I can't sy much on the soul other than both agree your premise or its opposite. I experience in agreement. The physicists worry that travel at relativistic speeds may be as you say. It's hard enough to plot a non-colliding path to Mars (the common metaphor is a quarterback's pass over, under and through traffic to destination hands moving). Once you get up to mega-speeds the hull bubble we need to survive in is likely uninhabitable by man or instruments - if the Hawking radiation hasn't already got you and lack of gravity wasted you away.
Bill's external dream thesis is worthy of some thought. On 29 Sep, 03:27, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > Why can not our or for that matter any other alien body else where be > .nothing more than a vehicle for the soul? > Allan > On Sep 29, 2012 3:17 AM, "archytas" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > It strikes me Bill that UFO stories and thinking about the future and > > better places (heaven etc) can be part of science. We have no answers > > to what we are doing here other than speculation. I tend to think the > > economic world is religiously organised as a control fraud - this > > aspect of religion bothers me a lot and the spiritual does not. > > Reporting in UFOs (and such matters as spontaneous human combustion) > > is so naff I can't get interested. > > > We would generally wonder why we don't know human and cosmic purpose > > and consider this a disadvantage hard to imagine a benevolent creator > > giving us. The Spartans, at least in myth, sent their male kids out > > to cope in the wild. It would be good if mum and dad turned up in a > > space-ship with an explanation. > > > On 28 Sep, 22:33, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > We live on a hill between two rivers Allan. The town here floods, but > > > its such a dump now we don't go there. The weather in NW England is > > > pretty bad generally, but this has been a very bad summer as opposed > > > to standardly bad. I'm off to the dog track at Belle Vue on Saturday > > > night - just for a daft night out. I expect a few 'alien runners' > > > there! > > > > If there is intelligent life elsewhere I expect they won't be animal > > > like us. Evolution is red in tooth and claw in part, but also about > > > cooperation and Borg-like integration of species. Whilst I see mind > > > as a lot to do with brain processing, evidence mounts that this is > > > only part of the story - some ants that are enslaved now act in > > > rebellion against there masters with no 'hope' of improving their own > > > individual condition, presumably on behalf of the rest of their > > > species. I expect aliens to be able to be able to do the Borg thing > > > and make use of what is biologically and technically available to make > > > themselves and not be stuck with our lusts for reproduction. My guess > > > is such assimilation would not be to dominate or produce 'drones'. > > > > On he speed of light we know it depends on the medium it is travelling > > > in, slowing to about bicycle speed in a Bose-Einstein condensate, > > > almost stopping in such and emerging as a matter wave. If gravity > > > exists we don't know how fast it travels or how fast space expands. > > > The issue of quantum stuff like instantaneous knowing in wave equation > > > systems in which the bits 'know' each other remains. > > > > Other species are nw only with us in assimilation or history and our > > > fate may be little more. We are only special in made-up stories of > > > god, origin and heroes we know are trash. One of my questions about > > > robot heaven or advanced inter-galactic society is why anyone would > > > risk human beings spoiling it! > > > > On 28 Sep, 13:28, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > What about the Elysian Fields for fallen heroes and the blessed- > > > > mentioned in the Odyssey and Aeneid? I worry about the non-heroes and > > > > esp. those who are massacred and dumped in a pit or potter's grave > > > > with no ceremony. But I do agree, we dabble in heaven and hell during > > > > our lifetimes. For instance, a bad marriage is compared to Hell- > > > > true! :-) A sensory delight of the flesh or palate is compared to > > > > Heaven. The afterlife was popular in early Christianity to give the > > > > poor hope but later you could buy your way into heaven with > > > > indulgences and the guilt remains, perhaps, with charities and > > > > volunteerism. I have a more practical view but let's face it- people > > > > want easy answers, easy fixes/exits. > > > > > On Sep 28, 12:17 am, William L Houts <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I wonder if humans do dream of uncorrupted worlds, in general. You'd > > > > > think that would be universal, and it does seem to be borne out by > > > > > Western mythologies, with some exceptions. For instance, the Greeks > > had > > > > > Olympus, but except for Heracles no one got to go there; everyone > > else > > > > > went to Hades, which was gloomy and boring if you were lucky enough > > to > > > > > land there in general population, and terrifying if the gods put you > > in > > > > > Tartarus. And the Romans didn't seem to place faith in any sort of > > > > > afterlife at all, which is one of the main reasons whyChristianity > > sold > > > > > like hotcakes. Eastern religions such as Buddhism had various