Fwd: Doyle/DePersio Joint...

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: b <rrdd3939@aol.com>
To: rrdd3939 <rrdd3939@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Feb 19, 2013 4:09 pm
Subject: Doyle/DePersio Joint...

 

Enjoy Doyle/DePersio Trilogy: "Citizen Journalist is Missing"

(start with "Gone Fishin'" and work you way backwards) at this

comsat; "The Return of Citizen Journalist" at

www.rickcmtsite.blogspot.com ; separate from the  

two part-er is "Citizen Journalist in the Diogenes Club" at

www.quasarpolitical.blogspot.com

Sent: Thu, Feb  14, 2013 1:08 am Gravity: Force that Pushes...
 

                          HERMES Presents PUSH or PULL

                          A GIFT to a REAL LADY: URANIA

      by Richard DePersio with Citizen Journalist Janus Calliope

Hermes: "Speaking on behave of RD, CJ-C, it is good to be back.

Signed long-term contract that is equitable to all parties: RD, CJ

and I. The gods and goddesses of Mt. Olympus aren't members of

socialist unions which are destroying America --- to whom we

bequest Western Civilization. A Message for Urania: The old

haunt - CJCS Comsats - won't be the same without you. Sign new

contract post haste! The Obols are quite good! Ploutos concurs.

The problem with gravity: it pulls rather then pushes. We think of

a force as a push.

      Newton couldn't explain nature of gravity and how it could

influence over empty space. He tired of the questions until with

annoyance, he finally said: "It is enough that gravity exists

according to the laws I explained. It abundantly serves to explain

the motions of celestial bodies. I feign no hypotheses." He would

not speculate on the nature of the force - be it physical or

metaphysical or occult or mechanical. He explained that

science explains how something acts but not why.

We think of a force as a push.

     Einstein stated that a mass bends the curvature of space-time.

The more massive the object the greater the curve. The curve

causes space-time to push down on a nearby object.

Newton works just fine under most circumstances and the numbers

in problem solving are virtually identical to Einstein. Newton is

somewhat easier and was good enough to get us to the moon.

 Einstein is needed when dealing with extremely high velocities and

 masses.

     The fact of the matter: Push not Pull seems to save the

phenomenon better; it works better and may or may not describe

reality; describes it better than Newton. We can never be

certain if we are describing reality or absolutes --- that's for religion.

With science near certain, perhaps.

 

Wing lifts because air pushes down. Force is a push. Wing

irregardless of shape causes air to be deflected downward like the

curve of space-rime causes the space-time above the less

massive object to press down on it.

     Run a small stream of water from a faucet. Bring a horizontal

water glass over to it. The water will wrap partway around the glass.

Newton's first law  (no need to call on Einstein to complicate

things) tells us for  the flow of water to bend, there must be

a force on it. The force is in the direction of the bend. Newton's

Third Law tells us that there must be an equal and opposite force

acting on the glass. The stream of water puts a force on the glass

that tries to pull it into the stream.

    You don't like pull. The wing gives the air a downward deflection.

It does so by creating a region of reduced pressure on the top

surface of the wing (a kind of a suction) which pulls the air

downward. PUSHES on the wing. Wing deflects air down; air

pushes down on wing FORCE; equal and opposite reaction wing

pushes up --- lifts.

"Stick and Rudder" by W. Langewiesche (McGraw-Hill): "The main

fact of all heavier-than-air flight is this: the wing keeps the

airplane up by pushing the air down."

     "...it pulls the air down with its top surface...makes the air go

down. In exerting a downward force upon the air, the wing

receives an upward counter force."

Air pushes down on wing (force; action) and wing pushes up

(equal and opposite force; reaction). The same thing: gun

recoils as it shoves the bullet out forward.

     ''...if the wing pushes the air down, the air must push the wing

up." This is Newton's Third Law: For every action, there must be

and equal and opposite reaction. "...the wing...is in the last

analysis nothing bit an air deflector. It is an inclined plane...

that's, after all, why that whole fascinating contraption of ours is

called an airplane."

     "This plane is inclined so that as it moves through the air,

it will meet the air at an angle and thus shove it downward." It

pushes down on the wing.

Pic. 2: Imagine space-time pushes down on satellite as a

consequence of the curvature.

Pic. 3: As Albert taught us everything is relative: Wind deflected in

 downward direction by wing as viewed by pilot (if he could see

wind); wind would be nearly straight down behind wing as viewed

 from earth - not depicted (again, if you could see air).

 

(More on flight, as well as, the fallacy of Bernoulli Principle when

applied to lift {according to BP, symmetrical wings, for example,

 couldn't produce lift}, see: "Hermes has a Message" And

"Hermes: Ladies, Fly Me" at www.quasarpolitical.blogspot.com ).

 

    

 

 

 

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.

Fwd: Atropos...

-----Original Message-----
From: b <rrdd3939@aol.com>
To: rrdd3939 <rrdd3939@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Dec 18, 2012 9:18 pm
Subject: Atropos...

 

"Antropos" followed by NEW NEW Version of "Preface/Epilog"

A Message from Urania: "My astronomy posts follow the philosophical

discussion of God/Mind-Body Problem/Religious and scientific floors.

Please check out my stuff...

 

Wait! Here's one for the road...

                                          ATROPOS

                                  by Citizen Journalist

The legend of Galileo...He was in the Cathedral of Pisa (the

cathedral's famous tower is nearby) and a candle in a

lamp hanging from the ceiling had just been lit. He watched it

swing. He timed it by measuring his pulse. He realized that

initially it had made a long arc. The arc got shorter and shorter.

Low and behold: It took the same length of time to make a full

swing back and forth for the long arc as it had for the short arc.

He discovered the principle of the pendulum in the 17th century.

Mechanical clocks had been around since the 13th century.

His discovery immediately resulted in the creation of more accurate

clocks --- such is genius.

    It became known as Galileo's lamp and is pointed out by tour

guides. There is one small problem: this particular lamp wasn't

installed until after Galileo's death.

   CJ: "I see by the old clock on the wall that my time is up."

 

 

 

 

NEW NEW below...

                                 
(New EXPANDED Version: Now with a SHOCKING Ending!!!)

                            Preface/Epilog: Save the Phenomena

                         by Richard DePerio and Citizen Journalist

                           Expanded by Richard DePersio

  (You can read from "Is There a God/Urania Presents/Plato's Man-

    in-the-Cave Series to Here or Opt to Read from Here to There)

Strange Bedfellows: RD is his own species of deist (same genus)

and a proud member of "Alliance Defending Freedom" which fights to

protect Amendment One in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution.

        At the very instant of the BIG Bang, God determined the laws of

physics with their constants. Billions of years later, primitive DNA

evolved which was able to replicate. It was in a state of limbo between

 being living and non-living like a virus is. It couldn't make the leap to

becoming a living cell. God had to intervene. Billions of years after

that He would enable prosimians, monkeys, apes, whales, dolphins

and porpoises to enjoy a modicum of self-awareness (consciousness)

and a level of comprehension of the immediate past and the

immediate future. Quite naturally, the most advanced ape - you -

would evolve the most advanced brain different in degree but not kind

from the other primates. This brain had a mind. Mind (soul?) exists in

the microtubules of nerve cells. The advanced brain and the mind

would quite understandably evolve to possess free will.

       You might describe Him as largely a do-nothing God who rarely

gets involved unless absolutely necessary. He started the cosmos

and enjoys watching his creation unfold. Why interfere? Perhaps,

for the most part, He can't do so -  being constrained by his own laws.

       Far-fetched? Please keep reading...
       You let go of an object and it falls. Billions of humans and

hominids have done it for millions of years. You can't let go of an

object and watch it rise? Can you? Are you a scientific realist guy/girl

or a save the phenomena guy/girl?

       The Ancients Greeks weren't attempting to describe absolute

reality, which is known only to the gods, but, attempting to construct

models which could successfully predict phenomena such as

eclipses. Our friend Plato feels that philosophers can glimpse reality

the best but not perfectly because we are encased in imperfect

bodies.

       Plato, and his student Aristotle, spoke of invisible crystalline

spheres within spheres to explain the universe. Geoge Abell in

"Exploration of the Universe" (1969; Holt, Rinchart, Winston, Inc.)

states: the spheres "were intended as mere mathematical 

representation of the motions of the planets. It was a scheme that

'saved the phenomena' better than the one before it, and in this

sense was successful...a scheme that would describe the

phenomena and would predict events...The epicycles of Ptolemy

(CJ: "on or not on spheres"), developed later, may similarly be

regarded as mathematical representations not intended to

describe reality."

      It should be pointed out that circles and spheres were

considered the most perfect geometrical shapes by the Greeks,

therefore, they probably thought that this was likely the way that

the gods were doing it. The Catholic Church would later embrace

it as literally true: Earth-centered with spheres within spheres

orbiting the earth; the celestial sphere consisted of only one

sphere and held the stars while the planets (sun, moon, Mercury,

Venus, Marts, Jupiter and Saturn traveled on spheres within

spheres).

