What happens when your whole concepts begin changing.. strange things like the entire universe becomes small and you have to go out side its bounds.. Being a soul being what happens if the creation soul is earlier than than the creation of the universe? Allan
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:09 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Science doesn't fascinate me in the way some literature and people can > generally - I suspect the 'enthusiasm' of the popularisation of the > subjects. I concur on the predicament element rigs - insightive. It > seems a mistake to me to try and place god in some scientific- > dimensional space (though I miss Pat) and I wonder instead whether the > god-positions people hack out are as baseless as, say, phlogiston - we > need some new thinking. > > Science and critical history have demonstrated much religious text is > fable. We repeatedly see that image management hides much that is > foul under 'preaching' - here our current examples would be Jimmy > Saville, Baby P, priestly paedophiles and Hillsborough (scouting in > the US etc.) - but I'd say we may be on the brink of realising > economics is equally vile. > > I can imagine spending a few weeks with a group living human- > constrained lives in a collective of the future. A woman kisses me > goodbye. She will not see me again because I'm off to a near-space > terminal built off Alpha Proxima. From there I'm relativity > travelling to the edge of this universe to undertake genetic > transformation beyond the gene-splicing that has allowed me to travel > in space. I see in 16 colours thanks to a shrimp and can enter > cryostasis thanks to genes from Arctic fish. I interface with > machines and their learning directly. I can no longer replicate as a > human - etc. Now I'm off to meet and form a collective with beings > who perceive much of the world we can only postulate. In traditional > science fiction these 'dark beings' would be bastards intent on taking > over the human world. What I don't see is any focus on a future in > which the rather soppy human-emotional ties are broken - a future in > which ... > > One might ask how the creature I have become would get his jollies. > One can go the other way in history and ask what religion has actually > done. We are not inventive enough about god. > > On 21 Oct, 14:50, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> And some feel science is boring unless it can be translated into >> everyday life in meaningful ways. >> >> On Oct 20, 3:50 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > We travel at 60k plus miles an hour in the solar system and 500K >> > through the galaxy in our system. I tend to believe we can measure >> > this kind of thing and that we are always left with questions like >> > Allan's about before after and beyond. Hitch-hikers' Guide probably >> > gets to the irony. Quite a few of us discount priests and text- >> > authority without giving up on spirit. Spinoza remains the clearest >> > example. >> >> > Creation stories end up in infinite regress - scientific and otherwise >> > - and beg the question of 'what came before that' by positing a >> > fiction of something that needs no creator or origin. I don't believe >> > god whipped up the Grand Canyon, but in the limits of our thinking >> > something whipped up something that led to the evolution of our planet >> > etc. I tend to think science rather than literature may lead to a >> > different way of seeing this and surviving until this is possible. >> > Literature is generally bland and lacks depth - though there are great >> > moments. I suspect one of the key issues is raised by Gabby a lot of >> > the time - we need to replace current authority and know the irony is >> > such attempts just produce the same old business as usual (WB Yeates >> > was good on this). >> >> > The stuff on thermodynamics above is very similar in method to >> > Einstein and what we might now term Wittgensteinian deconstruction - >> > trying to find the common elements and mistakes in various competing >> > arguments and readdress the apparent conflict. Molly has some words >> > on this too. >> >> > On 20 Oct, 20:37, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > google books had a copy up online, it may still be there. Used book >> > > outlets like Alibris will allow you to put in the book you are searching >> > > for and notify you when a copy becomes available for sale by a store that >> > > uses