tar

well, supposing that the universe was different 13 billion years ago, than it is now, I would guess that the universe is evolving, that is, doing some things that it has not done before

not a simple game of chance, where the ball drops in one of 38 slots

But a changing game of chance, where each "result" sets the conditions for the next roll.

If the universe is doing such, then I would guess it is not finished doing it yet.

Thus arriving at a final theory would be a bit premature. One would have to wait for the universe to finish what it is doing, and then make the pronouncement.

Phi for All,

I have no objection to what you say. I like the scientific method.

But it is not the "only approach". There are places on the Canadian/U.S border where there are no fences or demarkations. No amount of experimentation would allow you to actually find it. It is where we say it is.

Its still real.

Additional approaches to determine what is real, are evidently in order.

Regards, TAR2

Immortal,

If not people like you and me will be pushed out from the door to reality.

 

Not sure what you mean by that.

But an investigation of the "meaning" behind language is what I am currently involved with.

I have as a standard in this investigation, that everybody, meaning all humans, are just that, humans.

Outside of gross deformities, accidents, and disease, all humans have remarkably similar equipment.

We did not get this equipment by accident or gift. We developed it, because it worked, it fit, it allowed us to stick around.

There is a difference between the universes I can create in my mind, and the "actual" universe. I can "manipulate" the models in my mind, far more easily than the actual uninverse/world that I derive my models from.

But I am not without the ability to manipulate the actual world.

The current hypothesis I am working on is that our internal sense/motor neural arrangement that allows us to monitor and control our own bodies, can be, and has been extended, by various methods to attempt the same thing with items in the real world, outside of our bodies. Pack hunting, farming, building shelters, roads, ships, smoke signals, vehicles, tools, equipment, machines, sensing devices and measurement schemes. All in some sense, extentions of our sensing and motor control skills.

But here the difference between the world we model, and the actual world becomes evident and crucial to differenciate between. You can imagine going out with a movie star. So can a million others. But only one (or so) people at a time can actually go out, with the actual movie star.

What is done in ones mind does not have to fit reality. What is done in reality actually does exactly fit reality.

What is done in ones mind has little effect on reality, outside of some expenditure of energy, and some synapse rearrangement in ones own skull. Things can be gotten wrong, gotten right, work or not work, and easily changed.

But out in the real world, past the limits of our neural connections, once done, the manipulation is permanent and real.

You break the vase, and you own it.

I go through all that, just to let you know, that I don't know what you mean by "pushed out from the door to reality".

By my thinking there is no door between my mind and reality. My brain is real, my senses pick up real actual patterns from and about reality and perceive them and store them in an analog fashion as to represent rather acurately what is going on around me. I can build maps and models of it, use transforms and analogies, and get a pretty good "idea" of what it is that I am in and of. I can put "myself" in the shoes of any entity I chose, and imagine what they might be experiencing. I can "imagine" unseen others.

It is in light of these thoughts that I "understand" other's philosophies, religion and psychology.

And from my personal point of view, the scientific method is a fine way for us to utilize the explorations of reality that others have made, and to add those explorations to my own understanding of the nature of "the thing in itself".

People like me and you? Absolutely. That's everybody.

Regards, TAR2

As to why it hasn't smoothed out yet.

I think the anthropic principle sums it up fairly nicely.

If the universe were a lot hotter (/less spread out) life (like us at least) couldn't exist.

If the universe were a lot colder (/more even temperature) life (like us at least) couldn't exist.

Therefore the universe must be about this smoothed out (ie. cooled down somewhat but not too much) if we are to exist.

 

Schrödinger's hat,

Well certainly I can go along with that principle, except "here" is not the same temperature and gradient condition as "everywhere". And "now" is not the same temperature and gradient condition as "always".

It does not seem to me that one should consider the conditions of a particular place at a particular time as the "same" conditions that exist always and everywhere. If there were only "one" condition, already, then where is the possibility of a "particular" condition going to come from?

For instance, the conditions available in the void between strings of galaxies, are different than those inside the string. And one could use the anthropic principle to state that since we arose inside a string of galaxies, the conditions inside a string of galaxies provide a temperature gradient sufficient for the task, which may not be available in the void between galaxies. It (the principle) does not necessarily apply to the complete universe, always.

Besides, even if the void and string contain different conditions, and are taken as composing together, one system, the "timing" of any change in conditions, or averaging out that may be in process, is rather extensive and important. The conditions will not average out instantly, but instead will attempt to do so at a rather creeping (at that scale) speed of light.

Here, always can be understood as one thing. Everywhere now can be understood as one thing.

But everywhere always is everything. And I am not sure there is a way to write that equation. You have to take a perspective and hold something stationary for anything to make sense.

So what is the difference between void and string? More Matter in the string. More "gravity" in the string. More gradients in the string.

What is possible in the string might well not be in the void.

So "collecting matter together" may be important for life. Regardless of the average temperature of the universe. at first, now or later.

Regards, TAR

PeterJ,

I don't find eastern philosophy implausable. It is most likely absolutely correct, as is, in my thinking, everybody's philosophy. My problem with it, is the same problem I have with everybody's philosophy (including my own), and that is, that they are the ones that see it correctly, and everybody else is missing the point.

My current investigation is to understand the common "meaning". Why and how we think what and how we think.

I do not think the universe changes all that much, depending on what we think of it. However we would not think at all, without it.

If I do not accept eastern philosopy as plausable, I would have to abandon my investigation and all its premises with it.

Each thing that eastern philosphy says. I can understand in "my" terms. So they are not saying anything that I do not already find very plausable.

As I said, my objection is to the attitude that you know something I don't. That you have grasped its total nature, and I am just wallowing about clueless. (you being the shaman, or the monk, or the Buddah, or some other person in touch with the "true" nature of reality.)

My theory is, that we all, already get it. We are just trying to figure out what the heck to do about it.

Regards, TAR2

Schrödinger's hat,

Well I will admit a lack of complete understanding of the term entropy, but it does seem to rely on the definition of the "system" you are taking into consideration. In some senses, the gas and photons that have "left" the system are not really part of the system anymore. That leaves the entities that are still around, to consider. And the Sun seems to provide us with some ordered energy. Enough to power the ordered subsystems of life on our planet.

When asking the question as to whether gravity could be a counter influence to entropy, I was particularly thinking of the Sun, collecting itself together (with the influence of "gravity" playing a large role) from a gas cloud, to pack all that hydrogen close enough together for all the fussion that goes on, that provides all the photons, that power the biosystem on Earth.

My thinking was that if there were no counter influence to entropy, even if in only forming "pockets" of low entropy, then the universe would be, or might have to have been pretty much "averaged out" by now. All points riding around about the same temperature, with no differentials through which heat could flow from high to low.

Regards, TAR2

Reminds me of a thought I had about 15 years ago when I was reading several books on physics (QED,quantum mechanics, relativity and the like, but I couldn't grasp the math, so I wandered away)

I was thinking that every atom seems to want to get rid of all its energy and come to rest or absolute zero, but it cannot, because although it continually releases photons, it keeps absorbing photons released from all the other atoms in the universe.

Related to this topic, it's even harder to get rid of all your energy (if you are an atom) if you have a bunch of other atoms trying to do the same, in close proximity.

coupling strength

is gravity a "counter" influence to the tendency of a system to move from order to disorder?

Shaman of the Pueblo Indians say that we have two staes of consciousness available to us, which in translation are 'Believing We Exist' and 'Awakened Awareness'. This says it all.

PeterJ,

Provided you know what it means. In which case you wouldn't need it to be said. Now would you?

I don't "disagree" with Eastern philosophy. It makes some sense. But where it fails me, is in its attitude. That the Shaman knows, and I don't.

I have a personal rule. No one holds a special key to reality. We all have equal access.

Regards, TAR2

Owl,

I am still sorting through Kant's ideas, reading Critique of Pure Reason. Have not completely understood everything he is talking about, but he was a rather smart fellow and did a whole lot of musing and logical figuring as to the information, representations that we receive through our senses, and about the "thing as it is", which I believe he does not believe we have the grounds to actually know. These are not arbitrary muses, and they are not, in their conclusions and explainations like the "eastern" philosophies that say contradictory things that are suppose to prove each other, or that you can't prove anything, or some sort of circular nonsense that has you listening to silence or forsaking everything you know, so that you can really know what there is not to forsake, or such circular stuff that "sounds" deep and doesn't "mean" anything.

But Kant's Ideas, although 230 years old, or whatever, have also been around for 230 years, and are intertwined in the fabric of "scientific method", and play a large role in the philosopher's thinking, of those after him, even if in disagreement or refinement of his thoughts. Such it is with all philosphers, even the eastern thinkers. They all are dealing with a common set of "human" equipment, located in and of a common world...trying to figure out why and how we are how we are, and what it "means" to be such.

Seems Kant attempted to structure a "science" of metaphysics. Putting things in their proper place, in terms of what we start with, and what we can reasonably (with sound logic) do with each "kind" of understanding we arrive at.

I most probably will continue to weave his thinking into my thinking, as I continue to read his thoughts. And pass some of "my" conclusions and takes on to others (to accept or decline) through various posts on these threads.

More than several "scientists" around here, check in on the philosophy and religion, and ethics threads. Not only to keep them honest, but I would guess to hone their own "understanding" of the somewhat "metaphysical" world us humans seem to have a certain stake in.

What that is, and what that "means", is a target I am guessing we most all aim at. The wheight, properties and behavior of a quark, is not the only entity we wish to understand.

Regards, TAR2

Owl,

I can't imagine how one could even get to "scientific method", without asking how we know what we know.

So yes.

Absolutely relevant.

Regards, TAR2

from the outside it looks like it goes on for ever and from the inside it looks like space is infinite?

It's a trade off.

Huh?

What does that mean?

How exactly does one "get" outside this bubble? And for what reason would anyone "outside" this bubble have any perception of either space or time?

If we are "inside" the bubble, and have a perception of space and time, shouldn't we go with it?

Regards, TAR2

no fair stepping outside the universe. That is "putting yourself" in God's shoes. Can't be done. It's completely imaginary, and anthropomorphising an "outside" view.

it would "look like" this or that

humbug

with what eyes would one be seeing what photons. All the eyes and photons there are, are INSIDE the bubble.

PeterJ,

I think the problem with coming up with a scientific definition of God is that there isn't one. Any idea we can have of Him is false and thus bound to be unscientific. I mean, what are the chances of us trying to imagine God and actually getting it right?

But...perhaps the chances are good. Not to "agree" on a definition, but to imagine God and get it right.

Here is my logic. We each are in and of the world. Same world, different conciousnesses.

If you imagine God, and try to explain it to me, you will assign various attributes that I might not totally agree with. I might think you missed something that I noticed, or added something that I do not see.

But, if you have been careful to consider all that you know, and all that you are, and it all fits together in a comfortable and complete package, then it probably IS god that you are imagining. It is therefore, most likely right.

Now try to explain it to me, and we will run into some disagreements. Its way too big, way too old, and way too varied and detailed, for any "one" description, to contain it all.

Sort of like "the blind men and the elephant".

But that being said, there IS both a scientific and religious explanation.

A religious one if we take only our own explanation as true, and a scientific one if we take everybody's explanation as true.

Regards, TAR2

Phi for All,

Here I have to disagree. The scientific method, if followed properly, gives us the best chance of not biasing results of empirically derived experimentation, which leads to better, more solid conclusions. It removes the need for belief and puts us as close as we can get to the best explanations about natural phenomena.

 

Actually I agree with this...mostly.

Solid and sound arguments are not the forte of religious texts. I don't pretend that they are.

But it is interesting to me, how many religions take the universe and determine what it would take to be on its side or against it. Seems a common thread that the "leader" uses his/(not usually a her) special association with the universe to argue for subservience to HIM! To follow his rules, will ensure you are on the right side of the universe.

Such (though completely different in intent and prosecution) is not unlike "believing" that the proper way to relate to the universe is through the scientific method. That this is the "right" way to be. And ones association with this "family", this scientific community, puts you above all those wallowing around in error. That ones own "god" is the right one, and the "god" of another is suspect.

Besides the fact that I would rather be associated with the scientific community than with some religious cult, is the fact that we each choose our own associations, and the founding fathers of our country (I am a U.S. citizen) did a wise thing in establishing in law, the right of each individual to follow his own "god". This because the "unseen other" that guides each of us, is our "personal" god. Whether or not this unseen other can actually be seen. And whether or not this unseen other is enshrined in an institution.

Regards, TAR2

And I never said that I have a problem with philosophy. My problem is that on a science forum -- where the rules of science are paramount -- trying to promote musing and wondering to the level of science isn't fair at all. A major component of science is the prediction and comparison of that prediction with results. Musing and philosophizing alone doesn't give that. I never said that there isn't value in it, but until those musings are turned into specific predictions, they aren't science. It really is as simple as that. And, as it isn't science, it really doesn't belong on a science forum. There are philosophy forums where this kind of discussion would get much more attention than here.

Bignose,

There is, in my estimation, science behind philosophy, and philosophy behind science.

I did not mean to single you out, as having any kind of problem with philosophy, and I agree with you totally in calling Imparticle to task, to bring his "ideas" into the real world, where we can test them, one way or the other. True or false, real or imaginary.

But I am in a position, where my own theory leads me to back up both science and metaphysics, and to a certain extent religion as well.

It has been stated in various ways, in different threads I have read on this forum, that science and religion are not compatable, that they are talking about different things, in different ways. This may be true in many ways, but I look for the ways that metaphysics can include science, and that science can inspect metaphysics.

My thinking is thus. Humans have evolved, along with other lifeforms, here on Earth. It must be true that life can emerge on this planet. Furthermore it must be true that humans can evolve and become conscious, because I am human and conscious. Life did not have to exist before life emerged, humans did not have to exist before humans developed, and consciousness did not have to exist before consciousness emerged.

I have a model of the world, that I have learned about, through my senses. The world is not fittable into my skull, yet I contain it somehow, in some analogous fashion, in the folds and synapses and firings in a rather complex neural structure inside my skull. I am therefore of the world, in the world and there is none of me that is "other than" the world.

Scientists learn about the same world. Philosophers think about the same world. Religious people worship the same world.

No one has the only key to it. Evidently we are all automatically in and of it.

And no human, not a scientist, or a philosopher or a religious zealot, has any way to know it, but from a human perspective. Any other perspective is not a human one.

So even on a science forum one can explore ideas and thoughts of humans. Those thoughts are both of a real world, and are really occurring in a human skull. Even untrue, incorrect, imaginary things are thought. These are still actual thoughts that are had, and most likely there are reasons why they are had.

Imparticle's theory is not unthinkable. But I do not see any evidence of it, outside the human mind. Therefore inspection of it is probably more an inspection of "how we think" than an inspection of reality itself. But still something to explain...scientifically.

Regards, TAR2

Phi for All,

In Inow's defense, the links posted served me well to help develop an "understanding" of our development as conscious human beings. Hijacking is a derogatory term that I "looked past". Yes it belies a bias, to be termed that way, but I took it as indicative of the way we have used many, if not all of our evolutionarily arrived at attributes and functions for purposes somewhat "other than" what their developmental "reasons for being such" might have been.

It (the thread) laid down a foundation for me, in fact and science, some basic human "components".

The ability we have to "put ourselves in someone else shoes".

The awareness we have of "unseen others" and the ability we develop around age 4 to consider the wants and desires and intentions of such.

Not surprising that such actual facts can create a number of interesting permutations.

If we can consider the wants and desires and follow or disobey the will of our parents, or the leader of the pack, it is not a far reach to understand our "internal" communications with all sorts of "unseen others". Ancestors, bosses, priests, sages, heros, imaginary friends. Even a conscience, that we engage to tell the difference between right and wrong, may "hijack" this primordal "purpose", to learn from and follow our parents and our pack. (even when they are out of sight).

Not unlikely that we have "used" (not necessarily hijacked) these facilities to establish our morals, and rules of behavior, and subservience to authority.

That some in history have used it against us, or for their own purposes is pretty much to be expected. There is, after all a fine line between following a leader, and being used by the leader. It almost depends on your interpretation and mind set.

To my mind, if our neurology has be "hijacked" by religion, it has as well been "hijacked" by nationalism, or humanitarianism, or even by believers in "the scientific method".

In science, I can think of "our" collective knowledge as an entity. One which I can challenge or follow, dismiss or assist. An "unseen other" if you will. A professor, or a university panel, or even the "scientific community" is not unlike a pack, and not without its leaders.

