From: tucker@mitre.org (William Tucker)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: MINDWALKING Buddhists, oh my!
Keywords: Re: MINDWALKING Buddhists, oh my!
Date: 28 Dec 92 14:30:43 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA, USA





Hi Lorenzo -


You farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris) wrote:

 Thanks for typing that long piece in.

 I will read the whole book myself at some point, but I do have a
 couple of comments on what you keyed in.

 While quantum mechanics and relativity have some very interesting
 implications, the technology for handling such implications doesn't
 presently exist in physics, as far as I know. (Who knows, maybe my
 theorist friends have been keeping something juicy from me.) The
 hologram, observer effects, relativity; are all anecdotal evidence
 pointing to something interesting. It is still, however, metaphysical
 speculation.

 The point I want to make is, physics doesn't 'prove' any of these
 notions of a holographic universe, etc. It is my own feeling that such
 a picture of the universe *cannot* be proved, ever, mathematically,
 because it is beyond proof or disproof, analysis, reason,
 'objectivity'. 

 'The Tao proven by theorem is not the Tao'

		cheers,
			Lorenzo
 -- 


My (William Tucker's) response is:

What I was really pointing towards was a new way of looking at things
and I think you're overlooking that as the most important point. I 
would suggest that you reread it. As far as poving anything, repitition
is the only thing that proves anything as far as proof goes.......the
math is simply a description of reality that encompasses the events 
and seems to work as far as we know. It doesn't prove squat. Reality
existed before math, not the converse. Thanks for your input. The book
is very interesting..........I left the more difficult things out in
the interests of not boring everyone. ;-)

This is an excerpt from the MINDWALK sci.philosophy.metaphysics
thread you might find mathematically interesting.

" Also, our philosophical
  tradition offers us little or nothing in the way of conceptual
  approaches to event-networks, which is doubtless one reason why
  Zukav and Capra saw relevance in the Eastern traditions of thought.

  My own thinking on this has to do with the question of measurement,
  specifically with the idea that an event-net type of structure might
  be necessary for any universe in which anything like a measurement
  is possible.  I'll follow this up in a later post.  But among other
  things, any approach to the world as a network of interaction-events
  has to explain how and why such a world ends up =looking= like a
  world of solid, permanent objects (like particles) moving around in
  a =seemingly= continuous framework of spacetime fields, at least on
  a macroscopic scale.  Some recent publications hint that the S-
  matrix group may still be in the forefront on this:  see Stapp's
  article "Light as foundation of being" (It sounds like mysticism,
  but it's physics... it's in a collection of interesting essays
  called =Quantum Implications=).

  My thanks to Damien Guay for proposing this topic, despite the spate
  of less-than-sympathetic responses.

  Conrad Johnson"



Wm T.

"just my opinion thankyou."

.standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: alt.magick