their service. Other than that, you may find some good articles >> > > about >> > > it with excerpts online. for Einstein fans, it is a favorite. >> >> > > On Saturday, October 20, 2012 10:14:03 AM UTC-4, Allan Heretic wrote: >> >> > > > how does a person get a hold of the original text..?? >> > > > Allan >> >> > > > On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Molly <[email protected] >> > > > <javascript:>>wrote: >> >> > > >> The Einstein "The World As I See It," originally began as his >> > > >> ponderance >> > > >> of something greater than science, and acknowledgement of spirit in >> > > >> action. >> > > >> The original edition is the best, as his editors put together texts >> > > >> with >> > > >> lectures for him under the same name, and those books have an entirely >> > > >> different flavor. >> >> > > >> From my view, "knowing" is not the end of it, but the beginning. >> >> > > >> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 8:09:19 AM UTC-4, gabbydott wrote: >> >> > > >>> Honestly, Vam, I don't think that it was Einstein's lack of knowledge >> > > >>> that made him pose such a daft (in the sense of limited) question. I >> > > >>> read >> > > >>> this as a description of the state of occidental science at his time >> > > >>> - the >> > > >>> conflict between the ontological and the constructivist explanatory >> > > >>> models >> > > >>> of the nature of knowledge. >> >> > > >>> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > >>>> You spoke of Einstein, about his ” only ” interest being whether >> > > >>>> God<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God> had >> > > >>>> any choice in manifesting the universe and this observed creation. >> >> > > >>>> My own suggestion is that if we do not know enough we will always >> > > >>>> think >> > > >>>> along those lines. >> >> > > >>>> To the uninitiate, the desktops of today would seem to be thinking >> > > >>>> entities ... >> >> > > >>>> *So, do we know enough ?* >> >> > > >>>> <https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-EBJSz8MhWQU/UIJGzwpvR3I/AAAAAAAAB0...> >> >> > > >>>> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 6:36:45 AM UTC+5:30, rigsy03 wrote: >> >> > > >>>>> I took a course on the Snow-Leavis(1959-1962) controversy in the >> > > >>>>> mid-'70's. Perhaps we should then conclude scientists do not >> > > >>>>> understand humanism? Other works involved included various essays >> > > >>>>> and >> > > >>>>> books by Aldous Huxley ("Literature and Science") and Bronowski >> > > >>>>> ("Science and Human Values"). Not sure that "incomprehension and >> > > >>>>> dislike"(Snow) between the two groups has changed at all when >> > > >>>>> considering the gap between rich and poor nations, smart weapons, >> > > >>>>> etc. >> > > >>>>> as science and militarism promote the self-interest of various >> > > >>>>> nations/ >> > > >>>>> political theories and practices. Should we quibble that Nazi >> > > >>>>> scientists propelled the USA moon landing? At least the moon >> > > >>>>> survived. >> >> > > >>>>> On Oct 19, 1:37 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >>>>> > The below is rather long, but physics is returning to some of the >> > > >>>>> > ideas of James Maxwell. My dog is named after him. Years ago, >> > > >>>>> > we >> > > >>>>> > were told their were two cultures ( CP Snow) - one knew the 2nd >> > > >>>>> > law >> > > >>>>> of >> > > >>>>> > thermodynamics and the other did not (literary types). The 2nd >> > > >>>>> > law >> > > >>>>> > involved was a straw man. The following, as Max needs his walk, >> > > >>>>> > is >> > > >>>>> > paraphrased from last week's New Scientist. >> >> > > >>>>> > A few decades after Carnot, the German physicist Rudolph Clausius >> > > >>>>> > explained such phenomena in terms of a quantity characterising >> > > >>>>> > disorder that he called entropy. In this picture, the universe >> > > >>>>> > works >> > > >>>>> > on the back of processes that increase entropy - for example >> > > >>>>> > dissipating heat from places where it is concentrated, and >> > > >>>>> > therefore >> > > >>>>> > more ordered, to cooler areas, where it is not. That predicts a >> > > >>>>> grim >> > > >>>>> > fate for the universe itself. Once all heat is maximally >> > > >>>>> > dissipated, >> > > >>>>> > no useful process can happen in it any more: it dies a "heat >> > > >>>>> > death". >> > > >>>>> A >> > > >>>>> > perplexing question is raised at the other end of cosmic