Jump to content

TaoRich

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About TaoRich

  • Rank
    Meson
  • Birthday 04/30/1964

Profile Information

  • Location
    Durban, South Africa
  • Interests
    Quantum Physics
    Tao
  • College Major/Degree
    University of Natal, Durban, South Africa : Part Bsc Chem Eng / Comp Sci
  • Favorite Area of Science
    The emergence of Quantum Space
  • Biography
    Speculative metaphysical thinker with a fairly solid physics background
  • Occupation
    ICT Project Management
  1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-dr-susan-brooks-thistlethwaite/putins-holy-russia-goes-to-war_b_4886776.html Kill the non-believers ... God hates faggots ... etfc. And so it goes on and on and on and on ...
  2. No, we cannot. Consider these "situations" ... all of which can be distilled down to one or other form of the childish argument: "my imaginary dude in the sky is superior to your imaginary dude in the sky, therefore I am bound to kill, maim, torture, destroy your entire community, under threat of failure denying me a place amongst the holy tabernacle cloud choir / gaggle of virgins etc. etc. ad nauseum". 1. Israelites vs. Philistines ( ongoing ... ) 2. Crusaders vs. Heathens 3. Nazis vs. Jews 4. India / Pakistan : Muslims vs. Christians ( ongoing ... ) 5. N Ireland : Catholics vs.
  3. With all due respect, that has to be the most denialist statement I have ever read.
  4. Religion was invented by humans. All religious texts were written by humans. Therefore, morality must come from humans. Hence, you don't need religion to have morals. (Don't even try to start an argument that the religious books were written by god through man please ... this is an adult science forum.)
  5. I agree that "right or wrong" are difficult or problematic to define, which is why I added "constructive, or destructive" as an alternate simplification. When we get to complex human situations, which involve more than simple individual self-interests - for example when we move into the realm of family, friends, community, national interrelationships etc. - things do get more complex, and, in agreement with your sentiment, right and wrong get more difficult to define or discern. That being said, the usual religious morals are the ones relating to trivial issues - dare I use the word, i
  6. In my opinion, we inherently know the difference "right or wrong behaviour" or "constructive or destructive behaviour" - we are born with it. I certainly don't need someone suffering from schizophrenic delusions, (accompanied by visual and auditory hallucinations), to wander back down off a hill, clutching stone tablets, swearing he's had a personal conversation with the "one and only true G-d (sic)" to enlighten me to the fact that killing another human being is "not a good thing". It is, however, entirely possible to take "a normal person" who is in touch with their internal moral co
  7. Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg
  8. I have seen thread "What do we mean by 'space' ?" you are interested about space. I would like people like you, to participate in discussion

    http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60496-matter-occupies-space/page__gopid__660115#entry660115

    and in also in speculation thread

    http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64485-space-and-consensus/

  9. JCWDroid raised the term "Sapir–Whorf hypothesis" in #otw today as Shrödinger and I were chatting about this post topic. I checked it out on Wikipedia, and it was a useful concept to throw in here. I'm posting the opening paragraph here, but if you are following this topic seriously, it's worth heading over to read the full article. http://en.wikipedia....stic_relativity <snip>
  10. What did the blind man say when he put down the cheese grater ? "That's the goriest book I've ever read." tadish !
  11. Mrmmm ... trying to formulate a decent response to that. Let's try this: A person speaking a Western language may be able to converse with, and agree with a person speaking an Eastern language, and agree on exactly the same point. However, the bits of information or understanding surrounding that point might be quite different. The proximity of related concepts may be an entirely different landscape. What connects "naturally and logically" to a Western mind, may not connect as naturally and logically to an Eastern mind - and of course vice versa. So although the minds could meet on
  12. When I was much much younger, I used to think: "What if memories or knowledge aren't stored in the brain itself. Could it be possible that our brain is a receiver, like a radio receiver, "tuning" in to memories or knowledge that exists outside of our brain (and 3 dimensional reality)." In this "model" learning could be equated to "developing the brain receiver", and refining its ability to tune in to more and more knowledge. The knowledge would never "actually exist inside the brain" ... it would still be "out there somewhere" ... we would just get better at picking it up. I haven't th
  13. Can this be proven definitively ? "We live within the system boundaries." The physical aspect of ourselves lives within the physical aspect of the system boundaries. ... I'm happy to agree with that. But do "we as individuals" exist completely and utterly as physical aspects ? ... I'm not so happy to agree with that. Or in other words, "is my entirety contained in physical dimensions ?" ... my gut feel won't allow me to swallow this whole. And for the record, I'm not talking religion or spirituality. Quite practically, I think that there are aspects of myself ( and all of
  14. An interesting bit of reading I did many years ago stuck has stuck with me ... I think it was written by Alan Watts who was one of the first Westerners to bring Zen and Eastern thinking to popularity. The gist of it was: "You hear sometimes a Chinese person saying that some word or sentence cannot be translated into English. Sometimes this is viewed as 'Oriental inscrutability' ... but it is actually quite possible. In English, as with most Western languages, you have a word for a hand and another word for a fist. This language structure has no place in Chinese. In Chinese you have
  15. When we model things, especially computer based modelling, we often talk about "simulating reality" ... building an approximation for something real. I don't see that there is a need to differentiate "a simulation" from "a reality". What if "what we observe in reality" is a simulation ? In other words, "our so-called physical reality" is a manifestation of an underlying (non-physical) reality. Consider one of the earliest computer games, Pong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pong As the player, we see a representation of a bat and a representation of a ball on the screen.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.