At 04:27 AM 9/22/2007, you wrote: >Dear Marsha -- > >(I should have accepted your invitation to dance.) > > >On 8/20 I wrote: > > Certainly I agree that human understanding is limited. I've been saying > > this all along. That's why we experience reality in finite increments > > called time. > >You respond by saying: > > > I know you wrote we _experience_ reality in finite increments of > > time, but in fact from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity don't > > we now know that space, time, matter, and energy are names for > > relationships. So maybe our way of experiencing the world is still > > being influenced by the old Newtonian perspective. And maybe in the > > future our experience will catch up with the new relativity > > point-of-view?. All static patterns of value, by the way. > >Nice try, Marsha. But I don't think Einstein was naming "relationships". >I'm not a physicist, but Einstein's Theories of Relativity (there's a >"special" and a "general" theory) defines mass, motion and energy as the >constituents of physical reality, and states that these elements are >relational within a given "space/time frame". The Special Theory makes an >exception for the speed of light as relative, stating that it is constant, >regardless the observer's motion. It also formulates the equivalence of >mass and energy in the E = mc^2 equation. The general theory is based on >the proposition that there is no physical difference between gravitational >force and the force produced by acceleration.
Greetings Ham, I admit that my adventure into science is at its beginning and my understanding is fuzzy and shallow, but I am trying. Even to be told 'Nice try.' is encouraging. Before Galileo, Newton, Einstein, I think the major influence that shaped human experience was the Church. Do I think the ideas, that these men and their contemporaries brought to Western culture, shifted the way people experienced their world. Most definitely! From Newton affects through the 19th Century, the mechanistic/clockworks world-view was the predominant experience. Time, space and matter were thought discrete phenomenon. Since the beginning of the 20th century, it has been understood that time, space and matter are relational. Time is relative to the observer. I have _experienced_ this firsthand, or at least I had an experience that made me think time was relative to my frame of reference. I have had some strange spacial/matter experiences too, but I wouldn't even know how to translate them into language. Einstein maybe didn't name his discoveries "relationships", but because of these ideas, time, space, matter/energy have come to be understood by the scientific community as relationships rather than "things". But that it is scientific knowledge it is constantly being challenged and susceptible to change. >But I find your phrase "we now know" curious in this context. Does it mean >that because a man named Einstein came up with a new theory we are all >supposed to experience reality differently than before? I don't know about >you, but I don't experience "by the book" but by the same process I >experienced as a child. By "we now know", I mean the prevailing view from the beginning of the last century 'til now. A child is taught how to interpret his experiences, and these experiences are probably shaped by this indoctrination. Certainly new ideas can influence experience. Ideas are experienced as much as the biological senses, maybe more since we are such mental creatures. >Nor does the fact that a philosopher has written >two books about Quality change the way I experience the world. Such >theories or ideas may change my overall perspective or offer some insight on >reality, but they don't change what I experience. And just why have you created a website, and why are you chatting on this forum? Aren't you hoping to influence others to accept into their experience the possibility of a creator? >Do we not all still experience physical reality as a sequence of events in >time? Do we not measure this sequence in increments of seconds, minutes, >hours, days, and years? I am in the process of rethinking these things. We experience seconds, minutes, hours because of the clocks. We experience days and years because of calenders. We have been taught to experience relative to these tools. >And isn't this because we are incapable of >experiencing the whole of reality -- past, present, and >future -- due to the limitations of our sensory awareness? Mentally, we do experience past, present, and future in spite our sensory awareness. >That's all I was trying to say, while agreeing with you >that human understanding is limited. > >But to suggest that a theory by Galileo, Newton, Einstein, or anybody else >can influence the way humans experience the world is a stretch of >credibility. Not to me. It's not a stretch at all. I am a pattern of influences. Regards, Marsha P.S. Are you going to explain this 'metaphysical reality' you think is being excluded from the MOQ or my posts? Isn't it a creator? Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
