On Sep 23, 2:19 pm, adrian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the comments. It doubt it is a least action Universe.
jr writes>
Any action other than least action demands a God.
Have your read into chaos
> theory?
jr writes>
Functions eventually reduce to repetitions and when they don't they
reduce to infinite expansions of approximations like pi. While events
can be too complex for our capabilities chaos is precluded where
stable systems exist.
It presents some interesting features not explicable otherwise. How
would you explain a
> supernova,
jr writes>
Search on google for "johnreed take 23" do an order by date and select
the most recnt date.
or Halton Arp's spawning of young galaxies by old ones? My now
intertretation of the
> atom is as the law of three, postive and negative interaction harmonised and
> balanced by the
> proton which does not have a fixed value, perhaps not unlike a gaspedal of a
> car? You'd have to
> be using a special meaning for 'least', in which case least would mean "just
> right" or suited
> to the occasion.
jr writes>
In statistical probabilities the most probable action is least action.
In orbits the ellipse obeys the law of areas which is an artifact of
the perfect circle in space taken in terms of time. A circle is the
most efficient enclosure of area.
>
> C.T. proposes that order and chaos as Bohr, or was that Planck?, his
> complementarity are it.
> While least action is sort of Ockham like 'simple' again chaos theory shows
> that very simple to
> fast bifurcate into complex. I can't exactly reproduce the arguments of
> course but I am
> inpressed with some of the explanations. My fancy favours that pertinent
> levels or appropriate
> levels of force'energy seems better? Order after all is a selective subset of
> chaos, as
> distinct from 'random' which is anyhow a fiction.
jr writes>
I would say that chaos cannot exist except with reference to order.
If otherwise no one would be around to recognize either.>
> Intuition, to call it that, for holistic access nicely picking out
> pertinent details for
> whatever, comes in three types, sort of
> 1: insertions into intellect when relaxing fronm a stint of work while
> minding a problem,
> showing a connection one had not considered. By Mind I mean attentively
> pre-occupied, like
> steeing on it.
> 2: Channeled take overs from intellect or beyond that which may be through
> any of the senses,
> like Kekule dreaming up his benzene ring. This includes personifications of
> angels, aliens and
> other ?indecorous? items. I dream my silly notions, dreaming in words. Then I
> sit down and more
> or less zombie thru as an article.
> 3: At a noumenal or what John Gowan calls psychedelic level of call it
> mastery. Like in typing
> up I used to be quite fast, now I go quite slowly, proof reading and emending
> sentences as I
> go, often coming up with words and phrases I knew not before, check out and
> find them to be
> correct.
> Beyond all this I have an awareness of a greater awareness than mine, at a
> same time just
> unaffecedly observing and on occasion inlfuencing events, like there are
> certain things I
> cannot bring myself to do, which makes me laugh at debates about morality. On
> the other hand I
> have has some 70 odd weird happening when I am in a crisis of sorts, it
> simply changes and
> disappears. For another I do 'wild catting' a phrase jumps to mind I go
> surfing and somewhere
> among the pile of screen stuff there appears an item I needed but left for
> lack of evidence.
> on several occasions it saved my life. Hence call myself fey, not psychic.
>
> I'm quite against drugs, although there are some good ones. They're just a
> chemical bind that
> lasts for its while. However for a suitably prepared mind it can be an eye
> opener. Aldous used
> L.S.D, so did Tim Leary, but both already were psychic as hell. When writing
> Aldous was, like
> Thomas Mann, totally zombied unaware of his environment. And he comes from a
> long line of
> geniuses.
jr writes>
Island is seldom read where BNW and BNWR are always read. Also his
lectures are peserved. But DT Suziki is an experience.
And yes one still does not know how but with practice it can be
turned on and off. It
> surely is not done by any physical sense or trigger I know of. Another one
> is, I wrote an
> article on the scientif metod veing a match to the oracular methid. I wonered
> sine wgy the had
> not occurred to anyone before, And Bingo I just was shown a book ...the Myth
> of the Scientific
> Method, H. Bauer, where before I only had Dean Conant of Harvard calling it
> the alleged SM. It
> is a myth having hardly a thing to do with method, only a pernicious
> insistence to find out,
> whatever it is. And sometime it just pops up in the head, but not always. One
> has to put in an
> earnest of intent.
>
> Duration uuhhmm, Well there's exo-senses the five of objects in space, but as
> to time it is an
> experience the location of which cannot be nailed down.
jr writes>
Our sense of duration is all we can nail down. Our life span is its
only arrow. Everything else is a measure of cylic regularity that is a
necessary occurence in a least action stable system universe that we
can exist is.
So give the exosenses their
> frequencies, harmonised somehow into a world model. If so then what about
> awareness able to
> speed up and slow down like making a film or tape do that, so we can inspect
> the parts and all
> that. So although time and space are paired, we've no proof they are, except
> for us. If you go
> thru subjective experiences of time it comes at various speeds. I recall
> hitting a brick wall
> at about 1 k or less an hour, my brakes failed, and it seemed to last forever
> at a same time as
> I knew it was not. Anyhow I am not very good with time, without a watch I'm
> lost. An Uncle of
> mie though could not wear a watch, it simply stopped but not when worn by
> others, and he could
> tell the exact time, to the minute. To me the material universe is a facade,
> one, perforce, I
> have to put up with. We're certainly parochial in our interpretaions of the
> universe, that's
> where science fails.
>
> Build imaginary objects, funny that, I've just written an article on Arts of
> Memory devices, as
> used in oral times, nothing like you can read up on inet as mnemonics, which
> is kid stuff. Take
> the kabala, that is a schema of pure relations divided vertially into male,
> and female outer
> pillars and horizontally into Crown for the noumenal, and then for formation
> or process,
> structure or pattern and dangling below kingdom for the world of appearances,
> which is about as
> neat as you may get it of a pale ghost of a theory of the universe.
>
> adrian
>
> Johnlawrencereedjr 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.
> > jr writes>
> > There are some accomplished physicists alive today that foolishly
> > regard the psychedelic experience as invalid, with respect to the
> > context you refer to. They have the idea that the mind cannot benefit
> > from chemically altered consciousness. It's a pity. Alduous Huxley
> > was an influence on me during my youth and I have benefitted from it.
>
> > 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.
> > jr writes>
> > One can recognize possibilities of an extra-sensory nature without
> > going there. Like those who die and are brought back, who speak of a
> > tunnel of light. At the far end of which a voice offers "Are you
> > ready?" Where you have a choice in cases. The psychedelic experience
> > however, must be directly sensed. It allows you to "work it" but you
> > still don't know how and the attempt to articulate that experience
> > results in descriptive words that stretch the envelope like:
> > electroskeletoidenal and psycho-amplitudinous, where nonetheless you
> > can purge illness from your body.
> > 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.
> > jr writes>
> > Time results from our sense of duration. Our sense of being.
> > Consciousness. A direction exists for time beginning at our birth and
> > ending at our projected death. Outside of this, with respect to the
> > observed universe, time manifests as a regular and necessary, least
> > action cyclic property of stable physical systems. We seek to describe
> > the universe after our own image.
>
> > 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.
> > jr writes>
> > I have projected a notion that the vortex manifestation of hurricane
> > motion is connected to the dynamo that is the core of the Earth. Also
> > lightning. However I have not taken these notions any further, altho'
> > I have developed a basis for their cause, that is rational but not
> > uniquely specific wrt cause,
> > 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.
> > jr writes>
> > This is equivalent to saying that we can build imaginary objects from
> > dimensionless stationary or moving over time and space points, lines
> > and angles solely within our mind and discover relationship after
> > relationship that are properties of so constructed objects with some
> > regular proportion. The problem with the universe being gone (outside
> > the fact that we too would be gone) however, is that we could never
> > connect this regularity to a universe.
>
> > 2: The human mind has first to construct forms, independently, before
> > we can find them in
> > things. Albert Einstein.
> > jr writes>
> > This may be correct but due to the fact that the universe is a least
> > action universe and given
>
> ...
>
> read more »- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
