victimization, or to the impossibility of being perfect
and having perfect intregrity to a moral law any part of which is
broken breaks the whole of it. Is there authentic freedom, out of which
may arise increasing conscious awareness, amid increasing freedom,
through a decision making which is capable of taking in increasing
amounts of information, while at the same time having the courage to
act, and to act in increasingly Godly ways, relative to ourselves,
others, our society, nation, world, and even the history of which we
are active historical participants and free will causal agents of
change (for better or for worse) by neccessity - the neccessity of
choice woven right into the very fabric of reality.
The final lie may be that history has no meaning except that which we
impose upon it, something brought to light by the actions and behavior
of this present central governance and leadership of the USA as to
so-called civilized leader of the free world. What they hoped to create
was an unjust society founded on nothing more than a type of dominance
and submission, to a historical lie of lies, which cannot do justice to
the individual as a member of that society.
Sorry for rambling, but there's a point to all of this and a method to
the seeming madness..just takes a while to reach the grand realization.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
24 Nov 2005 02:35:06 PM |
|
|
EagleEye wrote:
Although history has no meaning, we can give it a meaning.
Karl Popper (The Open Society
and Its Enemies, Vol. 2, p.
278)
http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/physicist.html
My view is that when inquiring as to the meaning of life and history,
in terms of an answer to the almost childlike and seemingly eternally
recurrent question of "because why?" which is a question that is
ultimately asked in search of justice as to the root cause and source
of injustice, is finally answered by Christianity in the form of an
answer which states "because I love you" to which one more question of
"because why?" invokes the response, "because I chose you". In other
words, there is a terminal point in history, as far as a seemingly
endless and oftimes absurd process of victimization, absurd by a
continual negation relative to a "not" or to a should and shouldn't, as
in two wrongs don't make a right - where all "sin" and evil became
relative to a blameless and willing victim of historical circumstance,
seen taking responsibility for the entire dynamic of victimization, by
making of himself the final victim, yet one who is just and righteous
and therefore incorruptible, yet becoming the very embodiment of
corruption for the sake of the "other" as in ever other. Relative to
the human psycho-drama, the passion was an expression of a resolution
to the problem of evil in history, thereby doing justice to the
individual, by setting him/her free from the subjective bondage to the
law as "should and shouldn't", turning rebellion into a new type of
slavery in service to love, and even to a process of continued
civilization, which, unfortunately we have yet to fully "grok".
The Christians then may speak of a great truth which is true, but which
they are hard pressed to fully explain, since it is in reality, the
expression of a simple solution on the other side of almost infinite
complexity.
Absent the cross, history is something which is meaningless, and true
justice, an absurdity, which as amuzing as it may be at first glance (I
became a musclebound weightlifter because Jonny pushed me off the
monkey bars in kindergarten) when pursued in terms of an authentic and
lasting historical justice and therefore meaning and significance, it
can lose it's good humour rather quickly, terminating in a hopeless
state of indefinite imprisonment in a subjective isolation chamber of
our own making, from which we cannot escape by self will and self
determination alone, according to a so-called free will which is
trapped and entirely limited based on past experience, with no hope for
continued progress towards a brighter future. A Christian may then be
considered an eternal optimist, and the athiest the eternal pessimist.
It is really a question of - is there an oughtness to the isness of
being and becoming, or put another way, is there a transit across the
divided middle of the paradox of leadership between whay is and what
should be which will not fall victim, time again to yet another
injustice or victimization, or to the impossibility of being perfect
and having perfect intregrity to a moral law any part of which is
broken breaks the whole of it. Is there authentic freedom, out of which
may arise increasing conscious awareness, amid increasing freedom,
through a decision making which is capable of taking in increasing
amounts of information, while at the same time having the courage to
act, and to act in increasingly Godly ways, relative to ourselves,
others, our society, nation, world, and even the history of which we
are active historical participants and free will causal agents of
change (for better or for worse) by neccessity - the neccessity of
choice woven right into the very fabric of reality.
The final lie may be that history has no meaning except that which we
impose upon it, something brought to light by the actions and behavior
of this present central governance and leadership of the USA as to
so-called civilized leader of the free world. What they hoped to create
was an unjust society founded on nothing more than a type of dominance
and submission, to a historical lie of lies, which cannot do justice to
the individual as a member of that society.
Sorry for rambling, but there's a point to all of this and a method to
the seeming madness..just takes a while to reach the grand realization.
Oh dear, that was torture to read. I still don't know what you were
saying - although I sense you were saying something good.
A meaning in history? No. Was that clear enough? No meaning. Where
might it come from? Who, or what, might inject or interject meaning
into purely natural processes? Energy exists. It shows as matter. The
phenomenon we call universe occurs. Planets ensue. On one planet, at
least, a replicating form takes hold. This form becomes a vehicle for
multiple responses to the challenges and opportunities it faces.
Eventually an entity, a creature, so-called, emerges with a capacity
for awareness of the process. This creature is also endowed with the
natural capacity for colonisation - i.e. inhabiting, surviving,
defending, organising, etc - common to all replicating forms. Thus,
this creature, i.e. us, sets about the process of colonising our
planet. It is, to say the least, an uneven process. Failure and strife
await at every juncture. Our wish for knowledge leads to hasty
conclusion. We impose our ignorance on each other. Error is
everywhere. Atrocities abound. But..inexorably...we fill our planet. We
learn to tap its resources. We recover many of the freedoms we lost.
There is no meaning in all this. There is only the natural urge to
colonise. There are the unavoidable perils of any colonisation. But
there is also an endless urge to confer meaning. At every point in the
process we sought to explain and to rationalise and to give purpose
and/or direction. Our particular response to the challenges facing us
demanded such an effort.
And now we demand it again. We are near-global; we face new perils; our
newfound rights do not bring completion; our societies are unjust and
troubled. We need a new hope, a new direction. Notwthstanding our
successes we have lost faith in ourselves as a species.
Humanisation seeks to offer such a hope. It offers no "meaning", as
normally understood. It is not deflected by error or excess beause it
sees error and excess as unavoidable. It holds to a fraught vision of
human capability - a creature who may eventually create an intelligent
global society, a creature who is unique in nature and may be unique in
the universe, a creature who may choose to be the eyes of the universe
- in the hope that such a vision will spur us, or will spur leaders
among us, to create that intelliogent, caring society.
Joseph H
www.humanisation.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
24 Nov 2005 03:31:23 AM |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2005 14:16:41 -0800, "EagleEye"
<jnewton@globalmanagement.ca> wrote:
It was debunked 25 years ago with the first
quantum entanglement experiments and application of Bell's
Inequalities.
Didn't Bell's theorem demonstrate a transluminal connectedness right
across the board? Doesn't it show an acausally connected sphere of NOW
which occurs everywhere, relative to everything else?
That is some statement. All Bell's theorem in conjunction with quantum
entanglement is state that local hidden variables do not exist. The
claim that there are nonlocal hidden variables is conjecture outside
of the conclusions reached by Bell's theorem.
And what of the ideas of David Bohm about a quantum holographic
universe, and is there not a corresponding view of the mind as an
emergent quantum holographic phenomenon? Thus, if there is an
entanglement between the observer and the observed, then a fundamental
relationship exists between subjective observing self and the eternally
recurrent process of observation from the perspective of light itself
as the stuff comprising objective reality.
I do not accept Bohm's conjectures and speculations, so there is no
need for me to comment on them. Bohm had his chance to make an
important mark on quantum physics and he failed. End of story as far
as I am concerned.
E1GENSTATE: One of a finite number of states that a quantum system can
be in.
The number of states does not have to be finite. In quantum
electrodynamics, the number of states is infinite.
EINSTEIN-ROSEN-PODOLSKY EFFECT: The quantum interconnectedness as
described in a paper by Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky. The purpose of
said paper was to prove that quantum mechanics cannot be valid, since
it leads to such an outlandish conclusion. Since Bell's Theorem, some
physicists have chosen to accept the interconnectedness, however
outlandish it may seem. See QUIP.
One day we will stop worshipping Einstein and realize that he was a
bright physicist who was just as fallible as the rest.
NONLOCAL: Not depending upon space and time. A nonlocal effect occurs
instantaneously and with no attenuation due to distance. Special
Relativity seems to forbid all such non-local effects, but Bell's
Theorem seems to show that quantum mechanics demands them.
Bell's theorem only rules out local hidden variables. The existence of
non-local hidden variables is conjecture.
Another modern idea that I really like which is coming of age, is the
notion of an eternally present enfolded present moment, where the very
idea of time, as existing in a past, present and future has no meaning
from the perspective of the present moment, that, in other words, here
now was there then, yet unfolded in the rolling now, which is all there
ever has been. In other words this world with us here in it now, was in
that moment then when the dynosaurs roamed the earth, enfolded, and
that is not and cannot be thought of as a past time, since THIS moment
is all there is and all there ever was.
Mystical new age bullcrap. Try getting past the editors of Physical
Review with that nonsense.
Stephen Hawking is going
Hawking is a book writer who sells books based on scientific
speculation of the same sort science fiction writers indulge in.
I intuit an eternally recurrent present moment framed within a boundary
which causes things to evolve and to progress along the line of an
arrow of progress or an arrow of an evolution of space time, which
would imply, I think...a cosmological constant which is dynamic and
which rises to infinity where Omega simultaneously equals both one and
infinity at the same time where infinity divided by one = infinity,
which means that one is both indivisible and infinite, meaning that
there is nothing that is "not", only what is bounded within an
eternally present moment, operating relative to an Omega Point
comprised of all information, from every possible angle and
perspective, including the unseen unseen in the realm of the unknown
unknown - that to God, the whole universe is visible at the apex of the
light cone of all light cones.
LOL
You are smoking some damn good *****, dude.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "minus" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
22 Nov 2005 02:52:42 AM |
|
|
Bob skrev:
Why does there have to be a cause in the first place?
How else could you have Order?
there could be order as there is order in space. A fishes body, if
looked at in crossections, has an order, organ shapes expand and shrink
as one moves through the crossections. They are related to eachother
in patterns, but these patterns are not causal.
Here is a very crude analogy. The Universe is a mode of Being like a
wave on a pond is a mode of the pond. The pond can be completely
tranquil in which case it is pure Being. It can support other modes of
Being, like when it supports waves on its surface.
These waves cannot exist by themselves - they need the pond in order
to exist. In an analogous way, the Universe needs the Supreme Being in
order to exist. Without the Universe, the Supreme Being is "tranquil"
- sublime - in a pure state. With the Universe the Supreme Being is
manifesting a mode of Being.
But ponds change. They are changed by the waves, temporararily as the
wave passes and more permanently as particles shift and settle due to
the waves. Of course analogies are limited, being here immmanently.
But why does God/everything have to be unchanging. Why limit God to
stasis? What is there that proves that God is not evolving along with
everything else.
These people cannot accept that the meaning and purpose of life is to
die. That is the final cause of life - the thing which life is lived
for.
Now I'm laughing: the final cause of life is to die? And we must be
fooled to death?
The term "final cause" is from Aristotle. In some instances an event
is caused for the purpose of achieving some goal. That goal is called
the final cause.
Many people would suggest that what I propose is mythical anyway: that
we are the mind of matter
I would say it a bit differently, with a strong bias of QM. Mind is
result of brain function, which itself is a quantum mechanical
process. As a result the brain is connected with the Vacuum, the
latter which is the source of all matter in the Universe. So in a very
real sense, your comment has meaning.
The Vaccum extends throughout space and is reflexive. I believe that
it is this reflexive nature of the Vacuum that causes our
self-awareness.
and that we are destined to create an intelligent global society.
That is not going to happen until mankind becomes tyrannicical and
stops relying on strong authoritarian central govts to take care of
them because they are too lazy and too stupid to do it for themselves.
That, if accepted, might satisfy peoples' inner needs.
No wonder the see reality as absurd. One look at how mankind has
botched things repeatedly is enough to convince anyone of the
absurdity of existence.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
22 Nov 2005 08:00:41 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 21 Nov 2005 15:04:32 -0800, "Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org>
wrote:
I do and all I can come up with is the necessary fact that the cause
of the existence of the Universe is not the Universe so there must
necessarily be a Being which is the cause of the existence of the
Universe and that the essence of this Being must be Existence (Esse).
Why does there have to be a cause in the first place?
How else could you have Order?
Causality is what created order. If there were no causality, reality
would be chaotic, random, unordered.
Once you get to the level of Being, there is no causality because
Being is perfectly ordered and cannot be ordered further.
All the talk of "God" is just confused so I deleted it. I want to
focus
on this last sentence of yours.
By capitalizing "Being" you have already introduced God into the
picture and have done so at a "level" that doesn't exist. The only
eternal is the here and now in which one exists and it changes.
We label the vector along which change exists "time" and the
vectors of the change "distance" and "direction". It is your being
alone that give this meaning to you. All else is wishful thinking.
