Squeezing a squirrel slightly in the palm of my hand in the background of the listnoise,let it scream a little bit before it dies, i love it , squirrels are a nice catch.This one was.
I think in your reflection here, DMB, you took the real James story to examine, but you have to take the real draft from James , compare it with the Pirsig version, and read Pirsigs/Einstein impression on cases like this, so the further deployment of the paragraph is important, read the impression further on.(pirsigs) 2010/9/6 david buchanan <[email protected]> > > Magnus said to Adrie: > Ok, yes, I remember the squirrel. And yes, spatial statements like "around" > does of course depend on the observer's position, just like political > statements like right and left depend on some baseline in the middle. But > I'm not sure we can generalize those examples to all? other levels. I'm > probably not seeing what you want me to see here. > > > dmb butts in: > > As I understand it, the squirrel scene is not about differences in > perspective. It's supposed to illustrate the power of pragmatism to > distinguish the difference between a real dispute and one that's merely > verbal. The two camps seemed to be in disagreement about whether or not the > man ever got "around" the squirrel, even though they all agreed about what > actually happened. They all saw it happen and yet some said he did and some > said he didn't. Asked to settle the dispute, James wondered what practical > difference it made. By posing this question, the disputants realized that > they didn't really disagree about what happened. It's just that they were > using two different meanings of the term "around". Did the man get around > the squirrel? Some said yes and some said no but the only real difference > was in what they took "around" to mean. So their dispute was merely verbal > and therefore meaningless. > > Did the man ever catch the squirrel? Nope. Good thing too. Those things > bite and scratch like hell. You'd have to be nuts to catch a squirrel. > > > I haven't been following this thread, really, but something Einstein said > leapt to mind as I was going by the other day. He said something like, space > and time are not the stage on which the drama of the universe unfolds, they > are part of the drama. I think Hawking's idea that there was a singularity > prior to the big bang goes along quite nicely with that idea. If I > understand this picture, time and space and matter and energy are different > manifestations of the same thing and exist only in relation to one another, > as in E=Mc2, where mass is a certain amount of condensed energy. Just about > any equation is essentially a description of their relations. In that sense, > space and time are just as physical as matter, an equal feature of the same > fabric. It's a beautiful picture. The Big Bang is more like the Big > Unfolding. The singularity from which the whole universe exploded was not > some empty nothingness. It was more like all of reality folded in on itself > and packed into a tiny > suitcase small enough for a flea to carry in his hand. > > > In that singularity all the equations were perfectly balanced. It was a > perfect symmetry in every way such that there was no time or space or matter > or energy. Not yet. But, the story goes, something tipped it ever so > slightly, the symmetry was broken and BANG! We're in the midst of that > ongoing explosion at this moment. Watch your head! > > > > > > > > Magnus > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2010-09-06 11:46, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote: > > > ah, okay Magnus, i will make a suggestion to set gravity aside for this > > > moment , and move on it later on, > > > > > > ok, i think it will become important, because it will show something > > > > > > I suppose you have the e-book lila, can you go to page 212-213, and > read the > > > squirrel part James introduced, and was recognised by pirsig? > > > > > > Than, if you re-read the parts we discussed on general relativity, > > > relativity, quantum physiks, the many worlds interpretation Hawing > > > is supporting as the momental mainstream science,pay special attention > to > > > the part is was pointing to as for the relative position of the > observer > > > > > > James , Pirsig, Einstein,Hawking all on 1 line, in a sequence of > recognised > > > patterns regarding reality. saying the same,it takes a visionair to > > > recognise a visionair > > > > > > i think it becomes important to list it up, sequentially. > > > and set it to be read in one artikel, will take us some time i guess, > its > > > only a proposal of course. > > > i'm still investigating this push-pull model of you, there seems to be > some > > > evidence, but very difficult to understand. > > > working on it, probably it is not in conflict with Hawkings idea's, or > > > general relativity, or supersymmetry > > > probably it resides in the supersymetry-model.it willt ake time, the > product > > > is there. > > > So can you read page 212-213, and recognise what James and Pirsig are > > > saying? > > > greetzz,Adrie > > > > > > 2010/9/6 Magnus Berg<[email protected]> > > > > > >> Hi Adrie > > >> > > >> Getting hard to distinguish the signals from all the noise around > here. > > >> Soon I'll start using Thunderbird's spam filter to cancel out the > worst. > > >> > > >> Anyway, I was able to read some of the links you sent yesterday. Very > > >> interesting, this geoid form vs the freatic surface. But I'm really > not sure > > >> if it can be used to hint either way on the gravity push/pull issue? > But > > >> perhaps that wasn't your intention? > > >> > > >> I also read the MWI page, at least parts of it. And even it sounds > very > > >> much like the quality event, I'm a little uncertain as to why it is > > >> important here? > > >> > > >> Magnus > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On 2010-09-05 15:10, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote: > > >> > > >>> Okay , lets compare , for now to explore our the geoidform of the > earth,to > > >>> make it possible to crossrefer this geoid > > >>> to the freatic surface,the geoid shape is very important Magnus, can > you > > >>> read it carefully, and keep in mind that i want to compare the geoid > shape > > >>> with the freatic surface. > > >>> > > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> And after that This will be the follow up, after we compared the > geoid > > >>> with > > >>> the freatic field. > > >>> > > >>> It will lead to a field making your interpretation on gravity as good > as > > >>> any > > >>> other scientifically projection, without conflicting other matters. > > >>> It is surely nessesary to avoid conflicting matters, otherwise we > will end > > >>> up in a non-existing meta-gravity, that serves no purpose > > >>> from the beginning. > > >>> All details matter. > > >>> > > >>> Okay , this will be the field i propose, The many worlds > interpretation, > > >>> parented by Stephen Hawking,but he is incorporating all quantum > physiks in > > >>> his model, and the conflicting matter i was mentioning earlier, about > the > > >>> relative/absolute position of the observer is in conflict with the > > >>> quantum-states supported by Hawking.In the Q P there is no absolute > > >>> position > > >>> unless proven. > > >>> But for now , you can find what i'm pointing towards, in this regard, > > >>> under > > >>> "Interpreting waveform or function collapse" > > >>> This will give the answer as to why its better to leave the absolute > > >>> position as observer.Hawking's copenhagen interpretation is > interwoven > > >>> with > > >>> that model,the relative model.the relative model is dynamical , the > > >>> absolute > > >>> is statical. > > >>> Your clever enough to find it yourself, and than read our earlier > matter > > >>> back. > > >>> I will come back on this later on, but i think its good to read > yourself > > >>> in > > >>> a little bit in advance. > > >>> Probably you will notice that Hawking allows multiple realitys and > > >>> explains > > >>> them, you will also notice that this material is not in conflict with > any > > >>> OTHER possible reality or history.Hawking merges all reality's. > > >>> But as i come to think about it, you were the only one brave and bold > > >>> enough > > >>> to step into Andy's code, and to recognise the embedded > > >>> idea within the formulation, so you are a very clever guy, i agree > that > > >>> the > > >>> model was very difficult to peel open. > > >>> > > >>> greetzz, Adrie > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 2010/9/5 ADRIE KINTZIGER<[email protected]> > > >>> > > >>> No, i only meant to say, Magnus, that accelerating is not in > conflict > > >>>> with > > >>>> cooling down,and that there is evidence for the cooling down, > > >>>> I was clumsy. > > >>>> > > >>>> Adrie > > >>>> > > >>>> 2010/9/5 Magnus Berg<[email protected]> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hi Adrie > > >>>>> > > >>>>> "ADRIE KINTZIGER"<[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> --quote,Magnus > > >>>>>> Another line of thought is what Horse mentioned the other day. If > > >>>>>> gravity > > >>>>>> comes from space, and space is expanding, then it should get > weaker > > >>>>>> with > > >>>>>> time. If we can find evidence that gravity was higher when the sun > and > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> our > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> planets formed, then that could be a smoking gun. But I doubt > anyone > > >>>>>> has > > >>>>>> searched for such evidence > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Yes , the universe is speeding up and cooling down at the same > time, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> there > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> is evidence for the cooling down and sedating. > > >>>>>> This is not in conflict with accelerating speed. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> That was a bit unclear. Of course "speeding up" is not in conflict > with > > >>>>> "accelerating speed", they are the same thing. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Did something I say make you think I thought something conflicted? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Magnus > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 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/md/archives.html > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> parser > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> 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/md/archives.html > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/md/archives.html > > 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/md/archives.html > -- parser 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/md/archives.html
