From: JohnD@NoSpam.Com
"David Mitchell" wrote in message
news:pan.2006.05.01.11.36.41.668329@edenroad.demon.co.uk...
> On Mon, 01 May 2006 11:01:08 +0000, John D wrote:
>
>> David, Thanks for the reply...
>
> You're welcome.
>
>>>> No. But since I've watched "What the bleep do we know?" I've started to
>>>> wonder if this is a dream and all is not as it seems.
>>>
>>> You would have to stretch the meaning of "dream" way beyond the point at
>>> which it snapped.
>
>> Okay, by dream I mean that things are as they seem because that is how
>> we are conditioned to believe they are. Perhaps if we believed we could
>> physically move from one location to another using thought, we could.
>
> Why should belief make any difference?
> There are any number of people with deeply held beliefs which turned out
> to be false. If belief was all it took to change reality, things would be
> a lot more fluid than they are.
>
Why should belief make any difference? Brain washing...
>>> The idea that "all this is an illusion" is at least as old as buddhism;
>>> but, IMO, it doesn't really make sense as a philosophy, if only for the
>>> reason that it makes no difference. Whether you call it a dream, or
>>> not it's completely real to those within it.
>>>
>> Completely real because that's what we believe...
>
> See above ;-)
>
>>
>>> You could equally well assert that this is all a vast simulation in
>>> some computer (which is actually quite likely, according to some
>>> philosophers).
>>>
>>>> The idea that
>>>> nothing is solid, everything is energy, the components that make up
>>>> everything blink out of existence and then back in... where do they
>>>> go?
>>>
>>> They don't. It's true that "empty" space is full of "virtual"
>>> particles, which flicker in and out of existence before the universe
>>> really notices they are there, but your ordinary "solid" matter is just
>>> that. ("solid" here has the traditional meaning of "being mostly
>>> empty" ;-)
>>
>> Years ago, scientists found that electrons are not always where they are
>> supposed to be.
>
> Are you talking about the fact that electrons are small enough that
> their wave equation is bigger than they are, so that their location can
> only be accurately described in terms of probability?
Probability is correct.
>
>> Sometimes they are in the "wrong" valence, sometimes
>> they are not in this dimension.
>
> I'd like to see a cite for this, because it's not how I understand physics
> at that scale.
>
> What other "dimension" are you talking about, BTW?
>
>> They blink out...
>
> Again, I'd like to see a cite for this, since I don't think that they do.
The only reference I have is quotes from the movie...
What I have read states that atomic particles act as matter and energy
"waves." That they are empty shells whose mass is contained in it's shell.
>
>> Now, they believe that
>> the protron and neutron are not actually "solid" but energy that exibit
>> the same properties as the electrons, blinking in and out of
>> existance...
>
> No they don't!
>
> They believe (strongly) that protons and neutrons are made of quarks. The
> term "solid" (in the everyday sense) isn't really applicable here, neither
> is "energy" really.
>
> The best guess at the moment is that quarks are vibrating "things" in 11
> dimensions.
>
>> And by dimensions I meant parallel universes. I am aware the Unified
>> String Theory.
>
> What kind of parallel universes are you talking about?
> If you're talking about the MW interpretation of QM, then, in theory
> AFAIK, it's not possible to transfer anything from one universe to another
> (if only because there are 10**100 of them splitting off per second, and
> we'd notice :-)
>
> If you're talking about the parallel universes which might exist along the
> other 11 dimensions, well, AFAIK only gravity can cross from one to
> another.
>
>> David, you seem to fit the paradime that I'm questioning.
>
> Not entirely sure what this means. (And it's "paradigm" ;-)
Thanks for the correction. You seem to be so certain of what you know
that you speak as a teacher rather than a seeker...
>
>> Can we affect this existence by realizing that we can?
>
> I don't think so. Some do; but they have yet to provide good evidence for
> those claims, IMO.
>
Good evidence is my goal... just not sure how to get there.
>> What is the point of evolution?
>
> There is none. It's a process, and incapable of having a point.
Here we disagree... Perhaps the point of evolution is the development of
the universe itself and we are only an insignificant piece of that
evolution.
I don't know what the point is but I believe there is one.
>
>> Where is it going?
>
> Again, it's not "going" anywhere. It just _is_.
>
>> If you haven't seen the movie, try it... then get back to me.
>
> It's not on DVD here yet. From the reviews I've seen it's mainly students
> at MIU talking nonsense.
You have to love reviews!
To be continued...
John D.
>
> --
> =======================================================================
> = David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get
> = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.
> =======================================================================
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
