|
|
Post by dan on Mar 5, 2012 8:55:57 GMT -7
Yesterday, I started reading The Infinity Puzzle by Frank Close. It brings back the days I spent wrestling with physics. There is a message for us in there, somewhere, and it must have something to do with gauge theory. There are no formulas, in this very well written book, but using wiki, I can fill in the mathematical gaps, when inspired. Frank's was one of four books mentioned in House of Dreams, in this week's Economist. I'm not the only who senses a possible metaphysical significance, behind the math and physics. WWGD? She would let some poor physicist tender this brainstorm. This would be the most legal of possible tenders. Rather better than R&D. But if you don't already know the answer, it would be a very big conceptual leap from where physics is now. Someone would require a lot of guidance. And what would they do with the 4M/K.... business? That takes a bit juggling. IMHO, the phenomenal world is a mind-field, with quantum aspects. It is, as Gary likes to keep reminding me, an information field, and that is what gauge fields are about. They are about the sharing of information between, say, paticles or souls, there being only one such, it is just constantly self-informing, if you will. It loves nothing better than to create puzzles for itself, which it then solves, teleologically. Yes, Creation is a massive cheat. It is the best possible free lunch. We are the host, the guests...... and the main entrée! Bon appetite! Mucho gusto! This is what Apokatastasis is all about. Yes, I know how mightily we have fallen for the Idol of Infinity. Cantor, Mr Infinity, tried to warn us, but the temptation was just too great. Gauge theory is all about the avoidance of Infinity, thus the title of Frank's book. It is no small puzzle, that we are presented with, and with which the beautifully minded have struggled, and often lost. Frank brings out the human touch, with a golden touch. Classical physics has ultraviolet divergences, such as with the ultraviolet catastrophe of classical thermodynamics...... Every substance, and even empty space, should have an infinite heat capacity. And every point particle should have an infinite mass. It was pretty ugly, until folks realized that Emmy Noether had, long before, laid the mathematical groundwork for an eventual workaround. Well, it's good enough for gummint-work. It turns out that gauge theories are peculiarly 'renormalizable'. How does this apply to the mind-field? Where lurk the infinities, therein? Off the top, always a reassuring assay, I would guess it has something to do with Mad Max and Meinong. This would be about avoiding the quantitative/objective infinities of God by assigning them to an infinite, subjective love. This is how we ameliorate the Big Crunch of Apokatastasis. This is the labor of Chicken Little. Does this imply that there is an event-horizon for God? Perhaps, or is it how we avoid the horizon and the information paradox, therein, with the holographic principle? And, eventually, all of this should lead to a metaphysical rationale for atoms, going further than the metabolic rationale provided, heretofore, with the BPWH. (cont.) |
|
|
|
Post by dan on Mar 6, 2012 9:34:00 GMT -7
I'm still working on the Higgs mechanism..... using both the Wikipedia and Frank's book. This is encouraging me to focus on the symmetries inherent in the BPWH. The MoAS is the aboriginal soul circle, which would be the cosmic soul in a singular space-time loop. But would there be an aboriginal directionality of the time component, or would that imply that there was already a broken time symmetry? (There was just a call from John S, aboard the ship. It seems that the party is managing well, even in my absence.) If not broken originally, 'when' might the breaking occur, understanding that there probably is no time, per se, outside of time, but, at most, just a sense of a logical scheme of priorities, perhaps. Consider the transition from a single to a double loop/spiral, as a logical step toward the 10^10 fold spiral of the cosmic soul, as we see now. At some point we introduce directionality, and thus the necessity of the time gap, to get from the Omega back to the Alpha, a gap that is partially filled by Noah's time-machine, as we presently suppose. (I did speak to John about the magnified frustration that would be inherent in any extended meeting with Ron. There would naturally arise the prospect of a confrontation, over a span of multiple days.) It seems that the granular aspect of matter would manifest itself in a directionality of time. I'm pointing to the logical origin of entropy and metabolism. Are there any logical steps between the primordial symmetry and its complete absence in the present world, without invoking a big-bang scenario? How would we get from one to two loops, without discontinuity? We might think of this as being similar to DNA replication, and this would seem to require interchangeable parts, and would be irreversible, as in any recording process. Suppose, however, we 'start' with a sensorial/experiential chaos that is, somehow, self-organizing, in which meaningful order is emergent. It would seem that this would still require a primordial self, sensor, or experiencer of some kind. 5pm-------- I would suggest that cognition may be necessary for non-trivial self-organization. IOW, teleology may be be necessary, which requires imagination and normative judgement. Simulations might be computationally possible, but it is not clear that normatively makes sense in that context. But might there emerge more than one cognitive self, out of a primordial chaos? Perhaps a self is necessarily social. A zodiacal circuit might be the minimal cognitive configuration, i.e. something that can exist in semi-isolation, embedded in a chaos of potentia. Can there not be multiples of such zodiacs? Well, I would suggest that there is entailed a cognitive/cosmic/primordial symmetry breaking that is irreproducible outside of a space-time context, which context emerges only from that Source. There can be no omega without an alpha, and vice-versa. This is the primordial chicken&egg problem, which can only be resolved in potentia. And it can only be resolved once. Where is free-will? Or is this the original sin? Felix Culpa. Thus is the symmetry of the Potentia broken or crystalized in a Singular manner. The BPW is, somehow, already a gleam in the eye of the Source. That is its raison-d'être, after all. We are the pearl of that seed. Disclosure/revelation is the seed of that realization. Iran blinks. Are we back from that brink? What is the next brink? 7:15------------ Then there is this economic bright spot...... www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/world/extreme-poverty-down-despite-recession-world-bank-data-show.html?_r=1&hp Maybe this is what Ron was trying to tell me..... that we are now expected to muddle through, into a gradual, spontaneous paradigm shift. Forget the revolution. This is good news for all of us. Now, if we can just keep the fertility rate decreasing globally...... Then, maybe, we can all start to breathe again. (cont.) |
|
|
|
Post by dan on Mar 7, 2012 8:27:14 GMT -7
If there can exist two independent/isolated selves, then there would exist an infinite number of them. But what would separate them, other than, possibly, space-time, which, perforce exists only epiphenomenally? But what about UTs? Don't they exist in separate realms? IMO, the partitioning of said realms requires special efforts or provisions. Otherwise they naturally tend to coalesce, as they are about to do, in a gradual fashion, leading up to the Apokatastasis of our Omega. This is what the Eschaton is about. The reason there cannot be isolated selves is because of the naturalness of telepathy. Within Creation, telepathy may be suppressed by various means, while our infra and supra conscious states are not so isolated. Our ego consciousness will gradually be subsumed by the other, less isolated, states. In the ultimate Zodiacal state, individuality will be quite optional. I was suggesting, above, that Creation has to do with zodiacal replication, not unlike DNA replication. Is this an attempt at theological reductionism? No, it is only to suggest and explain the participatory nature of Creation. God is one and many, at the same time. This is the whole point of trinitarianism, is it not? Multiple persons in one substance. We are the MPD/DID of God, where the 'disorder' part is definitely to be taken in quotes! A person kept in isolation, automatically reverts to MPD states. 'Telepathy' between such states is then the healing process. Is anything lost in that healing process? No, everything is gained. Creation, then, is the telepathic healing of the primordial MPD/DID. Well, here I speak of Creation in toto..... the Alpha&Omega. We are now at the apogee of the micro/ego conscious phase. The purpose of Disclosure/Revelation is to begin the alignment of our hearts, minds and egos, in preparation for the global macrocosmic phase, the Kingdom Come (KC), that ends in the Omega/Apokatastasis/Rapture (OAR). When speaking of phase changes and alignments, there are some very powerful physical analogies that can serve as models and metaphors for these processes that we are attempting to examine. These models are what I have been brushing up on, with the help of wikipedia and Frank's Infinity Puzzle, for the past couple of days. What I am hoping is that the metaphors may be partially reversible, wherein the metaphysics may afford some insight into the physics. I would need a breakthrough along these lines so that this MoAPS could transcend the lack of a Disclosure. This is desperation speaking! What happened to yesterday's patience/fatalism? Can't I keep my Chicken Little ego in check? Well, show me a physicist who does not have nobelitis, and I'll show you someone who has thrown in the towel. There is no problem of understanding the necessity of atoms. The problem is to understand their provenance, or the process of their emergence. How did atoms start 'breathing'.....how will we stop? Presumably, these to items are not unrelated. Or, to put it another way...... The answer is all too obvious. The problem is to demonstrate the inescapability of that answer. Which means to show how, per impossible? Or it is to use the answer to provide a useful perspective on physics. It probably has something to do with Gary's informationalism and the quantum connection therein. The observer problem of QM is pointing to the manner of the breathing. Or, how do we explain the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics? Gauge theory can be seen as a form of informationalism.... It explains how and why particles communicate. Gauge, herein, is synonymous with symmetry, and we're referring to Emmy's theorem. The Higgs' boson....the God particle.... is the ultimate gauge particle. Gauge particles are supposed to be massless, but, due to the intervention of the electric field, the Higgs eats the otherwise missing, massless, goldstones of electroweak, and so it gets fat, and then lends its mass to every other particle, except the photon. Hey, I didn't make this stuff up. I'm just telling you what I hear. 2pm-------- Speaking with Don Ecker....... For over an hour. He is sending me a copy of Ingo's book, Penetration. 5:30---------- And then there is this...... (cont.) |
|
|
|
Post by dan on Mar 9, 2012 8:58:09 GMT -7
Don Ecker sent me a copy of Ingo's Penetration. Paper copies start at $200. This was by way of a possible link between our respective interests. Don is particularly interested in the Phobos incident, and the like. Gary has been on his show several times. I haven't examined the archive to see if there are other overlaps. We also have a common interest in Vallee and Keel. I suggested that we would probably need at least two of his two hour shows to be able to have a go at the BPWH. I'm supposed to get back with some talking points. In the meantime, I continue to review the field of physics, mainly with my trusty wiki, for models and metaphors that might be relevant to the BPWH. Renormalization is one such metaphor, as explicated by Close and wiki. I'm just trying to make God more accessible, which puts me at odds with the monotheistic tradition which want nothing more than to idolize God, i.e. putting God on the pedestal of infinity, totally out of reach from our mortal, finite selves. This move was countered, in part, by Jesus. It has yet to be completed. That renormalization will constitute the bulk of Disclosure/Revealtion. The primary tool, in that regard, is the notion of the universal soul, of which all sapient beings partake. We time share it, right along with the Zodiacal/Trinitarian divinity. Dang my heretical share of that soul. The gauge fields that are necessary for renormalization, have the flavor of a cosmic pre-geometry and of informationalism. The cosmic soul, in our temporal realm, takes on the form of the silver thread of Indra's net/necklace, we being the pearls on the silver 'chord'. We are the zodiacal condensations/chords on that cord. We are the standing waves. Why just sapience? Why not include protozoa? Am I some kind of chauvinist? No, just a moralist, and morals/ norms are an essential component of sapience. Norms are irreducible, and they do logically point to a golden rule of some sort. Language is just an exercise in interactive normativity. Words do not convey meaning, they are just the resonators of ideas, rather as notes do not convey a song, but, instead, just hum a few bars...... The silver thread is also the cosmic catgut. This is how the Pythagoreans got us into cosmic harmonies and mathematical physics. And the shipboard party is winding down. 1:30--------- But I'm still not getting a handle on those darned atoms. Do we go at them from the mathematical or from the biological side, or do we have to do both? Besides what connects the Alpha&Omega, there may be also be a bridge between us and the atoms. It would be more logical/conceptual, in nature. Or how about between us and the zodiac? Do we stand between the atom and the zodiac? That seems about right. Each pearl is zodiacal..... something like a prism, dialing the colors of the soul. Iridescence is a world that comes to mind, as in Salmo Irideus, thanks to CoR. In physics, we call these dispersion relations. It seems like we may also be talking about S-matrix theory. Geoffrey Chew is one of my heroes. He used this theory to promulgate a timeless, bootstrapped model of the world. This gets us right into string theory which partakes of the holographic principle. And take a look at the AdS/CFT correspondence. And see the Illusion of Gravity. (cont.)
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Mar 11, 2012 13:07:08 GMT -7
I'm still reading ST Yau's Shape of Inner Space, while keeping up with the companion entries in Wiki, and the New Yorker and NYT articles. I'm just trying to see if there are any insights that might be applicable to the BPWH. (cont.) |
|
|
|
Post by dan on Mar 12, 2012 7:52:14 GMT -7
I'm hoping that we can use geometrical ideas related to string theory in order to construct higher order 'geometric' approximations to the the BPWH. The 'zeroth order' approximation is just the circle. The ouroboros might then be the first order approximation. The notion of a recirulating soul provides a second order. That this soul keeps returning to a center, like the spokes on a wheel provides a third order. That this center be displaced toward the ouroboric, A/O, gap, where the rapture and Naohic return occur, is yet another order. Then we need to figure where to place the holographic screen that produces the space-time illusion, and how to place the mathematical sector of this theory. This latter problem relates to the treatment of the atomic scale. There are various dualities that need to be addressed, of a 'hollow-earth' variety, as with the compactification of space-time. And, no, I don't know how to handle all those non-sapient creatures. Can an active, constructive role be assigned to them, based somewhat on their degrees of sentience? Will they help us to understand the role and placement of atoms, within the BPWH? And, finally, can all of these various elements be placed within a coherent context that will, hopefully, afford new insights and conclusions? This is a tall order. And I still don't even know how to handle Indra's necklace, that would be our collective soul. The pearls might be our individual personas, and the string and/or net would be our collective Ucs. That would be the archetypal space where most of the action occurs. I'm thinking of a mesh of pearls surrounding a Faberge egg, that is our hollow Earth. The sun and stars are on the inside. The Jungian Ucs and heaven are on the outside. There are various astrological dualities being manifested, between the inner and outer realms. Thus are we the dwellers of Plato's cave. We are seeing the shadows on the wall. We can only guess at what is producing the shadows. This metaphor is, in turn, reminiscent of the holographic theories of Talbot and of 't Hooft, respectively. The BPWH just needs to place that metaphor within this larger, proposed, 'geometric' construct. As we fill in these dots or gaps, a larger coherent picture will emerge. That is the gamble that is the BPWH. Where, for instance, do we place Heaven, in the now external, archetypal realm? Or is it just some kind of a boundary or limit? Within geometry and topology, one often refers to the compactified 'point' at infinity. That point/hub may represent a limit-space of whatever kind. The previously postulated 'spokes' would then attach to the 'hub' at infinity, i.e. be external to our putative hollow-earth. Well, this gives you a flavor of the kind of conceptual juggling that goes on wrt finding useful, working models for the BPWH. Where, then, is the holographic screen? Is it just the surface of our new earth, separating the inner and outer realms, with the outer space now being internally compacted? The houses of the zodiac are also the Olympiad mansions that may be annexed to heaven proper, as are we, the Grand Central station. But, with this model, I don't know how to include the A/O gap. It could be a compactified polar axis, but then it also needs to be adjacent to the external Hub, which was supposed to be the point at infinity. What I'm seeing now is a figure-8 arrangement, which could also be a Klein bottle, which takes us back to an earlier representation of the BPWH, as drawn on the original Aquarium site. I need to get a drawing application for the iPad. And where the heck can the atoms be placed, on this scheme, not to mention the fossils, supposing that they represent separate conceptual domains? Maybe that's what I'm trying to plot, here...... The whole caboodle is a kind of conceptual space. Penrose was trying to do something like this with his triangular.... mind/matter/math diagram. Here's another example...... One of the zodiacal mansions could be a veritable Jurassic park, wherein the fossils may be conjured, live, in preparation for their Darwinian/skeletal cameos. This is how we try to kill several birds with one conceptual stone. So, are we going to have atomic and math parks? How might they be attached, in a way that could make some sort of topological/conceptual sense? Maybe we need a set of Darwinian pearls, that end with atomic, big-bang and math domains. Where would the BB fit wrt atoms and math? So then we would also have a moral space. Indra's necklace is becoming a Pandora's box. Each pearl reflects all the others. Obviously, there are going to have to be several necklaces, which leads us back to the net. We also need to make liberal use of the ideas of symmetry breaking and phase transitions. This may be how we can hope glue the pieces together. Math and love are then in a duality, one complementing the other. The Mandelbrot/Monster/Atom/e^i*pi is a compactification of math, while God is the compactification of love? No?! Hey, it's not obvious? Does this provide any insight into the 'breathing of fire' into the formulas? Both math and the fossils end up being 'burried' within the 'material' realm of space-time. The Darwinian/Jurassic realm points to a chain-of-being that ends up with Protozoa and atoms. There are and Anthropic and mental connections, therein. Math is somewhat of a fossil wrt God. It does provide a glue or sinews. It is another point of leverage wrt the BPW. Math is what holds the world together, when we're not looking. It supplements the various cycles that also make up the BPW. The modern, mundane realm is a regime in which, like the quarks in the nucleus, we exercise our asymptotic freedom. But outside of that regime, we are constrained by the gluons. Nearer to either the Alpha or the Omega, we are dominated by the gluons, wherein we partake of the bicameral tribal, or telosic, telepathic regimes. We exist in a more liquid phase, if you will. Our minds are in rather more of a magnetic alignment. There may be magnons that take on larger than life personas. Our historical avatars/seers verge on such collective entities/excitations. God is such an entity. These collective modes will gradually be rising to our consciousness, as we progress toward the Omega. Dinosaurs and mathematical entities both inhabit an archetypal/totemic realm. So do our genes or, rather, our phylo-/onto- genomes. Yes. That is part of Indra's silver 'chord'. Time-slices of the phenomenal world are projected, holographically, off of the pearls on the cord. Our personal, Akashic selves are the pieces of the cosmic hologram. Does it all mesh together into a coherent whole? Well, that's the goal of this exercise in meta-mathematics. The mundane world is the correlator of our holographic/akashic selves. Or, it is the A/O that is the ultimate focus or hub, where everything meshes, teleologically. That is the agape of the apoche, which is the cosmic soul. At the other end of the cosmic soul is the cosmic atom, somewhat in the relation of A&O to each other. That is the chain of being, which has less circularity than the ouroboros, but which would have a mathematical closure. The mathematical side might begin in logic and end in deontology. Yes? With the logics also connecting to the quantum logic of the atom..... That there may be branch points in these various circuits is something that one usually tries to avoid. (cont.) |
|
gary
Full Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by gary on Mar 12, 2012 20:26:56 GMT -7
Dan, this might be of use? to your explorations ... arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510188On Math, Matter and Mind Piet Hut (IAS), Mark Alford (WashU), Max Tegmark (MIT) (Submitted on 21 Oct 2005 (v1), last revised 15 Jan 2006 (this version, v2)) We discuss the nature of reality in the ontological context of Penrose's math-matter-mind triangle. The triangle suggests the circularity of the widespread view that math arises from the mind, the mind arises out of matter, and that matter can be explained in terms of math. Non-physicists should be wary of any claim that modern physics leads us to any particular resolution of this circularity, since even the sample of three theoretical physicists writing this paper hold three divergent views. Some physicists believe that current physics has already found the basic framework for a complete description of reality, and only has to fill in the details. Others suspect that no single framework, from physics or other sources, will ever capture reality. Yet others guess that reality might be approached arbitrarily closely by some form of future physics, but probably based on completely different frameworks. We will designate these three approaches as the fundamentalist, secular and mystic views of the world, as seen by practicing physicists. We present and contrast each of these views, which arguably form broad categories capturing most if not all interpretations of physics. We argue that this diversity in the physics community is more useful than an ontological monoculture, since it motivates physicists to tackle unsolved problems with a wide variety of approaches. |
|
|
|
Post by dan on Mar 13, 2012 7:15:56 GMT -7
In developing the BPWH, a common strategy is to keep on the lookout for possible fatal flaws. Finding such, then leads to constructing a work around, which is usually a form of hand-waving. Let's take a seemingly simple example of a fatal flaw....... Spilt milk. In an ideal world, there should not be spilt-milk. We hardly ever intend to spill our milk. If the world is a construct of mind, then in whose mind is there this construct of spilt-milk? This is where the hand-waving begins...... We must appeal to some higher necessity, out of which, spilt-milk is just a minor annoyance. In a world where it is impossible to spill milk, one could argue that it would also be impossible to water the garden. This is just the kind of necessity that is appealed to in the notion of a best 'possible' world. So, maybe, you'll give me a pass on the spilt milk. Gary, Thanks for that link, I was trying to find it earlier...! BTW, Don E called Bill L about coming on C2C with him. Bill declined. I haven't yet gotten back to Don about coming on his show. ---------- But let's not stop with the spilt milk. Suppose that in the process of spilling the milk, the glass is knocked off the table, and proceeds to break on the tile floor. Boo hoo! Is this a bigger whoopee? Not really, but it does put more emphasis on the next problem...... When the milk is spilt, we just wipe it up, and then it's out of sight and out of mind. We hardly attend to the hydrodynamics of the spillage. But when glass breaks or cracks, the record of the event may be lasting. Consider the tree branch that fell on my car during that hurricane that came up the east coast, last fall, if memory serves. Well, having replaced the back window, I'm still picking pieces of it out of the trunk, months later. Now, car windows are designed to shatter in a relatively harmless manner, and so there are supposed to be lots of little pieces. Wonderful! Not so the wine glass. There can be ugly shards, upon which one might stumble and bleed to death, while still inebriated, or so I've been told! There might even be a question of foul-play, and a forensics team might be called in to examine the crime scene, ugly shards and all. (BTW, my grandmother, as a young girl, lost an eye, falling on a broken milk bottle.) Was the wine glass broken by accident, or was there a deliberate planting of certain shards? These are questions that might be addressed with a knowledge of crystalline defects in solid-state physics. There are elaborate theories of such 'defects', which may be deliberately induced, on an atomic scale, in the production of certain kinds of semi-conductors. Again, all is relatively good, and relatively 'ideal'. But wait...... Aren't we missing something? The breaking of a glass should be a paradigmatic example of the operation of reductionistic physics, all the way down to the atomic scale. Sure, I can easily say, as I often do, thank goodness for atomic/quantum physics, without which there would be no metabolism, given that the Creator might have reasons for permitting and requiring metabolic systems. And, sure, I can come up with a plethora of such reasons, at the drop of a hat. But, no, that's still not the issue...... Can you tell that I'm struggling to explicate the 'issue'? I want to ask if the devil is in the details, but I don't believe in the devil. I'm a monotheist, albeit, with strong trinitarian proclivities. The forensic physicist, wanting to determine the cause of the broken wineglass would, conceivably, have to solve the Schroedinger's equation for the falling glass, atomic defects and all. But where was said physicist during the original event? Who was calculating the Schroedinger's equation, pray tell? In metabolic systems, one may appeal to the natural, metamorphic, phenomenological cycles. The physics is then, presumably, subsumed by the habituated phenomenology; however large that presumption may be. In the virtual reconstruction of natural landscapes, for instance, fractals are liberally employed. Can we not vouchsafe such fractals to God? Well, fractals, even the most efficient amongst them, are notoriously profligate of computer time. Where is God's computer? Otherwise, we have to appeal to the very reductive reality of an infinitude of very real atoms. Whatever happened to the immaterialism of the BPWH, we'd like to know? Now you know what keeps me up, nights. Broken wineglasses..... Sure, ok, sh*t happens! Does sh*t defeat immaterialism? A lot of us philosophers could have saved a lot of spilt ink, if only we had realized! Let's get over it! Let's move on........ And so the cookie crumbles..... But wait.... Supposing that cookies didn't crumble. Ooops! Not good. Ok, but who is going to calculate the crumbles, if not the Betty Crocker atoms, all by their little, reducible selves, totally oblivious to the cosmic telos, or whatever. More power to the atoms? Supposing that God did wish to grant limited powers to the atoms. Per impossible? Are not atoms just a mental construct? But where would we be without the atomic physics of evaporation and condensation? Does the rain not fall on the righteous and sinful, alike? Cloud seeding and rain-dancing, aside. Where would we be without casinos? It may not be a question of whether God plays dice. The real question may be, can God play dice? If my grandmother had not been partially blinded, then who knows how everything might have been different? Who then would have written Ike's tax code, or designed our flag? Being thus stigmatized, she was, thereby, granted more social license, such as in marriage. Tell me I'm wrong. My problem is to explain how idealists might go about empowering atoms, if we so choose. Here is a classic case of the delegation of authority, almost as if out of the HBS case-book. For one thing, according to the BPWH, you and I are the primary beneficiaries of this chain of delegation. Despite the fact that most of us sapients do everything we can to deny our authority. Stage-fright? From whence cometh my license, if not from Mr. Ego? Having been granted this authority, how might we endeavor to pass it on? The Devil made me do it?! My genes made me do it? My mother made me do it? A transistor fails, and an airliner crashes. I delegate much of my grunt work to my transistors, not to mention my poor little neurons. So, may I not delegate the crumbling of my cookies to those BC atoms? When I bite the apple, something has to give, and, hopefully, it won't be my teeth. Will there be apples in Heaven? Perhaps not. Suppose I go to heaven and get a hankering for a nice crispy apple? Am I sh*t out of luck? Hmmm..... I could suggest that you revisit Eden. I know where there are some real juicy ones! Just, please, don't tell God that I sent you! And now we have the Fertility Implosion...... Where are those apples when we need them?! We delegate authority to our pets..... Guarding the house, dispatching the mice. We cultivate a veritable microbial jungle in our gut, to aid with digesting those pizzas. As much as we also delegate to our usually trustworthy transistors. If only Carey had anti-lock brakes. We delegate power to the transistors...... but how? By design? We design transistors. God designs atoms. Is there a problem with that? Why can't I do word processing in my dreams? MS Word.... dream version, 2.0. I'm sure that those poor Softies dream about MS Word much more than they would prefer. There, but by the grace of God, go the rest of us. We are happy to delegate such onerous metaphysical chores. Have my hands been sufficiently waved? The BPWH is somewhat of a shaggy-dog version of Scheherazade. It's Just So. If you find a better way, then you can be beSoTted. We program transistors. Does God program atoms? IMHO, we all do that, particularly wrt to the Telos, in which we all participate. How do we do that? In our dreams?! Where else? In our imaginations? You name it..... But how do we make it stick? Do we have to breathe fire into our daydreams? Or are they the fire? Does the answer lie in the Infinity Puzzle or in the Shape of Inner Space? How do atoms and transistors differ from our opposable thumbs, ontogenetically speaking? Hey, help me out..... Is it phylogeny that recapitulates ontogeny, or is ontogeny that recapitulates phylogeny? And do we have a need to know? Wineglasses are designed to break, by God and by us. How do they break? How do we break? Sometimes in car crashes, due to malfunctioning anti-lock brakes. Or like a little girl? Don't want to die? Want perpetual progress? I know a nice apple tree...... (cont.) |
|
gary
Full Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by gary on Mar 13, 2012 16:24:27 GMT -7
Broken wine glass ... ~ 5:30
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Mar 14, 2012 6:09:39 GMT -7
Gary,
Thanks. Yes, 2001 was a game changer, both in fiction and in politics, as it turned out.
I think we do have a better handle on atoms, now......... There is a logical progression from thumb > transistor > atom.... toolwise
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Mar 14, 2012 6:18:41 GMT -7
Gary,
Thanks. Yes, 2001 was a game changer, both in fiction and in politics, as it turned out.
I think we do have a better handle on atoms, now......... There is a logical progression from thumb > transistor > atom.... toolwise.
An atom is neither ontologically nor ontogenetically different from a thumb. The atom is the logical extension or completion of the thumb, can't have one without the other.
The next logical step, in recapping what is on the BPW site and what was on the OM forum, is to move from the external to the internal. What we see externally is just the logical projection of what exists internally, which is the cosmic soul.
To this end, I'll jump from here to a new thread...... Know Thyself....
.
|
|
gary
Full Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by gary on Mar 14, 2012 14:26:42 GMT -7
"The atom is the logical extension or completion of the thumb, can't have one without the other."
Dan, the BIG QUESTION is: Since atoms can be in more than one place at the same time, what about thumbs?
I post this question on the new thread as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by mdonnall2002 on Apr 17, 2012 12:41:32 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Apr 18, 2012 7:38:47 GMT -7
|
|
