On 28 Aug, 16:42, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have always feared those lapsing regularly into dead languages are
> concealing tempting parts that contain teeth. I'm inclined Pat, to
> think the 26 dimensions were somewhat ready-to-hand due to the
> influence of Hilbert - they sort of 'tensored-out'. If there is
> something like god and it is rather decent, I have to wonder why we
> are left with so much to find out. I'm not inclined towards teaching
> children about pain by sticking their hands in fire. I incline to
> think life did not begin on Earth and that our being here might be
> part of some plan, information about which we couldn't bring on our
> travels, but that some 'design' components could be sent with us (that
> there is a strange teleological development aspect that is to come,
> but immanent in evolution).
>
To be honest, I expect our nearest neighbours in the galaxy are
keeping a generally, 'hands-off' approach until we've realised what
the universe really is and what it is that we, as conscious beings,
are. Until then, I expect we're a danger to ourselves and any
potential neighbours.
> I have a view of 'Broken Britain' (or any society) that isn't about
> 'lust for great Empire' and other myths of 'greatness'. The promise
> of a genuinely democratic society has been broken, and my science fits
> substantially in that view. Science has tended to be used by people
> who don't understand it and democracy has been manipulated as a form
> of human resource management. I believe we are distracted from
> working out how we might live in peace and why we should want to. I
> remember Craig saying something about how boring this might be, but
> when I wonder about the great interests I have in England beating
> Australia at cricket (god intervening with Flintoff's run out of
> Ponting) and Warrington beating Huddersfield tomorrow, I have to
> wonder just how little excitement is on offer. Star Trek versions of
> peaceful societies tend to be very boring. Pat's speculations are, of
> course, entertaining and rather erudite. I tend towards the need to
> find a form of dialogue in which we can expose as obvious what we are
> doing wrong and what we would have to accept for radical
> transformation. I see this as 'scientific' - but essentially
> knowledge of esoteric science would not be needed - better
> understandings of evidence would be. Honesty is key, yet can't be
> that form of accepting word without evidence - the 'face' issues.
>
Why am I getting "What the world needs now, is love, sweet love."
going through my head? ;-)
> On 28 Aug, 03:45, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ROFLMAO!!
>
> > On Aug 27, 3:47 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > That's why I practice diphallia terata. Helps to have a spare.
>
> > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > I'll triple the ante with "vagina dentata"!
>
> > > > On Aug 27, 11:02 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > I'll up the ante and say "Venus flytrap"!
>
> > > > > On 27 Aug., 15:42, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > good one
>
> > > > > > On Aug 27, 9:08 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > In one of my ant stories they invent nuclear weapons - this causes
> > > > > > > much ethical concern in the colony, until someone steps on them.
>
> > > > > > > On 27 Aug, 13:56, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Another trick is to change to ant perspective. The primitive
> > > > sucking
> > > > > > > > is done by the aphids, whereas they, the ants, in their clearest
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > cleanest form of conciousness of the Oneness of all, are able
> > > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > the milking.
>
> > > > > > > > On 27 Aug., 14:22, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I suspect every epoch of man is the time where a handful with
> > > > guns can
> > > > > > > > > screw things up. Do they screw things up, of instantaneously
> > > > > > > > > deconstruct and make way for what is next? We don't know,
> > > > > > > > > until
> > > > we
> > > > > > > > > get to what is next and, in retrospect, understand the
> > > > opportunity.
> > > > > > > > > In the moment, our leadership, cohesiveness as a group, and
> > > > creativity
> > > > > > > > > lead the way into our progress or downfall. Either way, we
> > > > continue
> > > > > > > > > on, we always do.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 4:48 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Ten dimensions, and we finally reach the fabled land of
> > > > > > > > > > string
> > > > > > > > > > theory. String theory is for the moment the only real game
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > town
> > > > > > > > > > when it comes to attempts to bundle up quantum mechanics and
> > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > relativity into a "theory of everything". It holds that all
> > > > particles
> > > > > > > > > > that make up matter or transmit forces arise from the
> > > > > > > > > > vibration
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > tiny strings. Those strings are one-dimensional. The space
> > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > wiggle
> > > > > > > > > > about in is not. In fact, it has 10 dimensions: nine of
> > > > > > > > > > space,
> > > > and one
> > > > > > > > > > of time. The theory doesn't work with any fewer:
> > > > > > > > > > mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > anomalies crop up that translate into violent fluctuations
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > fabric of space-time at scales smaller than the Planck
> > > > > > > > > > length
> > > > of 10-35
> > > > > > > > > > metres. 10 is not necessarily the magic number. Indeed, one
> > > > now
> > > > > > > > > > unfashionable early variant of string theory had 26
> > > > > > > > > > dimensions.
