Did you understand me, yanniru?

It was all brief.

By the way, you wrote somewhere that you thought souls were made of axions, I think.

I figured out a model of axions that may explain why you might come up with that idea.

Don't have it here; but from recall it was something about: if you take TWO views of TWO concepts: example: two views of apples, and two views of oranges; and consider that apples and oranges overlap as category "fruit".

By taking TWO views of apples, and two views of oranges; "fruit" is kind of blurred in itself; kind of as if conscious of itself?

Do you have any problem with this: Stephen Wolfram has predicted that when physics is understood it will be incredibly simple.

Are you O.K. with physics becoming super simple?

Physcists try to make sense of the universe.
The minimum way to keep track of things is the law of non-contradiction?
The more that scientists categorise things, do experiments, get feedback, do more experiments, the more their model of how to track information might apparantly resemble a simple model of LOGIC itself?

Is that fair enough?

Are people scandalsed by reducing the complicated to the "piece of cake"?

Are scientits trying too hard to impress and appear important, to gain acceptance? Are they aware that acceptance is a gift, not able to be purchased? Are scientists willing to "lose" all they have, to discover anyone can do this; and in not forcibly being above others, rediscover what they really have as a free gift not held at the cost of others?

Whatever mistakes I may have made, it seems like science can be child's play one day, if not already?

comments?

regards,

alan

• No mistakes, just semantics - yanniru - November 18, 2004 - 14:39 UTC
  • thanks Yanniru - dolphin - December 4, 2004 - 04:13 UTC