zerostao

william tiller breaks it down

Recommended Posts

Dr. William Tiller professor emeritus of Material Science and Engineering @ Stanford university;

 

this is from 2004(old news) and still folks thinking they are "scientific" minded, still dont grasp this.

"or even know what that is"

Carl Jung spoke to this ""one would wonder how such ancient truths could ever have been forgotten.but, of course, it is much simpler to suppose that what we do not understand does not exist."

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Tiller

 

other true scientists that the larger "scientific community" do not relate to

 

http://cosmos.asu.edu/

 

http://www.gresham.ac.uk/professors-and-speakers/professor-john-d-barrow-frs

 

 

 

i previously posted the following on the geometry thread

 

 

 

of course geometry explains it all as well, if one understands geometry, but i digress

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Tiller got his creds for work with crystals , his post retirement work on psychoenergetics doesnt share in its credibility .

 

Mr Davies shadow biosphere is speculative that our examination process could miss living systems within our own natural systems because we are reliant on some assumptions such as the presence of certain amino acids to detect things like microscopic slimes.

And that sounds true , stuff can fall through cracks, but theres no proof that this other evolutionary tree exists as of yet and if it were detected it would just fall in line with other scientific endeavors.

 

Mr Penrose is also speculating,

he points out that there is 'logic in his investigations',, at time 3:25

he is not going on intuition as his 'proof'.

and at 3:52 , he says that

it has not yet been seen where the gap in understanding occurs which would require some

non understandable influence to account for consciousness.

 

Mr hameroff says it best at time 1:15 ,

He says conventional physics is "boring"

Which is why many folks just want to run off in a flight of fancy.

 

But you ll notice all these dudes are looking for PROOF of things

and people want PROOF of things

so they can feel like they arent being handed a bunch of BS.

Its just so reasonable natural and habitual to look for proof and understanding

everywhere in our normal lives that it fades into the background

so you think there is some difference between it ,,

and the guys with Lab coats working at the margins of our knowlege.

 

As I said earlier , intuition speculation etc are part of the process

but no one rationally accepts the info as seriously valid without some kind of proof.

and that is made possible by science!

If the world was being run by willful pixies and elves you couldnt prove anything.

Edited by Stosh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

"Once we accept our limits, we go beyond them."

"Perfection of means and confusion of ends seem to characterize our age."

"I have just got a new theory of eternity."

"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."

"In order to be an immaculate member of a flock of sheep, one must above all be a sheep oneself."

"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."

"The only real valuable thing is intuition."

"To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science."

"There comes a time when the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge but can never prove how it got there."

"True art is characterized by an irresistible urge in the creative artist."

"The gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge."

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; "

"Information is not knowledge"

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."

"The only source of knowledge is experience."

"A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?"

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

 

every quote above originates with the same scientist

here is a clue as to which one;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont care who said all that , and a quick glance I see plenty of things disputable

 

the web says

Uncle Albert was Albert KENDALL, who married Paul's aunt Milly (becoming "Uncle Albert") and provided inspiration for a portion of this song suite. Albert had a habit of getting drunk and reading from The Bible; the only time he read from the Bible was when he was drinking.

Or it was admiral Halsey It doesnt matter , neither of them is the source youre intending I figure

 

At least one of the quotes is from Einstein , I figure thats your creditable source instead.

Mr E also said "God does not play dice" the meaning follows

 

Vasant Natarajan

We analyze Einstein’s views on God and religion, and his
views on Quantum Mechanics.
One of Albert Einstein’s most famous statements is “God does
not play dice with the universe”. The common interpretation of
this statement contains two myths (or perhaps misunderstandings)
that I wish to correct in this article.
The first is that his use of the word ‘God’ implies that he was a
religious person who believed in the existence of God. Nothing
could be further from the truth; indeed, Einstein can be described
more accurately as an outright atheist. Although his early upbringing
was in a highly religious Jewish environment, he soon
realized that many of the things described in the Old Testament
were not consistentwith physical laws.His great contributions to
physics came from his belief in precise mathematical laws that
govern the natural world. This rational approach is antithetical to
the common religious notion of a supernatural God with powers
that can overcome natural laws.

Edited by Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, it was not uncle halsey, and indeed, it was albert einstein who authored those quotes.

i am sure if i post quotes by max plank, werner heisenberg, erwin schrodinger, you will find many of those "disputable"

i am sure i could come up with "disputable" quotes from tesla, dirac and bohr also.

stosh, you are a man of reason?, and the age of reason isnt just some philosophy period in betwixt the renaissance

and the enlightenment. it isnt just some thomas paine treatise that gave to the masses what the elite had been privy to and

became catalyst for 2 remarkable revolutions. it isnt just a jean paul sartre piece of work from 1945,......,

where am i going with this? idk hahaha after those 2 revolutions and after the enlightenment we get hegel.

and owls spread their wings only after,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

that synchronicity thing again;

from another post within a minute of posting here

"ironic, isnt it ? that speculative thought is what avoids the tedious, boring, mindless, covering of the same old worn out ground

and thus avoids the biased idealism inherent by such limited way of thinking, and it is the speculative thought that allows one to think in true concrete terms about how things work in the real world."

 

i am all in favor of inquiry and investigation, and imo choosing not to inquire or investigate things that do not conform to any self imposed biases, doesnt seem too scientific to me.

not going to get too far by going that route , i would suppose

 

edit. insert another classic rock song here,,,,,

 

Edited by zerostao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure if i post quotes by max plank, werner heisenberg, erwin schrodinger, you will find many of those "disputable"

Yes certainly ,- why that shouldnt be so?- I have no idea. Narrowly discussing their own field of endeavor would lead to less of that... but there is the simple fact that even experts on the edge of these fields disagree,

To disagree with one ,is often to agree with another.

Data doesnt have any conclusion associated with it , its just data ,

then there is the somewhat subjective interp that uses the data to come to conclusions

which have not been established as fact yet ( --on the edge of science thats everywhere)

For the most part those dudes arent significantly smarter than you or I , they have just spent more, and more fruitful time, considering the issues of their trade. ( if they consider that a slight , they should also consider that they have an inflated ego)

 

stosh, you are a man of reason?, and the age of reason isnt just some philosophy period in betwixt the renaissance

and the enlightenment.

I think I am, I dont rely on faith any more than I have to , but

at a very deep fundemental level one can trust nothing they have ever seen thought or felt,,,

we dont LIVE on that level ,though!

we live on the gross level of material items, personal sentiments, cause and effect,etc

The wisdoms of the TTC are just as much straw dogs as everything else.

For instance , If I havent yet been clear,

One can read a fictional story , get wrapped up in its events , love its characters , discuss the plot and significances ...

but when one closes the cover ...they come back to what gets called "reality" .

The mind can hold both these things, blend them , even get confused about which is which!

That straw dog does have its significance within its sphere of context,

outside its context there is the alternate perspective in which that straw dog is just a pile of dust ,,

( and one would be foolish to feed it, run from it, or pet it .)

The remainder of that post seems more a personal trail of thought unfinished yet , so when you come to a conclusion to it , please pop up a post again so we can kick the tires.

Edited by Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cool on the quotes, and understood it is better to use one's own quotes than piggyback on others.

and we accept science must do this.

i think you are a man of reason too. and leaping into the abstract? (perhaps?)

i never read fiction, reality is much much too fascinating to be distracted from and

somewhere a butterfly dreams and a goose cackles............

not sure if i will ever come up to a final conclusion, for me it is an ongoing process of truths

evolving into new truths, transformations to the next transformation, that darned hegel dialectic again.

the spirit of the age which always manifests itself thru philosophy, arts, sciences simultaneously. collective unconscious

so it is useful to be in the present spirit of the age and leaning forward, pushing or tricking the boundaries,

and on to the next transformation/truth

inquiring, investigating, wondering,

pondering the mystery of mysteries......entering into the new age

but i am well equipped to find it and not needing, waiting around, killing wasting time for someone else to prove it.

stosh, i aint gettin' no younger,

art always is out in front of the cutting edge that pushes into the next age, always ahead of science.

but this is well known and accepted, like you say we are all in our own narrow field, mine is edgework

when birds chirp, it is becoz they have sth to say, it isnt the wind blowing, the wind blowing

is an intro to a pink floyd song

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgvAwBDbuIo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont really get that Hegellian dialectic thing , its over my head , esoteric , maybe its best for me to leave that to those formally trained to look at philosophies in association with the folks who define them ( as it seems you have)

Finding points of synthesis to overcome antithesis ,, doesnt seem like a thing in itself to me,,

I figure the ONLY way to "win an argument" is to find the juncture where two find common ground. ( unless you are trying to convince a third party or one party is under emotional pressure to concede) and the person who 'loses' gains a better perspective than they had originally ,,whereas the "winner" has gained nothing!

 

i am well equipped to find it and not needing, waiting around, killing wasting time for someone else to prove it.

THERE'S the wisdom I like so much !

 

Yep we all is getting older and thats fine ,this comes to mind for me.

 

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing

Shakespeare

 

This strikes me as quite in line with Tao, and though its Macbeth's words , when he was in a "bad place"..

I find it quite soothing a consideration actually.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stosh, it is never about winning an argument from my perspective, i agree totally with your view that "losing" is actually gaining.

hopefully there is always mutual benefit. so i try and find a well equipped, worthy, bright bum to engage with, in this exchange of ideas. we , stosh and zero, have had a few exchanges. iron sharpens iron. often(in older threads) i am actually defending the scientific approach. but i dont want to always be on the same side of it. i wanna be sharp and ready when a sree returns hahaha

and that macbeth dude might have been okay if it wasnt for that lady macbeth,

i will admit on the down low, that there have been times, very close calls in fact , where a few bums almost had me convinced that i needed money,,,,i didnt even know why i needed it, but they made a very compelling case. even this recent exchange had me dig deep and add a line to my signature. now, that just doesnt happen very often.

so i certainly gained from the exchange and look forward to future gains

hahaha i may get back to tiller on this thread hehehe

the shakespeare is a nice touch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh good! Flipping perspectives is a good habit. It helps one keep their perspective. :)

The sum total of a man is all the perspective he can embrace.

I try to include some of my favorite authors , in moderation, and like cherry picked exerpts.

( the emphasis is on cherry picked where the fan cuts to the best parts)

I should admit I skipped most of Mr Tiller's speil. :)

There is only so much I can take of that sort of thing!

As for sree.. sree plays on both sides of the duel, .so just be patient

 

ps.though Lady Macbeth paid a terrible price for instigating her husbands even greater ambitions.

Macbeth was perhaps just as responsible. She interfered , letting loose a monster.

Even so, that is how history is written, full of sound and fury...

Edited by Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe you dont get the hegel dialectic of thesis/anti-thesis, becoz , that really isnt the hegel dialectic at all,

altho many universities teach it as so. it is actually hegel's theory of tragedy which gives no resolution and not his dialectic

walter kaufmann actually found the real hegel dialectic and it is very organic flow from internal to external to internal to external.

but the owl still spreads its wings only after dusk.

hegel and pater both liked winkleman becoz he "grasped the idea" unity and purpose of thought.

bud>blossom>fruit

delve into the art and come up with the idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry zero , other than hearing I have been misled, I dont know what any of that means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok then , we will return to kuppers when we have worked up an appetite,

and turn to henry stapp

 

http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html

 

interesting pdf's and docs and just reading the titles is exhilirating

i kinda brought up hegel's spirit of the age becoz it is always relevant

we are in the information age, they say, and sometimes "they" are right

information is the true currency of our age

and removing the recent 300 years of indoctrination of false ideas about how nature works

is tedious and must be done if we really want to know the truth about the nature of reality and the reality of nature.

unfortunately, many of the prevailing descriptions of quantum theory expresses paradox and puzzles,

little wonder that philosophers, theologians, and even many scientists,especially non-physcis ones, are leery,

to say the least,,,,,i wish i didnt digress so much..........

when heisenberg introduced aristotle's potentia , he re-named it as 'objective tendency'

and this is how we remove the 300 years of false scientific teachings

which is neatly summed up in einsteins famous " god doesnt throw dice"

 

nature does throw dice all the time, nature is one heckuva a crap shooting junkie

yes there are objective tendencies for outcomes but the lines smear and blur

sometimes the cat lives and sometimes not in that confounded box

aristotle's yin yang symbol isnt neatley divided into black and white it has alot of grey

blurring and smearing

 

the processes of nature

do they act all on their own?

do they act in a co-creation process with us?

 

doesnt marblehead say "evolution is a fact"

well it is , but how does that process work?

 

i will leave this as a fragmented post for now, still more to consider

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the processes of nature

do they act all on their own?

do they act in a co-creation process with us?

I believe the taoist answer is yes on the first one.

and my own answer on the second one is yes.

 

"evolution is a fact"

well it is , but how does that process work?

Its just a higher level phenomenon that is

dependent on the lower level ones to occur.

 

The differentiations occurring over time that we see,,,

are made possible due to the fact that we see differentiations at all,

we make inferences about the 'reality' that underlies it all,

But to be accurate ..

There are no "species" that are not the 'species' of our definitions

Thats another grouping , its arbitrary, there are no species

there are only individuals, and self fulfilling changes -dictated by the parameters of tao

that happen.

 

Tao is a self starter, it defines its own game rules and those rules cant be broken

we can infer things which are allowed by the rules, or we can be wrong.

:)

Edited by Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the fish is caught I want to talk to the man who has forgotten how he did it. :)

Edited by Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites