Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 20 Feb 2013, at 06:19, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


On Feb 19, 3:51 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


In front of the infinite? To laugh.
In front of nothingness? To cry.
In between, a bit of both.

Bruno

- Show quoted text -


Nice, thanks.
By the way, your photos 'par Lydia Nash' nice too.
All the best.


Thanks. Best wishes,

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

. . .   the electric universe . . . ? !
=.
Vacuum energy is some kind of  energy  in the infinite space
between billion and billion galaxies.
In this infinite space  virtual potential energy particles exist
 with energy: E=Mc^2.
Using inner impulse h*=h/2pi they appears from vacuum
 as phenomena with energy:  E=h*f
The effects of vacuum energy can be experimentally observed
 in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission
 the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift.
===..
socratus

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

On Feb 19, 3:51 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> In front of the infinite? To laugh.
> In front of nothingness? To cry.
> In between, a bit of both.
>
> Bruno
>
> - Show quoted text -

Nice, thanks.
By the way, your photos 'par Lydia Nash' nice too.
All the best.
=

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 19 Feb 2013, at 07:47, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:




On Feb 18, 5:28 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


Quite wise statements indeed.

But is that not a reason to be cautious

with general statement like you did above in the Biswas quote ?

Bruno


==
Oh, we are very careful.
We do every thing to escape infinity and nothingness.
And, indeed, who had no fear of the Infinite, of the nothingness?
But what to do if they exist ?
To cry or to laugh ?


In front of the infinite? To laugh.
In front of nothingness? To cry.
In between, a bit of both.

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

On Feb 18, 5:28 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Quite wise statements indeed.
 But is that not a reason to be cautious
> with general statement like you did above in the Biswas quote ?
>
> Bruno
>
==
Oh, we are very careful.
We do every thing to escape infinity and nothingness.
And, indeed, who had no fear of the Infinite, of the nothingness?
But what to do if they exist ?
To cry or to laugh ?
=

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 18 Feb 2013, at 14:35, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:




On Feb 18, 12:19 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


Socratus, are you able to doubt that physics is the fundamental  
science?


Bruno

=>

In Physics we trust.
/ Tarun Biswas /
http://www.engr.newpaltz.edu/~biswast/
Of course, it is correct, because only Physics can logically
explain us the Existence and the Ultimate Nature of Reality.


Why?

The UDA shows that if the brain works like a machine, then this is  
definitely not the case. Physics assumes (primitive) physical objects,  
like particles, or waves, or space, or spin, or strings, or forces, etc.


Why do you think that all this might not been explained, for example  
as an illusion in some arithmetical matrix. After all, we know that  
arithmetic does emulate, in the mathematical original sense, all  
computations, and thus all subjective experiences, ...





But . . . but . . .
. . .  . .
‘ . . .science is not always as objective as we would like to
believe.’
/ Book: The holographic universe. Page 6. By Michael Talbot. /
Why?
Because  as Einstein said:
“ One thing I have learned in a long life:
that all our science, measured against reality,
is primitive and childlike –
and yet it is the most precious thing we have.”
==.
‘   . . . all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and
childlike’
…


Quite wise statements indeed. But is that not a reason to be cautious  
with general statement like you did above in the Biswas quote ?


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

On Feb 18, 12:19 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> Socratus, are you able to doubt that physics is the fundamental science?
>
> Bruno
=>

 In Physics we trust.
 / Tarun Biswas /
http://www.engr.newpaltz.edu/~biswast/
 Of course, it is correct, because only Physics can logically
explain us the Existence and the Ultimate Nature of Reality.
But . . . but . . .
 . . .  . .
‘ . . .science is not always as objective as we would like to
believe.’
 / Book: The holographic universe. Page 6. By Michael Talbot. /
Why?
Because  as Einstein said:
“ One thing I have learned in a long life:
that all our science, measured against reality,
 is primitive and childlike –
and yet it is the most precious thing we have.”
==.
‘   . . . all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and
childlike’
…

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 18 Feb 2013, at 06:39, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


  Klein &Lachièze-Rey,
THE QUEST FOR UNITY – The Adventure of Physics.
=.
Mathematics is an indispensable and powerful tool where it has been
demonstrated that it applies to a real world experience. However,
it is inappropriate and, as Dingle points out, potentially
dangerous,
to give credence to deductions arising purely from the language
of mathematics. The problem is that mathematicians now dominate
physics and it is fashionable for them to follow Einstein’s example,
with fame going to those with the most fantastic notions that defy
experience and common sense. So we have the Big Bang, dark matter,
black holes, cosmic strings, wormholes in space, time travel,
and so on and on.
It has driven practically minded students from the subject.
There is an old Disney cartoon where the scientist is portrayed with
eyes closed, rocking backwards in his chair and sucking on a pipe,
which at intervals emits a smoke-cloud of mathematical symbols.
Much of modern physics is a smoke-screen of Disneyesque fantasy.
Inappropriate mathematical models are routinely used to describe
the universe. Yet the physicists hand us the ash from their pipes
as if it were gold dust. If only they would use the ashtrays
provided.
“It seems that every practitioner of physics has had to wonder
at some point why mathematics and physics have come to be
so closely entwined. Opinions vary on the answer.
Bertrand Russell acknowledged
“Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about
the physical world, but because we know so little.” …
Mathematics may be indispensable to physics,
but it obviously does not constitute physics.”



Assuming physicalism, but my main point is that computationalism  
cannot work with physicalism.
Russell is just wrong when he says "Mathematics may be indispensable  
to physics,
but it obviously does not constitute physics.". The "obviously" comes  
from an implicit Aristotelian premise.


Socratus, are you able to doubt that physics is the fundamental science?


Bruno






Klein & Lachièze-Rey,
THE QUEST FOR UNITY – The Adventure of Physics.
===…

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 17 Feb 2013, at 23:54, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 2/17/2013 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Yes. Euler identity is wonderful.

It amazes me also that it makes the square of any complex number  
into a (non normalized) gaussian:

(e^ix)2 = e^(-x2)

I love also Euler even deeper identity relating the square of the  
integers and the prime numbers:


Sum from n = 1 to infinity of 1/n^s = Product on all primes p of (1/ 
(1- 1/p^s). This led Riemann to the deeper of all open problem in  
math (Riemann hypothesis).


Ramanujan found quite amazing number relations. Some are so deep  
that they link gravitation, quantum computing, prime numbers,  
string theory and the arithmetic of the integers, all given a key  
role to the number 24.


Jacobi found amazing relations too, involving 24.

Math is full of surprising relations. That's a reason, I think, to  
believe in their objectivity or 3p-independence.


Bruno

Dear Bruno,

Why is it surprising? We have finite brains that can only know  
so much and have languages that can only represent a finite number  
of possibilities. So why are we acting surprised that we 'discover'  
relations in mathematics and from that surprise make claims of  
"independence" for the math? I find this to be a tacit prejudice of  
our own importance.


On the contrary. It is the admission of our ignorance. But then it is  
our ignorance with respect to something independent of us.


Bruno





--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 17 Feb 2013, at 19:44, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/17/2013 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 13 Feb 2013, at 04:29, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


After proving Euler's identity during a lecture, Benjamin Peirce,
a noted American 19th-century philosopher, mathematician,
and professor at Harvard University, stated that
"it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means, but we have proved it,
and therefore we know it must be the truth."
#
Stanford University mathematics professor Keith Devlin said,
"Like a Shakespearean sonnet that captures the very essence
of love, or a painting that brings out the beauty of the human
form that is far more than just skin deep, Euler's Equation reaches
down into the very depths of existence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_identity
=..

"it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means, .  . . . .’
. . .  but . . .
‘ Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence."
===..


Yes. Euler identity is wonderful.

It amazes me also that it makes the square of any complex number  
into a (non normalized) gaussian:

(e^ix)^2 = e^(-x^2)


?? (e^ix)^2 = e^(2ix)


Of course. Gosh, where was my mind at? Thanks for correcting!

Bruno






Brent



I love also Euler even deeper identity relating the square of the  
integers and the prime numbers:


Sum from n = 1 to infinity of 1/n^s = Product on all primes p of (1/ 
(1- 1/p^s). This led Riemann to the deeper of all open problem in  
math

(Riemann hypothesis).

Ramanujan found quite amazing number relations. Some are so deep  
that they link gravitation, quantum computing, prime numbers,  
string theory and the arithmetic of the integers, all given a key  
role to the number 24.


Jacobi found amazing relations too, involving 24.

Math is full of surprising relations. That's a reason, I think, to  
believe in their objectivity or 3p-independence.


Bruno


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

  Feynman about infinities and renormalization
==.
So we really do not know exactly what it is that we are
assuming that gives us the difficulty producing infinities.
A nice problem !
However, it turns out that it is possible to sweep the infinities
 under the rug , by a certain crude skill , and temporarily we are
able to keep on calculating.
  / The Character of Physical Law.
Lecture 7. Seeking new laws, page 156.
By  Richard Feynman /

=

On Feb 16, 11:02 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" 
wrote:
>   socratus
> Schrodinger's cat ( as a quantum particle) is inseparable from
> " The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass"
> and this  unity  shows,  how QT is right,  saying that
>  there is a life after death.
>
> Robittybob1
> Do you really believe that Socrates?
> I find you too obscure to understand properly.
>
>   socratus
>  You are right saying
> ‘ I find you too obscure to understand properly.’
>  “ The law of conservation and  transformation energy/mass”
>   need's detailed explanation.
> For example :
> how to understand the unity between electron and
> “ The law of conservation and  transformation  energy/mass”
> during its interaction with vacuum ? . . . . .
>  . . .  what was happened with electron during its interaction
> with vacuum ?
>
>  Renormalization   . . . .?
> ==.
>
> On Feb 15, 10:12 pm, "socra...@bezeqint.net" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >   Comment:
>
> > according to (a)+(b),
> > when the cat mass change in cat energy,
> > his image change,
> > the cat is already in life,
> > so there is life after death
>
> >  /  laurent.damois  /
> > ===..
>
> > On Feb 15, 12:28 pm, "socra...@bezeqint.net" 
> > wrote:
>
> > >  Schrodinger's cat
> > >  and  “ The law of conservation and  transformation  energy/mass”
> > > =.
> > > This law consist of  two  (2) parts:
> > > a)
> > >  according to “ The law of conservation (!) energy/mass”
> > >  Schroedinger's cat cannot die.
> > > b)
> > > according to “ The law of transformation (!) energy/mass”
> > >  Schroedinger's cat can change its image (geometrical form).
> > > c)
> > > Of course,  it is impossible to separate these two parts of Law,
> > > ==.
> > > socratus.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

   Klein &Lachièze-Rey,
THE QUEST FOR UNITY – The Adventure of Physics.
=.
Mathematics is an indispensable and powerful tool where it has been
 demonstrated that it applies to a real world experience. However,
 it is inappropriate and, as Dingle points out, potentially
dangerous,
to give credence to deductions arising purely from the language
of mathematics. The problem is that mathematicians now dominate
 physics and it is fashionable for them to follow Einstein’s example,
 with fame going to those with the most fantastic notions that defy
experience and common sense. So we have the Big Bang, dark matter,
 black holes, cosmic strings, wormholes in space, time travel,
and so on and on.
 It has driven practically minded students from the subject.
 There is an old Disney cartoon where the scientist is portrayed with
 eyes closed, rocking backwards in his chair and sucking on a pipe,
which at intervals emits a smoke-cloud of mathematical symbols.
Much of modern physics is a smoke-screen of Disneyesque fantasy.
 Inappropriate mathematical models are routinely used to describe
the universe. Yet the physicists hand us the ash from their pipes
 as if it were gold dust. If only they would use the ashtrays
provided.
“It seems that every practitioner of physics has had to wonder
at some point why mathematics and physics have come to be
 so closely entwined. Opinions vary on the answer.
 Bertrand Russell acknowledged
“Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about
the physical world, but because we know so little.” …
Mathematics may be indispensable to physics,
but it obviously does not constitute physics.”


 Klein & Lachièze-Rey,
THE QUEST FOR UNITY – The Adventure of Physics.
===…

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Stephen P. King]

On 2/17/2013 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Yes. Euler identity is wonderful.

It amazes me also that it makes the square of any complex number into 
a (non normalized) gaussian:

(e^ix)^2 = e^(-x^2)

I love also Euler even deeper identity relating the square of the 
integers and the prime numbers:


Sum from n = 1 to infinity of 1/n^s = Product on all primes p of 
(1/(1- 1/p^s). This led Riemann to the deeper of all open problem in 
math (Riemann hypothesis).


Ramanujan found quite amazing number relations. Some are so deep that 
they link gravitation, quantum computing, prime numbers, string theory 
and the arithmetic of the integers, all given a key role to the number 
24.


Jacobi found amazing relations too, involving 24.

Math is full of surprising relations. That's a reason, I think, to 
believe in their objectivity or 3p-independence.


Bruno

Dear Bruno,

Why is it surprising? We have finite brains that can only know so 
much and have languages that can only represent a finite number of 
possibilities. So why are we acting surprised that we 'discover' 
relations in mathematics and from that surprise make claims of 
"independence" for the math? I find this to be a tacit prejudice of our 
own importance.



--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[meekerdb]

On 2/17/2013 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 13 Feb 2013, at 04:29, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


After proving Euler's identity during a lecture, Benjamin Peirce,
a noted American 19th-century philosopher, mathematician,
and professor at Harvard University, stated that
"it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means, but we have proved it,
and therefore we know it must be the truth."
#
Stanford University mathematics professor Keith Devlin said,
"Like a Shakespearean sonnet that captures the very essence
of love, or a painting that brings out the beauty of the human
form that is far more than just skin deep, Euler's Equation reaches
down into the very depths of existence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_identity
=..

"it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means, .  . . . .’
. . .  but . . .
‘ Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence."
===..


Yes. Euler identity is wonderful.

It amazes me also that it makes the square of any complex number into a (non normalized) 
gaussian:

(e^ix)^2 = e^(-x^2)


?? (e^ix)^2 = e^(2ix)

Brent



I love also Euler even deeper identity relating the square of the integers and the prime 
numbers:


Sum from n = 1 to infinity of 1/n^s = Product on all primes p of (1/(1- 1/p^s). This led 
Riemann to the deeper of all open problem in math

(Riemann hypothesis).

Ramanujan found quite amazing number relations. Some are so deep that they link 
gravitation, quantum computing, prime numbers, string theory and the arithmetic of the 
integers, all given a key role to the number 24.


Jacobi found amazing relations too, involving 24.

Math is full of surprising relations. That's a reason, I think, to believe in their 
objectivity or 3p-independence.


Bruno


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 13 Feb 2013, at 04:29, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


After proving Euler's identity during a lecture, Benjamin Peirce,
a noted American 19th-century philosopher, mathematician,
and professor at Harvard University, stated that
"it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means, but we have proved it,
and therefore we know it must be the truth."
#
Stanford University mathematics professor Keith Devlin said,
"Like a Shakespearean sonnet that captures the very essence
of love, or a painting that brings out the beauty of the human
form that is far more than just skin deep, Euler's Equation reaches
down into the very depths of existence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_identity
=..

"it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means, .  . . . .’
. . .  but . . .
‘ Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence."
===..


Yes. Euler identity is wonderful.

It amazes me also that it makes the square of any complex number into  
a (non normalized) gaussian:

(e^ix)^2 = e^(-x^2)

I love also Euler even deeper identity relating the square of the  
integers and the prime numbers:


Sum from n = 1 to infinity of 1/n^s = Product on all primes p of (1/ 
(1- 1/p^s). This led Riemann to the deeper of all open problem in math  
(Riemann hypothesis).


Ramanujan found quite amazing number relations. Some are so deep that  
they link gravitation, quantum computing, prime numbers, string theory  
and the arithmetic of the integers, all given a key role to the number  
24.


Jacobi found amazing relations too, involving 24.

Math is full of surprising relations. That's a reason, I think, to  
believe in their objectivity or 3p-independence.


Bruno






On Feb 12, 7:35 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" 
wrote:

  How to understand Vacuum: T=0K ?
==.
Physics (classical + quantum) lives under shadow of Vacuum.
I want throw light on this Vacuum.
Three theories explain the Vacuum T=0K :
a) theory of ideal gas because its temperature is T=0K,

b)  QED theory because this theory explain interaction
photon / electron not only with matter but with vacuum too,

 c)  Euler’s equation:  e^ i(pi) = - 1, because only in the
negative vacuum T=0K  can exist ‘ virtual imaginaries particles’
which Euler described by his formula:  e^ i(pi) + 1= 0.

d)  The global conservation of energy is infinite .
And this infinite energy belong to the vacuum because  that
 more than 90% of mass ( dark mass/energy ) is hidden in the vacuum
How to understand vacuum's infinity ?
Vacuum's infinity has only one physical parameter: T=0K.
This physical parameter is the key to understand the essence of
Existence.
=.
Without Vacuum T=0K  there isn’t Physics,
there isn’t Philosophy of Physics.
.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik  Socratus.
==.

On Feb 12, 7:15 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" 
wrote:




' global conservation of energy can't even be defined for
the universe '
Brent



It means that global conservation of energy is infinite .
And this infinite energy belong to the vacuum because  that
 more than 90% of mass ( dark mass/energy ) is hidden in the vacuum
How to understand vacuum's infinity ?
Vacuum's infinity has only one physical parameter: T=0K.
=



On Feb 11, 7:48 pm, meekerdb  wrote:



On 2/11/2013 2:51 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:



I wrote that Planck gave answer to the questions:
How to understand Alice's Quantumland ?
How to describe the Universe as it really is ?



Does somebody disagree with Planck ?


Well for one thing it appears that global conservation of energy  
can't even be defined for
the universe (no timelike Killing field) - so it can hardly be  
the foundation of physics.



Brent



=



On Feb 10, 7:46 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net"
wrote:

   How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
=.
In his " Scientific Autobiography" Max Planck wrote :
' The outside world is something independent from man,
  something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply
  to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific
  pursuit in life. '



  What are these ' laws which apply to this absolute ' world ?
==..
In the beginning Planck wrote, that " From young years
the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute,
seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist s life."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
" the search for something absolute seemed to me the
most wonderful task for a researcher."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
the most wonderful scientific task for me was
searching of something absolute."
==..
And as for the relation between relativity and absolute
Planck wrote, that the fact of  " relativity assumes the
existence of something absolute" ;
"the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it.
Planck wrote that the phrase " all is relative " misleads us,
  because there is something absolute .
And the most attractive thing was for Planck
to find something 

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

  socratus
Schrodinger's cat ( as a quantum particle) is inseparable from
" The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass"
and this  unity  shows,  how QT is right,  saying that
 there is a life after death.

Robittybob1
Do you really believe that Socrates?
I find you too obscure to understand properly.

  socratus
 You are right saying
‘ I find you too obscure to understand properly.’
 “ The law of conservation and  transformation energy/mass”
  need's detailed explanation.
For example :
how to understand the unity between electron and
“ The law of conservation and  transformation  energy/mass”
during its interaction with vacuum ? . . . . .
 . . .  what was happened with electron during its interaction
with vacuum ?

 Renormalization   . . . .?
==.


On Feb 15, 10:12 pm, "socra...@bezeqint.net" 
wrote:
>   Comment:
>
> according to (a)+(b),
> when the cat mass change in cat energy,
> his image change,
> the cat is already in life,
> so there is life after death
>
>  /  laurent.damois  /
> ===..
>
> On Feb 15, 12:28 pm, "socra...@bezeqint.net" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >  Schrodinger's cat
> >  and  “ The law of conservation and  transformation  energy/mass”
> > =.
> > This law consist of  two  (2) parts:
> > a)
> >  according to “ The law of conservation (!) energy/mass”
> >  Schroedinger's cat cannot die.
> > b)
> > according to “ The law of transformation (!) energy/mass”
> >  Schroedinger's cat can change its image (geometrical form).
> > c)
> > Of course,  it is impossible to separate these two parts of Law,
> > ==.
> > socratus.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

  Comment:

according to (a)+(b),
when the cat mass change in cat energy,
his image change,
the cat is already in life,
so there is life after death

 /  laurent.damois  /
===..


On Feb 15, 12:28 pm, "socra...@bezeqint.net" 
wrote:
>  Schrodinger's cat
>  and  “ The law of conservation and  transformation  energy/mass”
> =.
> This law consist of  two  (2) parts:
> a)
>  according to “ The law of conservation (!) energy/mass”
>  Schroedinger's cat cannot die.
> b)
> according to “ The law of transformation (!) energy/mass”
>  Schroedinger's cat can change its image (geometrical form).
> c)
> Of course,  it is impossible to separate these two parts of Law,
> ==.
> socratus.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

After proving Euler's identity during a lecture, Benjamin Peirce,
 a noted American 19th-century philosopher, mathematician,
and professor at Harvard University, stated that
"it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
 and we don't know what it means, but we have proved it,
and therefore we know it must be the truth."
#
Stanford University mathematics professor Keith Devlin said,
 "Like a Shakespearean sonnet that captures the very essence
 of love, or a painting that brings out the beauty of the human
 form that is far more than just skin deep, Euler's Equation reaches
 down into the very depths of existence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_identity
 =..

"it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
 and we don't know what it means, .  . . . .’
 . . .  but . . .
‘ Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence."
===..


On Feb 12, 7:35 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" 
wrote:
>   How to understand Vacuum: T=0K ?
> ==.
> Physics (classical + quantum) lives under shadow of Vacuum.
> I want throw light on this Vacuum.
> Three theories explain the Vacuum T=0K :
> a) theory of ideal gas because its temperature is T=0K,
>
> b)  QED theory because this theory explain interaction
> photon / electron not only with matter but with vacuum too,
>
>  c)  Euler’s equation:  e^ i(pi) = - 1, because only in the
> negative vacuum T=0K  can exist ‘ virtual imaginaries particles’
> which Euler described by his formula:  e^ i(pi) + 1= 0.
>
> d)  The global conservation of energy is infinite .
> And this infinite energy belong to the vacuum because  that
>  more than 90% of mass ( dark mass/energy ) is hidden in the vacuum
> How to understand vacuum's infinity ?
> Vacuum's infinity has only one physical parameter: T=0K.
> This physical parameter is the key to understand the essence of
> Existence.
> =.
> Without Vacuum T=0K  there isn’t Physics,
> there isn’t Philosophy of Physics.
> .
> Best wishes.
> Israel Sadovnik  Socratus.
> ==.
>
> On Feb 12, 7:15 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ' global conservation of energy can't even be defined for
> > the universe '
> > Brent
>
> > It means that global conservation of energy is infinite .
> > And this infinite energy belong to the vacuum because  that
> >  more than 90% of mass ( dark mass/energy ) is hidden in the vacuum
> > How to understand vacuum's infinity ?
> > Vacuum's infinity has only one physical parameter: T=0K.
> > =
>
> > On Feb 11, 7:48 pm, meekerdb  wrote:
>
> > > On 2/11/2013 2:51 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
>
> > > > I wrote that Planck gave answer to the questions:
> > > > How to understand Alice's Quantumland ?
> > > > How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
>
> > > > Does somebody disagree with Planck ?
>
> > > Well for one thing it appears that global conservation of energy can't 
> > > even be defined for
> > > the universe (no timelike Killing field) - so it can hardly be the 
> > > foundation of physics.
>
> > > Brent
>
> > > > =
>
> > > > On Feb 10, 7:46 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net"
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>    How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
> > > >> =.
> > > >>     In his " Scientific Autobiography" Max Planck wrote :
> > > >> ' The outside world is something independent from man,
> > > >>   something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply
> > > >>   to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific
> > > >>   pursuit in life. '
>
> > > >>   What are these ' laws which apply to this absolute ' world ?
> > > >> ==..
> > > >> In the beginning Planck wrote, that " From young years
> > > >> the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute,
> > > >> seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist s life."
> > > >> And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
> > > >> " the search for something absolute seemed to me the
> > > >> most wonderful task for a researcher."
> > > >> And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
> > > >> the most wonderful scientific task for me was
> > > >> searching of something absolute."
> > > >> ==..
> > > >> And as for the relation between relativity and absolute
> > > >> Planck wrote, that the fact of  " relativity assumes the
> > > >> existence of something absolute" ;
> > > >> "the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it.
> > > >> Planck wrote that the phrase " all is relative " misleads us,
> > > >>   because there is something absolute .
> > > >> And the most attractive thing was for Planck
> > > >> to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation.
> > > >> 3.
> > > >> And Planck explained what there is absolute in the physics:
> > > >> a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy,.
> > > >> b) The negative 4D continuum,
> > > >> c) The speed of light quanta,
> > > >> d) The maximum entropy which is possible
> > > >> at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K.
> > > >> ==.
> > > >> I think that these four Planck's points are foundation of science.
> > > >>

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

Euler Identity within a new quantum theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=_XZGOGvuBlI&feature=endscreen

==.


On Feb 12, 7:35 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" 
wrote:
>   How to understand Vacuum: T=0K ?
> ==.
> Physics (classical + quantum) lives under shadow of Vacuum.
> I want throw light on this Vacuum.
> Three theories explain the Vacuum T=0K :
> a) theory of ideal gas because its temperature is T=0K,
>
> b)  QED theory because this theory explain interaction
> photon / electron not only with matter but with vacuum too,
>
>  c)  Euler’s equation:  e^ i(pi) = - 1, because only in the
> negative vacuum T=0K  can exist ‘ virtual imaginaries particles’
> which Euler described by his formula:  e^ i(pi) + 1= 0.
>
> d)  The global conservation of energy is infinite .
> And this infinite energy belong to the vacuum because  that
>  more than 90% of mass ( dark mass/energy ) is hidden in the vacuum
> How to understand vacuum's infinity ?
> Vacuum's infinity has only one physical parameter: T=0K.
> This physical parameter is the key to understand the essence of
> Existence.
> =.
> Without Vacuum T=0K  there isn’t Physics,
> there isn’t Philosophy of Physics.
> .
> Best wishes.
> Israel Sadovnik  Socratus.
> ==.
>
> On Feb 12, 7:15 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ' global conservation of energy can't even be defined for
> > the universe '
> > Brent
>
> > It means that global conservation of energy is infinite .
> > And this infinite energy belong to the vacuum because  that
> >  more than 90% of mass ( dark mass/energy ) is hidden in the vacuum
> > How to understand vacuum's infinity ?
> > Vacuum's infinity has only one physical parameter: T=0K.
> > =
>
> > On Feb 11, 7:48 pm, meekerdb  wrote:
>
> > > On 2/11/2013 2:51 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
>
> > > > I wrote that Planck gave answer to the questions:
> > > > How to understand Alice's Quantumland ?
> > > > How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
>
> > > > Does somebody disagree with Planck ?
>
> > > Well for one thing it appears that global conservation of energy can't 
> > > even be defined for
> > > the universe (no timelike Killing field) - so it can hardly be the 
> > > foundation of physics.
>
> > > Brent
>
> > > > =
>
> > > > On Feb 10, 7:46 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net"
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>    How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
> > > >> =.
> > > >>     In his " Scientific Autobiography" Max Planck wrote :
> > > >> ' The outside world is something independent from man,
> > > >>   something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply
> > > >>   to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific
> > > >>   pursuit in life. '
>
> > > >>   What are these ' laws which apply to this absolute ' world ?
> > > >> ==..
> > > >> In the beginning Planck wrote, that " From young years
> > > >> the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute,
> > > >> seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist s life."
> > > >> And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
> > > >> " the search for something absolute seemed to me the
> > > >> most wonderful task for a researcher."
> > > >> And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
> > > >> the most wonderful scientific task for me was
> > > >> searching of something absolute."
> > > >> ==..
> > > >> And as for the relation between relativity and absolute
> > > >> Planck wrote, that the fact of  " relativity assumes the
> > > >> existence of something absolute" ;
> > > >> "the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it.
> > > >> Planck wrote that the phrase " all is relative " misleads us,
> > > >>   because there is something absolute .
> > > >> And the most attractive thing was for Planck
> > > >> to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation.
> > > >> 3.
> > > >> And Planck explained what there is absolute in the physics:
> > > >> a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy,.
> > > >> b) The negative 4D continuum,
> > > >> c) The speed of light quanta,
> > > >> d) The maximum entropy which is possible
> > > >> at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K.
> > > >> ==.
> > > >> I think that these four Planck's points are foundation of science.
> > > >> =.
> > > >> socratus- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 11 Feb 2013, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/11/2013 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 10 Feb 2013, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/10/2013 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 10 Feb 2013, at 11:13, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

Why?  And why do you think science has made no progress since  
1947?



Brent-
.

Science made great technological ( !) progress since 1947,
but not ' philosophical progress ' (!).
We still haven't answers to the questiohs:
What is the negative 4D Minkowski continuum ?,
What is the quantum of light ?,
What is an electron?,
What is entropy ?
. . . .  . etc. . . . .etc.
To create new abstraction ( quarks, big-bang, method
of renormalization . . . etc )  is not a progress.


Good. So you might open your mind on the consequences of  
computationalism. It needs to backtrack on Plato, for the  
theological/fundamental matter. The physical reality becomes the  
border of the (Turing) universal mind, in some verifiable way.
The Aristotelian *assumption* that there is a physical reality,  
although fertile, seems to be wrong once we assume consciousness  
to be invariant for some digital transformation. Eventually it  
leads to new invariant in physics. Physics does no more depend on  
the choice of the computational base, notably.


So does comp answer socratus questions?


It provides the only (with comp) path to formulate anew the  
questions, and get partial answers.


Physics already gives partial answers.  A quantum of light and an  
electron are just things that satisfy certain equations.  I think  
that's as good an answer as comp is going to be able to provide -  
except comp can't yet even say what the equations are.


The answers given by physics have to assume a relation between fist  
person and third person which is in contradiction with the  
computationalist hypothesis (by UDA). So it assumes a non  
computationalist theory of mind, on which it remains quite vague.
And comp gives the equations, with the Z and X logics. Comp does not  
leave any choice on that matter.


Some physicists don't see equations there, because they are not used  
to mathematical logic, but the equation and open problems are already  
there.


Physics gives impressively good local compression of information, but  
does not address the mind-body problem, and yet, uses implicitly an  
identity thesis which assume non-comp.


Physics is good on the physical realm, but *physicalism* is just  
refuted once we assume the brain is a finite machine.


Bruno








Brent


And socratus seems aware of the failure of physics with that  
respect, so comp might help him (above the fact that to keep  
physicalism you must assume that we are not Turing emulable).


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

On Feb 12, 8:41 am, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 2/11/2013 10:15 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
>
> > ' global conservation of energy can't even be defined for
> > the universe '
> > Brent
>
> > It means that global conservation of energy is infinite .
>
> No, it means it's undefined - there's no unique way to add up the energy from 
> different
> parts of a curved spacetime without an timelike Killing field - which 
> describes our universe.
>
> Brent
>
=

The energy from different parts of a curved space and time (!)
comes from infinite vacuum spacetime (!).

Mr. Brent, do you understand the difference between
spacetime and space and time?
=.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[meekerdb]

On 2/11/2013 10:15 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

' global conservation of energy can't even be defined for
the universe '
Brent

It means that global conservation of energy is infinite .


No, it means it's undefined - there's no unique way to add up the energy from different 
parts of a curved spacetime without an timelike Killing field - which describes our universe.


Brent


And this infinite energy belong to the vacuum because  that
  more than 90% of mass ( dark mass/energy ) is hidden in the vacuum
How to understand vacuum's infinity ?
Vacuum's infinity has only one physical parameter: T=0K.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

  How to understand Vacuum: T=0K ?
==.
Physics (classical + quantum) lives under shadow of Vacuum.
I want throw light on this Vacuum.
Three theories explain the Vacuum T=0K :
a) theory of ideal gas because its temperature is T=0K,

b)  QED theory because this theory explain interaction
photon / electron not only with matter but with vacuum too,

 c)  Euler’s equation:  e^ i(pi) = - 1, because only in the
negative vacuum T=0K  can exist ‘ virtual imaginaries particles’
which Euler described by his formula:  e^ i(pi) + 1= 0.

d)  The global conservation of energy is infinite .
And this infinite energy belong to the vacuum because  that
 more than 90% of mass ( dark mass/energy ) is hidden in the vacuum
How to understand vacuum's infinity ?
Vacuum's infinity has only one physical parameter: T=0K.
This physical parameter is the key to understand the essence of
Existence.
=.
Without Vacuum T=0K  there isn’t Physics,
there isn’t Philosophy of Physics.
.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik  Socratus.
==.


On Feb 12, 7:15 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" 
wrote:
> ' global conservation of energy can't even be defined for
> the universe '
> Brent
>
> It means that global conservation of energy is infinite .
> And this infinite energy belong to the vacuum because  that
>  more than 90% of mass ( dark mass/energy ) is hidden in the vacuum
> How to understand vacuum's infinity ?
> Vacuum's infinity has only one physical parameter: T=0K.
> =
>
> On Feb 11, 7:48 pm, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2/11/2013 2:51 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
>
> > > I wrote that Planck gave answer to the questions:
> > > How to understand Alice's Quantumland ?
> > > How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
>
> > > Does somebody disagree with Planck ?
>
> > Well for one thing it appears that global conservation of energy can't even 
> > be defined for
> > the universe (no timelike Killing field) - so it can hardly be the 
> > foundation of physics.
>
> > Brent
>
> > > =
>
> > > On Feb 10, 7:46 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net"
> > > wrote:
> > >>    How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
> > >> =.
> > >>     In his " Scientific Autobiography" Max Planck wrote :
> > >> ' The outside world is something independent from man,
> > >>   something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply
> > >>   to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific
> > >>   pursuit in life. '
>
> > >>   What are these ' laws which apply to this absolute ' world ?
> > >> ==..
> > >> In the beginning Planck wrote, that " From young years
> > >> the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute,
> > >> seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist s life."
> > >> And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
> > >> " the search for something absolute seemed to me the
> > >> most wonderful task for a researcher."
> > >> And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
> > >> the most wonderful scientific task for me was
> > >> searching of something absolute."
> > >> ==..
> > >> And as for the relation between relativity and absolute
> > >> Planck wrote, that the fact of  " relativity assumes the
> > >> existence of something absolute" ;
> > >> "the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it.
> > >> Planck wrote that the phrase " all is relative " misleads us,
> > >>   because there is something absolute .
> > >> And the most attractive thing was for Planck
> > >> to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation.
> > >> 3.
> > >> And Planck explained what there is absolute in the physics:
> > >> a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy,.
> > >> b) The negative 4D continuum,
> > >> c) The speed of light quanta,
> > >> d) The maximum entropy which is possible
> > >> at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K.
> > >> ==.
> > >> I think that these four Planck's points are foundation of science.
> > >> =.
> > >> socratus- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

' global conservation of energy can't even be defined for
the universe '
Brent

It means that global conservation of energy is infinite .
And this infinite energy belong to the vacuum because  that
 more than 90% of mass ( dark mass/energy ) is hidden in the vacuum
How to understand vacuum's infinity ?
Vacuum's infinity has only one physical parameter: T=0K.
=

On Feb 11, 7:48 pm, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 2/11/2013 2:51 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
>
> > I wrote that Planck gave answer to the questions:
> > How to understand Alice's Quantumland ?
> > How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
>
> > Does somebody disagree with Planck ?
>
> Well for one thing it appears that global conservation of energy can't even 
> be defined for
> the universe (no timelike Killing field) - so it can hardly be the foundation 
> of physics.
>
> Brent
>
>
>
> > =
>
> > On Feb 10, 7:46 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net"
> > wrote:
> >>    How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
> >> =.
> >>     In his " Scientific Autobiography" Max Planck wrote :
> >> ' The outside world is something independent from man,
> >>   something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply
> >>   to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific
> >>   pursuit in life. '
>
> >>   What are these ' laws which apply to this absolute ' world ?
> >> ==..
> >> In the beginning Planck wrote, that " From young years
> >> the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute,
> >> seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist s life."
> >> And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
> >> " the search for something absolute seemed to me the
> >> most wonderful task for a researcher."
> >> And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
> >> the most wonderful scientific task for me was
> >> searching of something absolute."
> >> ==..
> >> And as for the relation between relativity and absolute
> >> Planck wrote, that the fact of  " relativity assumes the
> >> existence of something absolute" ;
> >> "the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it.
> >> Planck wrote that the phrase " all is relative " misleads us,
> >>   because there is something absolute .
> >> And the most attractive thing was for Planck
> >> to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation.
> >> 3.
> >> And Planck explained what there is absolute in the physics:
> >> a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy,.
> >> b) The negative 4D continuum,
> >> c) The speed of light quanta,
> >> d) The maximum entropy which is possible
> >> at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K.
> >> ==.
> >> I think that these four Planck's points are foundation of science.
> >> =.
> >> socratus- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[meekerdb]

On 2/11/2013 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 10 Feb 2013, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/10/2013 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 10 Feb 2013, at 11:13, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


Why?  And why do you think science has made no progress since 1947?



Brent-
.

Science made great technological ( !) progress since 1947,
but not ' philosophical progress ' (!).
We still haven't answers to the questiohs:
What is the negative 4D Minkowski continuum ?,
What is the quantum of light ?,
What is an electron?,
What is entropy ?
. . . .  . etc. . . . .etc.
To create new abstraction ( quarks, big-bang, method
of renormalization . . . etc )  is not a progress.


Good. So you might open your mind on the consequences of computationalism. It needs to 
backtrack on Plato, for the theological/fundamental matter. The physical reality 
becomes the border of the (Turing) universal mind, in some verifiable way.
The Aristotelian *assumption* that there is a physical reality, although fertile, 
seems to be wrong once we assume consciousness to be invariant for some digital 
transformation. Eventually it leads to new invariant in physics. Physics does no more 
depend on the choice of the computational base, notably.


So does comp answer socratus questions?


It provides the only (with comp) path to formulate anew the questions, and get partial 
answers. 


Physics already gives partial answers.  A quantum of light and an electron are just things 
that satisfy certain equations.  I think that's as good an answer as comp is going to be 
able to provide - except comp can't yet even say what the equations are.


Brent


And socratus seems aware of the failure of physics with that respect, so comp might help 
him (above the fact that to keep physicalism you must assume that we are not Turing 
emulable).


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[meekerdb]

On 2/11/2013 2:51 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

I wrote that Planck gave answer to the questions:
How to understand Alice's Quantumland ?
How to describe the Universe as it really is ?

Does somebody disagree with Planck ?


Well for one thing it appears that global conservation of energy can't even be defined for 
the universe (no timelike Killing field) - so it can hardly be the foundation of physics.


Brent


=

On Feb 10, 7:46 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net"
wrote:

   How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
=.
In his " Scientific Autobiography" Max Planck wrote :
' The outside world is something independent from man,
  something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply
  to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific
  pursuit in life. '

  What are these ' laws which apply to this absolute ' world ?
==..
In the beginning Planck wrote, that " From young years
the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute,
seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist’s life."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
" the search for something absolute seemed to me the
most wonderful task for a researcher."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
“ the most wonderful scientific task for me was
searching of something absolute."
==..
And as for the relation between “relativity and absolute”
Planck wrote, that the fact of  " relativity assumes the
existence of something absolute" ;
"the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it.”
Planck wrote that the phrase " all is relative " misleads us,
  because there is something absolute .
And the most attractive thing was for Planck
“to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation.”
3.
And Planck explained what there is absolute in the physics:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy,.
b) The negative 4D continuum,
c) The speed of light quanta,
d) The maximum entropy which is possible
at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K.
==.
I think that these four Planck's points are foundation of science.
=.
socratus


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 11 Feb 2013, at 11:51, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


I wrote that Planck gave answer to the questions:
How to understand Alice's Quantumland ?
How to describe the Universe as it really is ?


If comp is true, there is no "Physical Universe", only a physical  
reality, which belongs to the epistemology of a class of numbers (the  
universal numbers, or the universal machines). The (physical) Universe  
is really ... a convenient local fiction, explainable by some computer  
science theoretical notions, themselves reducible to number  
theoretical notion.
The physical universe should be emergent from a web of "number's  
dreams", where the dreams are first person modal view arising from  
computations.




Does somebody disagree with Planck ?


Alas, those propositions by Planck have to be reframed in the comp  
theory, and most are basically open problems.
So I am agnostic on them, but I have clues that the "a)" below is  
correct. I develop this in the paper:


Marchal B., 2005, Theoretical computer science and the natural  
sciences, Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 2 Issue 4 December 2005, pp.  
251-289.


I agree with Planck that the "outside world" is not a human  
construction, but with comp it becomes a universal machine  
construction/selection. The laws of physics are selected by coherence  
condition on the digital machine dreams.
 It looks like you don't look outside physicalism, but with comp,  
physics, at least as conceived today, is no more necessarily the  
fundamental science. Computer science, or number theory, takes the  
lead, or better, machine's theology, or number's theology makes the  
job. We have to backtrack 1500 years of research, but of course this  
concerns only fundamental studies.
The problem for physicalism is that it used brain-mind identity thesis  
which does not work in the computationalist setting. See my URL for  
more, or my posts to this list, or to the FOAR list for a more recent  
explanation. Or just read the first half of:


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

Ask any question.

Bruno





=

On Feb 10, 7:46 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" 
wrote:

  How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
=.
   In his " Scientific Autobiography" Max Planck wrote :
' The outside world is something independent from man,
 something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply
 to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific
 pursuit in life. '

 What are these ' laws which apply to this absolute ' world ?
==..
In the beginning Planck wrote, that " From young years
the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute,
seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist’s life."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
" the search for something absolute seemed to me the
most wonderful task for a researcher."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
“ the most wonderful scientific task for me was
searching of something absolute."
==..
And as for the relation between “relativity and absolute”
Planck wrote, that the fact of  " relativity assumes the
existence of something absolute" ;
"the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it.”
Planck wrote that the phrase " all is relative " misleads us,
 because there is something absolute .
And the most attractive thing was for Planck
“to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation.”
3.
And Planck explained what there is absolute in the physics:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy,.
b) The negative 4D continuum,
c) The speed of light quanta,
d) The maximum entropy which is possible
at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K.
==.
I think that these four Planck's points are foundation of science.
=.
socratus


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Feb 2013, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/10/2013 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 10 Feb 2013, at 11:13, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


Why?  And why do you think science has made no progress since 1947?



Brent-
.

Science made great technological ( !) progress since 1947,
but not ' philosophical progress ' (!).
We still haven't answers to the questiohs:
What is the negative 4D Minkowski continuum ?,
What is the quantum of light ?,
What is an electron?,
What is entropy ?
. . . .  . etc. . . . .etc.
To create new abstraction ( quarks, big-bang, method
of renormalization . . . etc )  is not a progress.


Good. So you might open your mind on the consequences of  
computationalism. It needs to backtrack on Plato, for the  
theological/fundamental matter. The physical reality becomes the  
border of the (Turing) universal mind, in some verifiable way.
The Aristotelian *assumption* that there is a physical reality,  
although fertile, seems to be wrong once we assume consciousness to  
be invariant for some digital transformation. Eventually it leads  
to new invariant in physics. Physics does no more depend on the  
choice of the computational base, notably.


So does comp answer socratus questions?


It provides the only (with comp) path to formulate anew the questions,  
and get partial answers. And socratus seems aware of the failure of  
physics with that respect, so comp might help him (above the fact that  
to keep physicalism you must assume that we are not Turing emulable).


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

John,

On 10 Feb 2013, at 21:14, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno,
you write mystique.
First you mention "THE REAL UNIVERSE" (who said ther IS one?)


In the context (you might quote it, btw), by "the real universe" I  
meant what remains real when we grasp that there is no assumed, or  
primary, physical universe. In the context of my comment to socratus,  
"real" was just for "non physical".


We assume that exists once we say "yes" to the digitalist doctor,  
given that we have to assume the existence of organic brain, digital  
brain, hospital, etc.







then you line up a series of "IF"-s. What about IF NOT?


Those can be other subjects of research.






You seem to justify the 'truth' of arithmetics on the basis of human  
logic (prime #s, 2+2=4, etc.)


It is digital machine logic and arithmetic, and with comp that forms a  
much larger class than the humans.






which may be a flimsy dependence of the Natural Logic building up  
the World.


Terms like "Natural" and "World" are artificial and ambiguous. I have  
no clue what you mean precisely by that.
Anyway, we already can prove that if we are machine, then nature and  
physical worlds are themselves dependent on arithmetic.






Maybe an illogicalistics?
We are restricted in our tiny mindset and think "That's IT!"


Indeed, the mammals, and the living creatures, and the universal  
numbers are all quite restricted, especially in front of the  
arithmetical truth.
But their grandeur comes from that very fact. That is, the fact that,  
as you illustrate yourself, they can know that they are restricted.
Eventually they learn to be agnostic with respect to ontological  
commitment, and thus will use *only* expression like "IF this THEN  
that", without pretending asserting any definite truth.




Looking at those 10 millennia of human evolution: we gradually get  
smarter and know about more and more (rightly or wrongly).


Knowing, by definition, refers to truth. So I take your point as  
saying that we gradually belief more and more (rightly or wrongly).  
But like an ant exploring a dead end, we can be wrong for long time,  
as we provably are in theology in case comp is correct.




 But we still have no idea whether ANYTHING we think is real, of  
just a fantasy in our effort to EXPLAIN the unknowables?


With comp, we will NEVER have such idea for the public domain, and we  
will forever know only one first person (private) thing as real, which  
is our own consciousness. With comp science is obligatory made quite  
modest, and *all* our theories are forever hypothetical and agnostic.






You wrote you are "more" agnostic than myself. Does it apply to  
those "if"-s?


This is ambiguous. Once we acknowledge agnosticism, we can still  
provide argument, and they can be 100% communicable, by giving  
explicit axioms and explicit rules of reasoning, so that anyone,  
including machines, can verify, not the truth (which is not  
communicable, nor even expressible) but the validity of the reasoning.

So I would say that the use of the if-s is a result of the agnosticism.

To give a typical example, I cannot prove to you that comp is true,  
but I can submit to you an argument showing that IF comp is correct,  
THEN the physical universe, in his standard aristotelian sense, is a  
fantasy.


Bruno







On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 1:46 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net > wrote:

  How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
=.
   In his " Scientific Autobiography" Max Planck wrote :
' The outside world is something independent from man,
 something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply
 to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific
 pursuit in life. '

 What are these ' laws which apply to this absolute ' world ?
==..
In the beginning Planck wrote, that " From young years
the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute,
seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist’s life."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
" the search for something absolute seemed to me the
most wonderful task for a researcher."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
“ the most wonderful scientific task for me was
searching of something absolute."
==..
And as for the relation between “relativity and absolute”
Planck wrote, that the fact of  " relativity assumes the
existence of something absolute" ;
"the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it.”
Planck wrote that the phrase " all is relative " misleads us,
 because there is something absolute .
And the most attractive thing was for Planck
“to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation.”
3.
And Planck explained what there is absolute in the physics:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy,.
b) The negative 4D continuum,
c) The speed of light quanta,
d) The maximum entropy which is possible
at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K.
==.
I think that these four Planck's points are foundation of science.
=.
socratus

--
You received this 

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

I wrote that Planck gave answer to the questions:
How to understand Alice's Quantumland ?
How to describe the Universe as it really is ?

Does somebody disagree with Planck ?
=

On Feb 10, 7:46 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" 
wrote:
>   How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
> =.
>    In his " Scientific Autobiography" Max Planck wrote :
> ' The outside world is something independent from man,
>  something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply
>  to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific
>  pursuit in life. '
>
>  What are these ' laws which apply to this absolute ' world ?
> ==..
> In the beginning Planck wrote, that " From young years
> the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute,
> seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist’s life."
> And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
> " the search for something absolute seemed to me the
> most wonderful task for a researcher."
> And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
> “ the most wonderful scientific task for me was
> searching of something absolute."
> ==..
> And as for the relation between “relativity and absolute”
> Planck wrote, that the fact of  " relativity assumes the
> existence of something absolute" ;
> "the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it.”
> Planck wrote that the phrase " all is relative " misleads us,
>  because there is something absolute .
> And the most attractive thing was for Planck
> “to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation.”
> 3.
> And Planck explained what there is absolute in the physics:
> a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy,.
> b) The negative 4D continuum,
> c) The speed of light quanta,
> d) The maximum entropy which is possible
> at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K.
> ==.
> I think that these four Planck's points are foundation of science.
> =.
> socratus

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[meekerdb]

On 2/10/2013 12:14 PM, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno,
you write mystique.
First you mention "THE REAL UNIVERSE" (who said ther IS one?)

then you line up a series of "IF"-s. What about IF NOT?
You seem to justify the 'truth' of arithmetics on the basis of human logic (prime #s, 
2+2=4, etc.) which may be a flimsy dependence of the Natural Logic building up the 
World. Maybe an illogicalistics?

We are restricted in our tiny mindset and think "That's IT!"


But we wouldn't be so quick to say, "That's IT!" if we remembered that we just made it up, 
including the mathematics to talk about it.  Sure, we think it has *something* to do with 
"the real universe", but we can't be sure; we can only know what's worked so far.


Brent

Looking at those 10 millennia of human evolution: we gradually get smarter and know 
about more and more (rightly or wrongly).  But we still have no idea whether ANYTHING we 
think is real, of just a fantasy in our effort to EXPLAIN the unknowables?

You wrote you are "more" agnostic than myself. Does it apply to those "if"-s?


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[meekerdb]

On 2/10/2013 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 10 Feb 2013, at 11:13, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


Why?  And why do you think science has made no progress since 1947?



 Brent-
.

Science made great technological ( !) progress since 1947,
but not ' philosophical progress ' (!).
We still haven't answers to the questiohs:
What is the negative 4D Minkowski continuum ?,
What is the quantum of light ?,
What is an electron?,
What is entropy ?
. . . .  . etc. . . . .etc.
To create new abstraction ( quarks, big-bang, method
of renormalization . . . etc )  is not a progress.


Good. So you might open your mind on the consequences of computationalism. It needs to 
backtrack on Plato, for the theological/fundamental matter. The physical reality becomes 
the border of the (Turing) universal mind, in some verifiable way.
The Aristotelian *assumption* that there is a physical reality, although fertile, seems 
to be wrong once we assume consciousness to be invariant for some digital 
transformation. Eventually it leads to new invariant in physics. Physics does no more 
depend on the choice of the computational base, notably.


So does comp answer socratus questions?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[John Mikes]

Bruno,
you write mystique.
First you mention "THE REAL UNIVERSE" (who said ther IS one?)

then you line up a series of "IF"-s. What about IF NOT?

You seem to justify the 'truth' of arithmetics on the basis of human logic
(prime #s, 2+2=4, etc.) which may be a flimsy dependence of the Natural
Logic building up the World. Maybe an illogicalistics?
We are restricted in our tiny mindset and think "That's IT!"
Looking at those 10 millennia of human evolution: we gradually get smarter
and know about more and more (rightly or wrongly).  But we still have no
idea whether ANYTHING we think is real, of just a fantasy in our effort to
EXPLAIN the unknowables?
You wrote you are "more" agnostic than myself. Does it apply to those
"if"-s?


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 1:46 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net <
socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote:

>   How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
> =.
>In his " Scientific Autobiography" Max Planck wrote :
> ' The outside world is something independent from man,
>  something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply
>  to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific
>  pursuit in life. '
>
>  What are these ' laws which apply to this absolute ' world ?
> ==..
> In the beginning Planck wrote, that " From young years
> the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute,
> seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist’s life."
> And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
> " the search for something absolute seemed to me the
> most wonderful task for a researcher."
> And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
> “ the most wonderful scientific task for me was
> searching of something absolute."
> ==..
> And as for the relation between “relativity and absolute”
> Planck wrote, that the fact of  " relativity assumes the
> existence of something absolute" ;
> "the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it.”
> Planck wrote that the phrase " all is relative " misleads us,
>  because there is something absolute .
> And the most attractive thing was for Planck
> “to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation.”
> 3.
> And Planck explained what there is absolute in the physics:
> a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy,.
> b) The negative 4D continuum,
> c) The speed of light quanta,
> d) The maximum entropy which is possible
> at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K.
> ==.
> I think that these four Planck's points are foundation of science.
> =.
> socratus
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Feb 2013, at 11:13, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


Why?  And why do you think science has made no progress since 1947?



 Brent-
.

Science made great technological ( !) progress since 1947,
but not ' philosophical progress ' (!).
We still haven't answers to the questiohs:
What is the negative 4D Minkowski continuum ?,
What is the quantum of light ?,
What is an electron?,
What is entropy ?
. . . .  . etc. . . . .etc.
To create new abstraction ( quarks, big-bang, method
of renormalization . . . etc )  is not a progress.


Good. So you might open your mind on the consequences of  
computationalism. It needs to backtrack on Plato, for the theological/ 
fundamental matter. The physical reality becomes the border of the  
(Turing) universal mind, in some verifiable way.
The Aristotelian *assumption* that there is a physical reality,  
although fertile, seems to be wrong once we assume consciousness to be  
invariant for some digital transformation. Eventually it leads to new  
invariant in physics. Physics does no more depend on the choice of the  
computational base, notably.


Bruno






==.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Feb 2013, at 07:46, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


 How to describe the Universe as it really is ?



You should always be clear if you talk about the physical universe  
(that we can observe), and the real universe, that we are searching.


If you assume that the Universe = the physical universe, we already  
adopt a strong axiom of Aristotelian theology, and it happens to be  
incompatible with another widespread assumption, which is that we are  
Turing emulable (like the laws of physics used in the brain in all  
appearance).



=.
  In his " Scientific Autobiography" Max Planck wrote :
' The outside world is something independent from man,
something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply
to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific
pursuit in life. '

What are these ' laws which apply to this absolute ' world ?
==..
In the beginning Planck wrote, that " From young years
the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute,
seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist’s life."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
" the search for something absolute seemed to me the
most wonderful task for a researcher."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
“ the most wonderful scientific task for me was
searching of something absolute."
==..
And as for the relation between “relativity and absolute”
Planck wrote, that the fact of  " relativity assumes the
existence of something absolute" ;
"the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it.”
Planck wrote that the phrase " all is relative " misleads us,
because there is something absolute .
And the most attractive thing was for Planck
“to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation.”
3.
And Planck explained what there is absolute in the physics:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy,.
b) The negative 4D continuum,
c) The speed of light quanta,
d) The maximum entropy which is possible
at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K.


If computationalism is true, and if Planck is true, then a) b) ... d)  
must be derived from elementary arithmetic.







==.
I think that these four Planck's points are foundation of science.


if comp is true, they are not fundamental. They have to be derived  
from computer science (and thus from arithmetic, by Church's thesis).  
And some are already partially derived, notably a).


The universe is in the head of all universal numbers. So to speak.  
This makes comp testable.


Bruno






=.
socratus

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

 Why?  And why do you think science has made no progress since 1947?
>
  Brent-
.

Science made great technological ( !) progress since 1947,
but not ' philosophical progress ' (!).
We still haven't answers to the questiohs:
What is the negative 4D Minkowski continuum ?,
What is the quantum of light ?,
What is an electron?,
 What is entropy ?
. . . .  . etc. . . . .etc.
To create new abstraction ( quarks, big-bang, method
of renormalization . . . etc )  is not a progress.
==.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[meekerdb]

On 2/9/2013 10:46 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

   How to describe the Universe as it really is ?
=.
In his " Scientific Autobiography" Max Planck wrote :
' The outside world is something independent from man,
  something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply
  to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific
  pursuit in life. '

  What are these ' laws which apply to this absolute ' world ?
==..
In the beginning Planck wrote, that " From young years
the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute,
seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist’s life."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
" the search for something absolute seemed to me the
most wonderful task for a researcher."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
“ the most wonderful scientific task for me was
searching of something absolute."
==..
And as for the relation between “relativity and absolute”
Planck wrote, that the fact of  " relativity assumes the
existence of something absolute" ;
"the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it.”
Planck wrote that the phrase " all is relative " misleads us,
  because there is something absolute .
And the most attractive thing was for Planck
“to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation.”
3.
And Planck explained what there is absolute in the physics:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy,.
b) The negative 4D continuum,
c) The speed of light quanta,
d) The maximum entropy which is possible
at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K.
==.
I think that these four Planck's points are foundation of science.


Why?  And why do you think science has made no progress since 1947?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Feb 2013, at 08:03, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


 Does somebody know what  Vacuum is ?
No, we don’t know what  Vacuum is.



From below I see that you meant here the "physical vacuum".

If comp is correct the physical vacuum is the statistical sum on all  
(arithmetical) computations. Why and if that behaves like the  
"observable" quantum vacuum remains to be seen in detail, but it has  
to be, or we are not Turing emulable. In that case the physical vacuum  
might be less or more than such a sum.


Bruno





1
Paul Dirac wrote:
‘ The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t
correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct
description
of something more complex? ‘
2.
The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics will be:
What is the vacuum? As quantum mechanics teaches us, with
its zero point energy this vacuum is not empty and the word
vacuum is a gross misnomer!
  / Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg /
3.
Wikipedia :
“ Unfortunately neither the concept of space nor of time is well
defined,
resulting in a dilemma. If we don't know the character of time nor of
space,
how can we characterize either? “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
4.
"Now we know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects
over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic,"
said Peter Milonni
from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
5.
‘ All kinds of electromagnetic waves ( including light’s)
spread in vacuum  . . . .  thanks to the vacuum, to the specific
ability of empty space  these electromagnetic waves  can exist.’
/ Book : To what physics was come,  page 32. R. K. Utiyama. /
==.
So, we know that the vacuum is very important conception in physics
and nature, but . . .  but . . . we don’t know what vacuum is, and
therefore
is possible to have many speculations including metaphysical too.
For example:   Danah  Zohar  wrote:

‘It might even give us some ground to speculate that
the vacuum itself (and hence the universe) is ‘conscious’.
/ Book  ‘The quantum self ’ page 208. /
#
‘If we were looking for something that we could conceive
of as God within the universe of the new physics, this ground
state, coherent quantum vacuum might be a good place to start.’
/ Book  ‘The quantum self ’ page 208,  by Danah Zohar. /
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danah_Zohar

The question is:
How is it possible to prove Zohar’s metaphysical  confirmation
with physical laws and formulas?
==.
Socratus
===.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Roger Clough]

Hi socra...@bezeqint.net 

To say that nature is absurd is to say that our current
understanding of nature --materialism-- is wrong.

- Receiving the following content - 
From: socra...@bezeqint.net 
Receiver: Everything List 
Time: 2013-02-05, 06:43:51
Subject: Science is a religion by itself.


   Alice in Quantumland
=.
The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd
 from the point of view of common sense.
And it agrees fully with experiment.
 So I hope you accept Nature as She is ? absurd.
/ QED : The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
  page. 10. by R. Feynman /

? Many believe that relative theory tells us that ours
is a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland universe; that this
revealed by the mathematician Einstein who discovered
that there is a fourth dimension, . . . .. . . that, in short,
everything is relative and mysterious. ?
 / Book ?lbert Einstein? , page 4. By Leopold Infeld ./

We still don't know that negative 4-D is. (!)

In the other words:
Physicists show us the absurd and mysterious existence
 of nature as a real fact.
 I cannot believe that nature is absurd and mysterious.
 I think that their interpretations in relative and
 quantum electrodynamics theories were wrong.
==..
' But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice.
'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
  / Lewis Carroll.
   Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. /

.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Feb 2013, at 16:22, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


Brain –> Consciousness , Consciousness –> Brain.
=.
Is consciousness a result of evolution or it is its fuel ?
#
‘ Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may
not be the brain that produce consciousness, but rather
consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain -  . .  . .’
/ Book ‘ The Holographic Universe’  page 160.
   by  Michael Talbot ./
=.
Isn’t it a strange contradiction ?


The contrary is a contradiction, once you assume that the brain is  
Turing emulable.

See the sane2004 paper for a proof of this:

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

You might need to study some good paper showing that arithmetic is  
Turing universal, but you can already derive this easily from Gödel's  
1931 proof technic. The arithmetical relations emulate the  
computations, so that arithmetic constitutes a block-mindscape, and  
matter, and thus brain, are only stable pattern appearing in some  
collections of computations. The main point is that this is testable,  
and QM, notably the MWI, confirms already the most startling  
consequence of the digital mechanist hypothesis (comp).
If Talbot is right, that would also confirm a much simpler theory than  
its own.


Bruno






But maybe it means what brain obeys the  ‘dualistic law’ :
Brain - –> Consciousness ,  Consciousness - –> Brain.
Who knows ?
=.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Feb 2013, at 07:39, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:




On Feb 1, 7:51 pm, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:


 Hi socr...@bezeqint.net 



Feynman was wrong.  Life isn't physics,
it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.


If we understand that physics is actually experience, then life,
intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are all  
physics. How

could it really be otherwise?

Craig

==

In the name of reason and common sense:
How  could it really be otherwise?


Because physics is not supposed to bear on the non observable, like  
the mathematical, the theological, etc. Physics uses the mathematical,  
but does not bear on it directly, and the reality might be  
mathematical, for example.


It is more easy to explain the illusion of matter to a conscious  
being, than the illusion of consciousness to a material being. Also.  
That's why  the greek platonist doubted the physical explanation, at  
least as a definitive explanation.


Bruno







--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Monday, February 4, 2013 10:22:50 AM UTC-5, socr...@bezeqint.net wrote:
>
> Brain –> Consciousness , Consciousness –> Brain. 
> =. 
> Is consciousness a result of evolution or it is its fuel ? 
>

I think that in the final analysis, consciousness has no business being in 
the brain, but the brain is perfectly sensible as vehicle for 
consciousness. What evolves is experience. Experience does not emerge from 
the evolution of structures which are incapable of awareness.

Craig

 

> # 
>  ‘ Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may 
>  not be the brain that produce consciousness, but rather 
>  consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain -  . .  . .’ 
> / Book ‘ The Holographic Universe’  page 160. 
> by  Michael Talbot ./ 
> =. 
> Isn’t it a strange contradiction ? 
> But maybe it means what brain obeys the  ‘dualistic law’ : 
> Brain - –> Consciousness ,  Consciousness - –> Brain. 
> Who knows ? 
> =. 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Stephen P. King]

On 2/4/2013 10:22 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

  Brain –> Consciousness , Consciousness –> Brain.
=.
Is consciousness a result of evolution or it is its fuel ?
#
  ‘ Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may
  not be the brain that produce consciousness, but rather
  consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain -  . .  . .’
/ Book ‘ The Holographic Universe’  page 160.
 by  Michael Talbot ./
=.
Isn’t it a strange contradiction ?
But maybe it means what brain obeys the  ‘dualistic law’ :
Brain - –> Consciousness ,  Consciousness - –> Brain.
Who knows ?
=.



You figured it out, Soc. Congratulations! The self-map is the 
essence of consciousness.


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

 Brain –> Consciousness , Consciousness –> Brain.
=.
Is consciousness a result of evolution or it is its fuel ?
#
 ‘ Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may
 not be the brain that produce consciousness, but rather
 consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain -  . .  . .’
/ Book ‘ The Holographic Universe’  page 160.
by  Michael Talbot ./
=.
Isn’t it a strange contradiction ?
But maybe it means what brain obeys the  ‘dualistic law’ :
Brain - –> Consciousness ,  Consciousness - –> Brain.
Who knows ?
=.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

On Feb 1, 7:51 pm, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
> On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
> >  Hi socr...@bezeqint.net 
>
> > Feynman was wrong.  Life isn't physics,
> > it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
>
> If we understand that physics is actually experience, then life,
> intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are all physics. How
> could it really be otherwise?
>
> Craig
==

In the name of reason and common sense:
How  could it really be otherwise?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi socr...@bezeqint.net  
>  
> Feynman was wrong.  Life isn't physics, 
> it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
>

If we understand that physics is actually experience, then life, 
intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are all physics. How 
could it really be otherwise?

Craig
 

>  
>  
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* socr...@bezeqint.net  
> *Receiver:* Everything List  
> *Time:* 2013-01-30, 22:06:54
> *Subject:* Re: Science is a religion by itself.
>
>   Quantum biology: Do weird physics effects abound in nature?
>
> Disappearing in one place and reappearing in another.
>  Being in two places at once. Communicating information seemingly
>  faster than the speed of light.
>
> This kind of weird behaviour is commonplace in dark, still
> laboratories
>  studying the branch of physics called quantum mechanics, but what
> might it have to do with fresh flowers, migrating birds, and the smell
>  of rotten eggs?
> Welcome to the frontier of what is called quantum biology.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21150047
> ==..
>
>   ' Long time ago, when the life only began generated
>  by the chance a molecule had arisen . . . . . .
>  . . . we are only descendants of these first molecules . . . . .
>  . . . all living beings on the Earth occurred from one
> and the same ancestors on the molecular level.'
>   / Book: The Character of Physical Law.
>   Lecture 4. By R. Feynman /
>
> And somebody said if we give to the simplest molecule
> hydrogen enough time then it will become a man
>  ( maybe according to the law of evolution ) .
> ===.
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com. 
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Roger Clough]

Hi socra...@bezeqint.net 

Feynman was wrong.  Life isn't physics, 
it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: socra...@bezeqint.net 
Receiver: Everything List 
Time: 2013-01-30, 22:06:54
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.


Quantum biology: Do weird physics effects abound in nature?

Disappearing in one place and reappearing in another.
 Being in two places at once. Communicating information seemingly
 faster than the speed of light.

This kind of weird behaviour is commonplace in dark, still
laboratories
 studying the branch of physics called quantum mechanics, but what
might it have to do with fresh flowers, migrating birds, and the smell
 of rotten eggs?
Welcome to the frontier of what is called quantum biology.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21150047
==..

  ' Long time ago, when the life only began generated
 by the chance a molecule had arisen . . . . . .
 . . . we are only descendants of these first molecules . . . . .
 . . . all living beings on the Earth occurred from one
and the same ancestors on the molecular level.'
  / Book: The Character of Physical Law.
  Lecture 4. By R. Feynman /

And somebody said if we give to the simplest molecule
hydrogen enough time then it will become a man
 ( maybe according to the law of evolution ) .
===.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 30 Jan 2013, at 13:40, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


About Infinity. / My opinion /
How could mere man comprehend infinity?
==.
Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Why is Infinity the cause of the crisis in Physics?
Because we don’t know what infinity is.
The concept of infinite / eternal means nothing to a scientists.
Infinity is no ‘more ‘, ‘ less’, ‘equally’ or  ‘similar’.
The Infinity is something  that could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity cannot be considered in real processes and they
proclaimed  unwritten law:
‘ If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity should be eliminated’  . . . .  by the
' method of  renormalization '  . . .  about which Feynman wrote
' using this method we can  these infinities sweep under a carpet '
and then Feynman asked:
‘ Who can confirm that the infinity conforms with reality of nature?’
 / Book:  The Character of Physical Law.  Lecture 7. /
===.

I will try to explain ‘infinity’ as brief and simple as is possible.
=.
There are billions and  billions Galaxies in the
Universe, each of which has hundreds of billions of stars.
All these billions and billions Galaxies are divided by space,
which we call ‘ Vacuum’.
This Vacuum is an  infinite and eternal continuum.
Why Vacuum is infinite ?
Because the sum of masses of all Galaxies (the cosmological
constant / the critical density ) is as small that it cannot
‘ close’ the whole Universe into sphere and  therefore Universe
 as whole must be  ‘open’, endless, infinite.
Only in some small local parts of this infinite Vacuum continuum
some masses can gather together in an enough quantity to create
stars, planets . . .etc.
Vacuum continuum is not a simple space
Physicists say that in vacuum ‘virtual particles’ exist and they
can appear as real particles.  Nobody knows what they are.
Astrophysicists say that ‘dark mass- matter’ in vacuum is hidden.
This ‘dark mass- matter’ is not ordinary matter but ‘non normal’.
They say that more than 90% of the matter in the Universe
is ‘non normal dark mass – matter’.
So, from ‘ virtual particles ‘ and ‘non normal dark matter ’ were
created  all billion and billion Galaxies, including our planet Earth
and everything on it,  also including you, who reads  this email.
And because we don’t know what ‘ virtual particles ‘ and ‘dark matter’
are,
therefore we don’t have answer to the question: who am I ?
..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
===..



There are infinity problems also in arithmetic, computer science,  
cognitive science, etc.


Universal numbers are confronted to many different kinds of infinities  
(by computer science, and by the first person indeterminacies, if you  
read about the UDA?).


Do you think that the brain can be emulated by a digital computer? If  
that is the case, physics (science of the observable) can't solve the  
mind body problem. In fact physics *becomes* the problem, for the  
mechanist approach to mind. Yet an interesting one and formulable in  
arithmetic. It makes mechanism testable for the constraints it imposes  
on the nature of the physical reality.


I don't think that "science" has decided between Aristotle and Plato.  
Comp provides a test, and already a part of the QM weirdness appears  
normal in comp. We might need to backtrack on Plato.


Bruno







--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

Biology- -  Evolutionary biology -  - Physics- - Biophysics -
Quantum biology  - Evolutionary biophysics on quantomolecular level.
( ! ? )
==.


On Jan 31, 4:06 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" 
wrote:
> Quantum biology: Do weird physics effects abound in nature?
>
> Disappearing in one place and reappearing in another.
>  Being in two places at once. Communicating information seemingly
>  faster than the speed of light.
>
> This kind of weird behaviour is commonplace in dark, still
> laboratories
>  studying the branch of physics called quantum mechanics, but what
> might it have to do with fresh flowers, migrating birds, and the smell
>  of rotten eggs?
> Welcome to the frontier of what is called quantum biology.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21150047
> ==..
>
>   ' Long time ago, when the life only began generated
>  by the chance a molecule  had arisen   .  . . . . .
>  . . . we are only descendants of these first molecules . . . . .
>  . . .  all living beings on the Earth occurred from one
> and the same  ancestors on the molecular level.'
>   / Book: The Character of Physical Law.
>           Lecture 4.  By R. Feynman /
>
> And somebody said if we give to the simplest molecule
> hydrogen enough time  then it will become a man
>  ( maybe according to the law of evolution ) .
> ===.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

Quantum biology: Do weird physics effects abound in nature?

Disappearing in one place and reappearing in another.
 Being in two places at once. Communicating information seemingly
 faster than the speed of light.

This kind of weird behaviour is commonplace in dark, still
laboratories
 studying the branch of physics called quantum mechanics, but what
might it have to do with fresh flowers, migrating birds, and the smell
 of rotten eggs?
Welcome to the frontier of what is called quantum biology.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21150047
==..

  ' Long time ago, when the life only began generated
 by the chance a molecule  had arisen   .  . . . . .
 . . . we are only descendants of these first molecules . . . . .
 . . .  all living beings on the Earth occurred from one
and the same  ancestors on the molecular level.'
  / Book: The Character of Physical Law.
  Lecture 4.  By R. Feynman /

And somebody said if we give to the simplest molecule
hydrogen enough time  then it will become a man
 ( maybe according to the law of evolution ) .
===.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Roger Clough]

Hi socra...@bezeqint.net 

God is life, consciousness and intelligence, not
a triangle with three sides. 

- Receiving the following content - 
From: socra...@bezeqint.net 
Receiver: Everything List 
Time: 2013-01-29, 02:33:15
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.


.Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit
If triangles made a God they would give him three sides
/ Charles de Montesquieu . Persian Letters, 1721 /
 #
There were people who said ?od ? and thought about Zeus.
There are people who say ?od ? and think about Holly Cow.
If physicists made a God they would give Him concrete physical
parameters.
Can God create a Universe which physicists could not understand ?
=.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stephen P. King 

The subjective universe is like the tao.
Whatever is said about the tao is not the tao.
So not to worry.


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-29, 15:44:06
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.


On 1/29/2013 8:49 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:33 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
>  wrote:
>> .Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit
>> If triangles made a God they would give him three sides
>> / Charles de Montesquieu . Persian Letters, 1721 /
>> #
>> There were people who said ?od ? and thought about Zeus.
>> There are people who say ?od ? and think about Holly Cow.
>> If physicists made a God they would give Him concrete physical
>> parameters.
>> Can God create a Universe which physicists could not understand ?
>> =.
>>
> We live in such a universe. At least 96% of which cannot be
> understood, perhaps 100%.
>
>
Dear RIchard,

 I would go so far as to propose that we are deluded somehow into 
thinking that we can actually understand any percentile. I have become a 
complete skeptic.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

About Infinity. / My opinion /
How could mere man comprehend infinity?
==.
Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Why is Infinity the cause of the crisis in Physics?
Because we don’t know what infinity is.
The concept of infinite / eternal means nothing to a scientists.
Infinity is no ‘more ‘, ‘ less’, ‘equally’ or  ‘similar’.
The Infinity is something  that could not be compared to anything.
 Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity cannot be considered in real processes and they
 proclaimed  unwritten law:
 ‘ If we want that the theory would be correct,
 the infinity should be eliminated’  . . . .  by the
' method of  renormalization '  . . .  about which Feynman wrote
 ' using this method we can  these infinities sweep under a carpet '
and then Feynman asked:
‘ Who can confirm that the infinity conforms with reality of nature?’
  / Book:  The Character of Physical Law.  Lecture 7. /
===.

I will try to explain ‘infinity’ as brief and simple as is possible.
=.
There are billions and  billions Galaxies in the
 Universe, each of which has hundreds of billions of stars.
All these billions and billions Galaxies are divided by space,
 which we call ‘ Vacuum’.
This Vacuum is an  infinite and eternal continuum.
Why Vacuum is infinite ?
Because the sum of masses of all Galaxies (the cosmological
 constant / the critical density ) is as small that it cannot
‘ close’ the whole Universe into sphere and  therefore Universe
  as whole must be  ‘open’, endless, infinite.
Only in some small local parts of this infinite Vacuum continuum
some masses can gather together in an enough quantity to create
 stars, planets . . .etc.
Vacuum continuum is not a simple space
Physicists say that in vacuum ‘virtual particles’ exist and they
 can appear as real particles.  Nobody knows what they are.
Astrophysicists say that ‘dark mass- matter’ in vacuum is hidden.
This ‘dark mass- matter’ is not ordinary matter but ‘non normal’.
They say that more than 90% of the matter in the Universe
 is ‘non normal dark mass – matter’.
So, from ‘ virtual particles ‘ and ‘non normal dark matter ’ were
created  all billion and billion Galaxies, including our planet Earth
 and everything on it,  also including you, who reads  this email.
And because we don’t know what ‘ virtual particles ‘ and ‘dark matter’
are,
 therefore we don’t have answer to the question: who am I ?
..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
===..

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/29/2013 8:49 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:33 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
 wrote:

.Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit
If  triangles made a God they would give him three sides
/ Charles de Montesquieu . Persian Letters, 1721 /
  #
There were people who  said ‘God ‘ and thought  about Zeus.
There are people who say ‘God ‘ and think about Holly Cow.
If physicists made a God they would give Him concrete physical
parameters.
Can God create a Universe which physicists could not understand ?
=.


We live in such a universe. At least 96% of which cannot be
understood, perhaps 100%.



Dear RIchard,

I would go so far as to propose that we are deluded somehow into 
thinking that we can actually understand any percentile. I have become a 
complete skeptic.


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

" The most incomprehensible thing about the world is
   that it is comprehensible."
  /  Albert Einstein /


On Jan 29, 2:49 pm, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:33 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
>
>  wrote:
> > .Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit
> > If  triangles made a God they would give him three sides
> > / Charles de Montesquieu . Persian Letters, 1721 /
> >  #
> > There were people who  said ‘God ‘ and thought  about Zeus.
> > There are people who say ‘God ‘ and think about Holly Cow.
> > If physicists made a God they would give Him concrete physical
> > parameters.
> > Can God create a Universe which physicists could not understand ?
> > =.
>
> We live in such a universe. At least 96% of which cannot be
> understood, perhaps 100%.
>
>
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> > "Everything List" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> > Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> > For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.- Hide 
> > quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Richard Ruquist]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:33 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
 wrote:
> .Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit
> If  triangles made a God they would give him three sides
> / Charles de Montesquieu . Persian Letters, 1721 /
>  #
> There were people who  said ‘God ‘ and thought  about Zeus.
> There are people who say ‘God ‘ and think about Holly Cow.
> If physicists made a God they would give Him concrete physical
> parameters.
> Can God create a Universe which physicists could not understand ?
> =.
>

We live in such a universe. At least 96% of which cannot be
understood, perhaps 100%.




> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

.Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit
If  triangles made a God they would give him three sides
/ Charles de Montesquieu . Persian Letters, 1721 /
 #
There were people who  said ‘God ‘ and thought  about Zeus.
There are people who say ‘God ‘ and think about Holly Cow.
If physicists made a God they would give Him concrete physical
parameters.
Can God create a Universe which physicists could not understand ?
=.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Richard Ruquist]

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:36 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net
 wrote:
> But your question really is "what does a physical particle look
> like?"
> My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that
> strings are still concepts in the regime of metaphysics..
>  . . .
> So string theory IS my religion.
>/ Richard Ruquist  /
>
> Do you advise me to believe in your religion of metaphysics?
>   /socratus/

No. You have to find your own religion if that is what you want.


> ==..
> 1
>   Book ‘ The trouble with Physics’ / by Lee Smolin /
> Part 8. The first superstring revolution.
> Page 126 – 127.
> ‘. . . the growing catalog of string theories meant that
>  we weren’t  actually studying a fundamental theory.’ . . .
> ‘ . . . but the many versions of string theory opened up
>  the possibility that  it was true of essentially all the
> properties of the elementary particles and forces. This would
>  mean that properties of the elementary particles were
> environmental and could change in time. If so, it would mean
>  that physics would be more like biology, in that the
> properties of the elementary particles would depend on the
> history of our universe. ‘
> #
>  ‘ . . .  at least one big idea is missing.
> How do we find that missing idea?’
> / Page 308.  Lee Smolin. /
>
> 2
> String theory  .  . . . ‘ Type IIA  strings as one-dimensional
> objects, having only lengths  but no thickness, . . . . . ‘
>
> / page 311. Book: The elegant Universe. By Brian Greene /
>
> 3.
> We don't know what we are talking about"
>   / - Nobel laureate David Gross referring
> to the current state of string theory ./
>
> 4.
>   How did the idea of many dimensions arise?
> ==..
> It began in  1907 when Minkowski tried to  understand
> SRT and invented  4-D negative spacetime continuum
> Nobody knows what  Minkowski 4-D  really is.
> #.
> Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation,
> said that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
> Th. Kaluza agreed with Einstein and in 1921 tried
> to explain SRT using 5D space.
> This theory was tested and found insufficient.
> "Well", said physicists and mathematicians,
> " maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D, 11D or 27D spaces will explain it".
> And they had done it.
> But………. But there is one problem.
> To create new D space, they must add a new parameter.
> Because it is impossible to create new D space without
>  a new force, a new parameter.
> And they take this parameter arbitrarily
> ( it fixed according to they opinion, not by objective rules).
> The physicist   R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
> "Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
> With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…"
> To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add:
>  "with one more parameter the elephant will fly."
> The  mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
> Where are our brains? Where is the logic?
> #
> If we don't know what 1+1 = 2
> how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?
> And if we don't know what is negative Mincowski  4-D
>  how can we understand 11-D, 27-D  and string theory ?
> =.
> If I were a king, I would publish a law:
> every physicist who takes part in the creation
>  of 4D space and higher must be awarded a medal
> "To the winner over common sense" because they have
> won us using the abstract  ideas of Minkowski and  Kaluza.
> ==.
> Best wishes.
> Israel Sadovnik  Socratus.
> =.
>
>
> On Jan 24, 4:22 pm, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>> I always considered "h" to just be a constant of proportionality
>> between energy and frequency that is determined empirically.
>>
>> What a quantum particle is may be metaphysical- that is, beyond
>> measurement and subject to belief.
>>
>> For example I believe in a Quantum Mind- Physical world duality where
>> both wave functions and their quantization exist in the quantum mind;
>> whereas only physical particles exist in the physical world. That is,
>> fields, forces and action at a distance all exist in the quantum mind.
>>
>> So lets consider the radiation of EM waves/fields from electrons in an
>> antenna. As the waves spread out, their intensity or amplitude
>> decreases as 1/r squared, so that one quanta of energy (or one photon)
>> requires integration of the amplitude over larger and larger area
>> and/or time.
>>
>> It is my conjecture that arithmetics of the Quantum Mind do a running
>> quantization so that virtual particles are realized in the Quantum
>> Mind that are digital equivalents to the analog EM fields, Same for
>> all quantum wave functions in general.
>>
>> In the MWI scenario, every such virtual particle becomes a  physical
>> particle in a new universe. However, it is also possible that all
>> virtual particles but one get cancelled by anti-particles ala Feynman
>> QED or Cramer analysis thereby resulting in a single universe (SWI).
>>
>> That thinking combines a collapse model with a hidden variable model;
>> but both models apply to the quantum mind and not the physical world.
>> I believe

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

But your question really is "what does a physical particle look
like?"
My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that
strings are still concepts in the regime of metaphysics..
 . . .
So string theory IS my religion.
   / Richard Ruquist  /

Do you advise me to believe in your religion of metaphysics?
  /socratus/
==..
1
  Book ‘ The trouble with Physics’ / by Lee Smolin /
Part 8. The first superstring revolution.
Page 126 – 127.
‘. . . the growing catalog of string theories meant that
 we weren’t  actually studying a fundamental theory.’ . . .
‘ . . . but the many versions of string theory opened up
 the possibility that  it was true of essentially all the
properties of the elementary particles and forces. This would
 mean that properties of the elementary particles were
environmental and could change in time. If so, it would mean
 that physics would be more like biology, in that the
properties of the elementary particles would depend on the
history of our universe. ‘
#
 ‘ . . .  at least one big idea is missing.
How do we find that missing idea?’
/ Page 308.  Lee Smolin. /

2
String theory  .  . . . ‘ Type IIA  strings as one-dimensional
objects, having only lengths  but no thickness, . . . . . ‘

/ page 311. Book: The elegant Universe. By Brian Greene /

3.
We don't know what we are talking about"
  / - Nobel laureate David Gross referring
to the current state of string theory ./

4.
  How did the idea of many dimensions arise?
==..
It began in  1907 when Minkowski tried to  understand
SRT and invented  4-D negative spacetime continuum
Nobody knows what  Minkowski 4-D  really is.
#.
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation,
said that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
Th. Kaluza agreed with Einstein and in 1921 tried
to explain SRT using 5D space.
This theory was tested and found insufficient.
"Well", said physicists and mathematicians,
" maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D, 11D or 27D spaces will explain it".
And they had done it.
But………. But there is one problem.
To create new D space, they must add a new parameter.
Because it is impossible to create new D space without
 a new force, a new parameter.
And they take this parameter arbitrarily
( it fixed according to they opinion, not by objective rules).
The physicist   R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
"Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…"
To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add:
 "with one more parameter the elephant will fly."
The  mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains? Where is the logic?
#
If we don't know what 1+1 = 2
how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?
And if we don't know what is negative Mincowski  4-D
 how can we understand 11-D, 27-D  and string theory ?
=.
If I were a king, I would publish a law:
every physicist who takes part in the creation
 of 4D space and higher must be awarded a medal
"To the winner over common sense" because they have
won us using the abstract  ideas of Minkowski and  Kaluza.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik  Socratus.
=.


On Jan 24, 4:22 pm, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
> I always considered "h" to just be a constant of proportionality
> between energy and frequency that is determined empirically.
>
> What a quantum particle is may be metaphysical- that is, beyond
> measurement and subject to belief.
>
> For example I believe in a Quantum Mind- Physical world duality where
> both wave functions and their quantization exist in the quantum mind;
> whereas only physical particles exist in the physical world. That is,
> fields, forces and action at a distance all exist in the quantum mind.
>
> So lets consider the radiation of EM waves/fields from electrons in an
> antenna. As the waves spread out, their intensity or amplitude
> decreases as 1/r squared, so that one quanta of energy (or one photon)
> requires integration of the amplitude over larger and larger area
> and/or time.
>
> It is my conjecture that arithmetics of the Quantum Mind do a running
> quantization so that virtual particles are realized in the Quantum
> Mind that are digital equivalents to the analog EM fields, Same for
> all quantum wave functions in general.
>
> In the MWI scenario, every such virtual particle becomes a  physical
> particle in a new universe. However, it is also possible that all
> virtual particles but one get cancelled by anti-particles ala Feynman
> QED or Cramer analysis thereby resulting in a single universe (SWI).
>
> That thinking combines a collapse model with a hidden variable model;
> but both models apply to the quantum mind and not the physical world.
> I believe that for my combined model to be true, the arithmetics of
> the quantum mind must be instantaneous, consistent with the Quantum
> Mind being mainly a timeless virtual MWI Block Space.
>
> But your question really is "what does a physical particle look like?"
> My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Richard Ruquist]

Something that intrigues me is that arithmetics does not seem to exist
in the primordial singularity that spawned the 14d Metaverse nor in
any singularities that that spawned 12d universes because the quantum
fields in the singularities are not discrete.

In order to get a discrete structure capable of arithmetics each
singularity must first spawn a 4D spacetime together with a 3D
subspace containing a cubic lattice of compactified 6d particles
capable of arithmetic computation. Subspace arithmetics then computes
everything that can happen then on forever and writes the results on
the fluxes of the timeless deterministic unconscious MWI 4D Block
Space of the Metaverse.

But consciousness and free choice appear to exist in our universe. If
so then the subspace arithmetics (what I think of as the Quantum Mind)
must recalculate the future just like your GPS does when you decide to
take a different path than what the GPS system recommends.

Now this will become religion if I can derive ritual like mantras from
the metaphysics. It is my opinion that religion requires ritual,
something I have already done for string theory. So string theory IS
my religion.
Richard


On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
> I always considered "h" to just be a constant of proportionality
> between energy and frequency that is determined empirically.
>
> What a quantum particle is may be metaphysical- that is, beyond
> measurement and subject to belief.
>
> For example I believe in a Quantum Mind- Physical world duality where
> both wave functions and their quantization exist in the quantum mind;
> whereas only physical particles exist in the physical world. That is,
> fields, forces and action at a distance all exist in the quantum mind.
>
> So lets consider the radiation of EM waves/fields from electrons in an
> antenna. As the waves spread out, their intensity or amplitude
> decreases as 1/r squared, so that one quanta of energy (or one photon)
> requires integration of the amplitude over larger and larger area
> and/or time.
>
> It is my conjecture that arithmetics of the Quantum Mind do a running
> quantization so that virtual particles are realized in the Quantum
> Mind that are digital equivalents to the analog EM fields, Same for
> all quantum wave functions in general.
>
> In the MWI scenario, every such virtual particle becomes a  physical
> particle in a new universe. However, it is also possible that all
> virtual particles but one get cancelled by anti-particles ala Feynman
> QED or Cramer analysis thereby resulting in a single universe (SWI).
>
> That thinking combines a collapse model with a hidden variable model;
> but both models apply to the quantum mind and not the physical world.
> I believe that for my combined model to be true, the arithmetics of
> the quantum mind must be instantaneous, consistent with the Quantum
> Mind being mainly a timeless virtual MWI Block Space.
>
> But your question really is "what does a physical particle look like?"
> My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that
> strings are still concepts in the regime of metaphysics. Of course,
> point particles are there as well.
> Richard
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:37 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
>  wrote:
>>   Belief . . . from history of physics.
>> =.
>>   Many years Max  Planck was attracted with the
>> absolutely black body problem.
>> If quantum of light moving with speed c=1 falls in the area of
>> absolutely black body and does not radiate back, then “ terminal
>> dead “ will come. In order to save the quantum of light from ‘death ‘
>> Planck decided that  it is possible that quantum of light
>>  will radiate back with quantum unit (h ),  (h=Et )
>> This unit does not come on formulas or equations.
>> Planck introduced this unit from heaven, from ceiling.
>> Sorry. Sorry.
>> Scientists say:  Planck introduced this unit intuitively.
>> They say:  Planck introduced unit (h) phenomenologically
>> ===..
>> Phenomenology.
>> 1.
>> the movement founded by Husserl that concentrates on the
>> detailed description of conscious experience, without recourse
>>  to explanation, metaphysical assumptions, and traditional
>>  philosophical questions
>> http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/phenomenologically
>> ===…
>> So. Planck discovered the quantum of energy / action
>>  ‘without recourse  to explanation, metaphysical assumptions,
>> and traditional  philosophical questions’.
>> Many years Planck tried to find rational explanation for his unit
>> but without success.
>> We can read that unit (h) is an ’inner’ impulse (spin) of particle.
>> But what ’inner impulse’ means? We have no  answer.
>> ==.
>> There are 1000 books and millions articles about
>> ‘philosophy of science’ but how can I believe them
>>  if they didn’t explain me ‘what quantum particle is’.
>> Our today’s belief in science is similar to the past belief
>>  in religion:‘ I believe because it is absurd.’
>> / Tertullian. (

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Richard Ruquist]

I always considered "h" to just be a constant of proportionality
between energy and frequency that is determined empirically.

What a quantum particle is may be metaphysical- that is, beyond
measurement and subject to belief.

For example I believe in a Quantum Mind- Physical world duality where
both wave functions and their quantization exist in the quantum mind;
whereas only physical particles exist in the physical world. That is,
fields, forces and action at a distance all exist in the quantum mind.

So lets consider the radiation of EM waves/fields from electrons in an
antenna. As the waves spread out, their intensity or amplitude
decreases as 1/r squared, so that one quanta of energy (or one photon)
requires integration of the amplitude over larger and larger area
and/or time.

It is my conjecture that arithmetics of the Quantum Mind do a running
quantization so that virtual particles are realized in the Quantum
Mind that are digital equivalents to the analog EM fields, Same for
all quantum wave functions in general.

In the MWI scenario, every such virtual particle becomes a  physical
particle in a new universe. However, it is also possible that all
virtual particles but one get cancelled by anti-particles ala Feynman
QED or Cramer analysis thereby resulting in a single universe (SWI).

That thinking combines a collapse model with a hidden variable model;
but both models apply to the quantum mind and not the physical world.
I believe that for my combined model to be true, the arithmetics of
the quantum mind must be instantaneous, consistent with the Quantum
Mind being mainly a timeless virtual MWI Block Space.

But your question really is "what does a physical particle look like?"
My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that
strings are still concepts in the regime of metaphysics. Of course,
point particles are there as well.
Richard

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:37 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
 wrote:
>   Belief . . . from history of physics.
> =.
>   Many years Max  Planck was attracted with the
> absolutely black body problem.
> If quantum of light moving with speed c=1 falls in the area of
> absolutely black body and does not radiate back, then “ terminal
> dead “ will come. In order to save the quantum of light from ‘death ‘
> Planck decided that  it is possible that quantum of light
>  will radiate back with quantum unit (h ),  (h=Et )
> This unit does not come on formulas or equations.
> Planck introduced this unit from heaven, from ceiling.
> Sorry. Sorry.
> Scientists say:  Planck introduced this unit intuitively.
> They say:  Planck introduced unit (h) phenomenologically
> ===..
> Phenomenology.
> 1.
> the movement founded by Husserl that concentrates on the
> detailed description of conscious experience, without recourse
>  to explanation, metaphysical assumptions, and traditional
>  philosophical questions
> http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/phenomenologically
> ===…
> So. Planck discovered the quantum of energy / action
>  ‘without recourse  to explanation, metaphysical assumptions,
> and traditional  philosophical questions’.
> Many years Planck tried to find rational explanation for his unit
> but without success.
> We can read that unit (h) is an ’inner’ impulse (spin) of particle.
> But what ’inner impulse’ means? We have no  answer.
> ==.
> There are 1000 books and millions articles about
> ‘philosophy of science’ but how can I believe them
>  if they didn’t explain me ‘what quantum particle is’.
> Our today’s belief in science is similar to the past belief
>  in religion:‘ I believe because it is absurd.’
> / Tertullian. (ca.160 – ca.220 AD) /
> ( in science –  big bang,
>  in religion - God create woman from Adam’s rib.)
> ==..
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb 

You have faith that what Mencken said is true, am I not correct ?


- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-20, 18:31:10
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.


Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to
believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt. The more
stupid the man the heavier his load of faith.
   --- H. L. Mencken

On 1/20/2013 1:31 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
>
> I believe . . . . .you believe
> your opinion . . . my opinion . ... . .
> your meaning . . . my meaning . .. . . .
> The opinion of opinion . . . . .
> The meaning of meaning . . . . .
> And so is endless.
> ===.
> I Believe in Order to Understand.
>
> St. Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, said,
> ? believe in order to understand? (credo ut intelligam)
> and centuries later, St. Anselm of Canterbury,
> echoed his statement in similar fashion:
> ? do not seek to understand in order that I may believe,
> but I believe in order to understand.?
> These great Christian thinkers understood the proper use of reason
> must be preceded by faith in the proper object.
> Not faith in ourselves or science,
> but faith in God, specifically in His revelation of Himself
> in His Son Jesus Christ.
> Their statements echo the words of the writer of Hebrews
> when he said ?y faith we understand that the universe
> was formed at God? command, so that what is seen was
> not made out of what was visible.? (Hebrews 11:3 ? NIV)
> http://carpediemcoramdeo.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/i-believe-in-order-to-understand/
>
> I cannot believe in such method , in such way.
> I need to understand in order to believe.
> To believe in God, Souls . . .metaphysics . . .. etc
> I need proof, scientific proof with physical laws and formulas.
> =.
> Einstein said:
> ? One thing I have learned in a long life:
> that all our science, measured against reality,
> is primitive and childlike ?
> and yet it is the most precious thing we have.?
>
> Why our science ?s primitive and childlike? ?
> Because we don? know the basic things:
> what the vacuum is,
> what the quantum particle is ( they say it is math point),
> what an electron is (electron has six formulas and many theories)
> what is the reason of 'dualism of particle' ? . . . . etc . . . etc.
> =.
> After 30 years of thinking about that we call ?hilosophy of physics
> ?
> I wrote my ideas briefly: God is a Scientist and Atheist.
> Science is a religion by itself.
> Why?
> Because the God can create and govern the Universe
> only using physical laws, formulas, equations.
> Here is the scheme of His plan.
> =.
> God : Ten Scientific Commandments.
> 1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= , p= 0, t= .
> 2. Particles:
> C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1, e^i(pi)= -1.
> 3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb.
> ... 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* .
> 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW :
> HeII --> HeI --> H --> . . .
> 6. Proton: (p).
> 7.
> The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton:
> a) electromagnetic,
> b) nuclear,
> c) biological.
> 8. The Physical Laws:
> a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy / Mass,
> b) Pauli Exclusion Law,
> c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law.
> 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness.
> 10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation.
> ===.
>
> I am not physicist and not philosopher.
> I call myself a ?easant?.
> And if a peasant can understand the Scheme (!) of Universe ,
> then everybody, using usual human logic, can understand too.
> ==.
> Best wishes.
> Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
> =.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[meekerdb]

Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to
believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt.  The more
stupid the man the heavier his load of faith.
  --- H. L. Mencken

On 1/20/2013 1:31 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


I believe . . . . .you believe
your opinion . . . my opinion . ... . .
your meaning . . . my meaning . ..  . . .
The opinion of opinion . . . . .
The meaning of meaning . . . . .
And so is endless.
===.
I Believe in Order to Understand.

St. Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, said,
“I believe in order to understand”  (credo ut intelligam)
and centuries later, St. Anselm of Canterbury,
echoed his statement in similar fashion:
“I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe,
but I believe in order to understand.”
These great Christian thinkers understood the proper use of reason
  must be  preceded by faith in the proper object.
Not faith in ourselves or science,
  but faith in God, specifically in His revelation of Himself
  in His Son Jesus Christ.
Their statements echo the words of the writer of Hebrews
  when he said “By faith we understand that the universe
was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was
  not made out of what was visible.” (Hebrews 11:3 – NIV)
http://carpediemcoramdeo.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/i-believe-in-order-to-understand/

 I cannot believe in such method , in such way.
I need to understand in order to believe.
To believe in God, Souls . . .metaphysics . . .. etc
I need proof, scientific proof with physical laws and formulas.
=.
 Einstein said:
“ One thing I have learned in a long life:
that all our science, measured against reality,
  is primitive and childlike –
and yet it is the most precious thing we have.”

Why our science ‘is primitive and childlike’ ?
Because we don’t know the basic things:
what the vacuum is,
what the quantum particle is ( they say it is math point),
what an electron is (electron has six formulas and many theories)
what is the reason of 'dualism of particle' ? . . . . etc . . . etc.
=.
After 30 years of thinking about that we call  ‘philosophy of physics
‘
I wrote my ideas briefly: God is a Scientist and Atheist.
   Science is a religion by itself.
Why?
Because the God can create and govern the Universe
only using physical laws, formulas, equations.
Here is the scheme of His plan.
=.
God : Ten Scientific Commandments.
1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= , p= 0, t= .
2. Particles:
C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1, e^i(pi)= -1.
3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb.
... 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* .
5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW :
  HeII -->  HeI -->  H -->  . . .
6. Proton: (p).
7.
The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton:
   a) electromagnetic,
b) nuclear,
c) biological.
8. The Physical Laws:
a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy / Mass,
b) Pauli Exclusion Law,
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law.
9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness.
10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation.
===.

I am not physicist and not philosopher.
I call myself a ‘peasant’.
And if  a peasant can understand the Scheme (!)  of Universe ,
then everybody, using usual human logic, can understand too.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik  Socratus.
=.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 15 Jan 2013, at 17:20, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:




Physics and Metaphysics.

John Polkinghorne and his book ‘ Quantum theory’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
=== .

John Polkinghorne took epigraph for  his book ‘ Quantum theory’
the Feynman’s thought : ‘ I think I can safely say that
nobody understands quantum mechanics. ‘
Why?
Because, he wrote:
‘ ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
metaphysical decision ’.
/ preface/
‘ Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,
and these are the subject of continuing dispute’
/ page 40/
‘ If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,
it is that the world is full of surprises’
/ page 87 /
‘ Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take
very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory
include: . . . .’
/ page 88 /
‘Quantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .’
/ page92 /
‘ Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and
instructive phenomenon, . .’
/ page 92 /
==.
In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing
what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe:
‘ They will demand for their eventual settlement not only
physical insight but also metaphysical decision ’.
/ preface /
And, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the world and knowledge
on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics.


We can separate them in the curriculum, if both are taken seriously.
But this is not the case, and many feel that physics is just the real  
deal about metaphysics.


And that is badly wrong. Fortunately, with computer science, we are  
confront with the wrongness of that separation, but the scientific  
community seems to resist this by all means. That can still last for a  
long time, with the same discouragement to tackle metaphysics without  
scientific attitude. Human are not yet mature on this.


Bruno





=== .
Somebody wrote:
The science will purify the religion of the “dross”.
I agree.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik   Socratus.
===.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

Physics and Metaphysics.

John Polkinghorne and his book ‘ Quantum theory’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
=== .

John Polkinghorne took epigraph for  his book ‘ Quantum theory’
the Feynman’s thought : ‘ I think I can safely say that
nobody understands quantum mechanics. ‘
Why?
Because, he wrote:
‘ ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
metaphysical decision ’.
/ preface/
‘ Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,
and these are the subject of continuing dispute’
/ page 40/
‘ If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,
it is that the world is full of surprises’
/ page 87 /
‘ Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take
very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory
include: . . . .’
/ page 88 /
‘Quantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .’
/ page92 /
‘ Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and
instructive phenomenon, . .’
/ page 92 /
==.
In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing
what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe:
‘ They will demand for their eventual settlement not only
physical insight but also metaphysical decision ’.
/ preface /
And, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the world and knowledge
on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics.
=== .
Somebody wrote:
The science will purify the religion of the “dross”.
I agree.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik   Socratus.
===.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 14 Jan 2013, at 20:39, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


I will try to understand situation from today  fashion physical point
of view.


Good luck. I think this is wrong at the start. Provably so if brain  
works like digital machine at some description level.





=.
Let us say that Plato's world of ideas is a dark mass
( because nobody knows that their are).


But with comp it becomes rather simple (basically a tiny part of  
arithmetic).






And Leibniz monadas and Kant's things-in- themselves are
quantum particles ( because nobody knows their physical parameters).

We can suppose that the dark mass (the world of ideas)
is consist of quantum particles (monads / things-in-themselves).


Ideas are not made of particle.




And then all these monadas / quantum particles were pressed
together in . . . .  a 'singular point '   . . .  by some power.
But after some time they felt  themselves uncomfortable and
. . . .  separated as a 'big bang'.

In this way we can understand the connection between physics and
philosophy of idealism  and the  existence ( from today point of
view)  .

If somebody didn't understand me I can explain the modern physical
point of view  on existence in the other words.



OK. I can see this, but why start from the physical? Where does the  
physical come from.


You was born because your mother was pregnant,
and your mother was born because you was pregnant.


?

Bruno




==
socratus



On Jan 14, 5:44 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

On 13 Jan 2013, at 07:22, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


 The Seven Hermetic Principles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTFCpkrM2iI
=.
1. The Universe is something Intellectual.
2. As above, so below.
3. From potential to active existence.
4. Everything in the Universe can vibrate.
5. Everything in the Universe has its cause.
6. Everything in the Universe has its opposite.
7. The Universe has its own rhythm.


Hmm... This is already too much Aristotelian to fit with
computationalism.




/ Hermes Trismegistus /
=.
Can these Seven Hermetic Principles be explained
by physical laws and formulas ?


We have first to explain the physical laws appearances, and formula,
in comp, and thus in arithmetic. See (*) for a concise explanation.

Bruno

(*)  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract 
...


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

I will try to understand situation from today  fashion physical point
of view.
=.
Let us say that Plato's world of ideas is a dark mass
( because nobody knows that their are).

And Leibniz monadas and Kant's things-in- themselves are
quantum particles ( because nobody knows their physical parameters).

We can suppose that the dark mass (the world of ideas)
is consist of quantum particles (monads / things-in-themselves).

And then all these monadas / quantum particles were pressed
 together in . . . .  a 'singular point '   . . .  by some power.
But after some time they felt  themselves uncomfortable and
 . . . .  separated as a 'big bang'.

In this way we can understand the connection between physics and
philosophy of idealism  and the  existence ( from today point of
view)  .

If somebody didn't understand me I can explain the modern physical
 point of view  on existence in the other words.

You was born because your mother was pregnant,
and your mother was born because you was pregnant.
==
socratus



On Jan 14, 5:44 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2013, at 07:22, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
>
> >  The Seven Hermetic Principles
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTFCpkrM2iI
> > =.
> > 1. The Universe is something Intellectual.
> > 2. As above, so below.
> > 3. From potential to active existence.
> > 4. Everything in the Universe can vibrate.
> > 5. Everything in the Universe has its cause.
> > 6. Everything in the Universe has its opposite.
> > 7. The Universe has its own rhythm.
>
> Hmm... This is already too much Aristotelian to fit with
> computationalism.
>
>
>
> > / Hermes Trismegistus /
> > =.
> > Can these Seven Hermetic Principles be explained
> > by physical laws and formulas ?
>
> We have first to explain the physical laws appearances, and formula,
> in comp, and thus in arithmetic. See (*) for a concise explanation.
>
> Bruno
>
> (*)  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract...
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 13 Jan 2013, at 07:22, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


 The Seven Hermetic Principles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTFCpkrM2iI
=.
1. The Universe is something Intellectual.
2. As above, so below.
3. From potential to active existence.
4. Everything in the Universe can vibrate.
5. Everything in the Universe has its cause.
6. Everything in the Universe has its opposite.
7. The Universe has its own rhythm.


Hmm... This is already too much Aristotelian to fit with  
computationalism.






/ Hermes Trismegistus /
=.
Can these Seven Hermetic Principles be explained
by physical laws and formulas ?


We have first to explain the physical laws appearances, and formula,  
in comp, and thus in arithmetic. See (*) for a concise explanation.


Bruno

(*)  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

Thanks.
Is it possible to explain  ' monads' of Leibniz  or
Kant's  ' thing-in-itself ' from physical point of view ?

Is it possible to explain the  'philosophy of Idealism '
using physical laws and formulas ?

=.

On Jan 13, 2:30 pm, "Roger Clough" wrote:
> Hi socra...@bezeqint.net
>
> Not exactly prove but explain:
>
> 1. means that there is an intelligence beyond the universe
> 2. is not true according to Leibniz. Above is perfect, below is contingent.
> 3. According to Leibniz, all existence is active (because alive)
> 4. I have linked Leibniz to Sheldrake, and he speaks of morphic resonances.
> 5. Is the principle of sufficent reason.
> 6. Can't give a basis for this.
> 7. same as 4.
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 1/13/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: socra...@bezeqint.net
> Receiver: Everything List
> Time: 2013-01-13, 01:22:32
> Subject: Science is a religion by itself.
>
>   The Seven Hermetic Principleshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTFCpkrM2iI
> =.
> 1. The Universe is something Intellectual.
> 2. As above, so below.
> 3. From potential to active existence.
> 4. Everything in the Universe can vibrate.
> 5. Everything in the Universe has its cause.
> 6. Everything in the Universe has its opposite.
> 7. The Universe has its own rhythm.
>
>  / Hermes Trismegistus /
> =.
> Can these Seven Hermetic Principles be explained
>  by physical laws and formulas ?
>
> ===?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group 
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Roger Clough]

Hi socra...@bezeqint.net  


Not exactly prove but explain: 

1. means that there is an intelligence beyond the universe 
2. is not true according to Leibniz. Above is perfect, below is contingent. 
3. According to Leibniz, all existence is active (because alive) 
4. I have linked Leibniz to Sheldrake, and he speaks of morphic resonances. 
5. Is the principle of sufficent reason. 
6. Can't give a basis for this. 
7. same as 4. 

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/13/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: socra...@bezeqint.net  
Receiver: Everything List  
Time: 2013-01-13, 01:22:32 
Subject: Science is a religion by itself. 


  The Seven Hermetic Principles 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTFCpkrM2iI 
=. 
1. The Universe is something Intellectual. 
2. As above, so below. 
3. From potential to active existence. 
4. Everything in the Universe can vibrate. 
5. Everything in the Universe has its cause. 
6. Everything in the Universe has its opposite. 
7. The Universe has its own rhythm. 

 / Hermes Trismegistus / 
=. 
Can these Seven Hermetic Principles be explained 
 by physical laws and formulas ? 

===? 

--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[meekerdb]

On 1/11/2013 11:35 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

Book ‘Dreams of a final theory’.
/ By Steven Weinberg.  The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /
Page 66.
‘ Most scientists use quantum mechanics every day in they
  working lives without needing to worry about the fundamental
  problem of its  interpretation.
  . . .they do not worry about it. A year or so ago . . . . .
our conversation turned to a young theorist who had been quite
  promising as a graduate student and who had then dropped
out of sight. I asked Phil what had interfered with the
ex-student’s research. Phil shook his head sadly and said:
‘ He tried to understand quantum mechanics.’   (!)
===.
Conclusion.
Don’t try to understand quantum theory if you want to reach success.
==.

Page 138.
‘ It is true  . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
  reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
  simple have no meaning.’


Or they just don't mean what you would naively assume:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature

Brent


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

Book ‘Dreams of a final theory’.
/ By Steven Weinberg.  The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /
Page 66.
‘ Most scientists use quantum mechanics every day in they
 working lives without needing to worry about the fundamental
 problem of its  interpretation.
 . . .they do not worry about it. A year or so ago . . . . .
our conversation turned to a young theorist who had been quite
 promising as a graduate student and who had then dropped
out of sight. I asked Phil what had interfered with the
ex-student’s research. Phil shook his head sadly and said:
‘ He tried to understand quantum mechanics.’   (!)
===.
Conclusion.
Don’t try to understand quantum theory if you want to reach success.
==.

Page 138.
‘ It is true  . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
 reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
 simple have no meaning.’

My opinion.
It is true we cannot reach the zero temperature T=0K.
But just because we cannot reach this Vacuum’s
parameter,  does it mean that it have no meaning ?

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,
 does it make a sound?
If unseen virtual antiparticles can appear from vacuum  (!)
( Vacuum’s  fluctuations / transformation / polarization )
and we can observe them as a real particles doesn’t it mean
that vacuum itself is a real structure, that without vacuum
 we haven’t  matter world.
==.
About that philosophy we are talking if we don't know
what is the vacuum,
what is the quantum particle ( they say it is math point),
what is an electron (electron has six formulas and many theories)
what is the reason of 'dualism of particle' . . . . etc ?
=.
P.S.
Well, that's Philosophy I've read,
And Law and Medicine, and I fear
Theology, too, from A to Z;
Hard studies all, that have cost me dear.
And so I sit, poor silly man
No wiser now than when I began.

 / Faust, lines 354–59. /
==.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[John Mikes]

Nice figments!
Brent and Socratus and others: I will happily e-mail my essay on Science -
Religion (the '-' stands for '=')- of 2000 upon request. The original
URL-owner went out of business, I do have the copy.
JM

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:24 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net <
socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote:

>   Nobody has "seen" primary matter,
> but the believer in it usually   attribute it a fundamental role in
> our existence.
> ===.
>
> What is a primary matter from modern scientific point of view ?
> It is  'quantum  virtual particles'  and ' cosmic dark mass and
> energy'
> The problem is that nobody explain their concrete physical parameters.
> I explain this loss link.
> The  ' quantum virtual particles '  have following concrete
> parameters:
> C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1, e^i(pi)= -1.
> ===..
> socratus
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

On Jan 11, 7:24 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" 
wrote:
>   Nobody has "seen" primary matter,
> but the believer in it usually   attribute it a fundamental role in
> our existence.
> ===.
>
> What is a primary matter from modern scientific point of view ?
> It is  'quantum  virtual particles'  and ' cosmic dark mass and
> energy'
> The problem is that nobody explain their concrete physical parameters.
> I explain this loss link.
> The  ' quantum virtual particles '  have following concrete
> parameters:
> C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1, e^i(pi)= -1.
> ===..
> socratus


Pre-universe ( pre-condition) is vacuum : T=0K
The Universe ( as a whole) is a double World:
next to Material World ( a few % of whole mass of the Universe)
exist Vacuum World ( with more than 90% of whole mass of the
Universe).
=
socratus


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Richard Ruquist]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:26 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
 wrote:
> In beginning was Word.
> And the Word was written by the formula: T=0K.

 soc,
You may be ripe to believe in string consciousness
for its ontological basis is a cubic lattice
of Calabi-Yau compact manifolds
at absolute zero, T=0K,
from which arithmetic consciousness emerges
yanniru.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Jan 2013, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/8/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:53, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 Roger Clough  wrote:

> Theism, like atheism, is unprovable.

Why is that? You're saying that even though God is omnipotent He  
is incapable of proving His existence to us. I can prove my  
existence to you


I doubt this. You can give me evidence, but not a proof, unless a  
trivial definition of "you". Proving is only theoretical. We cannot  
prove the existence of anything real.


You are using a narrow conception of 'proof', i.e. logical proof.   
But there is also empirical proof and legal 'proof beyond a  
reasonable doubt'.


Yes. I use proof in the strong sense.




We can just find evidence supporting (pace David Deutsch) or  
refuting some hypotheses. In science we never know as such.


If you cannot know anything except what you can prove in mathematics


You cannot know that too. Well, except perhaps for arithmetic.



then you never know anything except tautologies of the form "If x  
then x."


Arithmetic is far richer than tautologies. Do you think Fermat theorem  
is a tautology? If yes, then you just mean "theorem", but not all  
theorem can be proved as "if x then x", you need no logical axiom as  
well, that is some theoretical axioms. This entails already the  
existence of the contingencies and local realities.


Bruno






Brent



Bruno



but God can not. That seems a bit odd to me.

   John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6017 - Release Date:  
01/07/13


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

  Quantum electrodynamics + Biology = Who am I ?
 ==.
Cells make copies of themselves.
Different cells make different copies of themselves.
Cells  come in all shapes and sizes.
Somehow these different cells are tied between themselves
 and during pregnancy process of  9 months gradually ( ! )
and by chance ( or not by chance )  they change  own
geometrical form from zygote to a child.
Cells  come in all shapes and sizes, and then . . . they are you.
Cells  they are you  ( !? )
This is modern biomechanical /chemical  point of view.
#
Maybe 99% agree that ‘Cells - they are you .’
But this explanation  is not complete.
Cells have an energy / electrical potential.
Cells have an electromagnetic field.
Therefore we need to say:
‘ Cells  and electromagnetic field - they are you.’
===.
Is this formulation correct?
Of course it is correct.
Why?
Because:
Bioelectromagnetism (sometimes equated with bioelectricity)
 refers to the electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic fields
produced by living cells, tissues or organisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioelectromagnetism

What does it mean?
It means there isn’t biological cell without electromagnetic fields.
It means that in the cell we have two ( 2 ) substances:
matter and electromagnetic fields.
And in 1985   Richard P. Feynman wrote book:
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter

The idea of book -  the interaction between light
( electromagnetic fields ) and matter is strange.

