[G_burnett]

Originally Posted by Vincent Wee-Foo “Nature is relentless and unchangeable, and it is indifferent as to whether its hidden reasons and actions are understandable to man or not.” - Galileo Galilei[/color] Hindsight is always perfect, but can you see it before it is done? Best regards,

A13+

I am not ready yet to leave the ethics thing here yet. I wrote a colligate level term paper on the subject and where others were given a 10 min forum at the end of the year the Prof gave me the whole 90 minutes at the podium.

The concept of ethical gathering has to have the definition of having been gathered in an ethical manner or the use of thereafter can not be done by any involved in the gather that might want to make a judgement call based on the gather.

I used the German WWII camp testing done of varied human form to see how long they could survive in frigid temperatures, basically they were put into a freezer naked and froze to death at varied temperatures and the information was then used to the conditions on the Russian front.

If today the information was used would it be proper to do so?

Interesting was that the class of varied personas an even high end occupations all had the idea voiced adamantly or by silent non committal waiting that yes it should be used if it meant you could save a life …. And I replied sternly NO,

You could not base your judgement on the information because it was acquired in an unethical manner and there being it untrustworthy to judge a set of circumstances and come out with a positive effect and the information had to be censored, tossed out of the equation.

Go sit in a courtroom sometime and see the censor by the Judge there taking place.

Now on the other hand we to continue with apples.

Once a decision is made (as you state not so to have hindsight later_) that a judgement must be made … reread that, and then “take your best guess baby.”

That is all one can do, honestly, it boils down to the human consciousness. It is who we are. Human is the term most applied.

And this process is called doing what has to be done. It is called being a responsible identity unto it all, ethical, but not for self. There is a difference. If it does not work out you did your best and face the consequences or the glory if it does, humbly.

But once a decision of need manifest must be addressed and one does nothing in an insult to who you are, then the insult and wrong is to the all.

Many things indeed are worth contemplating Vincent. That is why I let you use the term dynamo maybe hem hem.

I hope this helps …
For unity indeed, ~Peace! Graham

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Originally Posted by G_burnett OH boyphboyohboy ... Consciousness of natural event, paradoxical from the beginning, paradoxical from reasoning, paradoxical from rationalization, paradoxical from depiction, and on and on the paradoxes go .... even when we say consciousness ends the paradox is it does not, so there will be then ... what? Paradoxes for it all? Maybe we have the meaning of life here. What more do we need to be happy? Yea yea a ministry of funny walks in every government ... ~Peace! Graham.

LOL!

Peace!

[mkirkpatrick]

It is good to see that you two are keepıng thıs thread goıng whıle I am ın Turkey settlıng
ın.keep up the good work.



warm regards mıchael.

[Profpat]

I missed you in the chat room yesterday Michael when the topic was consciousness. I hope you are enjoying your time in Turkey.

Best to you,

Pat

[G_burnett]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick It is good to see that you two are keepıng thıs thread goıng whıle I am ın Turkey settlıng ın.keep up the good work. warm regards mıchael.

Hi Michael,

I have always with star bucks consciousness of thought why a a prime example of natural selection went wrong which gobble gobble gobbles out in the bush with a pronounced bobbing red crop hanging like a tassel being a tease to every red blooded American with a gun gets to have the same name as the country you are in? Like what is the symbolic meaning in all this? Is it the red fez? wow strong coffee ...

talk to you later!

Peace! graham

[G_burnett]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick It is good to see that you two are keepıng thıs thread goıng whıle I am ın Turkey settlıng ın.keep up the good work. warm regards mıchael.

I have been pondering the consciousness as the human persona tries to understand perpetual motion. the arguments are there in paradox that there will be no such thing but then what is perpetual motion? Is it possible in rotation? Is it possible in direction? Is it possible in acceleration? Is it possible in deceleration? Is it possible in the concept of time?
I think it needs a quantify rating factor put to it.
If there is lets say one factor of stoppage then it is perpetual minus one or two or three ... and so on.
then the quantity of the stoppage factor has to be scaled to how good the brake is sort of thing and that brings into the equation time and the scale being dependent on time.
What factors of science mechanics would give the highest rating to an event?
Can an instantaneous event be perpetual end or just a beginning, again.
Can we then not manufacture a machine that has a high rating of perpetual motion minus one?
Where would it exist leads right back to the conscious mind, perpetual life!

Peace!~ Graham.

[coyotescribe]

Dear LLoyd and all:

While searching Google under the specific terms "sub-quantum metaphysics" and "Einstein," I found Lloyd's p.s. statement at the end of his 02-13-2007 "Consciousness holds the key to the T.O.E." post, where he writes [[I think a new sub-quantum metaphysics logic language can be developed to unite spirit and science___It only takes the will...]]

I'm not a scientist by any means, but I have been researching Einstein's theory of relativity, his views on space-time, time travel, and metaphysics for a fictional story I'm working on that melds science with the mysterious and illogical forces, parallel realities/universes, teleportation of objects from one location in space to another, etc.

I found something very interesting on the net, a "Quantum Metaphysics" paper that was presented at the Conference on New Spiritualities, Westminster College, Oxford, England, March 1995, written by Victor J. Stenger, from the University of Hawaii. In it Mr. Stenger writes:

"The hidden variables approach [referencing Bohm's theory, Bohm also being the major scientific figure in the quantum mysticism movement] is based on the notion, which Einstein always believed, that quantum mechanics is fine as far as it goes, as a statistical theory, but that some deterministic sub-quantum theory that lies behind physical events remains to be uncovered. Einstein's famous quotation that "God does not play dice" referred to this notion, although he thought Bohm's version was 'too cheap' (Born 1971). It should be noted that hidden variables theories are not properly labelled as "interpretations" of quantum mechanics since they imply the existence of a deeper theory, not yet discovered."

What I'm looking for is a way to connect Einstein with the malleability of reality through imagination, like the quote above: "God does not play dice," yet with even more distinction about the power of thoughts and beliefs, etc. There's so much material to go through. I'd just like to ask everyone if there's some references you might know of that specifically details Einstein's metaphysical take on reality creation, time travel, and time-space alterability.

I would appreciate any help anyone could give me.

Jane

[MJA]

A Dear Jane letter,

Study nature, that is where you will find the truth.

As always,

=
MJA

[arthur]

Hi Michael, (from Wadebridge)
As you are obviously aware Michael (from one of your posts) criticism, (although I am not sure what it exactly is) is an interpretation by the supposed criticized, a mere suggestion, a hint, even a correction, if it goes against the grain, irrespective of how it was meant could be construed as negative criticism. (I am not sure why). Because of this the timid or the sensitive not wanting to cause upset might be put off making any comment at all or feel obliged not to say what they might feel.
Having said that--To the point,
I have been following the thread, which you started with the proposal that a t.o.e. might be discovered, formulated or evolve from a dialogue amongst persons who all have different degrees of understanding, different levels of ignorance, differing scales of ego and different levels of skill in reasoning (but with no lack of eloquence ambiguity) intellectually attempting to unifying 'the four fundamental forces as you called them even though there is so much about these forces which, it seems they do not know or understand. scales
I can see some basic flaws in this line of approach which could well result in the 'committee who were asked to design a horse and producing a camel' syndrome. One of these flaws is to do with the lack of consensus on what anything actually means; e.g. "to me a t.o.e. means….." "to me consciousness means……." "to me intelligence means……" "to me such and such means…." etc. etc.
Another flaw is in the different implied interpretations of what a theory per se actually is and what a theory might actually illustrate.-----A Professor of Gravity after giving a long lecture on the 'The theory' of gravity stepped of the rostrum tripped and broke his leg. What more does this professor know and understand of gravity than the illiterate trapeze artist or the gibbon?? He may be able to mathematize the weight distribution of a swinging body, he may be able to define with eloquence the gravitational effect on a flying gibbon. He obviously knows a great deal of words related to gravity, but this is not gravity, it is words about gravity. (One could no doubt teach a parrot to say the words) The gibbon and the trapeze artist know no such words but to see their antics it is self evident that they know and understand a great deal about gravity.
There is a professed belief in this forum and else where that to understand a theory of something is to understand the thing. If this were to be the case my mate the Prof would not have broken his leg, of course one could say that it was an accident, but what is an accident other than a display of a lack of knowledge at a particular point in time.
Another flaw, Michael, is in 'proof'. As a lad I crushed my finger in a door jam and whilst in excruciating pain with blood flowing and the nail turning black my lecturer said "prove to me that you are in pain". Proof is in the mind of the believer. How many time have we heard the implication "I don’t care what you say I'll not alter my view".
A Professor. after offering as evidence some spurious data said, "Do not accept as fact that which based upon your ignorance is plausible"
How many scientists and "scientists" offer as proof of fact, proof that their ideas are correct and accurate, proof of a truth, etc, other peoples ideas (theories) which are or were supported by other peoples ideas (theorise) which were peer reviewed by people who used 'the scientific method' (?)

A man had been doing his job for forty years, of course, any thing that he might say about it could not be used as scientific evidence. A post grad for his PhD interviewed and quizzed the man and produced a paper which was successfully 'peer reviewed'. Now the paper, of course, can be used as 'scientific' evidence even if the only knowledge of it comes from a highly condensed version in a popular science magazine.
Anyway, to end what could be a litany of what I see as flaws in your suggested idea of how the 'unification' (?) of the theories of 'four fundamental forces' (what ever they actually are) might lead on to developing a 'T.O.E. (what ever that might be) I will ask, 'If I had managed to develop, as a lad, a 'theory', a mathematical formula, or a compilation of words which to me explained that I was in pain as the result of having a crushed finger and I presented it to my lecturer who had never experienced pain, would he, likely, have understood?, or would he have asked for references before accepting it as proof?
There is no 'objectivity' in science, an interested party cannot be objective, only the disinterested, the unattached, the uninvolved can offer true objectivity.
A boy walking along a path, in his way stepped a philosopher, "excuse me" said the boy. "What evidence have you that I exist" asked the philosopher. The boy looked down at his working boots, thought, walked up to the philosopher and kicked him hard on the shin and continued on his way, looking back he saw all of the hopping philosophers philosophies wafting into the ether.
So Michael, what I am suggesting in this ramble is that if the actual four forces were to be fully understood by someone in this forum, for example, and there was something to link them together, the person would almost certainly recognise it. On the other hand, I suggest, as is the case here, neither the actual forces or the proposed related ideas (theories) are understood which leaves me to doubt, that a link will be found, unless by spontaneous inspiration.
I believe the people who are best equipped and who are most likely to be able to find a link between these forces are the people who recognise their existence and who utilize them in a practical way, and when, if a link is discovered the intellectuals and theorists can do their bit. I cannot see how 'conventional understanding' of a link between the forces alone can result in something called a Theory of *Everything* even though 'they' may be things in their own right.

Michael, I see in other threads and forums and else where that your self and a few others are touching on the idea that there is perhaps an underlying principle which might link everything together, the details of what this actually means to yourself and to the others I cant imagine. Why do you think that after a few millennia of thinking and writing and talking the principle, if there is one is not general knowledge?

arthur

[not2too]

Originally Posted by coyotescribe Dear LLoyd and all: What I'm looking for is a way to connect Einstein with the malleability of reality through imagination, like the quote above: "God does not play dice," yet with even more distinction about the power of thoughts and beliefs, etc. There's so much material to go through. I'd just like to ask everyone if there's some references you might know of that specifically details Einstein's metaphysical take on reality creation, time travel, and time-space alterability. I would appreciate any help anyone could give me. Jane

Check out CONSCIOUS ACTS OF CREATION, The Emergence Of A New Physics by William A. Tiller, et.al.

Best,
not2too