I quite liked the kind of chemistry in which you looked up past results (so as not to repeat or be able to repeat) and then used a few equations to try to grasp what shapes might be in possible contact with each other and how you might get more of the contacts you wanted and produce some new compound. I used to wonder why ice cream hadn't melted at 4 degrees C and whether I could find something that would make water foam at higher temperatures. Sooner or later I was into complex organo-metalics and the promiscuous world of hydrogen bonding. I was reasonably successful and we tend to forget that even this comes from feeling about in the dark and hard work in observation and recording rather than tranced genius. It has always seemed strange to me that mystical experience (which I share) is so much the province of con-people and dullards looking for some arse to follow and trendies.
On 8 Sep, 04:15, adrf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank You, That's why I post, to reach others who may follow up on what's > written. The sillies, > having dogmatic minds auto project everybody else has. I have had mystical > experiences, have > noumenal access, not phenomenal as do many. I like John Curtis Gowan, his > Book. "Operations of > Increasing Order", is a freebie on internet. He had two degrees, one in math > one in psychology. > JohnCG used a Sigma curve of Trance, art and Psychedelic or transcendent. In > Trance we get > insights unrelated to anything else. For Art we play'project them in various > forms until > something fits together, The Psychedelic amounts to full, conscious access of > how it works. > It's fascinating that John who says he never had any transcendental > experiences worked that > out. I took his creativity test and, apparently, scored highest, funny that. > > The mystical state is funny as it blows the mind out of all sensory > data crunching. It serves > as a gateway to henceforth self paced further development. I have a similar > interpretation for > Time. Taking our rather varied experiences as products of harmonic resonances > then the left > over, unused access levels blend together in a bland background noise as > time, not to include > the lot that produced the now falsified Big Bang, but very like it. Ditto > Gravity by that > correlates to an energy push of fields way outside the materially obvious. > Then it is that the > noise a mystical experience senses and we can peel it apart in so called > other dimensional > access. By that this noise equates to the random, which ain't random but very > polyphonic. > Lightning works that way. At 2 billion Volts difference between sky and earth > they found out, > once we could fly in the stratosphere, that Lightning coming from clouds is > fed far higher up > in the sky and, it seems, ultimately from para solar fields. > > CHaitin, on Foundations of math, on his website has: Four provably equivalent > definitions of > mathematics: > 1: Mathematics is the part of science you could continue to do if you woke > up tomorrow and > discovered the universe was gone. I do not know the author of this elegant > definition put on > the web by Dave Rusin. > 2: The human mind has first to construct forms, independently, before we can > find them in > things. Albert Einstein. > 3: In mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them. > John von Neumann > 4: Mathematicians are mad tailors: they are making "all the possible clothes" > hoping to make > also something suitable for dressing... Stanislaw Lem, "Summa Technologiae" > (translated) > > ie, it's axiomatic and abstract, can produce actual and fictional patterns. > So it's no > guarantee its recipes of patterns are actually valid. Beyond this though > math intimates how > our brain works, after mind had set up the parameters. That's much the same > as psychiatry for > that social consensus reality's 'hallucination', Where on earth and in heaven > does it come > from? It surely does not come from outside the cosmic reality. So if so, it > is a narrowly > conceived 'reality' trying to downput a larger one. > > adrian > > > > johnlawrencereedjr wrote: > > Hi, > > Cannot someone complain to Google groups about Georges, Archytas and > > other friends? > > jr writes> > > On whose behalf? > > I'd like to know whether any member likes my stuff or else I may as > > well get on a Hyde Park > > soap box. > > jr writes> > > You may even reach more people that way at any one time but its just > > in passing. When you permanently post something it is there for the > > duration and will represent you years from now barring super severe > > activity from the Sun. To get viewers to access your stuff you must > > obtain their interest. And then if successful you must impress them > > with your stuff. > > 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 > > jr writes> > > We can build an atom from compacted electromagnetic field structures. > > That is: from electricity and magnetism which transcends the scope of > > our classical explanations. However, we can validate this structure in > > terms of its measured properties as an oscillating field that emits > > or absorbs energy in the form of frequency and wavelength. > > > To believe anything beyond earth > > has to fit earth is parochial. > > jr writes> > > Better to say that: to believe that the stuff we sense is causal > > because we sense it and can quantify it, is parochial. Goblins are not > > to be expected but life can come in many forms. We are only privy to > > that part of the universe that we can live in. No reason to believe > > that once that criteria exists anywhere it is any different than Earth > > except in other than fundamental detail. > > > <<<Snipped section for lack of tangible substance>>>. > > Schrodinger and others strongly disliked the statistical approach as > > not leading to useful > > insights. > > jr writes> > > When you base your statistics on our inability to locate an imaginary > > quantity like an orbiting electron in the name of uncertainty you open > > a pandora's box of virtual particles to fill any pothole you stumble > > into that you did not anticipate. But this does not make the > > statistical approach void of useful insights. In an electromagnetic > > oscillating atomic field that creates and absorbs electron packets on > > the fly the statistical approach still offers a most probable or least > > action solution with regard to the emitted or absorbed electron. The > > uncertainty is tied to the atomic structure and function itself, > > rather than to our inability to locate a non existing entity. > > <<<snipped section for lack of addressable substance>>> > > Have a good time Adrian > > johnreed- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
