Re: Mind's Eye Instinct for survival

Not sure I can agree as it depends on whether you and your culture are
rational. Without "right reason" there is less/no chance of morality
or wisdom. One can call something a word that is essentially false but
taken as truth/goodness.

On Dec 5, 9:19 pm, James <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I could reference the plot of Enemy Mine but that would only prove two
> things: my memory is junk, and I'm too trapped in that trivia world Neil
> mentions. In my view morality resides among human faculties, perhaps
> next to wisdom. Parallel worlds makes me think of perception trained on
> divergent and sometimes conflicting narratives, that's just a notion
> that passed me the other day.
>
> Now I'm pondering why I sound like an antimonian but think like Jude. :/
>
> On 12/5/2012 5:49 PM, gabbydott wrote:
>
>
>
> > Oh yes, please, explain the mouse matrix to Neil! :)
>
> > 2012/12/5 Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com <mailto:allanh1...@gmail.com>>
>
> >     Neil even science today is a best guess, as you put it an M Mouse
> >     the theory of physics is based off an assumption  .. and that
> >     assumption is so widely accepted as being true  that you no longer
> >     realize it is an best guess..
>
> >     Without that best guess you are playing with m mouse.  I am laughing
> >     as I am wondering if you even know that basic assumption.
> >     Allan
>
> >     Matrix  **  th3 beginning light
>
> >     On Dec 5, 2012 9:58 AM, "archytas" <nwte...@gmail.com
> >     <mailto:nwte...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >         On he unlikeliness of a beginning see Susskind -
> >        http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.5385v1.pdf
> >         - it's free.  There's a 'sort of' answer to your 'centre'
> >         question in
> >         it James - sadly not starring M.Mouse so you and I can grasp it.
> >         Big Bang was not claimed as fact in science and nor was its
> >         successor
> >         that has an air of rigs' negative space about it.  Inflation theory
> >         runs, more or less, like this:
> >           Inflation starts with a vacuum in an unusually high energy
> >         state and
> >         with a negative pressure. Together these give the vacuum repulsive
> >         gravity that pushes things apart rather than draws them
> >         together. This
> >         inflates the vacuum, making it more repulsive, which causes it to
> >         inflate even faster.
>
> >         But the inflationary vacuum is quantum in nature, which makes it
> >         unstable. All over it, and at random, bits decay into a normal,
> >         everyday vacuum. Imagine the vacuum as a vast ocean of boiling
> >         water,
> >         with bubbles forming and expanding across its length and
> >         breadth. The
> >         energy of the inflationary vacuum has to go somewhere and it
> >         goes into
> >         creating matter and heating it to a ferocious temperature inside
> >         each
> >         bubble. It goes into creating big bangs. Our universe is inside one
> >         such bubble that appeared in a big bang 13.7 billion years ago.  One
> >         of the striking features of inflation is that it is eternal. New
> >         high-
> >         energy vacuum is created far faster than it is eaten away by its
> >         decay
> >         into ordinary vacuum, which means that once inflation starts, it
> >         never
> >         stops and universes bubble off forever in the future. But because
> >         eternal inflation avoids the dreaded singularity, it opens up the
> >         possibility that this has always been the case with universes
> >         bubbling
> >         off forever in the past too.
>
> >         Other models include the "cyclic universe" developed within string
> >         theory by Neil Turok. Here, our universe is a four-dimensional
> >         island,
> >         or "brane", in a higher dimensional space. It collides
> >         repeatedly with
> >         a second brane. Think of the two branes as two parallel slices of
> >         bread, coming together along a fifth dimension, passing through each
> >         other, pulling apart again, then coming together again. Each
> >         time the
> >         branes touch, their tremendous energy of motion along the fifth
> >         dimension creates matter on each brane and heats it to tremendous
> >         temperature. To observers on the brane, it looks exactly like a big
> >         bang and would lead to the same patterns in the cosmic microwave
> >         background and distributions of galaxies. Yet it is a big bang
> >         without
> >         a beginning,because the cycles have been repeating for eternity.
