From: bavafa@netcom.com (Hooshyar Naraghi)
Subject: Re: Physics-1A Question
Organization: Final Episode
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 10:29:30 GMT

In article <BvtwtL.ICv@news.udel.edu> keivan@brahms.udel.edu (Keivan Esfarjani) writes:
>SalAm bar ahAli and  HooshyAr khAn,
>Sorry for the delay, I answered the message yesteday, but I managed 
>to lose it So here I am again:

How did you manage to do this? :-)  Hi Keivan jAn!

I have noticed that the subject has become a dialogue mainly between you and
myself.  Specially in the light of its reincarnation in math, with your
agreement I would like to suggest that we wrap it up from sci not to bore
our ahAli.  I have posed some questions again so why not one more round, and
I guess we can continue the tread via email.

>In article <1992Oct7.065546.2164@netcom.com> bavafa@netcom.com (Hooshyar Naraghi) writes:

>Sure! I think now I understand what you were saying; your examplle of
>temperature as property of mattesight tracked me. 
>I guess by property you mean anything that is observable, detectable or
>measurable.

Akheysh, you finally removed the weight from my shoulder!  Yes, yes, that's
what I had meant to say.

>Then in that case it's easy:
>We know that we see stuff around us, so we call it matter (here we
>first defined matter as whatever we sense around us) then to 
>characterize it or to expand our vocabulary, we define some
>properties of matter such as color, size......and temperature when
>we get more sophisticated. Does that answer you?

Yes, I now understand what you say.  But one question, and please don't
suspect that I planted it, OK?  How do we KNOW that we see stuff around
us?  :-)  I am aware that you defined the matter 'as whatever we sense
around us.'  Fine, you just satisfied that the definition must come first.
And I can follow the rest that definition of such properties helped us
characterize the matter even more to expand our knowledge of it.

If you could just build the bridge to let me pass from KNOW to definition,
I am going to rest at peace after all.

If you had posed a statement as follows, I wouldn't have questioned.
"We DON'T KNOW that matter exists.  We suspect that it must exist.  We
define it; then experiment it to verify that the definition is correct.  In
the process we refine the experiment which could refine the definition to
a more accurate one.  After showing that the experiment corresponds to the
experiment, we will conclude that we now KNOW that matter exists."

In this synthesis, I am preserving your requirement of definition first,
but before that I take the position of "don't know."  After it is verified
that the definition holds, then I will SAFELY state that NOW I KNOW.

What do you say?

>But you probably knew that already!

Not!  It is not that I knew it or not.  The point was and is to be able to
articulate it.  I perobably knew a lot of sporadic ideas, but didn't know
much how to relate them, specially once I had to try to understand your
insistence in definition too.

>I thought you had another definition of matter in mind or something!

As I said no I didn't.

>>>>It seems to me if I did not think, matter wouldn't exist.  The existence of
>>>>matter is _within_ me.  So if humans did not exist, there wouldn't be a
>>>>matter.  As a matter of fact there wouldn't be a discussion of matter.
>>>
>>>True, matter exists only for those who can "detect" or "observe" it; 
>>>otherwise the existence or non-existence of it would be meaningless.
>>
>>Interesting.  So even the KNOWLEDGE could be relative.  For example, cows
>>don't know that matter exists, so for them matter does not exist.  But for
>>us humans it exists.  This is another topic by itself, because one could
>>argue that even cows could "detect" and "observe" the matter.
>
>Yes, I think it is a relative notion. If there is no way for you (even
>in the future, by direct or indirect measurement) to detect something
>(that you already have defined :-), then as far as you are concerned
>it does not exist. Btw, I think cows know that matter exists even though
>they might not understand our definition. They are aware of it, and can
>feel its effect.

Just a trivia question:  Cows cannot define.  They cannot experiment which
is the same as saying they cannot measure and detect matter.  How do they
KNOW that matter exists?  It seems to me they can _instinctly_ know that
matter exists and will relate to it according to their 'gharizeh' which is
really a pre-defined set of genetic codes.  But, we humans have the ability
to perform real experiments based on our desire to KNOW, and not because it
is a code in our genes.


>>Really, there was no 'film.'  As I said the KNOW business came up as a
>>by-product.  There has been a _ligitimate_ question here at sci as how
>>do we KNOW God exists. I felt that the question did not receive any kind
>>of worthy attention, specially in the light of those who tried to offer
>>their _hearsays_ points.
>Fine, I believe you, but all evidences were consistent with the 
>'filming' theory :-) and it's quite all right, I enjoyed the discussion
>and you won a chelow kabAb :-)

Moment!  Are you suggesting that you received the intellectual food and I
got the material food?  :-)  I enjoyed A LOT too, Keivan.

>As far as God is concerned, we can apply the same thing, but we will  
>end up with the following:
>Let's define God as the creator of the universe(our universe).
>I think this is a minimal and sufficient definition to garanty its
>existence. Let us not worry with the uniqueness here!
>So you can say, according to this definition, that since our 
>universe has been created, therefore a God exists. Very simple and
>trivial so far! But the question is the power of that God and its
>effect(s)  on our lives. That remains to be answered!!!

In what way to be answered?  OK, maybe we want to finish the Physics-1A
discussion, but nobody said we cannot start Theology-1A.  :-)
IMHO, we have to demonstrate that whenever God's teachings have been 
implemented by its people at its right time, humanity has benefited from
His power that has been unleashed through His manifestations.

Another trivia for you: who defines God?  If you say humans, I would ask
why would humans want to define a God that by definition is not detectable
and even measurable?  That is contradiction.

It seems there is 'something' in us humans that wants to 'sough' us toward
God.  To be said another way, 'We DON'T KNOW that God exists.  But we want
to believe that it exists.  We define God per his Manifestations at each
period, and then we measure and detect (experiment) to show that the 
definition holds true, then we will KNOW that God exists.'  In this case
the measurement and detection is applying spiritual properties of humankind
such as justice, peace, love, unity, forgiveness, .  .  .  .

Regards,
Hooshyar F. Naraghi
bavafa@netcom.com
(415) 322-8056

From: moussavi@hplred.HP.COM (Farshid Moussavi)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:12:09 GMT
Subject: Re: Hazrateh Zainab as an experimental feezeezeest
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA