QuantumConsultant Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 Absolute states are impossible. Even for God."We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. The real nature of things we shall never know" --Albert Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 Obviously there is an intelligent blue print that is an acorn, for example. Where did that design come from? Plato would have agreed with you, a few thousand years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 We all know Nature abhors a vacuum. Therefore, what you think is a vacuum most certainly is not. Sound needs atmosphere in which to propagate. Light needs a medium as well. You really need to brush up on your arguments. Most of this universe *is* vacuum, even if it's not *perfect* vacuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 This poll is heading for the theology forum VERY soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 Asking the wrong question, really. It's not "Is there an ID or not?," but "Why do so many people have this need to for some ID?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 Double sigh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racoon Posted May 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 I said this was only a poll! but I knew when asking a Religious opinion ,that it is asking for trouble. :evil: Religious belief polls get the most hits! I'll start a new poll soon Tormod :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuantumConsultant Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 Plato would have agreed with you, a few thousand years ago.A few thousand years ago the Ancients taught of an energy force which they called Chi or Prana. Western science for thousands of years said this was nonsense....until recently. With modern technology western science now believes what people thousands of years knew and taught about. Thirty or so years ago Harvard University said accupuncture was bogus. Now they teach it. So in your comment are you saying that Plato was absolutely correct and that it is unbelievable somebody thousands of years ago had such insight, or are you saying that somebody thousands of years ago couldn't possibly know what they were saying? Instead of telling me what Plato would have said, why don't you tell me what you say? Blessings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 Mr. QuantumConsultant dude... If you want to shoot Science down, Scienceforums might not necessarily be the most diplomatic of venues, if you catch my drift... Peace, Love, Blessings and a big helping of Macaroni and Cheese to you to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 A few thousand years ago the Ancients taught of an energy force which they called Chi or Prana. In America Western science for thousands of years said this was nonsense....until recently. With modern technology western science now believes what people thousands of years knew and taught about. Thirty or so years ago Harvard University said accupuncture was bogus. Now they teach it. This is not true. Acupuncture is not proven to work. Placebo is, however. New Scientist did very thorough research on this several years ago, and found that the healing process itself is more important than the healing method. So in your comment are you saying that Plato was absolutely correct and that it is unbelievable somebody thousands of years ago had such insight, or are you saying that somebody thousands of years ago couldn't possibly know what they were saying? I think Plato believed what he said because it fitted his world view. In that sense he was a proto-scientist. The problem was that his logic was based on absolute truths, which are incompatible with science. Platonian teaching was not something you proved or disproved, and definitely not something you experimented with. So he was no more or less right than a modern philosopher. He was a very important figure in the history of thought. That does not mean he was right - in fact, there is no way to test Plato's theories so they remain in the realms of philosophy. Instead of telling me what Plato would have said, why don't you tell me what you say? Nah. You can read around the forums if you like. My posts are all over the place. And not a single one of them will teach you the absolute Truth, nor bless you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racoon Posted May 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 A few thousand years ago the Ancients taught of an energy force which they called Chi or Prana. Western science for thousands of years said this was nonsense....until recently. I agree QC.Chi and Prana! :) The point is this is a POLL! Vote, say 1 line or 2, and then continue discussion in Philosophy or Theology Forums. Macarroni sounds good right now. :) I can't seem to do anything right,Racoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuantumConsultant Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 You really need to brush up on your arguments. Most of this universe *is* vacuum, even if it's not *perfect* vacuum.It is only a vacuum by the Newtonion definition. Quantum theory says otherwise. Like I said, we all have our opinions based on our limited consciousness through which we seek to know and explain. Quantum physics has taken us way beyond what you have learned in school. You are now trying to argue from this limited position from which you sit. But because you can't see the whole picture, you cannot know where you sit. Quantum physics says there is no such thing as a vacuum in the Newtonion sense. Ancient knowledge has taught this very same thing. I'm not trying to bring theology or spirituality into science. The two are already inextricably linked. An in-depth study of quantum physics and the teachings of the Ancients of thousands of years ago will show the student that both teachings are actually one in the same. Love to you all. A fellow scientist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 I'm not trying to bring theology or spirituality into science. Did anyone claim you were? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuantumConsultant Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 I'm not trying to shoot down science. I'm trying to illustrate that science has shifted from Newtonion views to quantum level energy. Quantum physics, as you all know, has a set of laws that are not compatible with classical physics. The Ancients said 5000 or more years ago that the physical world is an illusion. They actually had a word for it: Maya. Western science said could not comprehend this until quantum physics came into the picture. Now quantum level scientists agree with the statement of the ancients that all things are illusion. As a fellow scientist I'm just trying to to see if i can plant a seed in your consciousness. Please don't make the mistake of dismissing ideas so quickly. Open up to new possibilities. As a scientist you are seeking something or you would not be a scientist. I'm just offering a bit of information only to those of you who find what I'm saying interesting. I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. Just shed a little Light. :) (No pun intended) Love to you all QC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagnetMan Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 As a fellow scientist I'm just trying to to see if i can plant a seed in your consciousness. Please don't make the mistake of dismissing ideas so quickly. Open up to new possibilities. As a scientist you are seeking something or you would not be a scientist. I'm just offering a bit of information only to those of you who find what I'm saying interesting. I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. Just shed a little Light. :cup: (No pun intended) Love to you all QCKeep spelling it out in scientific terms Quantum! My grasp of the metaphysical (emotive) potentials of atomic consciousness is mostly intuitive and consequently have been struggling to get the same open-minded attitude from fellow human beings on this forum since my first post. I believe that a respectful working relationship between physicists and metaphysicians is essential if we are to ever fully appreciate the dual nature (particle/wave) of intelligent design. There are two sides to our brains and science mainly exercises only the analytical half. The wealth of ancient intuitive insights, gained from painstaking metaphsyical drills and exercises, should be part of the modern science curruclum. Practicing right brain drills will not harm the left brain empirical ethic. It opens the whole psyche to the vast sub-conscious treasure house of imprinted ancestral knowledge and expands the field of research exponentially. It allows the individual psyche to transcend the speed of light and explore the entire universe outside of the body, and see and experience all its wonders first hand. Right now we can only do that in uncontrolled dream states - though there are some who are already out exploring the astral in controlled flights. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 Discussing the above topic is awesome. Having the freedom to do that is even better. Being completely and utterly wrong, however, doesn't help. Cedars 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 Keep spelling it out in scientific terms Quantum! You no doubt believe that the use of "scientific terms" makes an argument more plausible, or even more "true". Alas, this is not true. If the argument itself runs counter to the evidence, then using "scientific terms" is just a waste of time. My grasp of the metaphysical (emotive) potentials of atomic consciousness is mostly intuitive...Case in point. ...have been struggling to get the same open-minded attitude from fellow human beings on this forum since my first post. you are confusing "open-mindedness" with gullibility and credulousness. I am open-minded. I will listen to any argument and to its evidence and supporting logic. I will give benefit of any doubt. Then I will analyze. And if the argument comes up looking like "How many angels can dance on the tip of the horn of an invisible Unicorn?" then I reject it. That is NOT being close-minded.I believe that a respectful working relationship between physicists and metaphysicians... Just like there is a respectful working relationship between modern medical surgeons and witchdoctors? I don't think this is ever gonna happen. Dream on. It allows the individual psyche to transcend the speed of lightCase in point, again. I would love to engage you in a serious discussion, MM, but if you're gonna bring in Unicorns to every discussion, it's just not gonna happen. :cup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts