Adrie, RMP has stated that static patterns of value are anything that can be conceptualized, in other words they have a relationship with consciousness. Time and space are static patterns of value, or in the words of Robert Lanza "Without consciousness, space and time are nothing." I see that as a point of agreement between the MoQ and Biocentrism.
Marsha On Nov 7, 2010, at 1:14 PM, MarshaV wrote: > > > Adrie, > > Now I am suppose to accept a quote submerged within a Discover > article to represent Hawking's full theory, and refutation of what? > > What explanation and evidence do you use to identify a theory such > as Robert Lanza's as occult? What authority do you offer to make a > judgement that I have committed anti-Moq behavior by posting this > article? "Backpeddling to the caves?" That is nothing more than > your weak, feckless opinion. > > The point of my stating "tools of the mind" was that there was no > assigning anything as Absolute Truth which was your accusation. > A TOE was not your issue, but assigning Absolute Truth was your > issue. > > An untestable 'hypothetical model' to me is speculation. Science is > suppose to produce theories that can be tested. And linking Hawking > with RMP on an issue which was besides your original point (Absolute > Truth) is another attempt at sleazy argumentation. > > > Marsha > > > > On Nov 7, 2010, at 11:45 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote: > >> In the Oct. 2010 issue of Discover, theoretical physicists Stephen Hawking >> and Leonard Mlodinow state, "There is no way to remove the observer -- us -- >> from our perceptions of the world ... In classical physics, the past is >> assumed to exist as a definite series of events, but according to quantum >> physics, the past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a >> spectrum of possibilities." >> >> >> This quote of Hawking was submerged within the article, and it is about the >> only part that makes sense. >> Biocentrism is an occult form of science,stating the theory of everything is >> possible, and positioning biocentrism as such theory of everything. >> >> According to Stephen Hawking an Robert Pirsig(moq), there is no theory of >> everything,it is simply not possible. >> >> >> Strange that biocentrism in the form of the article presented here is >> rejecting >> Hawking's models, and is quoting Hawking at the same time.??? >> >> >> >> Quoting you , Marsha, in the article time and space are tools of the mind >> as in your abstraction of it, i hate to say it, but yes i was reading the >> article >> and your interpretation here is limping truly, >> this is the correct sentence in the article. >> >> " >> In biocentrism, space and time are forms of animal intuition. They're tools >> of the mind and thus don't exist as external objects independent of >> life""(end.) >> >> >> >> >> Speculation, hm , nope, hypothetical models are hypothetical models >> >> Zeno and Lanza are on the speculative run. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2010/11/7 MarshaV <[email protected]> >> >>> >>> Adrie, >>> >>> In the BioCentrism article, time and space are claimed to be tools >>> of the mind. That is hardly labeling them Absolute Truth, but maybe >>> you didn't read the article. And please save the use of an 'argument >>> by authority' for someone else, for I am skeptical of scientific dogma, >>> its scientific materialism base and the public-relation propaganda of >>> its superstars. Most of Hawking's theories are not yet testable, which >>> put them in the category of speculation. >>> >>> You want a good laugh. Watch 'Into the Universe with Stephen >>> Hawking: Episode 1 - Aliens'. What a pathetic, animated joke! >>> >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 7, 2010, at 9:19 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote: >>> >>>> The Moq and Time, Mc Watt commenting on Pirsig's point of view >>>> towards Parmenides and Zeno, >>>> >>>> (extract) >>>> On the other hand, from the Dynamic sense of the MOQ, Parmenides is, >>>> strictly speaking, correct as the concept of ‘change’ is an abstraction >>> from >>>> Dynamic Quality and, therefore, (as with anything abstracted) doesn’t >>> exist >>>> in an absolute sense. Possibly, the koan-like theories of Parmenides >>> and >>>> "Zeno" indicate (and they may have shared similar thinking to Zen masters >>>> for such verbal conundrums) ""the error of assigning absolute truth to a >>>> static concept when reality is fundamentally dynamic. "" >>>> (end) >>>> >>>> >>>> Can you pay attention to the endconclusion?, the endsentence. >>>> >>>> on the same page, quote Mc Watt, >>>> >>>> *"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only >>> a >>>> hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results >>> of >>>> an experiment agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next >>>> time the result will not contradict the theory. * >>>> And tends to support Pirsig’s caution about assigning anything objective >>> as >>>> an absolute reality independent from any observer." >>>> >>>> >>>> again pay attention to the endformulation, ..(Zeno conflicts with >>> everything >>>> by assuming reality to be independent from the observer,as an "absolute") >>>> >>>> This is also to conflict Einstein,Hawking and about 95 % of science and >>>> scientifical evidence. >>>> >>>> (i have the material to roll in Hawking's opinion if you like) >>>> >>>> Adrie >>>> >>>> >>>> 2010/11/7 MarshaV <[email protected]> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 7, 2010, at 7:08 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, Marsha, it means only this, importing Zeno in the moq is not a good >>>>>> idea. >>>>>> better that it is told to you before it fires in your hands. >>>>> >>>>> Please explain why? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nobody owns the truth. >>>>>> we cannot have reality blurred with occultism. >>>>>> dont get me wrong , i like mysticism, occultism, but do not make a >>> widget >>>>>> out of it. >>>>>> Okay? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2010/11/7 MarshaV <[email protected]> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adrie, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Although I think that quantum physics represents the West's most >>>>>>> dynamic, cutting-edge science, what I find most interesting are the >>>>>>> enigmas, paradoxes and anomalies because they most likely are >>>>>>> the weak spots that may shatter the deep-seated belief in scientific >>>>>>> materialism. Einstein and Hawking have offered ever-changing, >>>>>>> relational, impermanent intellectual static patterns of value, not the >>>>>>> Absolute Truth. Space-time and wormholes are conceptually >>>>>>> constructed patterns overlaid onto a flow of Dynamic Quality. So >>>>>>> citing Anthony citing Einstein and Hawking to bolster your opinion >>>>>>> that the BioCentrism article was wrong, means what? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marsha ___ 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