> >           Some
> >         say matter on the branes expands more with each cycle and this means
> >         that if you run it backwards like a movie in reverse, the cyclic
> >         universe encounters either a singularity or some kind of beginning
> >         like inflation, In the "emergent universe" it all begins as a small
> >         static universe, which exists in this state for an infinite
> >         amount of
> >         time before suddenly being triggered to inflate. Such scenarios do
> >         arise in string theory.  Just as Einstein's static universe (that
> >         preceded Bigly Bangly) was unstable and needed the extra
> >         ingredient of
> >         cosmic repulsion, two weird ingredients: a vacuum with negative
> >         energy, and fault-lines in space-time known as domain walls that
> >         are a
> >         feature of some models of particle physics are needed to make this
> >         model work. Domain walls should leave an imprint on the
> >         temperature of
> >         the cosmic microwave background radiation, which has not been seen,
> >         but this might be explained if they were diluted away by inflation.
>
> >         None of these models is true - they are just the best good minds in
> >         the subject area can muster.  We lay people confuse ourselves on the
> >         certainty and claims made abut these models and are exposed to them
> >         through idiot media.  Right or wrong we don't get any closer to god
> >         concepts, though the physics may be limited by our early exposure to
> >         such myths.  Science may be a religion that admits it is uncertain
> >         about its god.  Maybe we made our journey to 'now' without past
> >         information because such information cannot be retained in such
> >         'travel' as ours.  We might cross a singularity in the future after
> >         which we can only conceive of what we have done so far as an
> >         ignorant
> >         beginning..
>
> >         On 5 Dec, 04:48, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com
> >         <mailto:nwte...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >          > Amazing how little the group knows of physics.  RP has a
> >         reasonable
> >          > definition of creator origin, though it is a 'singularity' in the
> >          > sense science collapses in and around it.  Nothing wrong with
> >         that but
> >          > it doesn't help make radios (etc).  Matter isn't necessarily
> >         energy -
> >          > there is just a conservation law that connects them, itself
> >         connected
> >          > with momentum.  Big Bang is a construction and losing favour.
> >          > Multiple universes and mirror worlds are also constructions
> >         used to
> >          > explain 'evidence'.
> >          > I'm not sure how we can explain not being at the centre of a
> >         universe
> >          > we can't really define - and our observations of it are known
> >         to be
> >          > 'skewed' by living in an area of normal matter and high
> >         gravity.  If
> >          > you want to make a magnet you probably need relativity - even to
> >          > explain how a lead-acid battery works as well as it does.  This
> >          > doesn't make the theory complete.
>
> >          > Knowing about science doesn't help much with god or why we
> >         cling to
> >          > this rock and want to know why, purpose, lack of it and how
> >         we should
> >          > live.  Negative space is an art concept.  Vacuums are thought
> >         to have
> >          > energy -  the virtual particles, which are known to be
> >         particle pairs
> >          > that blink into existence and then annihilate in a timespan
> >         too short
> >          > to measure. They do this everywhere, throughout the Universe ( a
> >          > postulate as no one has been to look).
>
> >          > I have never seen any evidence for a spiritual world, but
> >         think such
> >          > may be an emergent property of the way we live.
>
> >          > On 4 Dec, 15:33, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com
> >         <mailto:allanh1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >          > > That is not true  the beginning can be pretty much
> >         pinpointed ..  as for
> >          > > parallel universes that is just a wild guess with nothing
> >         to support the
> >          > > other than it sounds good.  There is more evidence
> >         supporting the spiritual
> >          > > realm than parallel universes
> >          > > Allan
>
> >          > > Matrix  **  th3 beginning light
> >          > > On Dec 4, 2012 2:26 PM, "RP Singh" <123...@gmail.com
> >         <mailto:123...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >          > > > In my view there is no beginning to creation. There is
> >         beginning and
> >          > > > end to universes There are infinite no. of universes in
> >         parallel and
> >          > > > continuously many  universes are being born and many are
> >         dying , but
> >          > > > Creation which includes infinite universes in eternal
> >         time , just like
> >          > > > the Spirit, is without beginning and without end. The
> >         difference is
> >          > > > that the nature of creation is dualistic and the Spirit
> >         is non-dual.
>
> >          > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Lee Douglas
> >         <leerevdoug...@gmail.com <mailto:leerevdoug...@gmail.com>>
> >          > > > wrote:
> >          > > > > Hello Andrew,
>
> >          > > > > Heh I can envisage many things, but alas
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--