This is What I Know

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post This is What I Don't Know fatherofaking 3  1  12-27-07  4:05 pm   Start New Thread

Author Message   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1694 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.72.72 Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 2:58 pm:        since i have been posting here on factnet many people have tried to figure out what i "believe". i have always found this difficult to accept because it seperates people. it causes wars, famines, and all sorts of other atrocities. i may not have the same peieces of the puzzle of life as everyone else but i do have a few. all of our experiences are different in some way. this gives each of us something to add to the puzzle. i came here searching, some days thinking i knew something, and somedays thinking i knew nothing. today is one of those days when i think i know something. so here goes. this is what i know. god is unknowable. all of the ancient texts are clear on that. this makes us all agnostics. we are all equal in this respect. no man can prove the existance of god. this seems to be a universal truth. we cannot even come up with a way to test the idea. what these texts also say, is that once you have accepted this truth you will come to know god. this is the paradox of the wonder of life. these myths were never designed to be anything more than a guide through the journey of the wonders of life. they have been used to weild power that does not belong to those who think they have it. the religions of today are nothing more than constructs of men, designed with the use of mythologies that were never meant to be used this way. this is a parodox. to think that you can know god is to not know him at all.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2460 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.18 Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 3:39 pm:        "...that once you have accepted this truth (god is unknowable) you will come to know god. " I'm sorry foaf, but I do not see how one follows the other. For this to be true it would have to be true in all cases would it not? For all individuals who accepted that god was unknowable god would become known. Instead I have come to know god as untenable after passing through the "unknowable" stage and I am not the only one for whom I know this not to be true. Also, I'm not so certain that all ancient texts teach what you say. Do you think it is reasonable to attribute "knowing god through understanding you can't know god" to all of them? In fact, I would even go far as to say that the Bible teaches that the only way to know god is to know Jesus Christ. It that it seems to be very specific.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1695 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.72.72 Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 4:45 pm:        i think i can defend my position TO. did you not find peace once you gave up striving after the wind? Ec 1:17 And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. Ec 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. we set out to know the ultimate truth by listening to those that said they know they way. what we found was that everyone said they new the truth while seperating themselves from the rest of the people that said they knew the truth. how can that be the truth? the peace that these texts talk about is accepting that we can only know what we know. you see, there is only one god. what does one gain from saying that they alone have the truth, followers, power? anything that seperates is not the truth. In fact, I would even go far as to say that the Bible teaches that the only way to know god is to know Jesus Christ. It that it seems to be very specific. before i respond to this, i want to apologize to those that i may offend in the process. if people insist on interpreting these things in a literal manner they will by necessity seperate themselves and have to say that every one has the same experience in life. all of these myths were added on to as people learned more. everything seems to be evolutionary in some respect. the idea of one god came on the scene when someone saw the seperation i would imagine. the bible was meant to bring the world together not seperate more. i believe this is the reason that the followers of christ were so zealous to bring the news to everyone. the ones that christ taught didn't even get it right away. there are many ways of interpreting these myths and all of these interpretations carry some truth. the only thing that seperates people is when they get interpreted as unique. this is not an interpretation at all. it is a perversion of the truth. this is how these things get used to control. it should not come as a surprise that language can be used to control people. every aspect of life can be understood through these myths if they are understood correctly.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2461 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.20 Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 4:56 pm:        "every aspect of life can be understood through these myths if they are understood correctly." Why do you think that "every aspect of life" would be the case? "there are many ways of interpreting these myths and all of these interpretations carry some truth. " All? Forget about P.K.D. What about Ted? http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=TedJesusChristGOD37   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1697 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.72.72 Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 5:25 pm:        well i would have to say that ted is a bit confused. his confusion is not surprising. i guess i should have been more specific. we must interpret these things first beginning with ourselves then we will have the base to build on to understand how these things apply to mankind as a whole. to say that these things first apply to mankind as a whole and then to impose moral codes is getting it backwards. the words that are supposed to make us free are being used to put us in bondage. there is much that people have been taught that is just not true. you can clearly see the results. when these things get interpreted as literal and imposed upon others the true meaning gets lost. these myths were designed to teach us how to live in whatever circumstance we are in. they are first personal and then universal.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1698 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.72.72 Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 5:41 pm:        i do think that PKD's experience can teach us some interesting things. he obviously had a significant emotional experience. i have no idea what triggered it and i suspect that PKD didn't either. he spent the rest of his life trying to understand this experience because he didn't have any context interpret in. i do think that if we are honest enough with ourselves we can understand these things that happen to us. i can't explain why this happened to the man but it is not up to me to explain someone elses experience. it is like trying to interpret someone else's dream. you may be able to guide them in order to help them to interpret it, but you cannot tell them what it ultimately means for them. these myths are guides for life. there are certain things that are true for all of us but when it comes to the experience of life we are all different.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1701 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.72.72 Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 6:06 pm:        are you anywhere near all the flooding in texas TO?   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2462 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.23 Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 6:31 pm:        "well i would have to say that ted is a bit confused. " (wipes away a tear) I'll say. "we must interpret these things first beginning with ourselves then we will have the base to build on to understand how these things apply to mankind as a whole. " I think if you view myth as human psycho-drama then yes. If we try to view it as divine communication I think we're missing the bill and deluding ourselves by excluding any realistic interpretation that there may be. "are you anywhere near all the flooding in texas TO?" No I'm not, but thank you for asking. It is terribly dreary out though.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1705 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.72.72 Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 8:16 pm:        i have never accepted a literal interpretaion of these myths TO. this is what is causing all of the chaos that we see in the world now. If we try to view it as divine communication I think we're missing the bill and deluding ourselves by excluding any realistic interpretation that there may be. i don't have any evidence of where these ideas came from originally.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1708 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.72.72 Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 1:09 am:        these quotes were posted on another thread and inspired me to start this thread. To know that you know what you know, and that you do not know what you do not know, that is true wisdom. -Confucius Real wisdom is to know the extent of ones ignorance. -Confucius I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of. -Clarence Darrow I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. -Thomas Carlyle Till then we shall be content to admit openly, what you (religionists) whisper under your breath or hide in technical jargon, that the ancient secret is a secret still; that man knows nothing of the Infinite and Absolute; and that, knowing nothing, he had better not be dogmatic about his ignorance. And, meanwhile, we will endeavour to be as charitable as possible, and whilst you trumpet forth officially your contempt for our skepticism, we will at least try to believe that you are imposed upon by your own bluster. -Leslie Stephen It wasn't until late in life that I discovered how easy it is to say 'I don't know'. -W. Somerset Maugham Ec 1:17 And I set my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is grasping for the wind. 18 For in much wisdom is much grief, And he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2464 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.23 Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 11:44 am:        "i don't have any evidence of where these ideas came from originally." From where? We should consider several possibilities, but from those possibilities which is the most probable? What is the most rational explanation? I think there is great significance in the fact that civilizations that had no contact with each contained parts of all of Campbell's monomyth. If this were a physical trait common to all people we would not hesitate to connect it to our common genetic makeup would we? Is it not reasonable to assume that the human psyche is partially hard-wired by virtue of the very physical configuration of our brains? The physical structure of our brains are a mix of genetic instructions and the results of how well they were executed as influenced by the environment. Is it not one reasonable explanation for the common myth is that it is hardwired in, stored in genetic memory (so to speak)? Would it not likely be a product or by-product of evolution as much as our opposable thumbs or our appendix? It is all human wisdom and human folly. Consider this. The human race is very old in human terms. One pattern that we can recognize as reoccurring in the known history of human development is that civilizations rise, fall, and others rise to fall after them. Sometimes great bodies of knowledge are lost as in the burning of the Library of Alexander. It is not difficult to imagine great spans of time in our history that are unaccounted where great knowledge was found and lost over and over again. We know some actions, motives, feelings, responses, etc. become programmed into the genes by the evolutionary process and are expressed as instinct. Animals depend on instinct to pass knowledge from generation to generation, being animals ourselves it is not unimaginable that we are the same way. We have instincts as well after all. Could not the monomyth simply be instinctual to human beings, programed in by the evolutionary process? P.S. I almost did get flooded out on the way home yesterday. It was raining cats and dogs and you couldn't see three feet in front of you at times. It also hailed for a couple of blocks. My back yard is small swamp now. }   skooter942000 Intermediate Member Username: skooter942000 Post Number: 375 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 4.243.164.244 Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 3:57 pm:        separate the 'man' from the Wisdom of GOD. | | V The 'i' is Solomon. The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. Ecc 1:16 ¶ I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all [they] that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge. Ecc 1:17 And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. - The Explanation Ecc 1:18 For in much wisdom [is] much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Now read "GOD WORDS", - (FROM SOLOMON) Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction. - If we do not know GOD, - shall we yet, - be wise? Proving that GOD Exists is easy. But many shall remain BLIND to HIS EXISTENCE. - Because they CHOOSE not to Believe beforehand. - They have hardened their HEARTS TOWARDS HIM. - Just like Pharaoh. - Oh well , Eternal Life is a CHOICE, - not a RIGHT - A KNOWN FACT , - (Documented HISTORY) - Psalm 22 - (written 1000 years before it transpired) - by King David. (Of CHRIST and the CRUCIFIXION) - Is this by 'mans' design? Anyone with TRUE WISDOM , - (can can answer this simple question). - And the rest shall fall by the wayside. ()   inkorrekt Advanced Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 843 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 205.169.120.149 Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 5:37 pm:        SCOOTER, Right on brother, society cannot understand the meaning of the word, WISDOM. Because, Wisdom can come only from God. This is not intelligence. But, this is far, far and far beyond human intelligence. Why do not people have wisdom? Answer is: "The fool says in his heart that there is no God." I was one of them many years ago.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1712 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.72.72 Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 9:50 pm:        Proving that GOD Exists is easy. but you do not care enough to share this proof with us? Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction. If we do not know GOD, - shall we yet, - be wise? this verse says the fear of god not the knowledge of god. are you disputing that the bible says that god is unknowable? i hope not because i am not really up to doing any serious study tonight. i am certain that i can back it up if i must.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1717 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.72.72 Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 7:36 pm:        EDWARD’s and DWIGHT’S Life of Brainerd, New Haven, 1822, pp. 45––47, abridged. Describing the whole phenomenon as a change of equilibrium, we might say that the movement of new psychic energies towards the personal centre and the recession of old ones towards the margin (or the rising of some objects above, and the sinking of others below the conscious threshold) were only two ways of describing an indivisible event. Doubtless this is often absolutely true, and Starbuck is right when he says that ’self-surrender’ and ‘new determination,’ though seeming at first sight to be such different experiences, are “really the same thing. Self-surrender sees the change in terms of the old self; determination sees it in terms of the new.” Op. cit., p. 160. i took this from william james varieties of religious experience. i thought it was a good description of conversion (salvation?) from a psychological perspective. here is a link to the chapter it came from. well worth the read in my opinion. http://www.factnet.org/cgi-bin/discus/board-post.cgi   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1719 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.72.72 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 3:21 am:        http://www.ccel.org/ccel/james/varieties.x.html sorry about the link.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2475 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.58 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 12:12 pm:        foaf, What do you think of sense deprivation tank experiences? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEjTXX2rHgA   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2476 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.58 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 12:16 pm:        foaf, What do you think of sense deprivation tank experiences? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEjTXX2rHgA   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1721 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.72.72 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 12:50 pm:        that idea crossed my mind as well when i was reading some of this stuff. i heard somewhere that jim morrison was interested in that stuff. not my idea of a role model but he was no dummy. i have yet to watch the video but i think that under the right conditions someone could benifit from it. it is a way to bring the subconscious to the surface. if you understand that that is what is happening to youand are taught how to handle it properly ii would imagine it could be very enlightening. like any other thing it should not be used as an end in itself. the experience should be intepreted in the context of ones conscious life.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2477 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.58 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 12:59 pm:        I just got word that a old friend of mine has died of a brain aneurysm. She was ok one second and in a coma the next. She was my age and mother of two. I have not seen her in many years but I feel diminished. She will be missed by many folks. She is gone. I'll never see her alive again. She was 49 years old, my age. At one time, I loved her very much. My father's death and my friend's last night brings to my mind the importance of realizing that in our short lives we must make time for each other and not let distance and time come between us. Life is so precious. (Message edited by trainedobserver on March 16, 2007)   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1722 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.72.72 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 1:19 pm:        i am very sorry for your loss TO. Life is so precious. i think that is the only conclusion that one could come to in the face of death.   rachelengland Senior Member Username: rachelengland Post Number: 2722 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 216.109.192.236 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 2:54 pm:        I'm very sorry for your loss TO....R   yaakov2 Advanced Member Username: yaakov2 Post Number: 673 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.192.99.67 Posted on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 3:41 pm:        ...in our short lives we must make time for each other and not let distance and time come between us. Life is so precious. Truer words were never spoke. I am sorry for your loss, TO. May you be blessed with memories of her.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1724 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 11:22 am:        "The earlier concept of a universe made up of physical particles interacting according to fixed laws is no longer tenable. It is implicit in present findings that action rather than matter is basic. . . This is good news, for it is no longer appropriate to think of the universe as a gradually subsiding agitation of billiard balls. The universe, far from being a desert of inert particles, is a theatre of increasingly complex organization, a stage for development in which man has a definite place, without any upper limit to his evolution." --Arthur M. Young The Reflexive Universe http://arthuryoung.com/   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2480 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 71.96.25.137 Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 12:20 pm:        In order for us to understand the true nature of the structure of matter we have to use models. We understand that the Bohr model of the atom is just that, a model. You can understand electricity by using more than one model for example. These things, which are beyond our natural perception and require us to augment them with highly advanced instruments to detect, are things the human mind has only recently begun to deal with. In the overall history of our species, we have never had to understand concepts like these (the atom, quarks, etc.) and as such have no real evolutionarily developed resources in our brains or reference in the universe we could perceive with our natural senses to aid us. Does that make sense? Are you familiar with Plato's allegory of the cave?   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1725 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 1:01 pm:        yes i am familiar with platos conception of forms. here is what this guy young says about this. If the reader finds this difficult, I have two alternatives, either to accept as a fact of life that quantum physics has stumbled upon something that cannot be conceptualized -- that is, take it as would a child, that Daddy said so -- or take the route that I'm trying to open through the jungle, that there are different categories, aspects, or causes of things. he is suggesting that there is a way to understand these things but it has been overlooked by science.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1726 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 1:10 pm:        he says that someone has already unified quantum theory and relativity. Eddington, as I understand him, equates the curvature of space to the curvature or circle of the quantum of action. As I said in The Reflexive Universe, this recognition reconciles quantum theory and relativity, a goal still not acknowledged by science as having been achieved, because the goal was misnamed "a unified field theory" and Eddington's solution does not involve a field but circularity. this is from this essay that i am currently trying to digest. http://arthuryoung.com/bridging.html this stuff fits well with jungian psychology and campbell's idea of myth. this guy was trying to unify it all in search of a new paradigm. it is beginning to bring together my own ideas as well.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1727 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 2:04 pm:        Plato's allegory of the cave? the last time i read that was 15yrs ago. i sem to remember being disappointed, feeling like something was missing in the explination.   skooter942000 Intermediate Member Username: skooter942000 Post Number: 379 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 66.81.216.164 Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 2:34 pm:        For : (fofaking) Pro 1:7 The fear 03374 of the LORD 03068 [is] the beginning 07225 of knowledge 01847: [but] fools 0191 despise 0936 wisdom 02451 and instruction 04148. This is a BEAUTIFUL HEBREW WORD. 3374 yir'ah yir-aw' feminine of 3373; fear (also used as infinitive); morally, reverence:--X dreadful, X exceedingly, fear(-fulness). This word ties into this HOLY NAME: 3376 Yir'iyayh yir-ee-yaw' from 3373 and 3050; fearful of Jah; Jirijah, an Israelite:--Irijah. It means to "Reverence' -(GOD). - Know that HIS (...IS) - Know that HE exists. After you learn this FACT, - (your WISDOM) - shall increase. And i did share a FACT with you (fof) A KNOWN FACT , - (Documented HISTORY) - Psalm 22 - (written 1000 years before it transpired) - by King David. (Of CHRIST and the CRUCIFIXION) ...Right down to the SOLDIERS GAMBLING FOR HIS CLOTHES. - Is this by 'mans' design? (Or GOD'S) - Think about it. The BIG BANG is a LIE. Never place your TRUST (in mankind). satan is always there, ready to DECEIVE, - (USING 'him'). satan would love for all peoples to not believe in GOD. He has many people in his pockets. (Unknowingly) - DARWIN CERTAINLY WAS!!! If evi-lution is a FACT. All the Stages would be present now. It would be an unending process. Where are the WALKING FISH? ...(NOW) Where are the MONKEY MEN? ...(NOW) ()   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1729 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 4:28 pm:        hey scooter, i am not advocating science over god. i am convinced that the two can be reconciled. if they cannot then neither can the existence of god be reconciled in the human mind. to know god is to accept he is unknowable. we must give up our own foolish striving. what god do you have that is small enough to know? i do not think i am even able to get to know another human being entirely. what we have is an opportunity to share in a relationship with the mysteries of life. the mysteries that science bring are no exception. if you are certain about all of the questions that life brings, then please give us some answers. that is what many of us are here for. your devotion to the bible is admirable and i am sure you are quite happy with your beliefs. when you want to talk to someone about your beliefs you should be prepared to answer some questions. i am convinced that we could come to agreement if we are both on an honest quest for the truth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_is_just_a_theory.2C_not_a_fact   skooter942000 Intermediate Member Username: skooter942000 Post Number: 382 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 66.81.220.231 Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 5:24 pm:        -------------------------------------------- RE: From (FoF) if you are certain about all of the questions that life brings, then please give us some answers. that is what many of us are here for. your devotion to the bible is admirable and i am sure you are quite happy with your beliefs. when you want to talk to someone about your beliefs you should be prepared to answer some questions. ----------8< ---cut---------------------------- 'i' always do. - If i am able. - What questions? Jer 17:7 Blessed [is] the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is. Jer 17:8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and [that] spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit. Jer 17:9 ¶ The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jer 17:10 I the LORD search the heart, [I] try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, [and] according to the fruit of his doings.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1735 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 12:12 am:        Deceived about what? The true nature of the universe? Our own 'true natures'? I would have to agree but perhaps for different reasons. i brought this over here because i did not want to hijack shem's thread. i am curious what your reasons might be.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1737 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 1:25 am:        CONSCIOUS EVOLUTION To conclude, all of the evidence suggests that the theory of process Is a precise conceptual map of evolution and a sound theoretical base for a New Age paradigm. If we believe our findings, and can "see" in a gestalt a teleological universe moved by an active, nonmaterial principle, then we have made the higher-order paradigm shift that moves us beyond the scientific paradigm. The insights of process theory offer a powerful set of tools for advancing both science and an integrative understanding of the universe. It is probable that the answers to many of the enigmas that now confound science lie hidden within these simple yet profound insights as to how process works. Through Young's theory the universe is revealed to modern man as an open, creative process, a master game of ingenious design and marvelous complexity which now invites our full conscious participation. (c)1991 John S. Saloma Website design by HYPERSPHERE. ©2006 Anodos Foundation. All rights reserved. http://arthuryoung.com/the1exc.html this may be the proof you were looking for TO (Message edited by fatherofaking on March 19, 2007)   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1738 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 1:39 am:        While the first and main line of defense for process theory is its capability for mapping natural evolution, other "proofs" or supporting evidence should be noted. Young has developed a number of heuristic proofs or derivations of the fourfold involving for example Newton's laws of motion, the measure formulae of physics, real and imaginary numbers in mathematics, and the generation of spherical coordinates. While these may appear simple they are not trivial. Young's fourfold analysis of position, velocity, acceleration, and control, dealing as it does with the fundamental insights of Newtonian physics, is a rather profound statement. Mythology affords Young another kind of proof of fourness and sevenness, more numinous although less cogent to the rational modern mind. The most convincing proof of the fourfold remains the dependence of seven-stage process upon it. In a similar fashion Young has collected "proofs" that the seven stages of process are fundamental. In Appendix 11 of The Reflexive Universe he shows from both topology and the postulates of projective geometry that seven categorical distinctions are necessary to a complete description of the physical universe. (c)1991 John S. Saloma Website design by HYPERSPHERE. ©2006 Anodos Foundation. All rights reserved. http://arthuryoung.com/the1exc.html   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2485 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.18 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 1:04 pm:        "Young's theory" Young's stuff is interesting but I don't know that I buy into the theory that the Universe is in some sense alive itself. Is that what you are getting from it? He highlights what I have been saying about the impossibility of man's primitive anthropomorphic concepts of god being true. Mankind has been deceived by ignorance to accept superstitious beliefs about how the universe operates. Men have manipulated their neighbors through religious chicanery since the beginning. Fooled into thinking we are above nature and bound for a better world we have disconnected ourselves from our natural origins. The truth is this. We are the dominate animals on a small planet in a vast universe. There were other dominate species before us. The entire history of our species will be so brief as to not even warrant a footnote in the history of the universe. Any significance we have, we must create for ourselves. To survive as a species we must evolve and adapt quickly to the changing universe around us. A major evolution in our thinking needs to be in the area of long term thinking. A major international effort should be planning for the survival of human life through colonization of space. But that is just my opinion.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1739 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 1:41 pm:        the Universe is in some sense alive itself. what he seems to be saying is that there is something behind the universe that is alive. If we believe our findings, and can "see" in a gestalt a teleological universe moved by an active, nonmaterial principle, then we have made the higher-order paradigm shift that moves us beyond the scientific paradigm. (c)1991 John S. Saloma (Message edited by fatherofaking on March 19, 2007)   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2486 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.18 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 2:19 pm:        I don't know. Sounds like mumbo-jumbo to me. I'll look at some more though. If there is such a "god" by what line of reasoning do you figure that such an alien intelligence would be interested in us? If there is such a thing, the evidence would suggest that it is not concerned about the welfare of human beings. It is also possible that we are merely an unessential by-product a larger process we can't comprehend. Our consciousness may just be a happy accident. If any of that were so it in no way diminishes us. The rarity and fragile nature of life makes it the most precious thing in the universe.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1741 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 2:27 pm:        here is an excerpt from youngs book the geometry of meaning. he is referencing ernst cassirer's book determinism and indeterminism in modern physics. i found it to be somewhat humorous. Of course, I believe it does, but because I am outnumbered and outpointed by rational argument, for my opponents are all rational men, I am compelled either to retire in defeat or to meet their arguments eyeball to eyeball. This is difficult, if not impossible, for the use of reason, which has trapped them, would also trap me. There is nothing I'd enjoy better than a blow-by-blow rational argument, but even if I were to win the battles, I could not win the war, as I've learned many times. Therefore, instead of trying to win the argument in regard to free will, I propose to lay siege to philosophy in general, in order to restore that whole thinking with which we have lost touch in our bedazzlement with science. arthur young the geometry of meaning maybe it is time you rethought your position TO. it is no longer necesary to abandon the concept of god in order to accept science. they are no longer mutually exclusive. they never were.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1743 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 4:22 pm:        http://arthuryoung.com/ruexc.html an excerpt from the reflexive universe. arthur m young the times they are a changin. bob dylan   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1747 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 1:48 am:        But this whole repertoire--or process of constructing self-motivated organisms which we call the physical universe--is a vehicle for the accommodation of spirit, which requires this manifestation for its growth and self-discovery. this is what young says about the purpose of it all. we are made in his image. that makes his purpose our purpose. we get to know ourselves, we get to know god. we use the same means to do so. http://www.arthuryoung.com/whatisgod.html   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1748 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 11:51 am:        this from a link on ron paul's website. the texas congressman currently running for president. The Real ID Act blackmails state governments into turning their drivers licenses into a draconian tool of the federal homeland security apparatus. If states refuse, their citizens lose such "privileges" as being allowed to board an airplane, enter a federal building, or apply for social security. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Police%20State/national_ids.htm this is where this is all leading us. Re 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: Re 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. everyone knows, from scientists to governments to the person on the street. there is a big change coming in the conciousness of the world. the time is closer than we think. we must prepare or it will be a nightmare rather than something that is welcomed. many will be decieved. the singularity, a paradigm shift, a raising of conscousness, the return of christ, no matter what you want to call it, it is happenning. most of us have to go through some sort of friction, circumstance or even crisis, for change to happen in our lives. imagine that on the scale of 8 billion people. it is not going to be pretty. the bible speaks of the things ocurring as birth pangs. for all of you women out there you know how that can be. once the baby is born however all is changed. the miracle of birth makes all of the pain worthwhile. (Message edited by fatherofaking on March 20, 2007)   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2487 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.23 Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 12:03 pm:        "this is what young says about the purpose of it all. we are made in his image. that makes his purpose our purpose. " ...I don't see enough to make me believe there is anyone to made in the image of in the first place. Conversation about the practices and purposes of such a being seem premature. But hypothetically speaking, if a creator god existed and what you say there is true, then it would appear that he is highly competitive, paranoid, and prone to self destruction and needless suffering. Because that is our image. An image of an everyday struggle to survive, highlighted by angst, joy, betrayal, sorrow, fear, love, hate, and wonder. Has it not always been tribe against tribe, nation against nation, race against race, those who are the same against those who are different? Why do we do this to ourselves? Look to nature to not to the imagination for the answer. All animal species have a unique social order. Read some Jane Goodall or watch a few episodes of Meerkat Manor on animal planet. It is gang against gang, herd against herd, pack against pack, in nature is it not? Why should we wring our hands and say humanity is somehow "broken" and need of repair. Are we not following an instinctual social pattern we see mirrored in nature? To address any problem you must first acknowledge it. Our problem is not a supernatural one at all, it is a natural one. Our natural herd instincts can compel us see those who are not of our group as competition for resources who need to be neutralized or we can use reason and empathy to see them as allies and a potential relationship as mutually beneficial. As reasoning beings we can modify our behavior to adapt to conditions. The hope is that we can leap-frog over natural selection by benefit of our reason so that tribes can live along side other tribes and not see violence as an option for settling disputes before all of the violence-prone among us kill each other off. We may dream of a single wonderful benign perfect being who is in control, an all-powerful all-loving perfect parent who loves us because we are part of them and not because of our performance. We may wish with all our might that such a thing existed. We may even compose a great new metaphysics with which to describe it, but all this does not address the most rudimentary problems surrounding the existence of such a being or the existence of immortal souls. Not the least of which is the lack of sufficient reliable and reproducible evidence for their existence. The natural laws that we know and depend on each day to function cannot support omnipresence, omnipotence, or immutability. There is much that has been written on the subject. I won't repeat it here. You need only to google "impossibility of god" for a sample. Since gods cannot exist in the natural universe the "supernatural" universe had to be created where natural law is no longer in effect. However the suspension of disbelief required to maintain a belief in the supernatural is tremendous and quite a burden to carry. Please watch this short film. This fellow explains the hows and whys of science and skepticism in a nutshell. Tell me what you think. http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/ted_shermer_m_2005.mov (Message edited by trainedobserver on March 20, 2007)   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1749 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 12:41 pm:        ...I don't see enough to make me believe there is anyone to made in the image of in the first place. Conversation about the practices and purposes of such a being seem premature. sorry about that what i wrote was confusing. what young said was written in italics. the rest is mine. it is interpretation. now, regarding what young has said about the discoveries that have been made in quantum physics, namely, the behavior of a photon. it is not observable. this is the next paragraph in the same essay. take from it what you wish. i'm still investigating. i can't find any critics. sorry, i was unable to get the link to work. The spirit or life spark which animates this manifestation could be called God. Or we could call the goal that it moves toward God, or we could call the whole thing God. But if the whole thing is God then we have to distinguish between the downward pull into manifestation (disintegration), which is also the necessity to get means, from the upward motion (integration) which uses the means to get to the goal of self-realization. http://www.arthuryoung.com/whatisgod.html science is still trying to unify releativity and quantum action when it has already been done. young says there should have been a paradigm shift by now. he didn't live to see it happen. i hope i do. (Message edited by fatherofaking on March 20, 2007)   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1750 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 1:04 pm:        your trip into the animal kingdom was humourous at best. we are headed forward. we must in order to survive. there will by necessity be a change. there are 8 billion people on this planet and we are ruining it more and more each day. somthing will have to give. i have a feeling the natural forces will win out over our striving to hold on to what is comfortable.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2490 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.25 Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 1:12 pm:        You could substitute "The Force" for God in the young quote couldn't you? The word "god" is so loaded it is difficult to use. "God" implies a personality, an individual, who has no limitations. Once again it gets back to anthropomorphizing this 'thing' this 'force' that we imagine created and continues to influence the universe and ourselves. Clearly it is grasping at smoke and reckless reasoning to contemplate the incomprehensible. I contend that if a 'intelligent guiding force' exists it is so alien to us we cannot comprehend it. We do not fully comprehend the complexity of our own minds. Is it not arrogant and completely unrealistic to think that we would be able to comprehend the nature and purposes of a 'supreme being' if it did exist? It is laughable to say the least. The search for gods is a futile one. Like I said before, "We may dream of a single wonderful benign perfect being who is in control, an all-powerful all-loving perfect parent who loves us because we are part of them and not because of our performance." but this is totally unsupportable and unrealistic. It is an ideal concept and one we desperately want to be true. But that does not make it so.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2491 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.25 Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 1:58 pm:        "your trip into the animal kingdom was humourous at best." Are you saying you do not see the correlation between the social orders? "there are 8 billion people on this planet and we are ruining it ... the natural forces will win out over our striving to hold on to what is comfortable." Yes, the natural consequences of too much competition for limited resources is death by starvation and disease. This is why if too many deer populate a certain area they become distressed and diseased. Hunters help nature by reducing their numbers to help the herd survive. We can help ourselves out of this too. All we can do is reason and think our way out of it. We could waste time by praying, performing rituals, believing in miracles, looking for help from outer space or other dimensions. But the truth is we are going to have to "Man Up" as my son says and take responsibility to influence positive change. Our problems are all earth centered. The world is ruled by the International Bankers and a Mega-Rich oligarchy. Study the origins of the Federal Reserve. They are mankind's greatest enemies and that is the system that must be reformed. As long as they have us rooting around in myth at every turn they know we won't be bothering them. America must return to the Constitution! The government should take back control of our money. It is a subversion of the Constitution to give that right away to a private institution. The founding fathers knew better. As Abraham Lincoln said, "It should be preached from the pulpits!" The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are truly sacred documents because they are the best hope of Liberty that mankind has.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1751 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 2:05 pm:        Is it not arrogant and completely unrealistic to think that we would be able to comprehend the nature and purposes of a 'supreme being' if it did exist? It is laughable to say the least. where should we turn to answer what science has no words to explain. let us say that i give my son a car for his birthday, science is what has given me the means to do that. what science does not tell us in the handbook is that there are laws, or moral conduct that goes along with beig able to drive it. where does that instruction come from? not from science. science is at a place where it has something unexplainable on it's hands. far from being a bad thing, this discovery is monumantal. it now gives unity to all of the other sciences and allows us to fit the teachigs of the ancient myths and philosophers into some kind of context that makes sense. this is where the instruction that science can't provide comes from. does that mean that we know god? that is debatable. this does however give us some sense of purpose and meaning. it even tells us where we might be going.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2492 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.32 Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 3:28 pm:        "where should we turn to answer what science has no words to explain. " My friend, we must accept that all questions will not be answered to our satisfaction. "not from science." That is a false statement. I just don't get this. You seem to always fall back to "where do morals come from" as though we are so stupid that we can't figure out how to act? I personally am not that stupid. You know that killing is wrong because you don't want to be killed. You know stealing is wrong because you do not want things stolen from you. etc. etc. etc. There's one simple mechanism for morals. Human social behavior is studied as the science of sociology you know. "far from being a bad thing, this discovery is monumantal. " Monumental discovery? Young's Theory of Process? What are you referring to foaf? You've actually studied it well enough to place some trust in it already? I find it convoluted and difficult to follow so far. Just what are the list of assumptions that he starts out with? Were you able to view the video I linked to?   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1752 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 5:20 pm:        "not from science." That is a false statement. can science tell me how to comfort a child with a bruised knee? did you understand right and wrong when you were two? we are educated in the ways of life. science provides a piece but that is it. the cold demeaner of science could never say i love you. education in all things TO. as you said we are all scientists, philosophers and artists. the tools for us to be able to express these parts of ourselves are available to us all. they have been around for as long as we have been. they get lost on occasion, but always rediscovered. i should say that less people are exposed to them. even when they are, it is only in pieces. take another look at this stuff TO. it is not that difficult to follow. http://www.arthuryoung.com/ruexc.html no i was unable to get the video to work. my computer is a bit ancient comparitvly speaking. i am happy to look at it TO if i could. i am not afraid of critics. i have tolerated you for this long. i generally find much of the stuff i read lacking substance. i hope you will at least take the time to form an opinion before you call it twisted. convoluted is the stuff that comes from the religious institutions. this dichotamy between science and religion is nothing more than a power struggle. christianity is one of the worst offenders. Monumental discovery? Young's Theory of Process? no TO. it is the discovery in quantum physics that is the reason that this theory can even be developed. for some reason it has been seen as a connundrum rather than a revelation. i have read quite a lot of what i can find of young's stuff online. i have yet to read any of his books in their entirety. what i have been doing is looking for critics that have found proof that this theory is false. i have found none as of yet. the scientific community has been strangely silent. http://mindfire.ca/The%20Geometry%20of%20Meaning%20-%20The%20Four%20Elements.htm i do not subscribe to whatever agenda this website may have. it is a link that gives more writings of young than i could find on the home page. i have no opinion on the rest of the information provided.