     Scientific realists: electrons, genes, quasars, etc. are real and

 we really understand them. Science depicts reality. It also

applies to things that we cannot see: strings, dark matter, etc.

     We contend that a few scientists began to subscribe to

scientific realism between the Renaissance and the 1920s, it

became a large minority by the '70s and the vast majority since

then. We, therefore, disagree with the following statements:

"Exploration of the Universe": "...Ptolemy made no claim that

his cosmological model described reality. (CJ: "This is true.

Although, he might have thought that it might come close to

realitybut, His primary concern was prediction:"). He intended his

scheme rather as a mathematical representation to predict the

position of the planets at anytime. Modern astronomers do the

same thing with algebraic formulas." (CJ: "Ptolemy employed

geometry as algebra had not yet been invented"). Jagjit Singh

writes in his "Great Ideas and Theories of Modern Cosmology"

(1961; Dover Publications): "In natural science the most 'scientific'

' and 'up-to-date' view is that the laws of the universe are

unknowable and we can only construct more or less 'simple,'

 'economical,' or 'elegant' descriptions of phenomena. What 'really'

 happens around us can never be known. Hence the need for

grasping the 'true' essence of the universe by mystical intuition or

 spiritual second sight. Nor has cosmology been able to ward off

 the infection of God in some cosmological schemes to produce

 the 'miracle' of creation or 'guide' integrated evolution clearly

 shows." Jafjit thinks that religion should justify itself in its own

terms and not seek recourse in science which is a different

kettle of fish.

      While we consider 'scientific creationism' to be utter nonsense,

or, as critics call it 'the God of the Gaps,' we think it reasonable

to invoke God at the time of the singularity.

      We contend that the ancients felt that they may or may not be

depicting reality which they could only glimpse for it existed in

the heavenly realm, but, were successfully 'describing' nature in a

manner that enabled them to predict future events. In contrast,

today's scientists think that they are describing reality for sure and

that mathematics should suffice as proof.

      Our response: We are only 99% certain that the object won't

rise...and less certain of other scientific claims bordering on the

ultra-absurd: quantum physics; strings/branes; multi-verses; dark

matter and energy; Higgs-Bosons. We are fine with classical physics

 and relativity (even though the latter defies common sense, we

were won over by Al's thought experiments (rationalism) and the

abundance of experimental confirmation (empiricism).

Fair and Balanced: We claim that we have expressed positive, as

well, as critical views of God, religion and science in Plato's Man-

in-the-Cave Series. We have embraced ideas and attacked ideas

in both realms equally - we were duelists, so to speak.

FoxNews Alert: "Citizen Journalist released a statuette of Venus and

it rose! He said and we quote: 'You'll just have to take my word for

it. It happened. I swear to Zeus.'"

 

     

Fwd: SOUL MAN (Expanded Version)...

-----Original Message-----
From: b <rrdd3939@aol.com>
To: rrdd3939 <rrdd3939@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Nov 23, 2012 3:49 am
Subject: Fwd: SOUL MAN (Expanded Version)...

 

(Reading the other installments in the "Plato Man in the Cave" series is

 recommended but not required. Take note of "Plato's Cave to Plato'

Heaven," "Plato's Heaven" and "Return to Plato's Cave" which are highly

 critical of physicist like Michio Kaku whom seem to treat mathematical

 speculation as fact and largely bypassing observational and experimental

evidence. "Outside of Plato's Cave" is appropriate to the season).

(This constitutes a Supplement (isn't it unusual for a  supplement to enjoy

its own name) to Plato's Man in the Cave series/Urania Moons You/God:

A Personal Journey {an article with three names} A supplement comes

after the article proper; if you don't know that you aren't equipped to be

reading material of this nature).

                                 SOUL MAN (Expanded Version)

                   PLATO'S MAN in the CAVE Series: The FINALE'

              A CRITIQUE of the DIRECTION SCIENCE is TAKING

                      by Richard DePersio with Citizen Journalist

         (Special thanks to Urania {for the use of the hall} and Plato)

WHY DOES EVERYONE ELSE SEE A PROBLEM --- WE DON'T!!!

The ancient Greek and Roman philosophers might be described

 as nearly being idealists/immaterialists (although, these

 philosophical terms weren't employed at the time; ethical values and

math properties exist independent of our knowing or experiencing them).

They felt that one can only understand nature by thinking about it and 

through the use of mathematics, especially, geometry.

        For most of the ancients frowned upon observing or experiencing

 or experimenting, especially, the latter for the use of hands in work

was for slaves. Soldiers' use of hands were an exception. A few would

 engage only when they thought absolutely necessary and felt

self-degradation. Plato subscribed to this view. (Ionians being the

 exception. They found value in both). On the other hand, Plato was a

dualist in that he thought in terms of soul-body being of a different nature.

        Descartes, in the 17th Century, that mind was a mental 

substance whose essential nature was thinking and feeling. Everything

else is matter or material substance with physical characteristics like

 size and shape. This is known as dualism. He was a rationalist:

Knowledge acquisition wasn't limited to the senses and one might be

 better off not attempting knowledge acquisition by this fashion. 

(Empiricists think that it is virtually all about senses: observing;

experiencing; experimenting).

       Those in opposition hold that since Descartes made mental

and physical different substances that they can't possibly react to each

 other: a physical effect requires a physical cause.

WHY DOES EVERYONE ELSE SEE A PROBLEM --- WE DON'T!!!

      Matter and the Space-Time Foam (Einstein's gravity: the curvature

of space) interact with each other and STF isn't even a substance!

      Spinoza tried to rectify {CJ: "That which we don't perceive as

a problem."} by suggesting that it is properties not substances.

You're describing different aspects of the same entity: two sides of the

 same coin. He attempts to explain how mind-body (or brain)

interaction can occur. {CJ: "This works for us as well."}

     Those in opposition hold that he has shifted the problem of dualism

 not solved it.

     Empiricists posit that virtually all knowledge is derived from the

senses through observation, experience and experimentation and are,

 by and large, materialists (universe is all matter).

It should be noted that 90% of scientists and philosophers are

 materialists or physicalists.

WHY DOES EVERYONE ELSE SEE A PROBLEM --- WE DON'T!!!

     Why isn't dualism in physics acceptable? A massless particle

light sometimes behaves like a particle and sometimes behaves

like a wave; particles with mass like protons sometimes behave

as particles and sometimes waves. Even opposites exist in

nature: positive and negative charges; matter and antimatter.

 Mind containing info on thoughts, feelings and memories

corresponding to data contained in neurons of the brain.

Info existing at two different locations; mind and brain of two

different substances or two different aspects. Mind or

consciousness, perhaps, existing in the microtubules of

neurons.

       Albert taught us that matter was a concentrated form of

 energy and that matter and energy are two different forms of

 the same thing. And, certainly matter and energy interact with

each other and have no problem doing so. Mind and/or

consciousness and/or spirit and or soul. Why does Albert

have a problem with soul? Please continue reading.

       Speaking of soul: CJ is pretty fly for a white guy!

      Descartes like Plato contended that we were born with

 certain innate ideas: the true meaning of liberty (abstract ideas);

geometry. Descartes felt that the mind was a little god made in

God's image and to think of the mind as a machine was

undignified. Plato felt that innate ideas are in the soul. Could Mind

and soul might be the same thing!). For Plato the soul was

imprisoned in the corrupt body making it difficult to apprehend

innate ideas while for Descartes the world of the senses could

impede one's attempt to connect with innate ideas. Knowledge from

 senses is inferior.

      Empiricists claim that most knowledge should come from

observation, experience and experimentation. Most wouldn't

object to Descartes claiming math and abstract ideas are innate

but Descartes went further by contending that knowledge of

the physical world should be ascertained through pure thought.

      Both sides resurrected the little known ancient Greek idea of the

 atom as the smallest indivisible part of a substance. Most ancient

 thought that everything was made of earth, wind, fire and water.

Atoms had no substance - only shape, spin, motion. Descartes went

 further: color, taste, sound were innate. When we looked at grass,

our mind tells us to see it as green. This too was a road too far for

the empiricists.

      We maintain that knowledge must be secured via thought/

math and observation/experience/experimentation. As physicist

Roger Penrose suggests there might be three realms: math; mental

or mind; physical or material. Just to complicate things further!

WHY DOES EVERYONE ELSE SEE A PROBLEM --- WE DON'T!!!

      We can't be certain that mind and consciousness can exist

separate from but related to brain. We cannot be certain that mind

can be soul/spirit. Although, it might be proven one day.Does this

constitute wild unscientific thinking? One might say that of quantum

physics. It seems to us that most physicists today are thinking in a

fashion like Descartes: minimizing value of observation and

experimentation. Accepting math speculation as fact with little or no

observational/experimental data to support it. Descartes once again

you are front and center.

       Why is it difficult for most scientists to accept mind as separate

 from brain. They except electron being in more than one place at a

time. They accept Higgs-Bosons: ghost-like particles which give

substance to matter. They accept ten spatial dimensions instead of the

 traditional three. It seems to us that mind fits right in there. Is it that

they are married to atheism.

       Disagreeing with Albert...Idealism/realism: minds and ideas is all

 that there is; ethical values and mathematical properties exist 'out

there' independent of our knowing them. there is no substance. On

the issue of math: A rationalist is  with an emphasis on getting knowledge

of abstract ideas, including, math. via thought. Empiricists argue that the

 abstract ideas of math are actually human constructs (tools) and math is

 a matter of convention - it helps create consensus not discover; adds

additional proof but not fact or truth. Descartes was a duelist who 

reasoned God's existence (one might say that he was a deist) while

Spinoza was a dualist and a pantheist. Which brings us to Albert. We are

 going to quote from "Parallel Worlds" by Michio Kaku, even though we

have been critical of Michio: "Einstein once wrote that he believed in

Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists

 {CJ: "We can see why the 'Uncertainty Principle' upset him."}, not in a

God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

The god of Spinoza and Einstein is the god of harmony, the god of

reason and logic. Einstein writes, "I cannot imagine a god who

rewards and punishes the objects of his creation...Neither can I believe

 that the individual survives the death of the body." {CJ: "We think that

deism is predicated on reason."} Einstein said,"I am convinced that we

can discover by means of purely mathematical construction the concepts

 and the laws...which furnish the key to the understanding of natural

phenomena....pure thought can grasp reality." We contend that since

quantum theory was created in the '20s and even more so since the '80s

 with String Theory, M Theory, Multi-verses that scientists have become

more idealists (or immaterialists). Machio in his own words: "My own

view is that verification of string theory might come entirely from

pure mathematics rather than from experiment." Is the real

universe just in way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WE DISCOVERED A CONNECTION UNINTENTIONAL BUT
MEANINGFUL...

Einstein helped develop quantum physics but was most uncomfortable

with it, especially, the Uncertainty Principle: You can know a particles

location or it speed and direction but not both at the time time. Not

long before his death, he grudgingly accepted it but felt that like

Relativity didn't replace Newtonian Physics but made it a subset that

eventually Quantum would become part of something bigger.

       The Cat Paradox...Imagine a cat sealed in a box with a bottle of

poison gas connected to a hammer, which in turn is connected to a

Geiger counter placed near a piece of uranium. The radioactive decay

 of the uranium atom is a quantum event which can't be predicted ahead

 of time. Let's say the there is a 50% chance that the uranium atom will

 decay in the next second. If it does decay, it will set off the Geiger

Counter, which sets off the hammer which breaks the glass, killing the

cat (PETA, its not real but a thought experiment; don't protest at our

comsats). The physicists say that the cat is 50% alive and 50% dead

 until we open the box. Once you open the box the wave function

collapses and you and the cat have definite position and your

observation can be made.

      There are several ways of resolving the cat problem. According to

 Eugene Wigner consciousness determines existence. Wigner's friend:

 In order to determine my state, someone else has to observe me to

 collapse my wave function. It also means that someone has to observe

Wigner's friend, and Wigner's friend's friend, and so on. Is there a

cosmic consciousness that determines the entire sequence of friends by

 observing the whole universe?

      Scientists haven't created life out of non-living matter nor have they

 created consciousness out of life, let alone the higher consciousness of

humans.

      Each one observing the previous observer with the ultimate observer

 in the cat paradox being God.Can there be a universe without observers?

 John Wheeler proposes that the entire universe is dominated by

consciousness and information (mind and math) Consciousness

determines the nature of the universe. "50 Philosophy Ideas You Really

 Need to Know" by Ben Dupre' (Quercus, 2007): "...in Descartes the mind

 is effectively a stage on which ideas are viewed by an inner observer -

 the immaterial soul. the fact that this inner observer, or 'homunculus',

 itself appears to require an observer of its own (and so on to infinity).

We need both approaches to understanding the universe: thought and

observation. The pure forms of ethics and math reside in Plato's Heaven.

They are innate in our mind or soul and can be discovered by rationalism

and empiricism. Sadly, science is over-emphasizing the latter. We are not

a blank slate at birth but this does not mean that we are born with strong

or weak homo or criminal or nasty genes. Quantum may be true but so

is purpose to universe true.