He wrote: ‘ The theory of quantum electrodynamics
describes Nature as absurd from the point of view
of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment.
So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd. ‘
/ page 10. /
#
Once again:
1.
 Cells  and electromagnetic field - they are you.
2.
We  cannot understand their interaction and therefore
we don’t know the answer to the question: ‘ who am I ?’
==.
Where does electromagnetic field come from ?
=.
In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn’t electromagnetic field
( em waves )  without Electron
It means the source of these em waves must be an Electron
The electron and the em waves they are physical reality
Can evolution of consciousness  begin on electron’s level?
==.
Origin of life is a result of physical laws that govern Universe
Electron takes important part in this work.
#
1900, 1905
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
 it means: e = +ah*c  and  e = -ah*c.
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
  +E=Mc^2  and  -E=Mc^2.
According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron’s
energy is infinite: E= ∞
Questions.
Why does the simplest particle - electron have six ( 6 ) formulas ?
Why does electron obey five ( 5) Laws ?
a) Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) Maxwell’s equations
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
d) Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
e) Fermi-Dirac statistics.

   Nobody knows.
.
What is an electron ?
Now nobody knows
 In the internet we can read hundreds theories about electron
All of them are problematical.
We can read hundreds books about philosophy of physics.
But how can we trust them if we don’t know what is an electron ?
.
Ladies and Gentlemen !
Friends !
The banal Electron is not as simple as we think and, maybe,
he is wiser than we are.
=.
 According to Pauli Exclusion Principle
only one single electron can be in the atom.
This electron reanimates the atom.
This electron manages  the atom.
If the atom contains more than one electron (for example - two)
 then this atom represents  a " Siamese twins".
Save us, the Great God, of having such atoms, such children. ( ! )
Each of us has an Electron, but we do not know it. ( ! )
==.
Question:  Can consciousness be introduced into physics?
   Electron  gives the answer to this question.
 =.
  Brain and Electron.
Human brain works on two levels:
consciousness and subconsciousness. The neurons of brain
create these two levels. So, that it means consciousness and
 subconsciousness  from physical point of view ( interaction
between billions and billions neurons and electron).
It can only mean that the state of neurons  in these two
 situations is different.
How can we understand these different states of neurons?
How does the brain generate consciousness?
We can understand this situation only on the quantum level,
only using Quantum theory. But there isn’t QT without
Quantum of Light and Electron. So, what is interaction between
 Quantum of Light, Electron and brain ?
 Nobody knows.
Maybe therefore Michael Talbot wrote:
‘ Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may not be
 the brain that produce consciousness, but rather consciousness
 that creates the appearance of the brain -  . .  . .’
/ Book ‘ The Holographic Universe’  page 160. by  Michael Talbot./
#
Conclusion:
We are cells + Electron.  ( ! )
We must understand not only the cells, brain but electron too.
And when we understand  the Electron
we will know the Ultimate

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

On Jan 8, 12:42 pm, "Roger Clough" wrote:
> Hi meekerdb
>
> Russell was a brilliant logician, but that's all he was.
>
> >
> Brent

To have logical  mind is very good.
But our brain sometime works unconscious.

=.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

On Jan 8, 1:48 am, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 1/7/2013 10:47 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 mailto:spudboy...@aol.com>> wrote:
>
> >     > Consider God, a word for Mind
>
> > OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.
>
> > I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown 
> > to me many
> > people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those 
> > letters and
> > in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't 
> > matter what it
> > means.
>
> An observation also made by Bertrand Russell,"People are more unwilling to 
> give up the
> word 'God' than to give up the idea for which the word has hitherto stood"
>
> Brent


In beginning was Word.
And the Word was written by the formula: T=0K.
===



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

On Jan 7, 7:53 pm, John Clark  wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 Roger Clough  wrote:
>
> > Theism, like atheism, is unprovable.
>
> Why is that? You're saying that even though God is omnipotent He is
> incapable of proving His existence to us. I can prove my existence to you
> but God can not. That seems a bit odd to me.
>
>    John K Clark

God is Atheist by His nature.

==

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

On Jan 7, 6:42 pm, John Clark  wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:47 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net 
> > wrote:
> > Science is a religion by itself. Why?
> > Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe
> > only using physical laws, formulas, equations.
>
> Then God must get very board because that really doesn't leave much for Him
> to do. Why do you even bother to invent Him?
>
>   John K Clark


I don't need ' to invent Him.'
He and His Souls are hidden in the formulas
==
socratus

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[meekerdb]

On 1/8/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:53, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 Roger Clough mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>> wrote:

> Theism, like atheism, is unprovable.


Why is that? You're saying that even though God is omnipotent He is incapable of 
proving His existence to us. I can prove my existence to you


I doubt this. You can give me evidence, but not a proof, unless a trivial definition of 
"you". Proving is only theoretical. We cannot prove the existence of anything real.


You are using a narrow conception of 'proof', i.e. logical proof.  But there is also 
empirical proof and legal 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'.


We can just find evidence supporting (pace David Deutsch) or refuting some hypotheses. 
In science we never know as such.


If you cannot know anything except what you can prove in mathematics then you never know 
anything except tautologies of the form "If x then x."


Brent



Bruno



but God can not. That seems a bit odd to me.

   John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything 
List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.

For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6017 - Release Date: 01/07/13

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything 
List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> there is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian
> "theory".
>

Conservative Christianity is deplorable in a great number of ways but it is
superior to liberal theology in one important regard, it states that it
might be a good idea if words actually mean something.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Roger Clough]

Hi John Clark. 

God so far has proven his existence to nobody, 
unless subjectively (spiritually), primarily because God is  
subjective, not objective.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/8/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Bruno Marchal  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-08, 09:56:46 
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. 




On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:53, John Clark wrote: 


On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 Roger Clough  wrote: 



> Theism, like atheism, is unprovable. 

Why is that? You're saying that even though God is omnipotent He is incapable 
of proving His existence to us. I can prove my existence to you 


I doubt this. You can give me evidence, but not a proof, unless a trivial 
definition of "you". Proving is only theoretical. We cannot prove the existence 
of anything real. We can just find evidence supporting (pace David Deutsch) or 
refuting some hypotheses. In science we never know as such. 


Bruno 




but God can not. That seems a bit odd to me. 

   John K Clark  



--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:53, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 Roger Clough  wrote:

> Theism, like atheism, is unprovable.

Why is that? You're saying that even though God is omnipotent He is  
incapable of proving His existence to us. I can prove my existence  
to you


I doubt this. You can give me evidence, but not a proof, unless a  
trivial definition of "you". Proving is only theoretical. We cannot  
prove the existence of anything real. We can just find evidence  
supporting (pace David Deutsch) or refuting some hypotheses. In  
science we never know as such.


Bruno



but God can not. That seems a bit odd to me.

   John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Jan 7, 2013   wrote:

> Consider God, a word for Mind

OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.

I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is  
unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but  
not the word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just  
will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means.


GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more  
neutral than "Universe", which is the third Aristotelian God, and  
which does not belong to what constitutes the "being" for the  
Platonist. Since about 1500 years, the term "God" has acquired many  
christian cultural colors, but there is no reason to identify God with  
the God-father of Christian "theory". God has no name, in many  
theologies, so all terms to designate it can only be a fuzzy pointer.  
Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the abramanic  
god, but with a less "person" feature. I use the term God to designate  
whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence. With comp,  
I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that role,  
and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus  
'neoplatonism'.


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb  

Russell was a brilliant logician, but that's all he was. 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/8/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: meekerdb  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-07, 19:48:04 
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. 


On 1/7/2013 10:47 AM, John Clark wrote:  
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013   wrote: 



> Consider God, a word for Mind 

OK, I have a mind therefore I am God. 

I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to 
me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. 
Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and 
it doesn't matter what it means. 


An observation also made by Bertrand Russell,"People are more unwilling to give 
up the word ?od? than to give up the idea for which the word has hitherto 
stood? 

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[meekerdb]

On 1/7/2013 10:47 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 mailto:spudboy...@aol.com>> wrote:

> Consider God, a word for Mind


OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.

I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown to me many 
people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word G-O-D. Those letters and 
in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be preserved and it doesn't matter what it 
means.


An observation also made by Bertrand Russell,"People are more unwilling to give up the 
word 'God' than to give up the idea for which the word has hitherto stood"


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[meekerdb]

Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe
only using physical laws, formulas, equations.


Then God must get very board because that really doesn't leave much for Him to 
do. Why do you even bother to invent Him?

   John K Clark


"Any eternal God would be so bored after one eternity that It would do Its best to commit 
suicide by creating an equally adept Opponent.  Half of the time the Opponent would 
succeed and the process would repeat.   It is impossible to know whether the current "God" 
is an even or odd term in the series."

--- Roahn Wynar  :-)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 Roger Clough  wrote:

> Theism, like atheism, is unprovable.


Why is that? You're saying that even though God is omnipotent He is
incapable of proving His existence to us. I can prove my existence to you
but God can not. That seems a bit odd to me.

   John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013   wrote:

> Consider God, a word for Mind


OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.

I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is unknown
to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word
G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do) MUST be
preserved and it doesn't matter what it means.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Roger Clough]

Hi spudboy100  

Theism, like atheism, is unprovable. 
So you have to treat it as an experimental hypothesis.  
Assume that, and see how you life is changed. If at all. 

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/7/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: spudboy100  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-07, 12:53:11 
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. 


Well, another writer/scientist "Bernardo Kastrup" considered the universe a 
run, like computation, because It/He/She is not complete. Hence, our lives, the 
past, the future, and all that. Consider God, a word for Mind, and then pretend 
that mind is a space alien, because It probably is, from human points of view. 
Why limit our concepts of "The Lord" to something Aquinas, Augustin,  or some 
other Church dude said centuries ago? Maybe Its like Skeptic, Michael Shermer 
mused-a space alien? Why peddle the notion that God is all-knowing, because 
maybe It ain't? 



-Original Message- 
From: John Clark  
To: everything-list  
Sent: Mon, Jan 7, 2013 12:42 pm 
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. 


On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:47 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net  wrote: 



> Science is a religion by itself. Why? 
Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe 
only using physical laws, formulas, equations. 


Then God must get very board because that really doesn't leave much for Him to 
do. Why do you even bother to invent Him? 

  John K Clark 

--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 

--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[spudboy100]

Well, another writer/scientist "Bernardo Kastrup" considered the universe a 
run, like computation, because It/He/She is not complete. Hence, our lives, the 
past, the future, and all that. Consider God, a word for Mind, and then pretend 
that mind is a space alien, because It probably is, from human points of view. 
Why limit our concepts of "The Lord" to something Aquinas, Augustin,  or some 
other Church dude said centuries ago? Maybe Its like Skeptic, Michael Shermer 
mused-a space alien? Why peddle the notion that God is all-knowing, because 
maybe It ain't?



-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Jan 7, 2013 12:42 pm
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.


On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:47 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net  
wrote:



> Science is a religion by itself. Why?
Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe
only using physical laws, formulas, equations.


Then God must get very board because that really doesn't leave much for Him to 
do. Why do you even bother to invent Him?

  John K Clark


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:47 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net  wrote:

> Science is a religion by itself. Why?
> Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe
> only using physical laws, formulas, equations.
>

Then God must get very board because that really doesn't leave much for Him
to do. Why do you even bother to invent Him?

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Richard Ruquist]

Roger,

I hate to keep harping on this
but aren't BECs unextended
in space, as you put it.

And if so, life and its machinery
could be embedded a BEC
even if the BEC were extended.

BECs have the kind of magical properties
that suggest that they are outside spacetime.

Richard

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 04 Jan 2013, at 17:44, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>> Hi socra...@bezeqint.net
>>
>> Spirit, like life, like God, like faith, like love, and like mind, is not
>> extended in space
>> Those objects you mention are extended in space.
>
>
> Like numbers, programs and other digital machines.
> Well, even non digital machines, arguably.
>
> Glad you agree that life is not extended in space, but no machinery at all
> really is.
> Eventually they are the builders of space and time.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>>
>>
>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>> 1/4/2013
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: socra...@bezeqint.net
>> Receiver: Everything List
>> Time: 2013-01-04, 04:47:30
>> Subject: Science is a religion by itself.
>>
>>
>> Science is a religion by itself.
>> Why?
>> Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe
>> only using physical laws, formulas, equations.
>> Here is the scheme of His plane.
>> =.
>> God : Ten Scientific Commandments.
>> ? 1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= 8 ,p= 0, t=8 .
>> ? 2. Particles: C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, i^2=-1.
>> ? 3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb.
>> ? 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* .
>> ? 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : HeII -- > HeI -- > H --
>>
>>> . . .
>>
>>
>>
>> ? 6. Proton: (p).
>> ? 7. The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton:
>> a) electromagnetic,
>> b) nuclear,
>> c) biological.
>> ? 8. The Physical Laws:
>> a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy/ Mass,
>> b) Pauli Exclusion Law,
>> c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law.
>> ? 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness.
>> ? 10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation.
>> ===.
>> Best wishes.
>> Israel Sadovnik Socratus
>>
>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/6/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 04 Jan 2013, at 17:44, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi socra...@bezeqint.net

Spirit, like life, like God, like faith, like love, and like mind, is 
not extended in space

Those objects you mention are extended in space.


Like numbers, programs and other digital machines.
Well, even non digital machines, arguably.

Glad you agree that life is not extended in space, but no machinery at 
all really is.

Eventually they are the builders of space and time.

Bruno


Hear Hear!

--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Jan 2013, at 17:44, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi socra...@bezeqint.net

Spirit, like life, like God, like faith, like love, and like mind,  
is not extended in space

Those objects you mention are extended in space.


Like numbers, programs and other digital machines.
Well, even non digital machines, arguably.

Glad you agree that life is not extended in space, but no machinery at  
all really is.

Eventually they are the builders of space and time.

Bruno





[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/4/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: socra...@bezeqint.net
Receiver: Everything List
Time: 2013-01-04, 04:47:30
Subject: Science is a religion by itself.


Science is a religion by itself.
Why?
Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe
only using physical laws, formulas, equations.
Here is the scheme of His plane.
=.
God : Ten Scientific Commandments.
? 1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= 8 ,p= 0, t=8 .
? 2. Particles: C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, i^2=-1.
? 3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb.
? 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* .
? 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : HeII -- > HeI -- > H --


. . .



? 6. Proton: (p).
? 7. The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton:
a) electromagnetic,
b) nuclear,
c) biological.
? 8. The Physical Laws:
a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy/ Mass,
b) Pauli Exclusion Law,
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law.
? 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness.
? 10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus

--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Jan 2013, at 10:47, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:


Science is a religion by itself.
Why?
Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe
only using physical laws, formulas, equations.
Here is the scheme of His plane.
=.
God : Ten Scientific Commandments.
§ 1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= ∞ ,p= 0, t=∞ .
§ 2. Particles: C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, i^2=-1.
§ 3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb.
§ 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* .
§ 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : HeII -- > HeI -- > H --


. . .



§ 6. Proton: (p).
§ 7. The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton:
a) electromagnetic,
b) nuclear,
c) biological.
§ 8. The Physical Laws:
a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy/ Mass,
b) Pauli Exclusion Law,
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law.


That's human hypotheses. (With implicit theological Aristotelian  
assumption, I think).






§ 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness.
§ 10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation.


That's quick.



===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus


Best,

Bruno




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Science is a religion by itself.

[Roger Clough]

Hi socra...@bezeqint.net  

Spirit, like life, like God, like faith, like love, and like mind, is not 
extended in space 
Those objects you mention are extended in space.  


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/4/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: socra...@bezeqint.net  
Receiver: Everything List  
Time: 2013-01-04, 04:47:30 
Subject: Science is a religion by itself. 


Science is a religion by itself. 
Why? 
Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe 
only using physical laws, formulas, equations. 
Here is the scheme of His plane. 
=. 
God : Ten Scientific Commandments. 
? 1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= 8 ,p= 0, t=8 . 
? 2. Particles: C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, i^2=-1. 
? 3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb. 
? 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* . 
? 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : HeII -- > HeI -- > H -- 

> . . . 


? 6. Proton: (p). 
? 7. The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton: 
a) electromagnetic, 
b) nuclear, 
c) biological. 
? 8. The Physical Laws: 
a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy/ Mass, 
b) Pauli Exclusion Law, 
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law. 
? 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness. 
? 10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation. 
===. 
Best wishes. 
Israel Sadovnik Socratus 

--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.