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1753 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 5:36 pm:        "The earlier concept of a universe made up of physical particles interacting according to fixed laws is no longer tenable. It is implicit in present findings that action rather than matter is basic. . . This is good news, for it is no longer appropriate to think of the universe as a gradually subsiding agitation of billiard balls. The universe, far from being a desert of inert particles, is a theatre of increasingly complex organization, a stage for development in which man has a definite place, without any upper limit to his evolution." --Arthur M. Young The Reflexive Universe http://arthuryoung.com/ emphisis is mine. it is not his theory that is monumental, in fact, he says himself that it is just some rediscovered knowledge. although his achievement is remarkable it is the discovery in quantum physics that is monumental because of it's unifying ability. science doesn't want to look at it but has no answers of it's own. it is unable to answer for it's own discovery and will not accept that the answer has been with us all along.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1756 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 4:48 am:        This is that quantum physics, when understood, can provide the compass that in former times required revealed religion: it can tell us of first cause. http://mindfire.ca/More%20on%20Light.htm   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2493 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.35 Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 11:15 am:        ”can science tell me how to comfort a child with a bruised knee? “ It is statements like this that led me to believe you still may misunderstand what science really is. Of course it can. Science is a process foaf. What do you think it is? Let's dismantle this and examine the tiny bits. Science tackles the problem-How do you comfort a child with a bruised knee? Hypothesis--A child with a bruise knee needs both physical and emotional 'first-aid' the degree each defendant on various factors. Research—- Examine the physical and emotional damage and prioritize. What treatments are historically proven to work and are considered best? Experiment--Use proven treatments to see if these will comfort the child. These may include antiseptic and a calming concerned tone of voice and physical contact. Repeat and adjust as necessary. Theory--Using proven treatments such as antiseptic with vocal and physical consolation can comfort a child with a bruised knee. ”did you understand right and wrong when you were two? “ Did you understand “anything” when you were two? I didn't. I've yet to met a two year old that does. Your point? ”we are educated in the ways of life.” ...ways of life ...I think you mean culture. We are educated in the ways of our culture. Our culture is one expression of humanity on the earth. ”science provides a piece but that is it. “ And the other piece is what? Knowledge revealed by mystical or 'spiritual' means? ”the cold demeaner of science could never say i love you. “ Emotional life can be and has been studied and explained scientifically. You are barking up the wrong tree. ”i have tolerated you for this long. “ ... ”this dichotamy between science and religion is nothing more than a power struggle. “ It is the age old struggle of “superstition and fear vs. reason and logic.” Animal instinct vs. abstract thinking. Those who are unable or unwilling to step from childhood superstitions (from the childhood of the individual and of mankind itself), to resist instinct and use our capacity for abstract thought to see a more excellent way are spinning their wheels on ideas already abandoned for their unsoundness. ”no i was unable to get the video to work. my computer is a bit ancient comparitvly speaking. “ Here, give the hand-crank on the old boy a good spin and try the following link. The video is in a different format that shouldn't give you any trouble. Please let me know how it works out. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7453317847381528211&q=Skeptic+magazine ”science doesn't want to look at it but has no answers of it's own. “ When you say 'science' in the above sentence do you mean the scientific community? What part of the scientific community has this been presented to? Has it been published in any scientific journals? If not then that would explain the silence.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1757 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 1:13 pm:        well TO, that was a relly good stand-up routine but it is just common sense that he is talking about. yes it is true that people will leave common sense behind to hang on to their beliefs. i am far from doing that. do you think that this guy has broken some cardnal rule of science. when science will admit that it is stuck then it can movve forward. something that science will never do it seems. while you sit back and wait for science to come up with the answers i will continue to move forward. we already have the answers we need TO, just not in the body of scientific knowledge. The physicist, who was originally responsible for the doctrine (which Blake called "Newton's sleep"), has been awakened by his own experiments to the recognition that determinism as a doctrine is untenable. In the same way, determinism, invented on the basis of a misunderstanding, and now known to be false in principle, has been made policy, and its adherents challenge others to disprove it. Robert Oppenheimer observed in 1956: . . . the worst of all possible misunderstandings would occur if psychology should be influenced to model itself after a physics which is not there any more, which has been quite outdated. (2) Nonetheless, this has happened, and the pundits with the false dogma are making the most noise. while you continue to ignore the new discoveries and their implications i will see them as a way forward. the reductionist philosophy does not fit the truth any longer. you are ignoring the very thing you say you stand for. this has not made it into the scientific journals i would imagine because of the inability of science to move out of they way of itself. this is not pseudo science this guy has developed a testable theory. test it for yourself. pass it on to your friends, just look at it. when you prove it false let me know. i have yet to find anyone who has looked at it and proven any part of it wrong.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1758 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 1:15 pm:        here is what some are saying. http://arthuryoung.com/applying.html The reader may wonder whether the formalisms of the theory of process are arbitrary. The only way to answer that question satisfactorily is to delve into the theory oneself. For many readers, the first and overriding "proof" of the theory's validity is its "fit" with the observable data of nature. Any doubts about the adequacy of documentation in The Reflexive Universe have been eliminated by the further research into "bioprocess" by Frank E. Barr, M.D." Barr has shown how the seven stages of process can be used to describe and analyze cellular organization, the core dynamics of embryology, the germ layers (ectoderm, endoderm, mesoderm, etc.), the origin of neurosecretion, muscular development, and possible stages of the central nervous system. The remarkable mapping accuracy of process theory is repeated throughout. Not only is the arc-like pattern confirmed but also the inner dynamics and interrelationships predicted by the theory. Once again we are confronted by the signature of process and further questions about its meaning. Researchers and students of the theory of process may well effect a fundamental restructuring of medical science and education before a skeptical scientific community acknowledges the significance of Young's theoretical achievement. http://arthuryoung.com/the1exc.html http://arthuryoung.com/sibbet3.html http://arthuryoung.com/badn.html http://arthuryoung.com/meru.html   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1759 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 1:36 pm:        i will never be able to test the theories of reletivity and quantum action but i can see the results of the teachings. it has caused chaos in the common man's world. youngs theory provides answers based on what is considered sound science. if it didn't work the testing that has already been done would have shown it to be wrong. i can test some of young's theory because it relates more directly to my life. it has opened up a whole new perspective.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1768 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 4:23 pm:        The wave theory of light required the existence of an all-pervading ether as the "agency" for the transmission of electromagnetic forces. The ether, while it solved the vexing problem of action at a distance, created new problems. Force was explained as a "strain" in the ether, but in order for the strain to travel at the speed of light, it would be necessary for the ether to possess a rigidity millions of times greater than the rigidity of steel (according to de Broglie, a modern physicist, its rigidity would have to be infinite). The ether seems a remarkable example of how far people will go to shore up and thus obscure faulty thinking rather than abandon a mistaken premise, i.e., materialism. even the best minds don't let go of things easily.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2498 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.37 Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 6:14 pm:        "while you continue to ignore the new discoveries and their implications i will see them as a way forward. " I tell you what. I'll continue to do what I do now. I'll vet those "new discoveries" to see if they are "real". See Cold Fusion. Tell me foaf. What is science? "it has caused chaos in the common man's world. " Huh? What are you talking about here? "youngs theory provides answers based on what is considered sound science. if it didn't work the testing that has already been done would have shown it to be wrong." I'm not saying he is wrong. I don't know enough to judge yet. I'm just asking the proper questions. Please find and read the story of the Pitdown man, Cold Fusion, and the South Korea Cloning fiasco.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1770 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 10:09 pm:        I'll vet those "new discoveries" to see if they are "real". i am not sure what you are trying to say here. a typo perhaps? vet? Tell me foaf. What is science? i am sure you are not asking this question for your own enlightenment. i make a distinction between the philosophy of science and the scientific method, as does everyone else. the philosophy of science has failed to see the implications of it's own findings through the scientific method. since the scientific community refuses toacept any other branch of knowledge as credible, they will never be able to answer the question of uncertainty that has risen from their own experiments. Please find and read the story of the Pitdown man, Cold Fusion, and the South Korea Cloning fiasco. i will do this if you give me good reason to do so. quanta action has been well documented. that is not the issue. the issue is how to reconcile it with things like relativity, gravity,and the thermo dynamic and the electro-magnetic forces. it is a disjointed mess that "science" has no answers for, and according to their own methods will never be able to answer. they cannot test something that is not obseverable.   saygoodnightgracie New member Username: saygoodnightgracie Post Number: 23 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 70.89.15.220 Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 10:18 pm:        Here is some things I don't know... Where are all of the erasers from the tops of miniature golf pencils? How does Keanu Reeves keep getting movie roles? What came first, South Beach or Atkins Diet? Whatever happened to Pam Dawber? These things keep most of us awake at night.   saygoodnightgracie New member Username: saygoodnightgracie Post Number: 24 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 70.89.15.220 Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 10:18 pm:        Here is some things I don't know... Where are all of the erasers from the tops of miniature golf pencils? How does Keanu Reeves keep getting movie roles? What came first, South Beach or Atkins Diet? Whatever happened to Pam Dawber? These things keep most of us awake at night.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1771 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 10:44 pm:        These things keep most of us awake at night. actually those are the things that keep most asleep.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1775 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 11:44 am:        "God" implies a personality, an individual this idea has come from something that is perfectly normal. we have no other context to describe god but through creation. since we seem to be at the top of that creation it would make sense that we would describe god using terms that are anthropomorphic in nature. what we need to understand is that these definitions are not to be taken literally. they should be seen as metaphor. like a painting is an expression of an artist, he is not the painting. we are an expression of who god is not god. it is just the means that we have to make sense of something that is indescribable through the use of language. that is why we are hardwired to respond to symbols. they say something to us that language alone cannot.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1792 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 12:04 pm:        YOUNG: What I did want to say is that most people think of evolution in terms of Darwinian evolution -- evolution of the species, and whether we were descended from apes or not. I would say they're missing the real point, which is not the physical evolution of our bodies, which has already occurred before we even took the bodies. MISHLOVE: Although you do point out that there are some real gaps in Darwin -- not that you're a Creationist. YOUNG: No, I'm not talking about Darwin at all. I'm just talking about the idea that our evolution is physical. I want to come to the point of the evolution of Jeff Mishlove, the evolution of myself, the evolution of each one of us, which is not a question of species. It's a question of building up more character, more competence, more stature, eventually to become like a god. And that's of direct concern to each one of us, much more concern than what's going on in the zoo. MISHLOVE: That's a very powerful point, Arthur. YOUNG: Well, I'm horrified by the fact it's not ever touched. This whole cloud of foolishness about Darwin takes its place, and they battle over -- you know, the Creationists versus the Darwinists -- but the whole point is missed. MISHLOVE: They're looking too much at where we came from in the first place, rather than where we're going. YOUNG: Yes, looking back rather than looking ahead. But you see my point about evolution of the self being quite different from what's happening with animals, which is evolution of the species. http://www.intuition.org/txt/young3.htm   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2506 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.33 Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 1:51 pm:        mishlove: ...what is the purpose of creation at all? Why is there any existence? young:That is a question we each have to ask ourselves, but to me it's God wanting to know himself. We're told by the old myths that we are sparks of God and we've been thrown out into the world to thrive for ourselves, and in this way God becomes more evolved himself." There is some major assumptions that have to be made to go down this path and not the least of which are the questions "What is the purpose of creation? Why is there any existence at all?" valid questions to ask? I think we should ask some other questions up front: "Does everything have a use for which it was 'made'?" I believe the answer is no, some things are by-products of the making of something else. example: sawdust. By-products are either useful in some way or they are unusable. Sometimes by-products are planned secondary products of some process. Sometimes they are not. More times than not the by-products of the process can be reused by the same process as raw-material. Example: Excess plastic removed from molded products is reintroduced into molding process. If the universe (aka creation) has a purpose then would we have the ability to get our arms around it? Would we be able to even imagine what a universe would be "used" for? We must make some rather grandiose assumptions about ourselves to able to do so. Is it possible that life is a by-product of some other process? If so, are we useful by-products or are not? Remember not all things have a purpose. Why is there an existence at all? Again I think to ask, "Are we capable of imagining or understanding the purpose of the universe itself? Assume that we do have an ability to understand the concepts that use universes for some 'purpose'. What does the purpose of the universe seem to be? What is it best suited for other than to take up space? Is it best suited to produce and harbor life? What does the universe do better than it does anything else?   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2507 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.33 Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 1:56 pm:        If the universe has a purpose then what effect do life forms, particularly humans, have on the universe? We have no perceivable effect on the universe. We have some limited effect on things within our solar system in that we take things from our planet and put them in space and on other planets. Our presence impacts the solar system in such a minuscule way that we do not effect how our solar system impacts the galaxy and the universe at large. We and all of the other life forms on this planet only have a direct effect on this planet. One planet in the incalculable immensity of the universe. I think it is easy to see that if the universe has some purpose it most likely doesn't involve humans much less life in general. Why? What is our effect on the functioning of the universe? None, unless someone has some evidence to the contrary that I haven't seen. You can never get legitimate answers to illegitimate questions. That is why contemplating these questions is only an exercise and no one could be reasonably expected to answer either. Should this make us rend our clothes, rip out our hair, and throw ourselves under a train? It has some people I imagine. The realization that your life has no meaning or purpose other than what you yourself assign to it is just too damaging to their egos for some minds to accept. I think the ones who realize this and 'loose it' have not been equipped by their society or their culture to handle not being the center of the universe. Does the universe have a purpose? I don't believe human beings have the means or know-how to answer that question. We have to deal with our individual microcosm that is floating in the macrocosm of the universe. In our microcosm our purpose, beyond that of continuing the species (a very important purpose I might add), is the purpose that we have given ourselves. Is that not true?   yaakov2 Advanced Member Username: yaakov2 Post Number: 686 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.192.99.67 Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 2:27 pm:        TO Those are some interesting questions and thoughts. Putting them into a religious context, we could ask: When G-d made the entire universe, was the whole thing for our benefit? Why make it so big, when we only use a tiny fraction of a flea-bite of the whole thing? Does the universe have a purpose other than for our experience? It gives me a chuckle to think that when G-d created the universe, we were just a by-product of the process. Just a little bit of excess molecules to fold back into star stuff. You’re right that nobody on Earth can truly answer these questions, they are just a thought exercise. Judaism holds that many things are unknowable by us, only G-d knows all. We just accept what is and work with what we have.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1793 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 6:52 pm:        What is our effect on the functioning of the universe? None, unless someone has some evidence to the contrary that I haven't seen. you see TO, that is just the kind of attitude that keeps you from being able to see the effect that we have. we are destroying an entire planet. what are we going to do go planet hopping, destroying everything we touch? if we can't learn how to live here, it is unlikely we will do any better anywhere else. common sense would tell you that we are the ones responsible for our own environment. who else is going to take care of it? we should actually be taking part in creating it instead of destroying it. this is an individual problem on a global scale. the tipping point has already been reached we will change despite ourselves. the shift will happen. it will happen on a biblical scale. we will not have time to populate the planets as you suggest TO. i do not understand how you can continue to deny that religon and science have ultimately come to the same conclusions. In sum, then, our -thesis is: we inhabit a universe, and this implies one universal set of principles or of truth. To discover these principles or truth, we must enlist both religious and scientific inquiry, and, recognizing the variety of expressions of both, be prepared to seek out the unity in its true implication and significance. http://arthuryoung.com/barr.html As the reader is probably aware, the notion of purpose or teleology is forbidden in science, among biologists especially, who, while they must be strongly tempted to invoke it at every turn, avoid it as a reformed alcoholic avoids a drink. Physicists avoid it because their problems don't require it. Yet we find one of the greatest physicists saying that: . . . the historical development of theoretic research in physics had led in a remarkable way to a formulation of the principle of physical causality which possesses an explicitly teleological character. http://mindfire.ca/Light%20as%20%20Purposive.htm there is more where this came from TO. scientists are having to admit that they have something unknowable and yet with purpose. you can hide in your little box of reason for a while, but sooner or later you are going to have to come out and see what is happening right under your nose. our current president has been able to hold off any move on putting a halt on global emissions. the science is flawed he said. this is the same science that al gore took to congress last week. the same science that has been known since gore was the supposed next president of the u.s.. you see TO, just because this information isn't making the headlines does not mean it is not true. the science is sound and the implications are clear. the theory is being tested everyday. in fact it has been in use for millinia.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1794 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 7:19 pm:        this information is being hidden from us. everyone thinks that the mark of cain was a curse. this is not true. the curse is that he was no longer able to farm. the sign or symbol that cain was given was the knowledge to survive. cain was the beginning of the cro-magnan man. hunter, gatherer, fishing, i think we may even have evidence of the first musical instruments that emerged. these myths have elements of science and history but they are not science and history books. science and history books have a missing element. a context in which to interpret what they find. the ancients understood these things. this knowledge is the origin of science. it has since divorced it self from it's source.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1795 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 7:25 pm:        BTW TO, i hope you guys are doing ok down there. it looks pretty soggy from the pictures i'm seeing.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2509 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.56 Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 1:20 pm:        ”we are destroying an entire planet.” We are? That may be so at some degree or another. We are in greater danger of killing ourselves before we endanger the planet I'm afraid. The earth was around long before we showed up and it will be here long after we are gone. Alarmist propaganda about human vs. earth (the global warming scare) being a more present and greater danger than human vs. human destruction is a dangerous diversion at this point. ”what are we going to do go planet hopping, destroying everything we touch? “ Aren't you optimistic! I think we'll kill each other or a natural disaster will kill us, long before we've permanently scared the evolving exosphere. The planet's life cycle is so incredibly vast that the entire existence of human beings on this planet will be like just a tick of clock. If we leave the planet and populate the stars it will be against all odds I'm afraid. I think trouping around the universe trashing planets is the least of our possible worries. But who knows what the future holds? No, I think we need to get solving some very human problems before we take on trying to control the temperature cycle of a planet. From what I understand the sun and cow farts have a greater impact on global warming than we do. It's happening but look at what is happening with solar activity. We do have about 100% of the influence over our killing, hurting, exploiting, and generally being nasty to one another though don't we? Maybe we should be more concerned with what we can influence. Who runs the world? Who writes history now? A hand full of families that controls the money that the nations of the world deal with each other in does. Does the wisdom of myth tell us how to deal with that?   called Senior Member Username: called Post Number: 1624 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 141.153.240.112 Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 1:37 pm:        fatherofaking I see you preaching a lot of new age philosophy It really gets to me when I see everyone always talking about and praying for peace love and a better environment. But the Bible clearly tells that we are in the last of the last days, and the fact that we haven't seen nothing yet, because things are going to get worse and worse until all hell breaks lose just before the return of messiah, can’t you people see that? When you see these things look up for your redemption drawth neigh!!! read Mat 24 Mark 13 Luke 21 the book of Rev these things are coming alive right in our faces and you or anyone eles can stop it!!! Johnn   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1796 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 2:33 pm:        I see you preaching a lot of new age philosophy you shouldn't criticize what you don't understand johnny. i am well aware of the coming crises for many. if you read any of what i have been "preaching" you would see that i am always talking about it. i am afraid johnny that you are one of the decieved. hey TO, Does the wisdom of myth tell us how to deal with that? yes it does. loud and clear. this is just a small sample of what is out there. any questions feel free to ask. i have been studying this one for a long time. with the help of young's theory of process i have been able to take it to another level of understanding. notice the star of david is said to have seven points not 6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_David#As_a_Jewish_symbol notice the shape of the seal of solomon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_Solomon notice the shape of this symbol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemason 6 points, one in the middle. 7 points when you go to this page scroll to the bottom and look at the chart. then you can go back and read it if you like. notice the same star again. http://mindfire.ca/The%20Geometry%20of%20Meaning%20-%20The%20Four%20Elements.htm anyone starting to see a connection here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Architect_of_the_Universe do you remember bush calling karl rove the architect? those that are in charge know these secrets. this information belongs to us. the whole devil myth and the pentagram thing is just a hoax. it is not a five pointed star at all. the conspiricy theorists only have it partly right. they are in a race that they cannot win however. they are trying to increase technology before this knowledge gets out to everyone. the problem is that the increase of knowledge must by necessity keep up with the pace of technology . there is going to have to be a massive effort to keep this under wraps. a new one world religion will be a must. another way it is being done is through the gradual erosion of our rights and privacy. we will not be able to say or do anything that may threaten the current plan. many will have to flee the comming persecution. thankfully a way will be made for that to happen.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2511 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.6 Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 1:16 pm:        "many will have to flee the comming persecution. thankfully a way will be made for that to happen" How's that?   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1798 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 1:55 pm:        How's that? the sun goes through a constant 11 year cycle. the sun spots get much worse during this time. in fact it is pretty much unpredictable as to how severe it could get. we now have a factor that is also unpredictable, global warming. with the two of these things together i think we are going to see a global catastrophy that is unprecedented. sun spots have the power to knock out our communication satilites. i do think this will happen. this will enable people to travel with freedom. i also think the sun is going to get hotter than we have ever experienced before. to the point that it will be dangerous to be outside for very long. this is not going to be a pretty scenerio. i read a recent government report on nanotech last night. he quoted ray kurzweil's book the "singularity is near" several times. he sees this all as positive of course. i see the end result as positive. this guy puts the singularity in the year 2020. the time is coming and few even no. even those that have some idea are not prepared. most will be decieved into thinking that everything is fine. there will be a time of peace before the chaos begins. a result of tyrany of course. kind of like the peace that existed in iraq during sadaam's reign.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2512 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.8 Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 3:04 pm:        ”the sun spots get much worse during this time. in fact it is pretty much unpredictable as to how severe it could get. we now have a factor that is also unpredictable, global warming. “ The two are tied together of course. The sun's cosmic rays effect our atmosphere. ”kind of like the peace that existed in iraq during sadaam's reign. “ Unlike the unmitigated chaos and civil war of the occupation. These environmental problems are beyond our ability to solve. It involves planets and suns and magnetospheres. We can't do much with those things. We can do something about the human problem. As an American I feel my 'responsibility' is the preservation of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. America has to wake up and pitch the criminals in office who are trying to destroy it in prison. They are using religiously generated fear, racially generated fear, and politically generated fear to take control of the country.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1809 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Saturday, April 07, 2007 - 10:53 am:        In the same way, determinism, invented on the basis of a misunderstanding, and now known to be false in principle, has been made policy, and its adherents challenge others to disprove it. Robert Oppenheimer observed in 1956: . . . the worst of all possible misunderstandings would occur if psychology should be influenced to model itself after a physics which is not there any more, which has been quite outdated. (2) Nonetheless, this has happened, and the pundits with the false dogma are making the most noise. http://mindfire.ca/The%20Reflexive%20Universe/Chapter%203%20-%20More%20on%20Light.htm   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2542 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 71.96.15.214 Posted on Sunday, April 08, 2007 - 12:59 pm:        That made my brain hurt.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1810 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Sunday, April 08, 2007 - 4:57 pm:        sorry TO, it is not a bad thing to stretch yourself once in a while. it is the deterministic viewpoint that you hold that you won't let go of that is the problem. science has shown that it is an error to think that all is certain. CSER may be following this very path. how long can they ignore people like eddington and planck? quantum physics and relativity have been unified. "The earlier concept of a universe made up of physical particles interacting according to fixed laws is no longer tenable. It is implicit in present findings that action rather than matter is basic. . . This is good news, for it is no longer appropriate to think of the universe as a gradually subsiding agitation of billiard balls. The universe, far from being a desert of inert particles, is a theatre of increasingly complex organization, a stage for development in which man has a definite place, without any upper limit to his evolution." --Arthur M. Young The Reflexive Universe emphasis mine.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1811 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Sunday, April 08, 2007 - 5:10 pm:        We can do something about the human problem. when will that happen? i do not believe that the leaders of this world have any interest in solving the "human problem" (whatever that may be). there is a solution but it has to do with using the fixed laws of nature as a jumping off point, rather than allowing them to limit us. science can be our base but is not an end in itself. it cannot be. there are many things that science will not even consider because it is out of the field of the observable or predictable. to think that all is observable and predictable is to ignore much of what makes up life. if everything was predictable there would be no such thing as an accident. we can say why it happened, but we cannot predict it. (Message edited by fatherofaking on April 08, 2007)   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1815 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 1:24 pm:        hey TO, you will have to tell me what the point of john lily's book is i suppose. i am so caught up in what i am reading that i have pushed it aside as unimportant. i apologize for that, but i feel as if i have gotten past whatever point he could possibly be making. that is why i am asking for you to give me some idea of the point of the book. i may be in error as to whether i understand it or not.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2544 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.37 Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 1:28 pm:        "science has shown that it is an error to think that all is certain." I have always said if presented with sufficient evidence I could do nothing but change my opinion. I have always pointed out that science is able to change when new evidence is presented where religion does not. I'm not jumping on the Young bandwagon but my jury is still out. Being a Naturalist, when theories about how the universe works include the supernatural they are difficult to justify. "there are many things that science will not even consider because it is out of the field of the observable or predictable." And what will? What are you going to use to formulate concepts about the unobservable and unpredictable? What would be the criteria used? "to think that all is observable and predictable is to ignore much of what makes up life. if everything was predictable there would be no such thing as an accident. we can say why it happened, but we cannot predict it." I don't follow you. How did predictability enter the discussion? I've never denied that unpredictable things occur. Science requires that something be repeatable and observed by more than one person. Science also requires that the original hypothesis be reconsidered and examined. What good does it do to contemplate the incomprehensible?   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1816 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 2:38 pm:        What good does it do to contemplate the incomprehensible? because what we can know is what we need to know. i am convinced that it is not possible to solve the human problem without accepting that there is something that is beyond ourselves. it is clear to me that something is motivating us to improve ourselves. that something cannot be merely survival. why would we continue to want to improve ourselves once we have secured our own survival? most of us don't have to worry whether or not we will survive until tomorrow. I don't follow you. How did predictability enter the discussion? I've never denied that unpredictable things occur. i think it is because i am still not clear on what i myself understand about all of this. i do not have the benifit of your backround TO. i am still learning the things that you already know and understand. these things i am learning are being filtered through my own backround and may not always come out in a way that someone else can understand. i try and reformulate these ideas the best i can to make them understandable. it is ruff trying to explain something that you are just learning yourself. i also am willing to change if i find that i am in error. it is clear to me that i have in fact been in error. while trying to change that i came accross young's theory. this theory seems to be able to unify science and religion in a way that is agreeable to all the diciplines. what are the possibilities of that? until i understand young's theory completely i will not know if he is in error. my gut says he is not, but i have been wrong before. the biggest problem i am having is that i cannot find any critics. i just have to be my own i guess. that takes understanding of what i want to criticize. i can also use you to help me be that critic. sorry, but it is true, i am using you to learn and grow. along with the challenges that come with posting on this message board.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2549 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.41 Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 3:17 pm:        Why should religion and science be unified?   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1817 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 3:29 pm:        so that we can get the whole picture TO. i think the difficulty that you may be having is your interpretation of what these myths are actually teaching. your religious perspective is a christian perspective. christianity and science cannot be reconciled at all. the real teaching of the ancient myths will not only fit with the findings of science but will clarify them as well.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1818 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 4:05 pm:        It is generally assumed that all phenomena are subject to law, and that the inability to find such laws is temporary and will be conquered. This presumption still survives in scientific opinion, despite the fact that quantum theory has shown that there are areas in which laws do not hold and cannot in theory apply. arthur m young the reflexive universe   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2550 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.46 Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 4:10 pm:        Religion to me means the supernatural, the use of faith to accept concepts without evidence, and so on. Recognizing these things as myths and treating them as such is different a thing isn't it? Sure we can learn things from the writings of ancient thinkers, however I don't believe they really had any great 'secret' or 'spiritually induced' knowledge that is going to radically change anything. It's all of human origin.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1820 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 6:08 pm:        i think it will change everything. i am not going to get into the supernatural thing with you right now because i am not sure i can defend the position of it's existence to you well enough at the moment. do you have a negative conotation of what a myth is? do you think they are nothing but stories with a little moral to be learned? like aesop for instance? if the truth that is being taught in these myths were taught to everyone it would change the world. i think it did happen at the time of christ and many other times in history befor and after christ. it is time that it happened again. the people in charge of this world are very much aware of the danger of this information being taught to people. they would lose all control. the emperor constantine was no dummy. it is going to happen anyway. they will not hold on for much longer. knowledge is growing to quickly to stop it now. what a person can learn without even going out of their home is astounding compared to just 10yrs ago. why do you think they are trying so hard to keep control? many already know where it is all going. in fact it is in some ways being directed by those in charge. those looking for the lost ineffable word. i am beginning to wonder if it is really possible that these people could be using the truth for evil purposes. it is not something that i want to believe, but it is getting harder not to. the knowledge that is in these myths build and sustain entire civilazations. to brush them off as fairy tales is to continue to believe what you were once taught was truth. you see TO, i think that because of what you were taught, and subsequently believed for all of those years, you are unable to open up to the possibility that these "myths" are much more than anyone can even imagine. i understand that you have heard that before. so have i. they were taught a lie as well TO. not really a lie but rather half truths . we can easily see the failure that religion has become. that does not necessarily mean that these myths that they got this stuff from do not contain what they claim them to contain. the secrets of the universe, which of course means the secret of man's purpose and also his origins and his destiny.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2553 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.50 Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 7:01 pm:        I am a hardened 36(or 37) Plot devotee. http://www.digitalcinemapictures.com/writing/plots.htm What is the nature of the stories conflict in general for these particular myths you are talking about? For example: The Bible is a conflict between God and Satan with Satan trying to spoil Jehovah's creation. (Message edited by trainedobserver on April 09, 2007)   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1821 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Monday, April 09, 2007 - 7:39 pm:        well TO, after a quick look at all of the possibilities, i would say that they would cover them all in some way. these myths are comprehensive, in that they cover all aspects of life. i would think the one that most of us are interested in is the percieved conflict that goes on inside man himself. this is definately addressed in these myths. it would seem that having described the nature and purpose of that conflict, we could then see how the same answers can be applied to the rest of nature.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2554 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.50 Posted on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 11:36 am:        I see what you are saying. I just don't know how much we can get out of pre-science.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1829 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 1:15 pm:        well, how much can you learn about yourself through experience? when does what you learn become fact? can we learn that fire is hot through experience? do we need science to tell us things like that? in the time that we live in we have science to verify much of our experience, but i think that we have it backwards. we have to question everything now. including common sense experience. it is nice to have science tell me why fire is hot, but until i experience it, i won't really know a thing about heat.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1834 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 11:02 pm:        BTW TO, i do not agree with your assesment of the nature of the biblical conflict. the duality does not fit the whole picture. it is a story line that has evolved over centuries. i am not even sure what the truth is concerning this subject at this time. i will eventually.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2556 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.57 Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 10:17 am:        "i will eventually." I wouldn't be so sure. The truth is the Bible is a conglomeration of numerous writings, many from anonymous authors covering a vast span of time. These are only the writings we have left. There were many, many, more N.T. writings and O.T. books. However, those were destroyed as to not conflict the cannon. What is left is what these human editors wanted to appear. Other religious traditions suffer the same fate. It gets back to the proven unreliability of what is passed for 'revealed' knowledge.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1835 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 10:37 am:        It gets back to the proven unreliability of what is passed for 'revealed' knowledge. you just won't quit will you. lost material does not discredit what we can learn from what we have. the cannon is just bunk. i do not trust the reasoning behind putting these writings together. you are again on the revealed knowledge kick. i have never accepted interpretations of these writings without something to back them up and you know it. i was ready to scrap all of it. every last bit. i was ready to accept that there was no god as usual, this is when something changed all of that. i came upon arthur young's material.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1836 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 11:29 am:        "Native knowledge about nature is firmly rooted in reality, in keen personal observation, interaction, and thought, sharpened by the daily rigors of uncertain survival. Its validity rests largely upon the authority of hard-won personal experience–upon concrete encounters with game animals and arduous treks across the actual physical contours of local landscapes, enriched by night dreams, contemplations, and waking visions. The junction between knowledge and experience is tight, continuous, and dynamic, giving rise to "truths" that are likely to be correspondingly intelligent, fluid, and vibrantly "alive". " http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/Wisdom_elders.html in my opinon TO, you have cut off something of yourself by restricting what you will accept as "truth" and how we come to know what is true.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2558 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.3 Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 11:38 am:        "you just won't quit will you. " I will if you want. the cannon is just bunk. i do not trust the reasoning behind putting these writings together. It was for the sole purpose of control. "you are again on the revealed knowledge kick. i have never accepted interpretations of these writings without something to back them up and you know it. " Ok, I'll stop bringing it up. "i was ready to accept that there was no god as usual, this is when something changed all of that. i came upon arthur young's material." Watch out for the "rebound" syndrome my friend. As a fellow traveler I'd say to you again, "You must kill the Buddha." I'm trying to find time to read more of young's stuff. At some point I might actually be able to hold up an end of a conversation about it. I hope.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1838 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 12:26 pm:        ok TO, "you just won't quit will you. " I will if you want. i deserved that. Watch out for the "rebound" syndrome my friend. As a fellow traveler I'd say to you again, "You must kill the Buddha." that concept is so abstract that i am going to need an explanation of what you mean when using the term. I'm trying to find time to read more of young's stuff. At some point I might actually be able to hold up an end of a conversation about it. I hope. i am hoping that you will be able to point me to some material that is not in agreement. i am beginning to think that there isn't any out there. what i am reading is opening doors of understanding that i never even considered. it is beginning to restore a wholeness that i lost long ago. i am not suggesting by that, that my path is the path that everyone should take. what i am saying is, christianity is a world of confusion for the honest seeker. look at what is happening to poor called. i feel so bad for him. i went through all of the same things many years ago. i abandoned the whole search for a long time. i let it go just enough for it to cause me a tremendous amount of psychological problems. i was convinced that some of what i knew was true, but there was so much other material that was contradictory that i couldn't make sense of even what i knew to be true. i couldn't fit it all into a comprehensive, and intelligent worldview. i was unwilling to disregard my experiences, but they didn't seem to fit anywhere. most of what i was reading was disjointed at best, and completely ridiculous in some cases. our experiences count for something, they just have to be verified by objectivity.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1839 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 12:31 pm:        this is a link two of his books. reflexive universe and geometry of meaning. there is some other stuff of his but i have yet to explore it. http://mindfire.ca/   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2559 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.7 Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 12:51 pm:        "what i am saying is, christianity is a world of confusion for the honest seeker. " Amen, so forth, and so on. (sound of large cheering crowd) "That concept is so abstract that i am going to need an explanation of what you mean when using the term. " "Killing the Buddha when you meet him in the road" is a Zen concept. It means what it says, to attain enlightenment you must move past (kill) the Buddha (teachers) to realize that "you" are the only teacher of what is "true" to yourself. In other words you have to find out for yourself, no one can tell you. Here, someone more articulate than I sheds some light on it: "At one time, the citizens of Kesaputta asked the Buddha what they should believe. They were very confused by the many religions in vogue at that time. The Buddha said, "Do not accept anything by mere tradition. Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything because it agrees with your opinions or because it is socially acceptable. Do not accept anything because it comes from the mouth of a respected person. Rather, observe closely and if it is to the benefit of all, accept and abide by it." This Sutta - the Kalama Sutta - is the root of Zen-style inquiry into the true self. -Zen Master Dae Kwang Those are true words of wisdom.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1840 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 1:48 pm:        Those are true words of wisdom. i totally agree TO. i am not making any effort to fit young's material into any preconceived notions i have about scripture. in fact, i don't even read it much these days. that is going to change soon but i do not think i am ready yet. in my mind, the christian perspective is dead. Rather, observe closely and if it is to the benefit of all, accept and abide by it this is all i am concerned with and all i have ever been concerned with. even when i was a christian. that is the reason that i have been able to move past christianity. it took some time for me to do that, but the overall idea of what is best for all has always been the underlying motivator of deciding what is truth.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 1841 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.79.36 Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 1:54 pm:        why do you think it is that there is very little response to this stuff? i know people are reading this thread. the evidence is when they responded to your loss of a close friend. there has been some other responses but not much. even the thread you started is getting more attention than this one.   skooter942000 Advanced Member Username: skooter942000 Post Number: 501 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 66.81.221.92 Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 3:29 pm:        RE: - Killing the Buddha [???] Sounds like: - To thy own self be TRUE? Hmmmmmmmm I'll take GOD'S WISDOM, - over 'man's. man cannot save his soul alive, - neither can BUDDHA.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 2560 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.14 Posted on Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 6:06 pm:        "why do you think it is that there is very little response to this stuff? " People aren't up for it. Well, take Skooters comment for example. It is disconnected from the conversation and shows a terrible misunderstanding of Buddhism. I'm not a Buddhist and never have been but I've studied enough of it to be able to form an informed opinion about it. Skooter, Buddhism does not teach that there is a soul as Christians understand it. Also, Buddha is not a carbon-copy counterpart of Jesus. Gautama didn't claim to be able to preserve anyone's personality beyond the grave. I, although not a Buddhist, can appreciate the philosophy of Siddhartha Gautama for what it is without entertaining any of the 'supernatural' aspects that were tacked on later. Skooter, what you claim to be God's wisdom is the product of human minds just like ours. The holy texts of the tribal god of the Israelites have no more a claim on being real than the Koran, the Vedas, or the writings of L.R.Hubbard.   jayshawn New member Username: jayshawn Post Number: 10 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 132.61.176.6 Posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 - 12:20 am:        Gotta love those typical Christian responses with no weight to the current conversation; instead all we get is a phrase from the scripture. I have to admit that I've loved this thread very much. FOF and TO you both have giving me even more things to think about! I'm just glad that I've already come out of the mind controlling aspects of religion started by tribes that still have hold on people even in this modern day.   iamwhoiam Junior Member Username: iamwhoiam Post Number: 26 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.161.70.243 Posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 - 11:10 pm:        thanks jay for the vote of confidence. although i do not persue it, i appreciate being validated now and then. i have started a new thread that i am hoping you will like as well. it is the nanotech 101 thread. i retired my old ID for a new one. (Message edited by iamwhoiam on April 30, 2007)   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2319 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 70.16.219.231 Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 2:45 pm:        i think this is the reason that we anthropomorphize god. it is because we are made from the very thing that god is made from. we have the same sense of purpose and the ability to achieve it. The principle of least action The difficult question is: what is action? This will become increasingly important as we proceed. Curiously, the notion of light as action was one to emerge quite early. It was observed in the 17th century that sunset occurred a little later than it would if light followed a straight line: light as it enters the atmosphere follows a curved path. This phenomenon is explained as due to the fact that the speed of light is reduced by the atmosphere. What is remarkable is that the path followed by the light through the layers of atmosphere is precisely that which gets it to its destination in the shortest possible time. In driving from a point in the city to a point in the country, we can reduce the total time if we shorten the time spent in the city, even at the expense of going a longer distance. Fermat, the famous 17th-century mathematician, was the first to solve this problem of the path for the minimum time. Yet light, going from a denser to a rarer medium, follows just this path. As Planck himself said of the phenomenon: Thus, the photons which constitute a ray of light behave like intelligent human beings: Out of all possible curves they always select the one which will take them most quickly to their goal. (4) This law, that light always follows the path taking the shortest time, is known as the principle of least action. According to Planck again: [It] made its discoverer Leibniz and soon after him also his follower Maupertuis, so boundlessly enthusiastic, for these scientists believed themselves to have found in it a tangible evidence for an ubiquitous higher reason ruling all nature. Arthur M.Young   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 3059 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.59 Posted on Friday, September 28, 2007 - 9:05 am:        Thus, the photons which constitute a ray of light behave like intelligent human beings: Out of all possible curves they always select the one which will take them most quickly to their goal. (4) How can photons make a "selection"? All matter including photons move "under the influence" of gravity, kinetic, or magnetic forces. Photons, water molecules, nor any matter make any 'choice' in what direction they take, rather their paths are governed by the forces acting on them. Am I missing something?   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 3060 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.59 Posted on Friday, September 28, 2007 - 9:08 am:        Thus, the photons which constitute a ray of light behave like intelligent human beings: Out of all possible curves they always select the one which will take them most quickly to their goal. (4) How can photons make a "selection"? All matter including photons move "under the influence" of gravity, kinetic, or magnetic forces. Photons, water molecules, nor any matter make any 'choice' in what direction they take, rather their paths are governed by the forces acting on them. Am I missing something?   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2324 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 70.16.219.231 Posted on Friday, September 28, 2007 - 10:18 am:        i am sure i am failing to communicate this well. i apologize. i am pretty well convinced that what i am saying is tenable. when i have a better grasp of it i will communicate it better. all i can do is keep trying. light is not matter. until it becomes part of matter all options are available to it. it operates outside of space and time. it has free will, purpose, and can be seen as first cause. consciousness and intelligence seem to apply in describing what is behind what we call life. Let us simply note one thing: that there is only one exception to the exclusion of purpose from science, and this exception is light, which these several scientists have seen fit to regard as having a purposive behavior. Let us also note that the purposiveness is associated with that aspect of light known as the principle of action (or least action). Important to this exchange phenomenon is its frequency, which establishes a cycle of action. Such a cycle of action makes plausible our speculative guess as to how life begins: that by control of timing the quantum of action is able to build order against the flow of entropy, and so initiates life at the molecular level. The cycle of action, as we have explained, is consciousness. The Reflexive Universe   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 3063 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.4 Posted on Friday, September 28, 2007 - 12:28 pm:        light ...it operates outside of space and time. What is the evidence for that? Photons are regarded as particles of energy that have no resting mass and no electrical charge and they exhibit predictable behavior. Why? It is predictable because it does obey the laws of space and time (natural law). Light has a top speed. It does X when Y is applied to it. Visible light is just one small portion of the perhaps infinite bandwidth of electromagnetic radiation. Singling out "light" (what light, invisible light, visible light, both?) from the spectrum is actually a discussion about a narrow band of frequencies within a larger phenomena. The behavior of light, as far as I can see it, has nothing to do with principles of action but everything to do with principles of re-action or inter-action. Or so it appears to me.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2327 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 70.16.219.231 Posted on Friday, September 28, 2007 - 4:14 pm:        he backs up all of his sources. if you want to check them you are welcome to. i leave a link to his book for anyone to check for themselves. i am not going to post the entire book a page at a time. i have found zero critics of this man's work. all that knew him, and know of his work, do nothing but give him and his work praise. i understand his work in the context of religion. he has a chapter of how his theory fits with the ancient myths. myths i have yet to find that these myths do not withstand the test that this theory subjects them to. this is some more on light. The Enigma of Light The heart of our story, like the beginning of creation, lies in the nature of light. Here we are confronted with mystery, and I say this not because of the perplexities of physics, but in view of what is the essential nature of light. Light, because it is primary, must be unqualified - impossible to describe - because it is antecedent to the contrasts necessary to description. While the foregoing is essentially a philosophical statement, the physicists would have much the same report. For the physicist, light is unique in that, unlike everything else that exists in actuality, it has no mass (no rest mass) . It has no charge and, as evidenced by the finding of relativity that clocks stop at the speed of light, it has no time. (1) While light in a vacuum has a "velocity" of 186,000 miles per second, this velocity is not motion in the ordinary sense since it can have no other value. Objects can be at rest or move at a variety of speeds. Light, on the other hand, has but one speed (in any given medium) and cannot be at rest. Even space is a meaningless concept for light, since the passage of light through space is accomplished without any loss of energy whatever. Light is not an objective thing that can be investigated as can an ordinary object. Even a tiny snow crystal, before it melts, can be photographed or seen by more than one person. But a photon, the ultimate unit of light, (2) can be seen only once: its detection is its annihilation. Light is not seen; it is seeing. Even when a photon is partially annihilated, as in scattering of photons by electrons, what remains is not part of the old photon, but a new photon of lower frequency, going in a different direction. The Reflexive Universe   searchlight86 Intermediate Member Username: searchlight86 Post Number: 431 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.105.80.57 Posted on Friday, September 28, 2007 - 5:21 pm:        In this context, I find it interesting light is the first thing God created after 'starting' time along with creating the basic matter of the universe (according to the Bible that is). It seems 'philoscience' always gets down to the most foundational elements of the universe (e.g. mass, energy, light, water), and then it's a fundamental choice what to believe is the first cause of intelligently directed (not random) consciousness.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 3064 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.12 Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 8:53 am:        Light does obey observable laws. If it didn't we wouldn't be able to make things like lasers, lenses, and what have you. Talking about "photons" as having "free will" is nothing but romanticism.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2337 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 70.16.219.231 Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 9:30 am:        TO, you are making statements about something that you obviously know nothing about. read the book. The Reflexive Universe   bluewater2 Senior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 3415 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 12:05 pm:        "This phenomenon is explained as due to the fact that the speed of light is reduced by the atmosphere." Do you think that this is due to the resistance that the denser atmosphere presents or the curving of the light due to the prismatic effects of moisture in the atmosphere? "What is remarkable is that the path followed by the light through the layers of atmosphere is precisely that which gets it to its destination in the shortest possible time." Isn't the destination of the light actually somewhere out in space and the reality of it is that these rays are "detoured" from their actual destination by the atmospheric effects? I only mention this because of the fact that you are presenting the idea that light has a purpose. I think that it behaves at the mercy of outside influences unless of course it is in a vacuum where it presents a straight, unaltered behavior. "Thus, the photons which constitute a ray of light behave like intelligent human beings: Out of all possible curves they always select the one which will take them most quickly to their goal." This is an assumption that is made when one sees it's ultimate resting place, the earth, as it's destination rather than it's detour.