Synnie23 January 2008 at 3:35amPosts: 4169 (0 today)Status: offline
Thanks for that, Sjefsjef, we may have to ask our italian friends then.
Do you normally also sing italian after tasting it?
glo23 January 2008 at 2:39pmPosts: 289 (0 today)Status: offline
I'm glad that Choccy brought quantum mechanics into the equation. I'll get to that. . .
for something supposedly working at random, nature loves efficiency. Odd? gODD?
When two molecules with the potential for bonding meet, they always bond - NO room for indecision.
Many religious people believe that god created the world "in HER image", which implies that creation had nowhere to go after that (except perhaps to dissolve from its initial perfection)
Scientists accept that entropy is INEXORABLE. . .SO, in both systems it's a problem that DNA is a billion times more complex than the first promordial atoms, that the human cortex has increased in size over the past 50,000 years, that life appeared out of inert chemicals, and that new thoughts appear every day out of the blue.
Entropy still makes US grow old, it still causes cars to rust and stars to grow cold and die. But the drive of evolution is equally inexorable.
With all their hearts, the early quantum pioneers, including Einstein, did NOT want to create new dimensions beyond time and space. They wanted to explain the universe as it appeared. But the current "superstring" theories that descended from Einstein use AT LEAST 11 DIMENSIONS to explain the visible world.
Religion has always held that god inhabits a world beyond the five senses. Science needs the same transcendent realm to explain how particles separated by billions of light years could act like mirror twins, how light can behave as both particle and wave, and how black holes can transfer matter beyond the grip of gravity and time.
glo23 January 2008 at 2:41pmPosts: 289 (0 today)Status: offline
aren't you glad that Sjefsjef didn't ask for a TOE.
glo23 January 2008 at 3:31pmPosts: 289 (0 today)Status: offline
11 dimensions? my calculations reveal 13.5, but hey, I'm most likely wrong.
11 alSO being the "high" number of occult "magick"
Phaedrus23 January 2008 at 4:19pmPosts: 538 (0 today)Status: offline
So, may I tell you all the one about the Buddhist monk who saw the Buddha walking in the forest?
Synnie23 January 2008 at 5:28pmPosts: 4169 (0 today)Status: offline
It always makes me giggle, if I see, how people work around these 11 instead of infinite worlds (I prefer the idea of a multivers, because everybody kind of is an own universe, if you get my point, in which case it only needs a little bit translation, and you are still into it all, from scientific as much as on any other level)
and even take it seriously!! (some laugh about their easy money, be sure!)
It would be fun to translate this 11 into simple 2 (I+I), to come back to the polarity-principle, like an always moving ying-yang (and yes, as such also to the twinnings in general).
Point is, that does not create as much reasons for further "new" researches and will accordingly bring not much pay. . .but in order to find new reasons for any money-scource, you have to have something kind of "spectacular" and "catching", a certain sensation-effect, which often enough turns out to be quite cheap and thus a waste of investigations.
Insofar many of the most "rational" ones are equally the most blind and lying ones, also to themselves. They even find loads of rational reasons for any kind of killings, especialy so-called scientific ones, be it for whales or humans like in the Hitler times or in Mandschuku (pretty similar arguments!). And whats even more interesting, its mostly men (not all though). . .
Alright, if a clock does not work anymore, its OK to open it, to see whats wrong, but you should be able to repair it and put it together again, if not, thats it for then. . .and no more but a willing destruction of little naughty ones.
I happen to like the fact, that the Dalai Lama is also famous for doing a lot of repair work on that very simple level too, also for others, hehe, he is surely aware of the many more levels to this.
All of the pieces. . .put them back etc.
Synnie23 January 2008 at 5:31pmPosts: 4169 (0 today)Status: offline
.just filling the time, until Phaedrus comes with his story :-]
glo23 January 2008 at 7:56pmPosts: 289 (0 today)Status: offline
maybe the key to transformation is that nature doesn't move forward in step by step increments. It takes "quantum leaps" all the time, and when it does, old ingredients aren't simply recombined. Something new appears in creation for the first time. . .an "emergent property". (emerge and see!)
hydrogen and oxygen. . .light, gaseous, invisible and dry. It tOOk a transformation for those two elements to combine and CREATE water, and when that happened an entirely new set of possibilities emerged with it, the most important from our point of view being life itself.
I LOVE wetness. . .
In a universe without water, wetness can't be derived by shuffling around properties that already exist. Shuffling only produces change. . .it isn't sufficient for transformation. Wetness has to emerge as something entirely new in creation. It turns out that every chemical bond produces an emergent property.
Your body is bonding millions of molecules every second. Breathing and digestion harness transformation. Food and air aren't just shuffled about but undergo the exact chemical bonding needed to keep you alive. Sugar extracted from an orange travels to the brain and fuels a thought. The emergent property in this case is the "newness" of thought. No molecules in the history of the universe ever combined to produce that particular result. Air entering your lungs combines in thousands of ways to produce cells that have never existed before in just the way they exist in you, and when you use oxygen to move, your muscles are performing actions that may be similar to other people but still remain unique expressions of YOU!
And Phaedrus? I killed him already. Sorry. . .
One day sOOn maybe eventually,
I'll write a Sutra worthy of Patanjali.
