Hi, Cannot someone complain to Google groups about Georges, Archytas and other friends?
I'd like to know whether any member likes my stuff or else I may as well get on a Hyde Park soap box. I'd nearly given up on whether there were any sane members here. The particle issue> http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/dk/bohr.htm Discussions with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics N Bohr "..however far the phenomena transcend the scope of classical physical explanation, the account of all evidence must be expressed in classical terms." Nils Bohr The Russians do this too. This is both to avoid cluttering up physics with needless jargon and to keep the findings understandable by a layman. The paper is worth reading. They know quite well they are enquiring into the intangible aspects of reality, Altogether the discourse has moved into fields and with adaptations to math seems now moving into qualitative ideas. The sequence is quite simple: - Aether or sea of energy, continuum, formless, noumenal, infinite. etc - Plasma where sentience creates ?transient forms, so equal to Kabalah formation or process. - Matter where finite stability occurs and attended by space. To believe anything beyond earth has to fit earth is parochial. The whole cycles between finitely tangible and infinitely intangible. You can liken plasma to the occult astral because after all it only re-invents the wheel. The problem of material stability is still unsettled. It should conform to appearance or Kabalah Kingdom. As far as I can tell time is a cosmic background noise like the sea or wind in the willows, etc. Hence we cannot reconcile space with time, as should be obvious. It's reality constantly adjusting between frequency domains. The only thing we can be sure about is axiomatic setups and not ever about reality. It's a risk domain us, it, the universal, having free will, which is not a force, etc. As, I think called vrittis, the smallest indivisible part that is nothing of itself [ cf I-Ching 'hsiao i'] in Sanscrit it's mindstuff treated as units. Diamond Sutra: "form is emptiness and emptiness is form." This is quite aphoristic as any higher, subtler, faster action is intangible to the form elected as a focus. Cf Earth and frequencies, smaller than earth circumference seems moving to indetectible, larger becomes contract or background. At Einstein speed of light it takes 7 cycles. Schrodinger and others strongly disliked the statistical approach as not leading to useful insights. AnD< haha, the above pattern conforms to language SvO as A relation B. Relations are quite unclassifiable. Nor do we need a top level as sentience or god, it's made up of the stuff. In terms of language, sentience knowing itself is a paradox, but to itself it's obvious. But verbs class as transitive, intransitive and reflexive in active and passive moods. When you call me Adrian, I know dang well who you're talking to and I don't need or like my name as me. But to you, I will be an Adrian, which makes it non-commutable, hence 1st person although to talk to me it needs 2nd and about me 3rd. Unfortunately science only allows 3rd person. adrian johnlawrencereedjr wrote: > > > On Aug 20, 1:28 am, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> --- On Tue, 8/19/08, johnlawrencereedjr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> From: johnlawrencereedjr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