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2339 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 70.16.219.231 Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 12:31 pm:        The uncertainty principle is stated in popular culture in many ways, for example, by some stating that it is impossible to know both where an electron is and where it is going at the same time. This is roughly correct, although it fails to mention an important part of the Heisenberg principle, which is the quantitative bounds on the uncertainties. Heisenberg stated that it is impossible to determine simultaneously and with unlimited accuracy the position and momentum of a particle, but due to Planck's Constant being so small, the Uncertainty Principle was intended to apply only to the motion of atomic particles. However, culture often misinterprets this to mean that it is impossible to make a completely accurate measurement. uncertainty principle   bluewater2 Senior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 3416 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 12:40 pm:        There are many that did not agree with Heisnberg. Einstien was one of these people. You may align yourself with those that help to support your position, fatherofaking, but there will always be those that have as much or more evidence to support other beliefs. I only say this because you seem to be taking the lazy way out by quoting others. I could do the same by quoting the many people who disagree. What do you think of my rebuttals to Youngs comments about the rays of the sun and the earths atmosphere's effect on it?   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2340 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 70.16.219.231 Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 12:43 pm:        It was to explain this unexpected distribution that Planck assumed the energy is radiated in packets whose energy is proportional to the frequency. That is, Energy x Time = Constant. This is Planck's constant and is the unit of action. As the reader is probably aware, the notion of purpose or teleology is forbidden in science, among biologists especially, who, while they must be strongly tempted to invoke it at every turn, avoid it as a reformed alcoholic avoids a drink. Physicists avoid it because their problems don't require it. Yet we find one of the greatest physicists saying that: . . . the historical development of theoretic research in physics had led in a remarkable way to a formulation of the principle of physical causality which possesses an explicitly teleological character. Let us simply note one thing: that there is only one exception to the exclusion of purpose from science, and this exception is light, which these several scientists have seen fit to regard as having a purposive behavior. Let us also note that the purposiveness is associated with that aspect of light known as the principle of action (or least action). The Reflexive Universe   bluewater2 Senior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 3417 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 1:04 pm:        I think the idea the "these several scientists" have an opinion, does not discount "these several other scientists" who do not agree. Who are the several scientists that are mentioned in the Young publication? I have long ago learned that a scientist or scientist having done research that supports a theistic belief does not necessarily make it so. There are always other scientists who see this research as it is: just one man's opinion. What is the duplicatable experiment that Young used to determine that physical causality posseses an explicitly teleological character? Although I find Young to be an incredibly gifted and intelligent inventor and thinker, having read much of what is written by him and about him I came to the conclusion that he has always come from a theological background so much of his work in the areas that you are speaking about were done in an effort to support his beliefs, not question them.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2341 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 70.16.219.231 Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 1:46 pm:        Einstien was one of these people. in this case einstein was proven to be wrong. did you even read the article? there is not a single alternative explanation that has been shown to be true. heisenberg is the most widely accepted on the issue.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 3066 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.25 Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 2:03 pm:        Gee ...I'd respectfully say that I can read someone's theories until the cows come home and still tell you without any doubt that photons can be observed obeying the laws of physics and speak from a position of personal experience, that is to say, something I do know about after all. We can observe photons being "acted upon" by outside forces and conditions such as when light passes through a prism or bends due to a "gravity lens." These are concrete observable phenomena demonstrating that the photons path of travel is determined by outside forces and events and not by the particle itself. Everything ... everything ... in nature takes the least path of resistance. Water flows to its level by the least path of resistance. Water is not determining the path, outside forces are. Electricity flows to ground through the least path of resistance. Electricity does not choose a path, the path is chosen by outside forces and circumstances. Light too will take the least path of resistance when met by outside forces acting upon it. To insist that photons act "intelligently" is to deny these easily observable facts about light and its behavior that we depend on to get through our daily lives. Photons cannot have a "destination" as that would imply "intent" on the part of the photon. A photon has a path, a path determined by the source of the photon and the circumstances along that path that act upon it. If light behaved any other way then it would be reasonable to find light in unexpected places doing unexpected things. While anomalies will occur, light does behave in a consistent and predictable manner. I mean ... how can you deny that? If Young is trying to say something else and I've misunderstood him then fine but for the life of me it looks like he is trying to tell us that photons are self-deterministic and that is clearly in opposition to the observable phenomena I can see with my own eyes. See what I'm saying?   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 3067 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.30 Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 2:25 pm:        What is responsible for all life on earth? The star Sol. A very large ball of burning gas. Without its (it is an it, a thing, a sustained hydrogen fusion reaction, not a personality) light there would be no life. The ancients recognized this and honored (worshiped) the sun as the 'life-bringer'. Bring to a boil and let peculate until you have thousands of religions all talking about light and life and darkness and death. Not all cultures have a anthropomorphic concept of god. Some see god in the form of animals and even plants. It has more to do with trying to find a way to "relate" to these concepts than anything else. Amorphous gods are difficult to understand, relate to, and find solace in. We all want to feel like there is someone who understands and relates to us.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2342 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 70.16.219.231 Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 3:14 pm:        i am on my way out TO so i am unable to respond to your post at the moment. i apologize for my assumption earlier. i am sure that it is just a misunderstanding. we have had plenty of those in the last two years. i appreciate your patience. talk to you soon!   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2343 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 70.16.219.231 Posted on Monday, October 01, 2007 - 5:21 pm:        sorry blue, i didn't mean to exclude you . as soon as i get the chance i will respond to you as well.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2344 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 70.16.219.231 Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 10:22 am:        i think i get it now. the effect that the atmosphere has on light is to cause it to reach it''s destination in the shortest period of time. it logically should take longer if the atmosphere is dragging on it, but it does not, it always makes it in the shortest amount of time. there is no loss of energy. These and other discoveries fell into place as part of the revolutionary new physics known as quantum physics, which established: 1. That light is radiated in whole units which do not dissipate their energy on the way to their targets (quanta of action) . 2. That all energy exchange at the atomic and even the molecular level is in terms of quanta of action (light). 3. That action, like matter, comes in discrete whole units which cannot be divided.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2345 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 70.16.219.231 Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 10:59 am:        i am obviously unable to explain what it is that i understand as being monumental in it's implications. i think you would have to read the material for yourself. i find more and more evidence to support his theory often. the kabbala, the freemasons, the Rosicrucians, zen, and many others teach the same thing. it is not all easy to grasp because the concept of light having purpose is to difficult for reason to accept. quantum theory opened the door to this idea. the uncertainty principle is a paradox. one among many when it comes to light. reason cannot explain it. as for young having some sort of bias, i would have to say that we all bring that into anything we do. i also know that young was acutely aware of this. his whole life as a philosopher and mathematician was dedicated to being non judgmental.   bluewater2 Senior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 3418 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 10:59 am:        I think there is no doubt that solar panels work better outside the earths atmosphere than they do on the earths surface. That would tell me that the energy from the sun looses it's potency as it is filtered by the earths atmosphere. Both in terms of it's brightness and it's ability to create solar generated power. I think that much of the information that you are copying and pasting has to do with the action of light within a vacuum. The bottom line, as I have come to understand through my experiences and research, is that light, as well as sound, do not have minds of their own and are not directed by some "higher intelligence" but are measurable units that are subject to influence from outside forces only. All attempts to romanticize the behaviors of these particles, in my opinion, is just another attempt to interject theological beliefs into mainstream science. I believe that in order for theistic beliefs to have any merit over the long haul they must find a way to align themselves with scientific discovery, not the other way around.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2346 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 70.16.219.231 Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 11:05 am:        notice that we posted at the same time and yet there is a first and a last post. paradox is everywhere.   bluewater2 Senior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 3419 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 11:30 am:        The results of quantum theory, and particularly of Heisenberg's work, left scientists puzzled. Many felt that quantum theory had somehow "missed the point". At least Albert Einstein did so. He was an outspoken critic of quantum mechanics and is often quoted on his comment regarding the Uncertainty Principle: "The Old One (God) doesn't play dice." He also said: "I like to believe that the moon is still there even if we don't look at it." In particular, Einstein was convinced that electrons do have definite orbits, even if we cannot observe them. Einstein also said that the inability to measure both the location and momentum of an object simultaniously was due to a limitation of the measuring device. An example of that is your example of our "same time posts." In actuality, my post was done seconds after yours. The limitation of this board is that it measures, as we see it, in minutes only, but in reality, seconds. Very romantic, however to see some mystical activity in that.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 3068 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.40 Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 12:57 pm:        Light is actually just the visible band in the wider bandwidth of electromagnetic radiation as a whole. Agree or disagree? Atmospheric filtering of light occurs. That is to say certain frequencies within the visible spectrum of light are blocked or diverted by substances in the atmosphere. Just as filters can applied to light sources or onto to lenses to block some frequencies of light and allow others to pass through. Agree or Disagree?   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2347 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 70.16.219.231 Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 3:18 pm:        Since 2pi is both a curvature of space in the hypersphere of relativity, and the uncertainty of direction in quantum theory, Eddington, by recognizing their equivalence, is able to reconcile quantum theory and relativity. Einstein had attempted this reconciliation in his quest for "a unified field theory," but was looking in the wrong place; he overlooked the fact that it was not the field but the uncertainty that could accomplish this task. In fact, Einstein in his famous dictum, "God does not play dice with the universe," banned the very factor, uncertainty, which could effect the reconciliation. i still think Einstein was wrong blue. he just couldn't see the obvious through his own religious bias. if you want to see why i feel this way you will have to read young's books or be patient while i make an attempt to explain it to you. i should not have to tolerate your mocking. you are quite capable of expressing your viewpoint without the need for the denigration of another human being. i am sorry TO but i am not sure the questions are relevant to the point. the uncertainty principle still exists regardless.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 3069 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.44 Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 3:35 pm:        reason cannot explain it. This is a ... or should be a red flag. Because something has not yet been explained by reason and science does not mean that it will not be explained in the future when and if new information is acquired. Because we do not "know" of a reasonable explanation for this or that does not mean one does not exist outside of our knowledge and experience. An explanation may be a visit to the library, a search on google, or a publication in a trade journal away.   bluewater2 Senior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 3420 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 5:29 pm:        Uncertainty is not a fixed entity. It changes as people become knowlegable. Uncertainty is the unknown. You believe that the unknown is some mystical entity. I believe the unknown is that which is not yet understood.   bluewater2 Senior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 3421 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 5:40 pm:        Also, I appologize if you feel I mocked you in some way. That is not intended at all. I think that you are one of the more reasonable theists on this board.   fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2348 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 70.16.219.231 Posted on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 9:06 pm:        paradox 1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth. dictionary .com just because something does not make sense according to logical reasoning does not mean it does not have meaning. Uncertainty is the unknown. you are confusing two different definitions. uncertainty 1. the state of being uncertain; doubt; hesitancy: His uncertainty gave impetus to his inquiry. uncertainty principle –noun Physics. the principle of quantum mechanics, formulated by Heisenberg, that the accurate measurement of one of two related, observable quantities, as position and momentum or energy and time, produces uncertainties in the measurement of the other, such that the product of the uncertainties of both quantities is equal to or greater than h/2&#960;, where h equals Planck's constant. thanks for the apology and also for the compliment. apology accepted.