Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jstan
climber
|
|
No, there was a time when only men roamed the Earth and no women....
No, there was a time when only men roamed the Earth and no women roamed the earth(?)
That's easy to understand. The women were all busy counting their treasury bonds.
It does not bother me that homo sapiens' historic over weening narcissism guides this discussion.
I have to see something if it is to be "real"? Good grief!
It has always been that way. But how does one face the fact we, even today, still imagine that to be the way the world is.
Edit:
I have been warned to cease ranting. I can obey, but you need to watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw8XWC6eJuE
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
It is impossible for two people, let alone a man and a woman, to stand on opposite sides of a
burning bush in the desert and accurately describe what they are seeing.
Yes.
That is why there is the observer.
Without the Observer there is no Truth ever.
Stoopid scientist pretend THEY are the observer acting independent.
Stooopid stooopid modern materialistic scientists ......
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
MH2:
A perfect choice of a pictorial metaphor, accompanied by interpretation.
Voltaire was myopic, as the very pictorial implies. There’s no telling. It’s the closeness of observation that brings clarity. Every era brings a perspective. Ours right now is reason and its accompanying derivations: measurement, visually emphasized, rationality, and of course science. It’s all good.
I believe one can and does pop through reality to see more and more of what this is. It appears that barrier continues to be broken through with new or more inclusive and intense paradigms.
It was a great choice of allegories. As an oak might tell to an acorn.
Be well, Buddy.
Moose:
I don’t know. There are many theories about it, I imagine.
DMT:
One can’t really. We’re all on really shaky ground. It seems best to me just to hold all of it in suspension. To include me.
What’s it like to let go of all this baggage called “you?” I can see that right around the corner from me.
|
|
allapah
climber
|
|
When is Mind going to be simply accepted as a given so we could move on to the more advanced matters of WOO VERIFICATION?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The great so called philosopher (fool) Voltaire, his whole writings during his life he tried to disprove the existence of God.
At the end of his life, he went insane, and he was eating his own stool and urine .....
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
The wood engraving from the 1888 book by astronomer Camille Flammarion appears in The Mathematical Experience by Philip J. Davis and Reuben Hersh.
The spread of science into all human activity is cause for alarm and mathematics has become more and more important to science and has itself infiltrated such areas as medicine, sociology, linguistics, and history.
In the chapter of The Mathematical Experience with the Flammarion engraving, Davis and Hersh ask why mathematics has the power to capture many aspects of our reality with economy and elegance.
from that chapter:
One very popular answer has been that God is a Mathematician.
If, like Laplace, you don't think that deity is a necessary hypothesis, you can put it this way: the universe expresses itself naturally in the language of mathematics.
In this view the job of the theorist is to listen to the universe sing and to record the tune.
But there is another view of the matter. This opinion holds that applications of mathematics come about by fiat. We create a variety of mathematical patterns or structures. We are then so delighted with what we have wrought [Cosmic? Locker?], that we deliberately force various physical and social aspects of the universe into these patterns as best we can.
Of course, hardly any scientists live by a consistent creed. Scientists believe simultaneously both in theories and in models, in truth and in expediency.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Thanks, Jan. Good rendition of unsolvable problems for linking method and theory—what is experienced versus What Is. More naturalistic inquiry methods have been making some of these points (albeit, “theoretically”) since the 60s and 70s that I’ve been aware of. To rely upon even a derived form of positivism is loaded with problems large enough to drive the Titanic through. Spiritually, roughly the same recognition has gone back to the earliest times of thought. It’s those darned “emptiness” and “impermanence” things, again.
MH2: If, like Laplace, you don't think that deity is a necessary hypothesis, you can put it this way: the universe expresses itself naturally in the language of mathematics.
The wont to see any issue or question as a choice between only two things is something that you might want to reconsider. Why must there be only two options or choices or interpretations likely? Why aren’t there infinite interpretations? Why aren’t there infinite issues, questions, bracketings? If there were, then one might begin to doubt what initially seems so obvious. It could lead to a view that is completely open-ended, empty, unified, and never-endingly spontaneous.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
the universe expresses itself naturally in the language of mathematics.
That's because it's a holographic simulation.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
The New York Times has an excellent article today titled "A Crisis at the Edge of Physics". It could just as well be titled A Crisis of Theory vs Experimentation or Where the Scientific Method Meets the Woo.
I think the question of whether science is serious about experiment will be answered when we receive the bill for the next super collider. The next one on the planning boards is 100Km in circumference. Would be helpful if we could use room temperature super conductors.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Math works on Earth. Why not on a nano level though?
I stand perplexed . . .
;>\
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Just enjoy the half-time entertainment, jgill. It isn't The Game.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
The wont to see any issue or question as a choice between only two things is something that you might want to reconsider.
Are you talking to me?
See ANY issue as a choice between only two things?
It wasn't my idea but I will be happy to reconsider if you outline the possibilities between:
A. There is a God.
B. There is not a God.
You are free to interpret the word God as you wish.
It looks to me as if the would-be meditators would do well to:
A. Open their focus.
B. Increase their depth of field.
C. Read more carefully.
D. Sound less like politicians reading from their party script.
E. Endless possibilities...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
What's wrong with just plain ole arithmetic .....
:-)
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
The wont to see any issue or question as a choice between only two things is something that you might want to reconsider
Gosh, revelations never cease to appear in this thread. I always thought multiple choice questions should just be this or that. Why all those other choices??
Now I am enlightened.
;>)
(Is suprema from planet Earth?)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
E. Endless possibilities...
Yes this is modern science.
They don't know and no one else knows since modern science is now playing god and authority of who knows.
The new modern sectarian religion .... modern science's gross materialism.
Just guess (endless possibilities) and make theory.
Then conclusion, ... it's all by chance.
So Stooopid ......
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
it's all by chance.
One eternal day, God was flipping a coin and...
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
if you outline the possibilities between:
A. There is a God.
B. There is not a God.
You are free to interpret the word God as you wish.
Fill-in the placeholder “God” with “cannot be said, defined, delineated, modeled, abstracted, conceptualized . . . .”
I don’t expect you to understand what I just wrote. Buddhists have pointed to it as The Tetralema. Consider it a logic question, a linguistics paradox, and a scientific dilemma. Post modernists would understand The Tetralema in a heartbeat, no . . . . less.
It looks to me as if the would-be meditators would do well to:
A. Open their focus.
B. Increase their depth of field.
With all due respect, I don’t think you know at all what you’re talking about with A & B, not to me anyway. I wish I could point you to some serious reading.
C. Read more carefully.
You bet. I promise.
D. Sound less like politicians reading from their party script.
You should hear yourself sometimes, especially people on your side of the science fence.
E. Endless possibilities...
Yes, there are. If you TRULY believe that, then you’ll stop taking a stand. There is nothing to stand on, not as you think or conceptualize it.
(I think we’re becoming antagonistic to one another, and I think that’s new for you and me. I'm sorry about it.)
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 6, 2015 - 08:46pm PT
|
Moose said:
Did you let go?
I wish I knew how.
Shut up and stop calculating.
You won't be able to do it at all without a lot of practice/mind training. No one has stabalized attention (NOT hyperfocusing) without developing that muscle, though MH2 will swear this is untrue because he's wired that way (contrary).
The Suffis - who look at this differently - would tell you that there is no "you" so long as you unconsciously cannot hold your focus without straying. The more you can, the greater the "you," re - you have a solid executive in charge of your own mind.
JL
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!