Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

379RE: Digest Number 91

Expand Messages
  • Gretchyn Lenger
    Dec 1, 1999

      Interseting concepts. Can we say that even if we could "fully describe"
      all of physical existence, it is only the physical we are capable of
      perceiving and understanding. How do we know we aren't just skating along
      the edge of the universal petri dish, thinking that's everything, when
      maybe we haven't ever been inside. This has to be true if you consider the
      possiblility of dimensional realities we can't even perceive.

      What do you think about this. For I don't know how long metaphysicians
      Eastern spiritualists have been talking about the responsive nature of the
      universe and the matter in it. We like to call this creative
      manifestation. I saw an article buried in a magazine probably more than a
      year ago that a study at John Hopkins proved that quarks respond to
      expectation. I find this both not surprising and very interesting - do you
      know what I mean? This all seems to support what mystics call the "unified
      field" and what Stephen Hawkins tried to explain in unifying micro and
      macro views of the universe (by the way, I can't pretend to comprehend
      physics but I can grok the concepts). Anyway, I'm babbling a little but I
      love this stuff.

      On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Rajiv Pande wrote:

      > Dear all,
      > Waiting for Charles and Delia's comments on the Krishna story, and further applications of it. All I need to know is whether it makes sense in the existential framework or not to distinguish between Mind - as physical - and Consciousness, as non-physical.
      > Gretchyn, I fully agree that linear time is an illusion. It is, in the scientific context, a mere calculational tool. As an artificial concept, it "explains" the behavior of the universe. Similarly "mass" is the subjective experience of gravity, and length somehow ceases to be absolute in a curved space-time universe. Science bases its calculations and predictions on the three fundamental dimensions of Length, Mass and Time, and further rationalizes the almost mystical concept of Energy - as a piece of action such that E = MLT-2. Is Energy really a "piece of action" quantifiable in terms of length, mass and time? Aternatively, are L, M and T, truly fundamental dimensions? (In the sense that they can fully describe all of physical existence)
      > Regards
      > Rajiv
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic