Fwd: Addendum to Supplement - Remix

-----Original Message-----
From: b <rrdd3939@aol.com>
To: rrdd3939 <rrdd3939@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Jan 29, 2013 2:28 pm
Subject: Addendum to Supplement - Remix
"Atropos" follows.

 

Live Presentation: Remix by Mr. Boddy and FX by Mr. Griffin
Sent: Tue, Dec 4, 2012 6:16 pm

                           ADDENDUM to SUPPLEMENT

       (Supplement "Soul Man" follows followed by Article Proper

 "Is There a God/Urania Moons You/Plato's Man-in-the Cave Series)

          by Richard DePersio, Citizen Journalist and Descartes

      The PROBLEM with KAKU and MOST of HIS COLLEAGUES,

           ESPECIALLY, OVER the PAST COUPLE of DECADES

God and Brain are mind-boggling. We just returned from a consultation

with Pythia, who was reticent to accept our queries.

 

Plato and Descartes were dualist: Plato - Body and Soul, Descartes -

Mind and Brain. Both were Rationalists: knowledge can by acquired

other than through the use of the senses, by exercise of our unaided

powers of reasoning; pure thought and mathematics.

 Francis Bacon and John Locke held that physical reality works

according to mechanical principles apprehended by observation,

experience and experimentation.

 George Berkeley is an example of a Idealist: only ideas and souls or

minds perceiving them truly exist. Physical reality doesn't exist.

Another name for Idealism is Immateralism. Further, If wind causes

a leaf to fall from a tree and no one is there to see it - the leaf doesn't

 fall. The leaf, the tree and the wind don't exist.

  Plato: "I subscribed to the view that perfect ideas exist in heaven."

 Realism:  ethical and aesthetic values and mathematical properties

 really exist 'out there,' independently of our knowing or experiencing

 them. Plato: "redness and tallness exist in Plato's Heaven

independently of red and tall things; my opponents, the nominalists,

maintain that these are names or labels that are attached to objects

 to highlight particular similarities between them."

 Michio Kako:   "My own view is that verification of string theory might

come entirely from pure mathematics, rather than from experiment"

from his"Parallel Universes"(in which he defined idealism incorrectly).

We contend the both rationalism and empiricism are vital to a

complete understanding of the cosmos.

There was a time when the process was: speculation (in verbal or

mathematical form) to model to theory to widely accepted theory to

fact. It was a process taking decades and necessitated a great deal

of observations/experiments to confirm by many independent

observers/experimenters. More than likely a proposal never made it

to fact. Now, we have short-circuited the process: a proposal in the

form of mathematical speculation, proven mathematically can now

be accepted as fact with little or no observations/experiments to

back it up.

There was a time when you believed or didn't believe in a theological

concept while you accepted or rejected a scientific concept. To

hear scientists today, especially, physicists talk about their belief in

scientific concepts. Semantics, you say. No; listen to them talk in

documentaries and read what they write with almost religious

conviction and fervor.

In traditional science, the theoretician or observer/experimenter was

detached and as objective as humanly possible. In contrast, it now

seems impossible to separate the observer from the observed; we

are part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.

 According to quantum theory the wind has and hasn't caused the

leaf to be on the ground. We won't know until someone looks:

collapses the wave function --- the Cat Paradox.

Einstein postulated what he called "objective reality,  absolute

reality outside of human experience. The leaf is on the ground or

not irregardless of whether or not someone is observing. You can

safely assume that the moon is in the sky even if you are inside

and can't see it. He sounds like a realist; we know that he was a

type of a pantheist.

Neils Bohr, one of the principal contributors to quantum theory,

held that reality existed only after an observation had been made.

He seemed to be leaning in the direction of idealism.

 To say ideas exist independently of our perceiving them as Plato

and Einstein suggests, one might say that the purpose of the

universe isn't us: with our prefrontal lobes of the neocortex

capable of accepting or rejecting God's existence and choosing

good over bad (He's rooting for us!). Unless one says that they

exist in Plato's Heaven or in the Mind of God, such as, things

that we still don't know. Would ideas exist at all if we didn't exist?

There wouldn't be a universe if we didn't exist. This is not to say

that physical reality/substance doesn't exist. It does.

At the instant of the BIG Bang, God established the initial conditions;

 physical laws with their constants which could lead to life, including,

intelligent life and places for them, to live. He didn't know precisely 

the nature of the life and the intelligent life other than it was likely to

be carbon/water-based.

He isn't an all knowing God; but, far more advanced than us. He

knew that advanced brains, if He were successful in producing them,

 would have free will and could chose good or evil. Further,

 intelligent beings would be self-conscious and could comprehend

distant past and future.

For centuries theologians have struggled for an answer to the

question: How could a totally good God create evil? We are

responsible for a certain brand of evil. The other type: volcanoes,

floods, etc. in which good people die. Plate tectonics was necessary

 for life which means earthquakes that kill good people. The God of

the Bible (who created universe and knows at every moment how

many fish are in the ocean, who controls every atom and is

everywhere {like an electron can be according to quantum mechanics

-many or all  possible places simultaneously]). may have created

evil and engaged in it, but, doesn't own up to it. Ancient gods such

as the Greek variety would impose inflictions on humans (evil) and

had no qualms about it. We picture a deist God who is only indirectly

 responsible.

We aren't capable of imagining the numerous activities that engage

God; one of which is his universe-experiment. He established the

laws of nature: physics and He doesn't violate His own laws; perhaps,

He is capable of more outside of the universe. For example, he can't

see the future of the universe because it isn't possible according to

the laws that he established. Would He want to be prescient? It

wouldn't be as much fun to see past, present and future in an instant

as it would be to watch the experiment unfold. He doesn't interfere

with the cosmos but observe. He chose to or is compelled to abide

by the laws that he created when dealing with universe and not

enabling prophets to see the future or performing the type of

miracles that would violate His laws; He doesn't interfere by

performing miracles. The universe exists for us to appreciate Him

and  His creation (over which He didn't have complete control; He

set the stage which led in a certain direction but not one which

wasn't totally predictable  - it's like trying to predicate future path of

a hurricane, you know that it falls with in certain parameters and will

 trace a relatively narrow path but the precise path is known afterwards).

Idealism to the extreme? John Wheeler believes that everything

is info in the form of math. A proton never reaches the event

horizon of a black hole according to the universe. The black

hole passes event horizon and enters black hole's singularity

according to the black hole itself (as Einstein taught: everything

is relative) where its identity is lost: mass, spin, charge, etc.

John suggests that the info that the proton contained now

resides on the inner surface of the event horizon - two

dimensional but appearing three --- a hologram. He further

postulates that all info past and present concerning atoms,

planets, galaxies, people, etc. exist in mathematical form as a

hologram on the inner surface of the sphere representing the

observable universe. We think that we are real and of substance

and exist at the center of the universe. If we went to the 'edge'

we would think that we were made of matter and at the center

with info in the form of a hologram on the inner surface of the

observable universe (the most distant objects in the universe

appearing to form a sphere with us at the center).

Is nothing sacred, Is nothing real?

Zeus Approved.