...sure wish I could appreciate old Tom....
On Jul 10, 6:39 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stop Dragon my heart around Molly!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPeMx6LQxPk
>
> On Jul 10, 8:14 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yes, and consubstantially produce the luck dragon in the never ending
> > story...I'm ready for MY ride...
>
> > On Jul 10, 7:06 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "...Conversation between those two views may create dragons. " - MB
>
> > > All too true! Mind's Eye is an excellent example, no?
>
> > > I hope you were using the indefinite 'you' in your admonition to 'see'
> > > stuff because I presented 'dragons' knowing that many here would
> > > debate against either a relative or an absolute ontological view. In
> > > fact, both consubstantially are the case.
>
> > > On Jul 10, 6:41 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > humans ascertaining universal laws. Philosophically and
> > > > even on a common sense level, such an assumption is fraught with
> > > > difficulties. Dragons be here!!! :-)
>
> > > > Dragons only for those who have not ascertained universal laws and
> > > > thus, cannot understand. This may be the leap from rational to
> > > > transnational, relative to absolute. Very difficult to discuss with
> > > > those who have not seen the leap possible or made it themselves. Of
> > > > course, once you see it as possible, and get the one taste (Ken
> > > > Wilber) you will be continually called to make the leap until you
> > > > until you can hear the call and make the leap. Perception is the
> > > > key. If we view the universe with set laws, our universe will operate
> > > > in this way for us. If we see the universe as creative, responsive,
> > > > specific and absolute, it will operate in this way for us.
> > > > Conversation between those two views may create dragons.
>
> > > > On Jul 4, 3:27 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > “But this is only a manifestation of our expanding understanding, is
> > > > > it not?” – rj
>
> > > > > Not quite Jim. I would say that our understanding has changed, true.
> > > > > Also, from many perspectives, it can be seen as ‘expanded’. Of course,
> > > > > I can’t know for sure because as much as I’ve studied the cosmological
> > > > > views of ancient cultures, few if anyone today knows what their full
> > > > > thinking on the topic was.
>
> > > > > Also, built into your question is the base assumption that we know
> > > > > more, as in a more accurate view, than those in the past did. Again,
> > > > > while it can be viewed this way, personally, I don’t know the full
> > > > > story here. I am sure that some used to use superstition, a form of
> > > > > ignorance, to fill in their views. On the other hand, many today do
> > > > > the same. I would have to assume that you are referring specifically
> > > > > to generally accepted cosmological views of today. Of course, this
> > > > > doesn’t exist. There is argumentation among the ‘professionals’ about
> > > > > much of reality and I’m not talking about simple philosophical
> > > > > argumentation alone here either.
> > > > > Overall, I do agree that what we ‘see’ today is different.
>
> > > > > “You do not mean that the physical universe is adding matter, evolving
> > > > > laws relating to matter, or even
> > > > > tweaking those laws now operative, do you?” – rj
>
> > > > > No, this wasn’t my intention Jim. First, the notion of ‘adding matter’
> > > > > would/could be an entire paper in itself. Secondly, the universe
> > > > > doesn’t ‘evolve laws’, does it? Oh, I guess some find a changing
> > > > > universe and some personify this universe. However, I’ll guess you are
> > > > > not meaning ‘laws’ in the sense of an analysis and conclusion for
> > > > > prediction that humans use here. If I’m wrong, please clarify. And as
> > > > > to ‘tweaking…laws now operative’, you would have to provide a list for
> > > > > me to know for sure what you are asking. Please understand I’m not
> > > > > attempting to be oblique. I merely wish to be sure what you are
> > > > > assuming with your questions so that my responses can address that
> > > > > directly rather than merely projecting upon your words.
>
> > > > > “If the physical universe (whether expanding, contracting or static)
> > > > > is set, it seems to me that the laws applicable to it, and operative
> > > > > in it, are set too.” – rj
>
> > > > > This is a very large assumption Jim. And, I do appreciate you being
> > > > > up front with it.
> > > > > My insights about appearances are not quite of the magnitude to be
> > > > > able to make such a blanket statement. I do guess that there are
> > > > > specific ‘laws’. What they are and how they apply to non-humans is
> > > > > another story. Delving a little deeper, I find that what we observe,
> > > > > whether static or changing, has been understood by humans in different
> > > > > realms and at different levels. Again, assuming the current
> > > > > ‘scientific’ analysis, even this seems to change in jumps. Most who
> > > > > adhere to the tenets of science are proud that how things are
> > > > > understood/seen changes all the time.
