Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
My Apologies For You; Mike

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on July 25, 2003 07:39:44 UTC

Hi Mike:

brief replies can be influenced by time and money constraints.

Sure I would like to be more specific.

Now I will try to be brief but more specific!

Quote: "I like your way of showing that time itself does not always have to be flowing or sequential.
On the other hand, like Dr. Thick, you seem to be pretty sure that the universe's laws and phenomena will reduce to some short ideas which are accessible to Dr. Dick's equations but not to someone who hasn't learned them."

I think the universe's laws and phenomena are written inside us; you knew them well as a newborn baby but have forgotten?

Dr. Dick's equations are a way of looking at things.

Quote: " I see a few problems.
1) You explain the term: " "Entropy", the tendency of breaking groups;"
Others, using their real names, have explained that entropy is a descriptive term for physical phenomena which appear to follow physical rules, some of which have not yet been discovered by human scientists, and which have not been discovered to follow either a) Dr. Dick's math equations or b) your metaphors."

If I had more time I could quote scientific texts and hopefully back my claims in detail. If you care to present any standard explanation from the texts I can try to translate it.

Quote: "The "breaking into groups" idea does not apply well to quantum uncertainty, where the boundaries between many "groups" of energy packets are not distinguishable, AND where the interplay between matter and energy, as far as I could tell, is not symmetrical as to cause and effect."

I did not say the "breaking into groups" occured in isolation: to talk of it you need to see it; to see it you need to have a different group and a different break; if you and entropy were the same, how could you see or count "entropy"?

Count MEETS count: there is your quantum uncertainty? Uncertainty in counting? The quantisation of one count by another: freedom or "uncertainty" allowed in how two manners of counting see each other?

Yet what is "two"? How much freedom in it? God is three and God is One.

Idea: consciousness of freedom of freedom in freedom: Existence.

Quote: "2) Alan wrote:"" Are
we deceived by an imaginary matrix of
numbers; of forced "dead" groups; of
making assumptions about things being
already made (when we could see they
are made fresh with us)?????"

Bravo, Alan. In math that is great. In physics
it might not yield the answer we want. let not the religionist coopt our religious freedom on the basis of pure thought which does not correspond to reality, even though it is beautiful."

I have mapped the reality described in physics texts quite extensively; not published yet though.

Quote: "I'm not anonymous Mark, thank God".

What matter my anonymity?



Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins