As usual I can only talk about my domain, which is language It is possible yes, to create a concept from nothing in language. I other words I can create spaces, even if they are not physical spaces, they are effective. even mankind could depend on them
If we somehow switch off now Internet, be sure we face a sort of Armageddon. Internet is a purely language space which was invented as a collection of addresses which has today the limit of 256.256.256.256, meaning: 4,294,967,296 possible locations Each one of them with different nested contents. This is not exactly true, I'm just trying to point the fact that this space is a language creation, does not depend on the huge hardware that it uses, because even if necessary in order to work, has nothing to do with that space itself, For instance, addresses will not be enough soon and we will need to rise that collection to at least 512.512.512.512, = 68,719,476,736, some 15 times bigger All this is to say about vacuum, I dont believe vacuum is possible, unless I think of it afterwards. The space which now occupies Internet, was a vacuum before its creation And if somehow we revert to vacuum, which is impossible, we most probably die. On 30 nov, 10:58, michael atovigba <[email protected]> wrote: > lets discuss this gravity-vacuum thing with the maths concepts of real and > imginary measures. real measures or numbers were long discovered until the > square root of minus one (-1) could not be found and this has since been > tagged imaginary number. this number is intangible but it exists and > this can be likened to a vacuum. Again if the imaginary number is compounded > the result is a real measure. Thus, in a similar way, the vacuum if > manipulated witth compoundment can produce real objects or matter. I think > this is the 'vacuum-gravity' theory that we should be building. This > impllies too that, the vacuum creating reality assertion is not far fetched. > > -Garshagu Atovigba. > > > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:19 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Today's Topic Summary > > > Group:http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/topics > > > - Different points of > > view.<http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=ZZ4KpTfy1bY.en....>[4 > > Updates] > > - Claude Levi-Strauss > > dies<http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=ZZ4KpTfy1bY.en....>[1 > > Update] > > > Topic: Different points of > > view.<http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/e352b1aa9c1664fe> > > > socratus <[email protected]> Nov 24 10:41AM -0800 > > > Different points of view. > > 1. > > In Physics we trust. / Tarun Biswas / > > and plus millions of other believers . > > 2. > > Science is not always as objective as we would like to believe. > > / Michael Talbot. / and plus few others. > > 3. > > Religion or Physics ? Faith or Knowledge ? > > / some doubtful people. / > > 4. > > Science and God just do not mix, both defy each other. > > > Science and religion are like oil and water, you can't > > mix them together and expect a solution. > > / most people / > > 5. > > Science and religion in tandem can become a great force > > to liberate the mind and help the humans to a fuller and better > > understanding of reality. > > / G. S. Sidhu / and plus some individuals . > > ===== . > > P.S. > > In Physics we trust. > > Is it correct ? Of course, it is logically correct. > > Because only Physics can logically explain us > > the Ultimate Nature of Reality. > > ==========. > > Best wishes. > > Israel Sadovnik. Socratus. > > > ======================== > > > socratus <[email protected]> Nov 24 09:47PM -0800 > > > ‘ The idea that the universe can be viewed as the compound > > of two basic orders, the implicate and the explicate, can be > > found in many other traditions. > > The Tibetan Buddhists call these two aspects the void and > > nonvoid. The nonvoid is the reality of visible objects. The > > void, like the implicate order, is the birthplace of all things > > in the universe, . . . > > . . . only the void is real and all forms in the objective world > > are illusory, . . . . > > The Hindus call the implicate level of reality Brahman. > > Brahman is formless but is the birthplace of all forms in > > visible reality, which appear out of it and then enfold back > > into it in endless flux. > > . . . consciousness is not only a subtler form of matter, > > but it is more fundamental than matter, and in the Hindu > > cosmology it is matter that has emerged from consciousness, > > and not the other way around. Or as the Vedas put it, the > > physical world is brought into being through both the > > ‘ veiling’ and ‘ projecting’ powers of consciousness. > > . . . the material universe is only a second- generation > > reality, a creation of veiled consciousness, the Hindus > > say that it is transitory and unreal, or ‘ maya’. > > . . . > > This same concept can be found in Judaic thought. > > . . . . in shamanistic thinking . . . . . . > > . . . . . . > > Like Bohm, who says that consciousness always has its > > source in the implicate, the aborigines believe that the > > true source of the mind is in the transcendent reality of > > the dreamtime. Normal people do not realize this and > > believe that their consciousness is in their bodies. > > . . . . . > > The Dogan people of the Sudan also believe that the > > physical world is the product of a deeper and more > > fundamental level of reality . . . . . .’ > > === . > > Book / The Holographic Universe. > > Part 3 / 9. Pages 287 – 289. > > By Michael Talbot. / > > ==================== . . . > > My questions after reading this book. > > > Is it possible that Physics confirmed and proved the > > Religion philosophy of life ? > > How is it possible to understand the Religion philosophy > > of life from modern Physics view? > > # > > My opinion. > > Fact. > > The detected material mass of the matter in the > > Universe is so small (the average density of all > > substance in the Universe is approximately > > p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it cannot ‘close’ the > > Universe into sphere and therefore our Universe > > as whole is ‘open’, Endless Void / Nothingness / > > Vacuum : T=0K. > > Quantum Physics says the Vacuum is the birthplace > > of all ‘ virtual’ particles . Nobody knows what there are, > > but ‘the virtual particles’ change the Vacuum in a > > local places and create Non Void / Material / Gravity > > World with stars, planets and all another objects and > > subjects in the Universe. > > === . > > Without Eternal/ Infinite Void / Vacuum physics makes no sense. > > But as Paul Dirac said: > > " The problem of the exact description of vacuum, > > in my opinion, is the basic problem now before physics. > > Really, if you can’t correctly describe the vacuum, > > how it is possible to expect a correct description > > of something more complex ? " > > === . > > # > > But there is a strong tradition ( scientific and religious) that > > insists > > that any time we say we know who God is, or what God wants, > > we are committing an act of heresy. > > == . > > Best wishes. > > Israel Sadovnik. Socratus. > > == . > > > ornamentalmind <[email protected]> Nov 24 10:56PM -0800 > > > “…The Tibetan Buddhists call these two aspects the void and > > nonvoid. The nonvoid is the reality of visible objects. The > > void,…” – soc > > > A slight addition to this statement…while most schools of Tibetan > > Buddhism do make a synthetic separation, call it void/not-void for > > now, how these two truths are apprehended/understood varies from one > > school to the next. That is, the very notion of ‘reality’ and what > > ‘visible objects’ are differs greatly from one system to another. > > > For a simple overview, see: > > > “Appearance & Reality, The Two Truths in the Four Buddhist Tenet > > Systems” by Guy Newland, Snow Lion. > > > socratus <[email protected]> Nov 24 11:43PM -0800 > > > Science or Religion ? > > Religion tells us nothing but fables and fantasies! > > That is the truth. > > So, what is Religion? > > Religion is the poor man's philosophy. > > > Modern Physics tells us nothing but fables and fantasies! > > That is the truth. > > For example: One Galaxy can eat another Galaxy. > > # > > Cosmic cannibalising: > > Images show one galaxy engulfing another > > > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/cosmic-cannibalising-images... > > # > > The Discovery of one Galaxy "Attacking" Another > > > http://www.astronomyexpert.co.uk/the-recent-discovery-of-one-galaxy-a... > > . . .. etc > > So, what is Physics? > > Physics is the poor man's philosophy. > > == . > > What to do? > > I think we must answer to the simple classic question: > > what did come first the chicken or the egg ? > > If somebody didn’t understand this question, I will ask it simpler: > > What was before Vacuum or Gravity ? > > Does Gravity exist in Vacuum or vice versa? > > Why I ask these questions. > > Because the Universe ( as a whole ) is Two- Measured, > > there are two Worlds: Vacuum and Gravity. > > === . > > Israel Socratus. > > > Topic: Claude Levi-Strauss > > dies<http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/3d906bddb68a1406> > > > archytas <[email protected]> Nov 24 07:05PM -0800 > > > We used to be able to teach in a much less bookish way. I don't > > insist on books much and tend to trash the textbooks. One wants to > > encourage people to experiment with ideas and at least look at a few > > examples of thinking beyond common sense. I got hold of a book called > > 'The Critique of Pure Verbosity' once, but it was a disappointment - > > needless to say verbose. Facts have ceased to matter. Rape is a > > classic example. We never discuss the actual offences. Research is > > conducted by people chosen by people with no clue about what really > > needs doing and what impartiality is. Much of it is loony. The days > > of a George turning up in his just made suit and being summed up and > > given a job are long gone. > > > -- > > 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]<epistemology%2bunsubscr...@google > > groups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. -- 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.