hells > > and > > > > > heavens, but they were sort of besides the point: your karma is / > > was > > > > > supposed to boil down to nothing and liberate you from the Wheel of > > > > > Rebirth, which was supposed to put you in Nirvana, which was less a > > > > > Heaven than it was a Nowhere. And Taoism doesn't have much to say > > about > > > > > heavenly afterworlds; its whole point is to make this world more > > just > > > > > and balanced and leaves heavens to the individual to figure out. > > > > > > But as to your question of whether humans long for uncorrupted > > worlds, I > > > > > think that besides the Abrahamic religions noone takes them very > > > > > seriously. And I think they've got a point: I mean, if you're > > taking > > > > > your present existence at all seriously, then just what is an > > afterlife > > > > > supposed to be about? Are we supposed to be eating bonbons all day > > and > > > > > living in some version of American luxury? I'd like to believe in > > > > > Heaven --which for me looks like a kind of liberal college town, > > with > > > > > libraries and funky old cinema houses-- but all of that seems kind of > > > > > empty if there's no gravitas, no seriousness. Without death, > > without a > > > > > final marker which howls at us, Do what you must do NOW and die > > knowing > > > > > that you've used your life well--without that, I think heaven would > > > > > become kind of slouchy and boring, or worse. Unless, of course, > > what's > > > > > waiting for us on the other side is something superrational but > > > > > beautiful, like being absorbed into the godhead, if such there be. > > > > > > So in answer to your question, I think we do dream of uncorrupt > > worlds, > > > > > but if we examine them too closely, they tend to be bustable soap > > > > > bubbles. And maybe I lack imagination, but I wonder, how could it be > > any > > > > > other way? Frankly, I'd like to be told how. I sound sensible about > > all > > > > > of this if a little pessimistic, but in reality I'm a scared > > ex-Catholic > > > > > who is terrified of death and wants to solve the Big Question before > > > > > they're performing Last Rites on his sorry ass. > > > > > > --Bill > > > > > > On 9/27/2012 7:20 PM, rigsy03 wrote: > > > > > > > I wonder where you put the mythological and religious > > other-worldlies- > > > > > > from gods to guardian angels, etc.? Or the construct of Dante's > > > > > > "Divine Comedy", for instance. Do humans long for uncorrupted > > worlds? > > > > > > > On Sep 27, 6:23 pm, William L Houts <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> I'm with the pragmatists on the question of intelligent alien > > species. > > > > > >> Many scientists who speculate on this sort of thing --though there > > > > > >> really aren't that many of them-- say that such species wouldn't > > > > > >> resemble anything so comforting as a humanoid physiology, but I > > think > > > > > >> they're partly mistaken. Surely there would be surprises in the > > way > > > > > >> nature cooks up life on other planets with radically different > > > > > >> chemistries than our dear old Mama Earth. But I think there's > > reason to > > > > > >> suppose that many alien species would resemble us. After all, any > > > > > >> species we might imagine has to cope with gravity as it evolves. > > So > > > > > >> they're much more likely to evolve some form of locomotion which > > > > > >> involves two, four or six pedal extremities (as Fats Waller > > calls them) > > > > > >> rather than three or five: even-numbered legs are less wobbly > > and more > > > > > >> amenable to balanced movement which consumes fewer calories. . > > Also, > > > > > >> sense organs like eyes and ears are likely to be located in or > > close to > > > > > >> a head, as there is survival value in having sense organs located > > close > > > > > >> to a brain, or whatever such species might use for brains. > > Finally, > > > > > >> everyone in the cosmos requires energy to get going, so they're > > either > > > > > >> going to evolve photosynthesis and take their energy directly > > from their > > > > > >> sun or suns, or they're going to take their sunbeams indirectly by > > > > > >> consuming something lower in the food chain. I'm sure there are > > lots of > > > > > >> evolution pathways I'm leaving out, seeing as I'm a curious poet > > rather > > > > > >> than a serious scientist type of guy, but I think these notions > > are, as > > > > > >> Allan named other ideas of mine, sensible provisos. > > > > > > >> PS. I left out centipedes and millipedes with their scores of > > legs, but > > > > > >> I think y'all's get what I'm saying here. > > > > > > >> --Bill > > > > > > >> On 9/27/2012 3:57 PM, archytas wrote: > > > > > > >>> I haven't seen any UFOs and tend not to be much interested in > > people > > > > > >>> who claim to have - at least without Bill's sensible provisos. > > The > > > > > >>> speed of thought as a brain process is slower than light-speed - > > but > > > > > >>> then I'm basically a tropical fish realist. I'd have a bet that > > no > > > > > >>> one in this group would really have much of a definition of > > light- > > > > > >>> speed and the Ricel curvature tensor, Euler Langrangian and the > > rest > > > > > >>> of Einstein's field equations. I mean no offence and don't do > > much of > > ... > > read more » --