There is a mixture of order and disorder in the universe. There is
a non-zero probability of some "thing" exising everywhere and
everywhen except as the "things" that exist are informed
otherwise. These "things" are the nexus of information, their
being, which they share with other "things".
Causality is the illusionary property produced by ordering of
information into the triplets (time, distance, direction) relative
to some arbitrary value. Mass and momentum are introduced
to make sense of the ordered data. The ordering is something
the individual does in the here and now to give meaning to
the information.
It isn't clear if the regularities we observe in the information
exist or are an artifact of our ordering. It doesn't seem to
make any difference one way or the other as the ordered
information seems to have predictive qualities towards
additional information not yet ordered.
This article, too, is worthy of deletion due to its confusion
but I won't do it. I leave that to others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
22 Nov 2005 10:11:41 AM |
|
|
On 22 Nov 2005 06:00:41 -0800, wrote:
By capitalizing "Being" you have already introduced God into the
picture and have done so at a "level" that doesn't exist.
No so. Being is capitalized to reflect the fact that it is a
principle.
The later association with the Supreme Being is based on rational
arguments which you are unable to understand.
--
BOYCOTT SONY!
SONY IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER YOUR COMPUTER!
HOMELAND SECURITY TOLD SONY TO CEASE AND DESIST!
YOU DO THE SAME - BOYCOTT SONY!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
22 Nov 2005 05:23:18 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 21 Nov 2005 15:04:32 -0800, "Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org>
wrote:
I do and all I can come up with is the necessary fact that the cause
of the existence of the Universe is not the Universe so there must
necessarily be a Being which is the cause of the existence of the
Universe and that the essence of this Being must be Existence (Esse).
Why does there have to be a cause in the first place?
How else could you have Order?
Another Capitalised Letter. More Verbal Imperialism. Am I supposed to
gape in awe as you introduce another Meaningless Entity.
Could...let's just saurmise a while...could it not be the case that
energy "simply" exists; that energy is the natural state of affairs;
that energy on a particular occasion begot the vibrant space we call
the universe? Where is Order or Being here?
Causality is what created order. If there were no causality, reality
would be chaotic, random, unordered.
I don't see that. Not seeing that may be a deficiency on my part; or it
may be that "that" has no content applicable to the universe we know.
Once you get to the level of Being, there is no causality because
Being is perfectly ordered and cannot be ordered further. That is why
God does not need a cause.
An explanation,
perhaps; a particular cancatanation of matter, or energy, or
whatever...but nothing so leading as a "cause". And the fact that the
cause of the existence of the Universe is not - or may not be - the
Uinverse gives no indication whatever that there must be a Being.
Sure it does. It's very mutability tells us that it cannot be the
source of its own existence. Only an immutable Being can be the source
of existence.
Why? It's just nonsense - I surmise.
Here is a very crude analogy. The Universe is a mode of Being like a
wave on a pond is a mode of the pond. The pond can be completely
tranquil in which case it is pure Being. It can support other modes of
Being, like when it supports waves on its surface.
These waves cannot exist by themselves - they need the pond in order
to exist. In an analogous way, the Universe needs the Supreme Being in
order to exist. Without the Universe, the Supreme Being is "tranquil"
- sublime - in a pure state. With the Universe the Supreme Being is
manifesting a mode of Being.
If you make it complex enough nobody can refute you. But that doesn't
mean you are in ANY WAY CORRECT. It just means you have made it too
complex for most people to refute. Hence the tremendous success - and
the tremendous irrrelevance - of metaphysics. It's a mind game for very
gifted people.
These people cannot accept that the meaning and purpose of life is to
die. That is the final cause of life - the thing which life is lived
for.
Now I'm laughing: the final cause of life is to die? And we must be
fooled to death?
The term "final cause" is from Aristotle. In some instances an event
is caused for the purpose of achieving some goal. That goal is called
the final cause.
Many people would suggest that what I propose is mythical anyway: that
we are the mind of matter
I would say it a bit differently, with a strong bias of QM. Mind is
result of brain function, which itself is a quantum mechanical
process. As a result the brain is connected with the Vacuum, the
latter which is the source of all matter in the Universe. So in a very
real sense, your comment has meaning.
Well, that's a first. But what is the Vacuum? Another Capital Letter!
The Vaccum extends throughout space and is reflexive. I believe that
it is this reflexive nature of th | |
