its not a law, its a theory.

Vic

mark robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Anna,
> 
>  
> 
> I think gravity is a universal law. The whole universe reacts to
> its influence in ways that are consistently predictable through
> mathematical calculations. Would you call a couple hundred
> million light years "local"? That's about the size of the Virgo
> Galaxy Cluster. It is a cluster precisely because gravity holds
> its couple-thousand galaxies together. Think "very large solar
> system". 
> 
>  
> 
> But I'm no surer that that addresses your statements about
> gravity than I am sure I understand what you are saying about
> existence, mind, consciousness, etc. One of us is very confused -
> me, or you and your great big picture:
> 
> -------------
> 
> Gravity is not a uniform law, except it acts on the whole
> universe -
> 
> Gravity only acts on the local level, but "local" means whole
> universe -
> 
> There are no universal laws except those that concern mind and
> consciousness -
> 
> AND those which protect life -
> 
> There's no universe, so nothing really exists except mind and
> consciousness - 
> 
> AND incoming information - 
> 
> AND fetuses, which are persons -
> 
> AND everything that shares with something else - 
> 
> AND Earth, oil, food water, clouds, moisture, sunshine, fruit,
> air -
> 
> AND doomed societies -
> 
> AND bad dictionaries.
> 
> ------------
> 
> Now, give me some non-existent time to make some non-existent
> sense out of all that. 
> 
>  
> 
> -Mark
> 
>   
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
>  
> 
> <What would you prefer to call
> it?>
> 
> A property of a graviton to create bonds in neutrino collisions. 
> A law must be uniform to call it a law.  Gravity is not a
> constant and acts on a local level only. 
> By local I mean a formal term meaning  a  'closed' universe which
> is our world. Since everything is relative, from a point of view
> of the outsider, or a non-local position,  our reality will seem
> totally different, as so the laws. If there are any laws in the
> universe they can only concern consciousness which perceives it.
> Thus what we call  laws, are the laws of mind , as the  mental
> tools for a creation of reality out of the incoming data as
> received by the senses.  
> A belief that only what one sees with his eyes  is true is a
> fallacy. It is not the eyes that see anything, it is the mind
> reading incoming information and creating it as a 3D structure.
> Mind can receive information from plenty of other sources and by
> other means, like instant mind to mind communication, which had
> been partially proved in physics as the particle entanglement.
> Not knowing  how consciousness works often leads to such mistakes
> as you make by claming that unless a baby is physically OUT, it
> is a property of the container and the feeding tube [ in form of
> a mother]. 
> But if we chose such attitude, then all life is parasitic.
> Period. You are  a parasite regardless if you are inside another
> person or not. But it does not have to sound this way if we
> change the negative term into a positive, because only then we
> can see some sense in what is happening. Instead of a parasitism,
> we could use the word SHARING. 
> In fact, everything that exists shares something with everything
> else. You depend on the earth's   from oil to food to water to
> survive; on clouds to give the moisture, on sun to shine, on
> trees to give fruit. You take the air, yet do you make it? 
> 
> Since for  realizing existence we need consciousness, it is self
> evident that the only  rule  in  nature is to protect life as the
> manifestation of  consciousness.
> This ought to  be the axiom number one in any social system one
> would like to propose.  A society which does not protect life but
> death is doomed to  failure.
> The   idea that a fetus is not a person because he is inside
> another person,  creates a prohibition on a place where one must
> be in order to be called a person. I also think you need to
> rethink your definition of a parasite. Some dictionaries should
> do the same as they still represent the narrow materialstic
> thinking of the post- Victorian era. Humans of the 21 century
> should  have more evolved consciousness. And they will one day, I
> know it. 
> But then, where will you be?
> 
> Anna
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   _____  
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForumWebSiteAt  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

ForumWebSiteAt  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian  
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to