Not sure I can agree as it depends on whether you and your culture are rational. Without "right reason" there is less/no chance of morality or wisdom. One can call something a word that is essentially false but taken as truth/goodness.
On Dec 5, 9:19 pm, James <[email protected]> wrote: > I could reference the plot of Enemy Mine but that would only prove two > things: my memory is junk, and I'm too trapped in that trivia world Neil > mentions. In my view morality resides among human faculties, perhaps > next to wisdom. Parallel worlds makes me think of perception trained on > divergent and sometimes conflicting narratives, that's just a notion > that passed me the other day. > > Now I'm pondering why I sound like an antimonian but think like Jude. :/ > > On 12/5/2012 5:49 PM, gabbydott wrote: > > > > > Oh yes, please, explain the mouse matrix to Neil! :) > > > 2012/12/5 Allan H <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > Neil even science today is a best guess, as you put it an M Mouse > > the theory of physics is based off an assumption .. and that > > assumption is so widely accepted as being true that you no longer > > realize it is an best guess.. > > > Without that best guess you are playing with m mouse. I am laughing > > as I am wondering if you even know that basic assumption. > > Allan > > > Matrix ** th3 beginning light > > > On Dec 5, 2012 9:58 AM, "archytas" <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > On he unlikeliness of a beginning see Susskind - > > http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.5385v1.pdf > > - it's free. There's a 'sort of' answer to your 'centre' > > question in > > it James - sadly not starring M.Mouse so you and I can grasp it. > > Big Bang was not claimed as fact in science and nor was its > > successor > > that has an air of rigs' negative space about it. Inflation theory > > runs, more or less, like this: > > Inflation starts with a vacuum in an unusually high energy > > state and > > with a negative pressure. Together these give the vacuum repulsive > > gravity that pushes things apart rather than draws them > > together. This > > inflates the vacuum, making it more repulsive, which causes it to > > inflate even faster. > > > But the inflationary vacuum is quantum in nature, which makes it > > unstable. All over it, and at random, bits decay into a normal, > > everyday vacuum. Imagine the vacuum as a vast ocean of boiling > > water, > > with bubbles forming and expanding across its length and > > breadth. The > > energy of the inflationary vacuum has to go somewhere and it > > goes into > > creating matter and heating it to a ferocious temperature inside > > each > > bubble. It goes into creating big bangs. Our universe is inside one > > such bubble that appeared in a big bang 13.7 billion years ago. One > > of the striking features of inflation is that it is eternal. New > > high- > > energy vacuum is created far faster than it is eaten away by its > > decay > > into ordinary vacuum, which means that once inflation starts, it > > never > > stops and universes bubble off forever in the future. But because > > eternal inflation avoids the dreaded singularity, it opens up the > > possibility that this has always been the case with universes > > bubbling > > off forever in the past too. > > > Other models include the "cyclic universe" developed within string > > theory by Neil Turok. Here, our universe is a four-dimensional > > island, > > or "brane", in a higher dimensional space. It collides > > repeatedly with > > a second brane. Think of the two branes as two parallel slices of > > bread, coming together along a fifth dimension, passing through each > > other, pulling apart again, then coming together again. Each > > time the > > branes touch, their tremendous energy of motion along the fifth > > dimension creates matter on each brane and heats it to tremendous > > temperature. To observers on the brane, it looks exactly like a big > > bang and would lead to the same patterns in the cosmic microwave > > background and distributions of galaxies. Yet it is a big bang > > without > > a beginning,because the cycles have been repeating for eternity. > > Some > > say matter on the branes expands more with each cycle and this means > > that if you run it backwards like a movie in reverse, the cyclic > > universe encounters either a singularity or some kind of beginning > > like inflation, In the "emergent universe" it all begins as a small > > static universe, which exists in this state for an infinite > > amount of > > time before suddenly being triggered to inflate. Such scenarios do > > arise in string theory. Just as Einstein's static universe (that > > preceded Bigly Bangly) was unstable and needed the extra > > ingredient of > > cosmic repulsion, two weird ingredients: a vacuum with negative > > energy, and fault-lines in space-time known as domain walls that > > are a > > feature of some models of particle physics are needed to make this > > model work. Domain walls should leave an imprint on the > > temperature of > > the cosmic microwave background radiation, which has not been seen, > > but this might be explained if they were diluted away by inflation. > > > None of these models is true - they are just the best good minds in > > the subject area can muster. We lay people confuse ourselves on the > > certainty and claims made abut these models and are exposed to them > > through idiot media. Right or wrong we don't get any closer to god > > concepts, though the physics may be limited by our early exposure to > > such myths. Science may be a religion that admits it is uncertain > > about its god. Maybe we made our journey to 'now' without past > > information because such information cannot be retained in such > > 'travel' as ours. We might cross a singularity in the future after > > which we can only conceive of what we have done so far as an > > ignorant > > beginning.. > > > On 5 Dec, 04:48, archytas <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > Amazing how little the group knows of physics. RP has a > > reasonable > > > definition of creator origin, though it is a 'singularity' in the > > > sense science collapses in and around it. Nothing wrong with > > that but > > > it doesn't help make radios (etc). Matter isn't necessarily > > energy - > > > there is just a conservation law that connects them, itself > > connected > > > with momentum. Big Bang is a construction and losing favour. > > > Multiple universes and mirror worlds are also constructions > > used to > > > explain 'evidence'. > > > I'm not sure how we can explain not being at the centre of a > > universe > > > we can't really define - and our observations of it are known > > to be > > > 'skewed' by living in an area of normal matter and high > > gravity. If > > > you want to make a magnet you probably need relativity - even to > > > explain how a lead-acid battery works as well as it does. This > > > doesn't make the theory complete. > > > > Knowing about science doesn't help much with god or why we > > cling to > > > this rock and want to know why, purpose, lack of it and how > > we should > > > live. Negative space is an art concept. Vacuums are thought > > to have > > > energy - the virtual particles, which are known to be > > particle pairs > > > that blink into existence and then annihilate in a timespan > > too short > > > to measure. They do this everywhere, throughout the Universe ( a > > > postulate as no one has been to look). > > > > I have never seen any evidence for a spiritual world, but > > think such > > > may be an emergent property of the way we live. > > > > On 4 Dec, 15:33, Allan H <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > That is not true the beginning can be pretty much > > pinpointed .. as for > > > > parallel universes that is just a wild guess with nothing > > to support the > > > > other than it sounds good. There is more evidence > > supporting the spiritual > > > > realm than parallel universes > > > > Allan > > > > > Matrix ** th3 beginning light > > > > On Dec 4, 2012 2:26 PM, "RP Singh" <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > In my view there is no beginning to creation. There is > > beginning and > > > > > end to universes There are infinite no. of universes in > > parallel and > > > > > continuously many universes are being born and many are > > dying , but > > > > > Creation which includes infinite universes in eternal > > time , just like > > > > > the Spirit, is without beginning and without end. The > > difference is > > > > > that the nature of creation is dualistic and the Spirit > > is non-dual. > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Lee Douglas > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hello Andrew, > > > > > > > Heh I can envisage many things, but alas > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --
