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

Re: [existlist] Re: humans again

Expand Messages
  • Bill Harris
    Eduard, I have steadfastly plodded through the attosecound article I mentioned earlier. What I get from it is that we can now measured in time frames of ten
    Message 1 of 281 , Oct 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Eduard, I have steadfastly plodded through the attosecound article I
      mentioned earlier. What I get from it is that we can now measured in time
      frames of ten to the -18th sec. The method is sound and reproducible. What
      good is it? I knew you would ask. It allows us to study the reactions of
      elements in both electron valence shells and nuclei in compression states
      during reactive processes. In possibility a whole new field of physics as
      broad as the field of quantum mechanics has been born.
      Philosophically it means we can measure down to levels of time much smaller
      than we have any immediate use for. For a change our capabilities exceed our
      demands by many powers of ten. Someone will need think about how to fill
      these voids with relevance. It did not take long for the first atomic pile
      to cause scientists to envision the Manhattan project. How long will it
      take the philosophic community to realize this drives the uncertainty
      principle out of relevance. Now, just as with deity dissociation we could
      arrogantly say that we have just lowered the bar of measurement. At some
      level of smallness and shortness of duration we leave this universe. In
      other words there is a finite number of pieces into which the worm can be
      sectioned. That is also true for segments of time because time is a
      measurement of the finite. Bill
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "eduard" <yeoman@...>
      To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:17 AM
      Subject: RE: [existlist] Re: humans again


      > Brian,
      >
      > <<< U allow that meaning to be possible cause u
      > are deciphering it, isolating it in its simplest
      > parts, if no human (or doubting consciousness) was
      > present, then the animal is acting in the oneness
      > of the rest of nature. >>>
      >
      > Certainly, I decipher the meaning. But then if I
      > use the reverse of your statement, are you saying
      > that if a human is present, then the animal is not
      > acting in the oneness of nature??
      >
      > We seem to discussing this issue from two
      > different points of view. My viewpoint is that
      > something can have meaning without the involvement
      > of humans. I understand your viewpoint in that
      > when a human seeks to determine meaning, then
      > other factors come into play. We tend to add
      > certain aspects and there's a mental process that
      > may involve our memories. I agree that we may, in
      > deciphering a meaning, isolate the animal from its
      > surroundings. Or a tree from the forest. But if
      > we do so, this is only the manner in which humans
      > happen to think. It should not change the meaning
      > of the animal itself.
      >
      > eduard
      >
      >
      >
      > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      >
      > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
    • Mary Jo
      the other paper . . .
      Message 281 of 281 , Dec 28, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.