I can test my ideas against this unseen other, even when no individual is present.

Similarly I can test my actions and thoughts against my internal model of humanity. What this or that type of person might think of my thoughts or actions.

So Inow's thread is important. Not as a tool to unseat religion and put science in its place, but as a tool to understand ourselves, from a factual basis of what our neurolgy consists of, and why we have the thoughts we have.

In this light, an unseen other, whether a lover, or a parent or a boss, or a professor or a priest, or a president, or the collective consciousness of humanity, or the God of Thunder, or the lord of the universe, takes on a hue, that casts equally upon them all.

Regards, TAR2

fleet1779

Well, good point. Most of our investigations start with one, or a combination of our senses. Our discovery of the entire electromagnetic spectrum was probably based on our awareness of "visible" light.

If we were able to "sense" magnetic fields, the world would have the same attributes that is has, but would "appear" or be sensed differently. But we have managed to build equipment that senses magnetic fields, non the less.

Is this based on the studies of electromagnetism that were spawned originally by our "sight"? Probably. The electric fields and magnetic fields that "are" light, were found.

Probably the same can be said of smell and taste leading us to an understanding of chemicals, or our touch leading us to understandings of heat and pressure, thermodynamics and mechanics.

But importantly, things that are, fit together, and can be understood to be the "same" thing that has its "effects" on all these "senses". Say a rock, or the sun. We can inspect it, and learn about it, with more than one sense.

If it doesn't show up, in any sense, what importance does it have? If it is real, at least its effects would be sensible.

If something was happening that we could not explain elsewise, we would look for the cause, and attempt to find the principles and particles behind it.

Such with gravity. We know it is there, based on the evidence from all our other senses and equipment. And based perhaps on our sense of balance stemming from the arrangement of our inner ear, but it all adds up, and fits together with the other things we sense.

There is more than one reason we have, to know its there (even if we don't know exactly what "causes" it.) We can study its nature, and know when and how it will affect us.

All we are asking Imparticle to provide is a case or two where the imparticle "shows up".

Regards, TAR2

Bignose,

I personally find Kant had a lot to say.

He was not dealing with flights of fancy.

He was dealing with reality. And how we come to know it.

I am not in favor of Imparticle's use of the term Metaphysics, as if it gives him license to consider real, what works only in his imagination.

Nor am I in favor of discarding the sound arguments of Kant, the philosophers that came before him, and those that came after.

Seems to me that the total package is best understood when understood from more than one perspective. When both metaphysics and physics, say the same thing.

Regards, TAR2

I prefer to think that the universe has not yet done what it is going to do next.

Imparticle,

Kant very carefully described our "understanding" in a sound argument, that set some solid basis for metaphysics.

His categories describe that which can be said about anything.

You can not make up your own rules, without basing them on sound, (not just plausable) arguments.

If an imparticle has already, or is already, taken on every possible pattern it can take on, nothing at all in particular can be said about it.

What use is it to us, if it is such an ambiguous entity.

You can't make any predictions as to what one will do next, because in your scheme, it has already done it.

So what is left? The particular arrangement of reality as we notice it. It is THIS particular moment, at THIS particular place, and the arrangement of space and time around it, that is of any concern.

That is the only "the way it is" that one can say anything about.

Regards, TAR2

Imparticle,

Here is a thought.

You perhaps had an "idea" of what the lamp's "pattern" was, the first time I mentioned it. After seeing the picture of the lamp, you now have a different "idea" of what my lamp is.

Your first "idea" was not correct. Your "after the picture" "idea" is true.

Your first idea was imaginary. Your idea now (of my lamp) conforms with reality.

Were any of your "imparticles" at work, to form your first idea?

Were they at work in your brain, or on the top of my glassed in shelf, where the "real" lamp exists?

You can come over and touch my lamp, see things with its light. What can we do with your first idea of my lamp?

Regards, TAR2

How much of your imparticle theory exists in your mind, and model of the world, and how much exists in reality where we can find it?

can we test it?

Well my lamp has managed to convulse into exactly the same pattern it had yesterday. Idea wise, anyway.

Maybe a bit more tarnish, and an extra spider strand or two.

my point being that the imparticles seem to come up with these entities/patterns that "maintain" on some scale, at the same time as other patterns, on other levels, change

there is the lamp

tiny particles whizzing around within

huge suns whizziing around without

there sits the lamp

exhibit A

Appolinaria,

Seems to me, that the same qualities and attributes that separate us from the universe are the one's that allow us to be conscious of it, from this particular place and time that "we" (each as a particular body/brain/heart group) are at.

I would totally agree that we are individuals, with definite individuality. But I am not so sure this is not found as well in animals. After all we are animals. And as an adult has a good deal more of many attributes than a fetus, a human has a good deal more of many attributes than an ancestor life form. But as in the fetus/adult relationship, where many systems and facilities were there, but not developed, the rudimentary systems and functions that developed into human forms, must have existed in our ancestors in some way. And other animals are not without similarities to humans.

Regards, TAR2

Perhaps it is important to many religions, that man is a different kind of thing than an animal.

It is not important to "my" religion (whatever that is). In my religion, recognition of our close relationship to other mammals brings me "closer" to the spirit of the universe.

Numbers & symbolism fascinate me merely because I see certain ones everywhere- particularly 1, 3, 7, 12.

 

In the Bible, with the woman clothed with the sun (having a garland of 12 stars), & in literature.. for example, Dante's Beatrice and the descent through the spheres, the 12 soul lights, the 7 terraces of Purgatory... also... I see it a lot in Rosicrucianism.

 

 

We see this 1, 3, 7, 12 along the concentric petals in the center of the cross. So what does it actually mean? I have no idea. I'm still trying to figure it out.

 

 

However, beyond influence of the Bible, we even see this concept in nature. Going along with the trinity, alpha omega, whichever quantity you want to use... just these different aspects all creating a singular God... We can compare it to light rays, for example. When all seven wavelengths of light are combined, they create one. White light. The prism which refracts light into 7 rays, might be comparable to the "sky" god created to separate light from darkness.

 

This idea exists sans Bible, so that's why I think there's importance to it.

 

It's true significance I'm not sure of, but how often I see it occurring makes it curious to me.

 

 

When you begin to notice that the symbolism in religion corresponds to occurrences in nature, science & religion seem to become one.

Appolinaria,

1,3,7,12

Not sure about the seven concentric circles or levels. Not understanding what that means. However, I am a fan of 7 for some of the reasons you talk about, but also in relation to the number 8. There are eight elements in the second row of the elemental table, 8 notes in an octive in music (7 really, with the eighth being the "same" as the first, only on a different level (double the frequency of the first, I believe)), and 7 days in a week, with the eighth day being the same as the first. 7 sort of the series, and 8 the completion and the start of the new.

This octive idea led me many years ago, to consider what it might be about our thinking that was 7 and 8 like.

It occured to me, that we think in three dimensions. A cube is a good represention.

We can think of something,(a point)(1) and its opposite, yielding a line (edge)(2), which along with its opposite form a surface (4) and its opposite surface completing a cube(8) which is again 1 thing.

My theory at the time, which I still think may be the case, is that we can think of 1 thing at once,(point) 2 things at once(line), or 3 things (triangle) or four (square) and can hold the opposites as well, but four is already 2 opposites and one more opposite gets us to the 8 (which is max/complete/full)(3 opposite maximum) and to go any higher we have to start to group and think "over time". I did try the theory out for myself with flocks of birds, groups of people and other various items, and it did seem I started to "count" (over time) or "group" (3+3+4 for instance) when the number was greater than 7 or 8. 7 or 8 seemed to be the maximum number of things I could hold/imagine at one time.

I once had a VP that had 12 direct reports, and was looking rather frazzled. I remember explaining my theory to him, suggesting it might be easier to manage 8 or less, (at one time). Might be coincidence but he did restructure his organisation to 7 direct reports, and things did seem to run smoother, and he less harried.

So maybe there is basis for 1 (something), 3 (three dimensions) and 7 (the max we can hold at once, without going on to something else, the next level).

As for 12, I found that a very interesting way, when I was experimenting with "dense packing" of spheres.

It is the max number of ping pong balls you can put around a central ping pong ball. Makes the same "figure" that you get if you cut the corners off a cube, to the midpoints of the edges. 8 triangular faces and 6 diamond(square) faces.

So 12 could very well be an "important" number.

Regards, TAR2

P.S.

Kant has 12 Judgments which relate to 12 Categories. Four triads in each.

not to mention a dozen, and inches in a foot.

months in a year, number of toes and feet, number of fingers and hands

here are the ping pong balls

couple other angles on the same figure

again

the figure also has 4 intersecting hexagonal "planes", each containing 7 balls, 6 axis, each containing 3 balls, but "unluckily" has 13 balls total.

Well, it is all up for interpretation. I don't know myself.

 

 

 

 

For example, this is what I take from the sphere/cube/pyramid idea. I could very well be completely wrong.

 

 

 

 

"The sphere rests upon a point, the cube upon a surface; the sphere is therefore used to symbolize spirit, and the cube, matter." (Quoted from chapter 33)

 

 

 

 

A point moved upon itself becomes a line. Spirit put into motion, or put through time, creates matter.

 

 

 

 

A pyramid can rest on a surface, as well as a point.. it works in both the spiritual and material world. Just as a son contains aspects from both parents.

 

 

 

 

It is the motion of the sphere that allows us to measure a cube.

 

 

 

 

Yesterday I was on wikipedia & was reminded of "Newton" by William Blake.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notice the motion of the scroll, the surface of the scroll, the recording device, and also... where all of these emanate from.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps this idea holds some truth, perhaps it doesn't.

 

 

 

 

It is still interesting how often I see it, though.

Appolinaria,

Interesting.

The sphere resting on a point, the cube resting on a surface and the pyramid on either.

However it is difficult to balance a pyramid on its point, and you could also try it with cube. In fact you could try it eight different ways with a cube, and try resting a cube 6 different ways on an edge. Not exactly sure why, but perhaps the point of the pyramid is to rest the sphere on.

So anyway, the sphere is spirit, the cube is matter and the pyramid is created by the union of the two?

Jesus as the "son of God" is spirit in material form, or for all intents and purposes, man, since we have elements of each, that make us up. Right?

And I think the item in Newton's hand is a measuring device, not a recording instrument. But the two arms pivoting(moving) at the fulcrum point, along with the line being measured, form a triangle. But it also is not unlike a compass that could trace out the arc of the semicirle.

Regards, TAR2

Steve,

Well, thanks for writing that. It bears many close relationships to thoughts I have entertained.

Not so sure about a few thing you mention. Things I have entertained and reasoned away. Little inconsistencies where personally I have felt the need to come down, one way or the other, for the notion to actually make sense as a description of the "way things are."

For instance, the many universe thing. If there is one consciousness in this universe, would that mean that there is a different consciousness in a neighboring one? The "infinite regress" thought leaves a lot of room for different answers to this. And as we shift grain size, which apparently we can do with ease, we can imagine all the answers being true.

Except we, in our imaginations are not required to, or do not have the ability, to work through all the implications accurately to see if the thought would really work. That is, would it "fit" with reality?

I have thus "decided" that there is a difference between imagination and reality. They are not without their intertwineness, but what is "possible" in one, is not nescessarily possible in the other.

Let me illustrate this by having us all put ourselves in the shoes of someone who has meditated his/her way to nirvana. All the world is one thing, and this person is aware of it all. He or she is standing on the mountaintop completely understanding it all and is "one" with it. Along comes Jack the wandering vendor, who is not aware of this fact, who asks us if we would like to have one of the sandwiches and a bottle of water from his knapsack . We realize we are quite hungry and thirsty, having taken 4 days to reach nirvana, but had not thought to bring any money with us. Although we are one with reality, we have nothing to trade with Jack for the sandwich and drink. Back to reality.

Or take John Lennon's "Imagine". Put everyone in a field celebrating their "oneness" and lack of division from each other. What if the food truck doesn't come along? And what do you do when night falls and it gets rather chilly? And what do you do the next day? Or if a hungry grizzly bear comes along? Or a lightning storm? Or one of us has a deadly communicable disease? Our imagined oneness may well fracture. Running up against reality.

So with this in mind, I ask, what is "really" there, when you imagine "another" universe. As soon as you "actually" find any evidence of its existance, it instantly becomes a characteristic/component/member of THIS one.

Regards, TAR2

How do imparticles manage to form the border between Canada and the U.S.?