With memories as bad as mine and yours Allan we have to invent for fear of remembering we have forgotten everything.
On 21 Oct, 19:00, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more » --
