|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
|
Author: AumsilenceAumsilence Date: Nov 30, 2006 17:16
|
| |
|
| | 32 Comments |
|
|
Author: kevirwinkevirwin Date: Nov 30, 2006 18:43
Aumsilence wrote:
Chris:
Just wondering if you looked at the article. Your opinion would
interest me. I was only vaguely aware of "science" in **the movie**
(which I actually found entertaining) and that was mostly biological
conjecture (!?!?). This seems to have some indirect tie-in..
just curious (as always),
K e v
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: mikegordgemikegordge Date: Nov 30, 2006 21:05
kevirwin wrote:
> Aumsilence wrote:
>
> Chris:
> Just wondering if you looked at the article.
You just cant get the agnostic's fence pale out of your arse can you
kev? Is it barbed?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: kevirwinkevirwin Date: Nov 30, 2006 22:56
> kevirwin wrote:
>> Aumsilence wrote:
>>
>> Chris:
>> Just wondering if you looked at the article.
>
>
> You just cant get the agnostic's fence pale out of your arse can you
> kev? Is it barbed?
All I was asking was what Chris' (a real **physicist**) opinion was on
the "alleged" scientific nature of the article; that's not too much too
ask, is it???
Why **religious-based** agnosticism (since there is now debate on what
agnostic means!!! Evidently, I am the only one who owns a dictionary)
appears to be the **only** logical position to take, I leave for
another time.....
K e v
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: mikegordgemikegordge Date: Nov 30, 2006 23:31
kevirwin wrote:
> Why **religious-based** agnosticism ... appears to be the **only** logical position to
> take, I leave for another time.....
There is absolutely nothing tenable about any religious, scientific or
ANY form agnosticism.
This paragraph and it is not taken out of context of anything, shows
how absurd this chap's thinking process is and how bizarre his premises
are, even apart from his inventing of nonsensical words such as
*quantised*
"At around 10 to the power -43 of a second, time itself becomes
quantised, that is it appears as discontinuous particles of time, for
there is no way in which time can manifest in quantities less than 10
to the power -43 (the so called Planck time)."
A second is no different to an inch or an ounce, in so far as, seconds
inches and ounces are discoveries or inventions of man, used by him to
help him solve the problems of his survival.
Time does not exist as anything but a measurement of motion, in
partcular its a measurement of the realationship between moving
entities.
|
| Show full article (1.65Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: 1Z1Z Date: Dec 1, 2006 05:40
kevirwin wrote:
>> kevirwin wrote:
>>> Aumsilence wrote:
>>>
>>> Chris:
>>> Just wondering if you looked at the article.
>>
>>
>> You just cant get the agnostic's fence pale out of your arse can you
>> kev? Is it barbed?
>
> All I was asking was what Chris' (a real **physicist**) opinion was on
> the "alleged" scientific nature of the article; that's not too much too
> ask, is it???
First 3 words:
"The Hermetic tradition.."
..did you really need to read on?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: zinniczinnic Date: Dec 1, 2006 09:21
kevirwin wrote:
> Aumsilence wrote:
>
> Chris:
> Just wondering if you looked at the article. Your opinion would
> interest me. I was only vaguely aware of "science" in **the movie**
> (which I actually found entertaining) and that was mostly biological
> conjecture (!?!?). This seems to have some indirect tie-in..
>
> just curious (as always),
> K e v
Hi Kev, could not resist butting in!
The biological conjecture in the *movie* represents possibilities
/probabilities based on well established and confirmed scientific
observations.
The deterministic...
|
| Show full article (1.75Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: kevirwinkevirwin Date: Dec 1, 2006 09:25
zinnic wrote:
> kevirwin wrote:
>> Aumsilence wrote:
>>
>> Chris:
>> Just wondering if you looked at the article. Your opinion would
>> interest me. I was only vaguely aware of "science" in **the movie**
>> (which I actually found entertaining) and that was mostly biological
>> conjecture (!?!?). This seems to have some indirect tie-in..
>>
>> just curious (as always),
>> K e v
>
> Hi Kev, could not resist butting in!
> The biological conjecture in the *movie* represents possibilities
> /probabilities based on well established and confirmed scientific
> observations.
> The deterministic unravelling of the complex neural interactions
> invovolved in consciousness is a work in progress. Great advances are ...
|
| Show full article (1.92Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: 1Z1Z Date: Dec 1, 2006 09:56
zinnic wrote:
> Hi Kev, could not resist butting in!
> The biological conjecture in the *movie* represents possibilities
> /probabilities based on well established and confirmed scientific
> observations.
> The deterministic unravelling of the complex neural interactions
> invovolved in consciousness is a work in progress. Great advances are
> being made.
Of course, scientific understanding doesn't have to be deterministic
understanding.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Dec 1, 2006 10:37
Aumsilence wrote:
> The brain can no longer be seen as a vast
> piece of organic clockwork, but as a subtle
> device amplifying quantum events. If we trace
> a nerve impulse down to its root, there lies a
> quantum uncertainty, a sea of probability.
>
> So just how is it that this sea of probability can
> cast up such ordered structures and systems
> as the conception of a cello concerto or abstract
> mathematical entities ? Perhaps here we may
> glimpse a way in which "spirit" can return
> into our physics.
>
If spirit is a mystery required for your philosophy then its solution
and manufacture would dissapoint the satisfaction of such philosophy.
|
| Show full article (1.67Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