history, >> > > >>>>> too. >> > > >>>>> > If nature always favours states of high entropy, how and why did >> > > >>>>> > the >> > > >>>>> > universe start in a state that seems to have been of >> > > >>>>> > comparatively >> > > >>>>> low >> > > >>>>> > entropy? At present we have no answer, and there is an intriguing >> > > >>>>> > alternative view. >> >> > > >>>>> > Perhaps because of such undesirable consequences, the legitimacy >> > > >>>>> > of >> > > >>>>> > the second law was for a long time questioned. The charge was >> > > >>>>> > formulated with the most striking clarity by the Scottish >> > > >>>>> > physicist >> > > >>>>> > James Clerk Maxwell in 1867. He was satisfied that inanimate >> > > >>>>> > matter >> > > >>>>> > presented no difficulty for the second law. In an isolated >> > > >>>>> > system, >> > > >>>>> > heat always passes from the hotter to the cooler, and a neat >> > > >>>>> > clump >> > > >>>>> of >> > > >>>>> > dye molecules readily dissolves in water and disperses randomly, >> > > >>>>> never >> > > >>>>> > the other way round. Disorder as embodied by entropy does always >> > > >>>>> > increase. Maxwell's problem was with life. Living things have >> > > >>>>> > "intentionality": they deliberately do things to other things to >> > > >>>>> make >> > > >>>>> > life easier for themselves. Conceivably, they might try to reduce >> > > >>>>> the >> > > >>>>> > entropy of their surroundings and thereby violate the second law. >> > > >>>>> > Such a possibility is highly disturbing to physicists. Either >> > > >>>>> > something is a universal law or it is merely a cover for >> > > >>>>> > something >> > > >>>>> > deeper. Yet it was only in the late 1970s that Maxwell's entropy- >> > > >>>>> > fiddling "demon" was laid to rest. Its slayer was the US >> > > >>>>> > physicist >> > > >>>>> > Charles Bennett, who built on work by his colleague at IBM, Rolf >> > > >>>>> > Landauer, using the theory of information developed a few decades >> > > >>>>> > earlier by Claude Shannon. An intelligent being can certainly >> > > >>>>> > rearrange things to lower the entropy of its environment. But to >> > > >>>>> > do >> > > >>>>> > this, it must first fill up its memory, gaining information as to >> > > >>>>> how >> > > >>>>> > things are arranged in the first place. >> >> > > >>>>> > This acquired information must be encoded somewhere, presumably >> > > >>>>> > in >> > > >>>>> the >> > > >>>>> > demon's memory. When this memory is finally full, or the being >> > > >>>>> > dies >> > > >>>>> or >> > > >>>>> > otherwise expires, it must be reset. Dumping all this stored, >> > > >>>>> ordered >> > > >>>>> > information back into the environment increases entropy - and >> > > >>>>> > this >> > > >>>>> > entropy increase, Bennett showed, will ultimately always be at >> > > >>>>> > least >> > > >>>>> > as large as the entropy reduction the demon originally achieved. >> > > >>>>> Thus >> > > >>>>> > the status of the second law was assured, albeit anchored in a >> > > >>>>> mantra >> > > >>>>> > of Landauer's that would have been unintelligible to the >> > > >>>>> 19th-century >> > > >>>>> > progenitors of thermodynamics: that "information is physical". >> > > >>>>> > James Joule's 19th century experiments with beer can be used to >> > > >>>>> > illustrate this idea. The English brewer, whose name lives on in >> > > >>>>> > the >> > > >>>>> > standard unit of energy, sealed beer in a thermally isolated tub >> > > >>>>> > containing a paddle wheel that was connected to weights falling >> > > >>>>> under >> > > >>>>> > gravity outside. The wheel's rotation warmed the beer, increasing >> > > >>>>> the >> > > >>>>> > disorder of its molecules and therefore its entropy. But hard as >> > > >>>>> > we >> > > >>>>> > might try, we simply cannot use Joule's set-up to decrease the >> > > >>>>> beer's >> > > >>>>> > temperature, even by a fraction of a millikelvin. Cooler beer >> > > >>>>> > is, in >> > > >>>>> > this instance, a state regrettably beyond the reach of physics. >> >> > > >>>>> > The question is whether we can express the whole of physics >> > > >>>>> > simply >> > > >>>>> by >> > > >>>>> > enumerating possible and impossible processes in a given >> > > >>>>> > situation. >> > > >>>>> > This is very different from how physics is usually phrased, in >> > > >>>>> > both >> >> ... >> >> read more » > > -- > > > -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. I am a Natural Airgunner - Full of Hot Air & Ready To Expel It Quickly. --