Phaedrus23 January 2008 at 8:10pmPosts: 538 (0 today)Status: offline
Lunch break is here! I'm eating some curry.
Zen Master Lin Chi was meditating when one of his students ran into the temple in a state of great excitement. "Master, I was just walking in the forest this morning when I saw the Buddha, walking on the road, in all his glory." Lin Chi patiently listened to the student described the the event. When he was done telling his tale, Lin Chi cried out "If you meet the Buddha, you must KILL the Buddha. If you meet a Patriarch, kill the Patriarch."
At first the disciple was surprised, even horrified.
"Why kill the Buddha?"
"Because the Buddha you meet is not the true Buddha, but an expression of your longing. If this Buddha is not killed he will only stand in your way."
The wider meaning of this story, to me, is that one shouldn?t hold on to anything, even the idea of enlightenment. it seems to me that trying to be spiritual can get in the way of being spiritual. I know that?s a paradox, but what else is new? I mean i?ve always found it pretty funny that Buddhist monks desire to be rid of desire. But hey what are you going to do, that?s just the way it is.
Oh, and regarding that some scientist say the universe has 11 or how ever many dimensions. It's really just the demands of mathematics; I spent two years working in a physics lab and I can tell you nearly all scientists prefer simple answers, but after you rule out all other explanations, your kind of stuck with what's left.
Phaedrus23 January 2008 at 8:12pmPosts: 538 (0 today)Status: offline
you posted before i could finish typing.
Synnie23 January 2008 at 8:15pmPosts: 4169 (0 today)Status: offline
Aha, you mean, you have killed buddha.
I rather get the impression, that you may have eaten him, but offered a mouth-cum-piece therefore, that sounds fine to me.
(I enjoyed your post, Michael, but now I have to go out for a stroll, see you!)
Synnie23 January 2008 at 8:17pmPosts: 4169 (0 today)Status: offline
OOps, was all meant for Glo, but hello and bye, Phaedrus!
Synnie23 January 2008 at 8:19pmPosts: 4169 (0 today)Status: offline
Pretty out of or through time connections here, it seems. . . :-]
Phaedrus23 January 2008 at 8:20pmPosts: 538 (0 today)Status: offline
i've had that happen before, you start typing and by the time you post someone has jumped ahead of you. i know you didn't mean anything by it glo, but it's kind of like telling a joke and having someone blurt out the punch line before you're done.
Synnie23 January 2008 at 8:27pmPosts: 4169 (0 today)Status: offline
He did not really though. . .but watch out, he is. . .
Nickelberrynsc24 January 2008 at 6:29amPosts: 49 (0 today)Status: offline
I am loving this thread!
So you've noticed that when you look at nature you can find the answer to larger questions? I know that is the method some of you are using and I like to do that too. For example, nothing in the universe ever dissapears it merely changes form. That to me answers the question about death. Of course you go on, you just won't know as what until you get there! I have my suspicions of course but then don't we all?
But (am I alone in this?) did you ever have the feeling that all this is an elaborate construct? Total emertion VR and were all here playing it out? "It's only an uncertainty that were naked and alive" So if that were the case, the whole something from nothing question can't be answered until we at least meet the programer. (please excuse my computer analogies) Personally I get the sense that this plane of exsistence is merely school and we can't even begin to guess what the BIG picture might be. "more than this" In order for this to work there has to be duality. Good, evil, male, female, fire, water, etc. . . so that we can learn from the adversity.
The point I'm trying to make is, when you look at the sum of it's parts it doesn't make sense. When you start to see the connections between the parts and then come to the realization that it's an infinate Jenga loop there is nothing you can do but open your mind and do your best. Because the hardware we use to assimilate all this (our brains) is simply not complex enough at this stage to handle it. I see it as someone trying to put a cd-rom disk into a 5.5 inch floppy drive. Realy that does not do it justice but you see what I mean. Watching us try to fit all of this into our noggins must be akin to watching a monkey try to stuff a watermelon in his ear.
The story goes that Paul McCartney had a dream of what his brain recognised as the virgin Mary and she just kept saying "Let it be. Let it be. There will be an answer, let it be." and as he woke he heard the music playing in his head. The song just had to be written.
And when the broken hearted people
living in the world agree.
There will be an answer, let it be.
Phaedrus24 January 2008 at 2:42pmPosts: 538 (0 today)Status: offline
glo24 January 2008 at 3:14pmPosts: 289 (0 today)Status: offline
and Phaedrus? I wouldn't kill the Buddha, or an imposter as it conflicts with my belief in non violence.
And people. . .? when I come across as capricious, vengeful, fickle, quick to anger, and judgemental. . .it's just some latent tendencies within my DNA. . .accept and forgive my humanity as I can alSO be. . .rational, calm, detached, calm, conciliatory, undemanding, tolerant, meditative, forgiving, inclusive, open, generous. . .jUSt like ALL YOU people!!!
Using Peter's various transformations as just one of MANY examples of "spirit" (for lack of a better word)I canot reduce it to equations and randomness.
Thank you Random, Eternal, Adaptation Sanctuary man!!
glo24 January 2008 at 3:23pmPosts: 289 (0 today)Status: offline
And if we could reduce metamorphosis, transformation, and "spirit" to equations. . .and strip it of mystery. . .make it predictable, quantifiable, and even marketable. . .well, there's your "hell"