>
> > > > > “Thus, as we come to understand more and more, we increase our
> > > > > knowledge of the set universe until, at some point, we understand all
> > > > > those laws. Right?” – rj
>
> > > > > Jim, for argumentation only, since you ask, no, not right. Not right
> > > > > at all. First, an increase in quantity has nothing to do with an
> > > > > increase in quality, some theories aside. Secondly, you appear to
> > > > > conflate understand and knowledge so I will waffle until I grasp your
> > > > > use of terms better. While some arguments against it have been found,
> > > > > an analogy to what you suggest can be found in one of Zeno’s more
> > > > > famous paradoxes. You know, the one that says that if an arrow is shot
> > > > > towards a specific target, at a given point in time, it can be
> > > > > measured as having gone half way there. Then half again. Then half
> > > > > again etc. Thus always having at least half of the remaining distance
> > > > > to travel and never arriving. Yes, I know, not a concrete and lucid
> > > > > example, but one for fodder.
>
> > > > > Not wishing to end on such a weak argument, I’ll just add that you are
> > > > > talking about humans ascertaining universal laws. Philosophically and
> > > > > even on a common sense level, such an assumption is fraught with
> > > > > difficulties. Dragons be here!!! :-)
>
> > > > > On Jul 4, 9:01 am, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > OM - you said - what has been included in the ‘physical universe’
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > changed
> > > > > > over time. Yes, I agree. But this is only a manifestation of our
> > > > > > expanding understanding, is it not? You do not mean that the
> > > > > > physical
> > > > > > universe is adding matter, evolving laws relating to matter, or even
> > > > > > tweaking those laws now operative, do you? If the physical universe
> > > > > > (whether expanding, contracting or static) is set, it seems to me
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > the laws applicable to it, and operative in it, are set too. Thus,
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > we come to understand more and more, we increase our knowledge of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > set universe until, at some point, we understand all those laws.
> > > > > > Right? Jim
>
> > > > > > On Jul 3, 4:22 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > “OM - no, I do not take any of your comments as personal. I see
> > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > as challenging what I proposed, which is the hope I had when I
> > > > > > > posted
> > > > > > > them. Thanks. “ – RJ
>
> > > > > > > Thank you Jim…beliefs can be tenacious.
>
> > > > > > > “ … the beleif that there is an ultimate theory ofeverythingis not
> > > > > > > mine.” – RJ
>
> > > > > > > Oh, I understood that Jim.
> > > > > > > When I responded earlier “… And, yes, this has been pursued
> > > > > > > ‘forever’.
> > > > > > > However, what has been included in the ‘physical universe’ has
> > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > over time. So, this notion can be applied to numerous different
> > > > > > > levels.” I was including Albert and many other human beings. I
> > > > > > > wished
> > > > > > > to add the less provincial view that what we ‘know’ about the
> > > > > > > universe
> > > > > > > today is not only different from the past, but different from the
> > > > > > > future too. In this way, Einstein can be seen within the context
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > his pursuit of equations that would ‘explain’ the universe. While
> > > > > > > equations can be seen as analogies, they are not that which is
> > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > directly apprehended. So, when you now add that “…It must have
> > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > and be the belief of all those, like Einstein, who chose to
> > > > > > > devote a
> > > > > > > major part of their life to pursuing it….”, what I believe is that
> > > > > > > Albert was only talking about a description of how ‘matter’
> > > > > > > is…nothing
> > > > > > > more. I also believe that his pursuit was along a spiritual one.
>
> > > > > > > As to your ‘WHAM’ theory, the notion of change happening in jumps
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > not new either. In fact, I would subscribe to it, along with a few
> > > > > > > others. However, whenever I see the term ‘everything’ associated
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > what weknow, I cringe. No, I do not think that we willeverknow
> > > > > > > ‘everythingabouteverything’. . . at least not in the context you
> > > > > > > appear to be asking the question.
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 3, 12:54 pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > OM - no, I do not take any of your comments as personal. I see
> > > > > > > > them as
> > > > > > > > challenging what I proposed, which is the hope I had when I
> > > > > > > > posted
> > > > > > > > them. Thanks.
> > > > > > > > Now for some specific observations. First the beleif that
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > is an ultimate theory ofeverythingis not mine. It must have
> > > > > > > > been and
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" 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/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
