--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_re...@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hugo, are you offering to be my student?
Thanks, but no.
The fact Einstein turned out to right about a lot of things
he thought to be obvious was never under discussion here.
In fact if you look at another post I just did you'll see
me defending his confidence in his ideas.
> From your acid-toned smarming about my opinions of Hawking, I can >tell that
> you're not in a studious mood -- and that's dumber than >dumb, because while
> you can't fix stupid, being stupid on purpose is >a crime for which a proper
> penalty cannot be assessed -- for what >could limit the cost of the
> immorality of blinding oneself?
Actually I'm always in a studious mood, for some reason it
suits you to be offended about my objection to your insulting
attitude towards someone who's struggled with a horrifying
disability his whole life. I don't believe for a minute that
being in a wheel chair has influenced his opinion of whether
or not there is a god or alien life, it isn't like they are
unreasonable posistions to hold.
(Interesting that you interpret my shock at your opinion
of Hawking as acid-toned smarming, says a lot about you.)
> Einstein was, by my definition of "spiritual," a Maharishi. And >his
> honoring intuition was not merely "for show." He knew his math >wasn't up to
> the task of embodying his intuition that God doesn't >play dice, and yet he
> knew he was right and never once in his life >stopped trying to catch God
> red-handed running the universe down to >least construct.
This YOUR interpretation of Einstein, for every quote you can find
of his supporting the mystical I can find more that don't. Many
scientists (Hawking included) use phrases like "mind of god" to
describe deep levels of physics, it doesn't mean they think that
the universe is fundamentally intelligent in the way we are or in
the way Maharishi taught just that they think it possible to know everything in
a final physical sense, the original paramaters of
creation.
> Anyone who's had a thought should know that every single one of >them comes
> from a subtle level of existence that is not easily >grasped -- that is, we,
> as egos, do not compose our own thinking but >that we are as if victims of a
> "thought machine which makes >decisions without consulting the personality."
Agreed. As I pointed out in my post to Anatol below.
> Einstein peered into his own mind enough to see this and that >despite
> uncertainty, true randomness is yet but a concept -- not a >proven entity.
> And just as you and I know that our thoughts >are "ours" despite not being on
> the "thought making committee," -- >because the thought committee itself is a
> product of yet subtler >processes -- Einstein knew that there was "cosmic
> mind" that >also "owned" the underlying the processes of nature even if we
> could >not have the alacrity to see behind the Uncertainty Curtain of Oz.
The analogy doesn't fit, thoughts appear in our minds but we
know there is an unconscious process involving large areas of
the brain refering to past experience, social conditioning etc.
and then deciding what becomes conscious. You can even see it working. The idea
that universe also appears from a more complex
underlying intelligence is a TM idea not shared by Einstein
or any other working physicist, what you have is miniscule
potentials in fluctuating fields none of which are fully
understood. See "mind of god" above.
Unless Einstein actually believed that the universe is under
intelligent control at the very micro level in the way John
Hagelin does, if so I missed it and it's a *very* religious
concept because it appears to be totally unnecessary and of
a totally different order of things to him being confident
about gravity bending space and time, those things you can
visualise, god in control of quantum physics is an invention
by mystics and people who need an ultimate being for some
reason. And people who like to make money out of others
by linking sciencey sounding phrases with their own bullshit
new age "therapies."
But as I say in my post below, it's possible and so cannot
be discounted, but as it's unnecessary for an explanation
of how the universe works, why bother? Why bother introducing
unnecessary complexities to nature when simpler ones will do
just as well. I think it's man's programming to seek greater
complexity to explain simpler things, it's a god type hang-up
we've yet to get over.
Darwin did the best job of demolishing this erroneous idea.
What a hero. Him, Newton & Einstein. What a gang!
> Today's science is 100% reporting miracles constantly.
Depends entirely on your definition of miracle. They appear
miraculous because they are largely unexplained. Have you read
David Deutsch yet?
Try this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jun/10/david-deutsch-multiverse-fabric-reality
It should at least give you hope that some questions are
answerable. It's a damn good book about physics, philosophy,
the nature of maths and science etc.