> > > > There
> > > > > > > > > > are five broadly defined brands of 10D string theory that
> > > > compete to
> > > > > > > > > > explain the universe, with no indication as to which, if
> > > > > > > > > > any,
> > > > is the
> > > > > > > > > > right one. But these disparate theories can be unified into
> > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > overarching theory, known as M-theory. M-theory has 11
> > > > dimensions. In
> > > > > > > > > > here, we might call all this 'Harrington's String Bag'.
>
> > > > > > > > > > It is assumed that the extra dimensions of M-theory must in
> > > > some way
> > > > > > > > > > be squashed down to a size that we can't see. The bad news
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > there is an almost unlimited number of ways in which this
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > be done.
> > > > > > > > > > How to single out the one way that produces our universe
> > > > remains a
> > > > > > > > > > problem. Some say we'll work out the trick eventually, but
> > > > others are
> > > > > > > > > > into the "multiverse" the notion that all possible
> > > > > > > > > > universes do
> > > > > > > > > > actually exist. The universe we know is as it is because it
> > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > happens to be the one we are living in.
>
> > > > > > > > > > None of this seems to give us much grok of how we should be
> > > > trying to
> > > > > > > > > > live. It probably does tells us that Star Trek style
> > > > > > > > > > science
> > > > fiction
> > > > > > > > > > has little science and is a very old genre of soap opera.
> > > > > > > > > > We
> > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > don't have the biology to be zipping around the galaxies,
> > > > > > > > > > let
> > > > alone
> > > > > > > > > > the technical expertise to flout the laws of physics as
> > > > > > > > > > we'd
> > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > them if we had the education (which would entail close
> > > > engagement in
> > > > > > > > > > its practice).
>
> > > > > > > > > > Biology (increasingly maths-based) does now allow us to
> > > > > > > > > > 'create
> > > > > > > > > > life'. We can model DNA quite literally and create real
> > > > > > > > > > bits
> > > > of the
> > > > > > > > > > stuff from chemicals. We know fatty acids are 'out there'
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > space,
> > > > > > > > > > and pre-date the formation of Earth. We know that they form
> > > > proto-
> > > > > > > > > > cells when mixed with water, and that we can create
> > > > > > > > > > components
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > cells like ribosomes using our man-created DNA. We will
> > > > > > > > > > soon
> > > > create
> > > > > > > > > > cells from what we considered not to have life. Such life
> > > > > > > > > > may
> > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > allow us to extend our biology and sensing. We are already
> > > > speeding
> > > > > > > > > > up processes to produce oil and other stuff we have
> > > > > > > > > > previously
> > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > been able to use because it was created without us over
> > > > > > > > > > aeons.
>
> > > > > > > > > > My sense is that we are distracted by this technology
> > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > we don't
> > > > > > > > > > understand it and have a society in which knowledge is very
> > > > much part
> > > > > > > > > > of competitions that are out of hand. There is no modern
> > > > > > > > > > life
> > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > we can't imagine what this would be and try to live it
> > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > we are
> > > > > > > > > > hampered by very old ideas and traditions as badly as Darwin
> > > > was in
> > > > > > > > > > beginning to advance something beyond myth. I would say
> > > > 'capitalism'
> > > > > > > > > > is the current myth we need to 'explode', but that we need
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > do this
> > > > > > > > > > from what we know now, recognising it is a religion and that
> > > > > > > > > > alternative religions, or alternatives adopted as religions
> > > > (including
> > > > > > > > > > science as religion) have already failed. The need is for
> > > > sustainable
> > > > > > > > > > peace in the recognition that we can't make peace whilst our
> > > > > > > > > > understandings of the temptations of power remain low
> > > > > > > > > > priority
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > public scrutiny. We are distracted from this dialogue by
> > > > almost
> > > > > > > > > > everything from science and entertainment because of a
> > > > > > > > > > madness
> > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > sometimes described as the 'paranoid-schizoid' position
> > > > (economics as
> > > > > > > > > > 'Dr. Strangelove's Game').
>
> > > > > > > > > > I hope we will be able to find a new form of honesty, but we
> > > > need to
> > > > > > > > > > develop this in the knowledge that we are often roused to
> > > > organisation
> > > > > > > > > > by madness and myth that quickly distract us from evidence.
> > > > > > > > > > We
> > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > genuine transparency, but this 'urge' is not enough as we
> > > > approach a
> > > > > > > > > > time at which any Tom, Dick or Harriet terrorist could use
> > > > knowledge
> > > > > > > > > > to reek devastation, and a few men with guns can screw
> > > > everything.
> > > > > > > > > > Our politics needs overhaul and we are continually
> > > > > > > > > > distracted
> > > > from
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
