Well that prickly pear fruit is my kind of fruit, very versatile. Not only can be ingested as food or intoxicant, but can also be used as dye or wall plaster. Gives whole new meaning to phrase getting plastered. Blame wiki for info and me for lame joke (-:
Have to admit I love your theory of invisible goblin firing invisible arrows at apples to pull them out of trees. Kind of like Cupid having a second job. Ok, getting more serious, stuff gets simpler and simpler as we go smaller and smaller so that, as you say, subatomic particles are almost nothing at all. But what is even MORE almost nothing at all? The whirly bits? Vibrating strings? God? Maybe it's just hard for the fat and water and electrical events in our skulls to grok nothing? ________________________________ From: salyavin808 <fintlewoodle...@mail.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:34 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Salyavin, I like that God is our vanity. OTOH, I automatically revolt when > you say that a bad idea is one that raises more questions than it answers. > Is this a bias of science? And why should Universe be getting less complex? Not so much a bias as simply the cleverest way to think about things. Sure, there *may* be an invisible goblin firing invisible arrows at apples to pull them out of trees but maybe it's easier to think of some physical property common to all things. One answers the question, and a whole lot more, the other just raises further difficulties that need further theories all more elaborate than necessary. Which you may think a bit patronising but it's what the mystical consciousness gang want you to believe. Namely that where we understand the universe to be getting less complex [but harder to explain] all of a sudden this god thing pops up organising things. We are complex structures, the cells that make up our body are too, but rather less so. The molecules that make those up are simpler and the atoms are ludicrously simple and subatomic particles are almost nothing at all. So why invent a god where one isn't needed? Or rather, why push our once awesome creator god back to the realms of tiny whirly bits? This is what I mean by using god as an explanation when we don't understand something. I feel sorry for the guy. > For some reason this makes me think of something Richard said a while ago, > that all religions came from ancient people having unusual experiences with > hallucinogens, etc. So maybe Igor the ancient drug user did see a guy over > there with a long white beard! I saw lots of gods when I was on mushrooms once, mostly giant Greek and Roman statue types but moving with a wonderful majestic slowness against the summer sky. So it's no surprise to me that religions got started because of hallucinogens. Especially considering some of the potent nasties that grow in the middle east! Ezeckial probably had a yoghurt made from prickly pear fruit one day. That's supposed to be a three day trip of terrifying intensity. Probably accounts for most of the weird shit in the old testament! ________________________________ > From: salyavin808 <fintlewoodlewix@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:26 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SELF-HYPNOTIZE: Channel, End Negativity, Feel > Good, Achieve Goals Dr. Shelley S > > > >  > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > (snip) > > > > God does play dice, but He can calculate the odds to infinity. > > > > > > > > Bottom line: When you're talking about God, all bets are off. > > > > > > I wasn't and nor was Einstein. > > > > Well, *somebody* was, and you quoted him or her. > > It's a paraphrase from Einstein but when physicists say "god" > they just mean nature, but not in the way that Marshy meant > nature. He meant god. > > > > I will make a bet that there isn't one though. > > > > I wouldn't take the bet, because I *can't* calculate the odds > > to infinity. > > Why would you need to. It's a simple Occams razor thing, if > there is no need for something, don't invent it. > > > (snip) > > > > CAVEAT: I have no idea if Hagelin is right. I just resist > > > > on principle ruling stuff out at the God level. > > > > > > Why? Man invented god as a way of explaining things he didn't > > > understand. > > > > Sure of that, are ya? > > Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex > and assume that it must have been created by something more > complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the > case where biology is concerned. > > It isn't like god is a discovery as in "Hey who's that over > there with the long beard?" And it isn't like god is an > efficient explanation for anything which is what you want > from a theory. You can always spot a bad idea because they > raise more questions than they answer. > > The reason physicists don't believe in quantum god theories > is that they make the universe more complex where it should > be getting less complex. And it's unnecessary. > > God is our vanity. > > > I *will* bet you that there are a whole lot of things we > > will never understand. We might as well call them "God." > > You think there are things that can't be understood? Interesting. > > > > > > > > Things move on, Hagelin wants to keep us in the > > > bronze age because it helps sell yagyas and golden spoons. > > >