> The ordinary macro-world is based upon dynamics of existence that >are each
> and all mystical when the best brains try to corral them >into formulae. The
> square root of minus one, for instance, good >luck trying to make sense of
> that concept, but it is absolutely >essential even though all admit it is but
> an imaginary number, and >when atheists come along saying God is merely
> imaginary, I know that >they simply have now really considered what deep
> reliance creation >has on processes that are also as imaginary as the square
> root of >minus one. Quantum entanglement for instance. How chlorophyll
> >deals with quantum states in order to muscle around photons for >another.
> And so it goes.
It certainly does.
> Einstein's so-called failure when he posited the cosmological >constant is
> now being supported by the theory of dark matter and >dark energy. Yet in
> his lifetime, the whole of science snickered >about him "not getting it."
>
> When Einstein looked at his subtle thoughts, he was in awe of their >source,
> intuition, claiming that intuition could know the result of >any dice tossing
> despite the disapproval of Heisenberg. If you can >stand just outside the
> thought-committee's room's door -- the ritam >level -- Einstein tells us that
> one cannot but conclude >that "someone's in charge behind that door," and
> that that someone >had to stand beyond space and time. To Einstein, it was
> true to say >that in order to truly grasp intuition one has to leave aside
> any >hope of conception and instead dwell within realization purely -- >the
> home of all knowledge -- even that which cannot be caught in a >mind's
> netting.
> And you can't get more spiritual than that.
And I would really like to know where you are getting your
ideas about Einstein because either I missed it totally or
you are getting him confused with your own and MMYs ideas
about intuition. Give us a link to a biography so I can
read it, preferably in book form.
You can't learn about nature just from looking inside, as
I pointed out below Einstein was the first to admit he
was standing on the shoulders of giants, he simply wouldn't
have spotted what others had missed if the groundwork hadn't
been done and he hadn't studied it. Intuition is the product
of unconscious processes based on previous experience etc.
And are you aware that Einsteins intuition about quantum
physics was wrong? So much for intuition!
> Hawking just doesn't seem to get this,
I bet he does! I bet he thinks long and hard about god,
life, the universe. Everything really.
> and my crass mentioning of the possible impact of his being a >cripple being
> perhaps the basis of his atheism is a worthy theory >about how he may be
> limited in what he can project -- an all-doing->God sure seems the antithesis
> of life-in-a-wheel-chair-existence. >Science now knows that there are
> probably planets around all stars; >Einstein didn't know this. Science now
> knows that life-as-we-know-it >could exist on several planets and moons in
> our own solar system. >Einstein didn't know this. Science now knows that
> organic molecules >are a gimme even in deep space. Einstein didn't know this.
> Science >now knows at least some solid reasons for life to be an emergent
> >property of a vast array of possible environments. Einstein didn't >know
> this.
>
> Yet Einstein knew all of this intuitionally.
He didn't *know* it, he probably thought it very likely as most
cosmologists did, but they all hold back until there is evidence
for a damn good reason. You don't *know* it exists until you find
it, very poor science to do otherwise.
>
> Hawking with all this new knowledge actually in his hands yet >denies
> Einstein's intuition that the universe is so vast and so >ancient that life
> almost certainly has yielded up civilizations that >re BILLIONS of years
> older than ours and which could have a complete >mastery of physicality --
> and such beings, Hawking tells us to be >wary of. This comes off as pure
> paranoia
Wrong, think of the damage to central American cultures the
arrival of a slightly more advanced group of Spaniards did.
Or any other country for that matter. Was it ever a good thing
for them? This is what Hawking was getting at.
Do you think humans are so great and secure we wouldn't be
similarly psychically crushed by any civilisation that has
the brains to be able to get all this way?
>-- a paranoia of one who has been, let's say it, as if "struck down >by God,"
>and which is therefore understandable. In effect, Hawking >is saying that
>aliens landing would be Gods and that he would advise >us to run because they
>can only be ready to "cripple all of us."
>
> There has never been a person whose mind was not a product of idiosyncratic
> physicality. Hawking seems to be no exception.
