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

4095Re: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42

Expand Messages
  • Bill Hamilton
    Mar 4, 2005
      I think the key will be found by people like Dr. Fenwick.

      For some doctors such as Dr. Peter Fenwick, a consultant neuropsychiatrist
      at London University, the near death experience really does point to a
      consciousness
      that can survive with out the support system of the body. He says:
      "In a coronary, the brain goes down within 16 seconds and it stays offline
      until you
      recover slowly. Now either these accounts arise because brain and
      consciousness
      become split or because they are a retrospective construction of the
      experience
      of unconsciousness. I would probably go for a splitting."

      Bill
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Jahnets" <Jahnets@...>
      To: <ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 7:13 AM
      Subject: RE: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42


      >
      > I think Regan it's because in order to do what you say they would have to
      > take that final step... They would have to admit to creating their own
      > world, problems and all... It is a big step... off to work...Have a great
      > day...;-)
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Regan Power [mailto:soulsearcher_22@...]
      > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 3:54 AM
      > To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42
      >
      >
      >
      > Why do "intelligent" scientists ("brilliant minds", "best brains on
      > the planet", etc) keep deluding themselves with the idea that a universal
      > Theory of Everything is possible without including consciousness in it?
      > Isn't consciousness a genuine ingredient of the universal Reality that
      > they
      > are calling "Everything"? Yet they close their mental eyes to it and
      > just
      > consider the physical aspect of Reality, which they think they perceive in
      > consciousness, as if the physical world was a self-sufficient closed
      > system
      > that exists in isolation and absolute separation from consciousness. How
      > mad.
      >
      > Regan
      > _____
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Light Eye
      > To: Global_Rumblings@... ; SpeakIt@... ;
      > SkyOpen@yahoogroups.com ; ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com ;
      > changingplanetgroup@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 10:01 AM
      > Subject: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42
      >
      >
      > Dear Friends,
      >
      > This is a 2 page article so click the link if you can't proceed tot he
      > next
      > page.
      >
      > http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66751,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
      >
      > Love and Light.
      >
      > David
      >
      >
      > Penrose: The Answer's Not 42
      >
      >
      >
      > By Mark Anderson | Also by this reporter Page 1 of 2 next �
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > 02:00 AM Mar. 02, 2005 PT
      >
      > In 1998, Stephen Hawking laid 50-50 odds that the holy grail of physics,
      > the
      > elusive "theory of everything," was less than 20 years away.
      >
      > Around the same time, Hawking's renowned peer, collaborator and
      > sometime-disputant, Roger Penrose of Oxford University, set out to write a
      > book detailing just how distant the odds actually are of unifying all the
      > laws of physics.
      > "We are nowhere close to an accurate, purely physical theory of
      > everything,"
      > Penrose told Nature earlier this year.
      >
      > Indeed, Penrose's newly published 1,099-page treatise -- The Road to
      > Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe -- expends little
      > ink
      > ruminating over what is not known. Rather, The Road to Reality is as
      > rigorous and exhaustive a map to the "theory of nearly everything" as a
      > reader could hope to find today.
      >
      > Penrose makes a unique tour guide, overhauling components of big-bang
      > cosmology and quantum mechanics as some tinkerers might take out and
      > reinstall their car's transmission. And Penrose's tendency to pepper the
      > discussion with mathematical equations and terminology (he spends nearly
      > 400
      > pages on calculus, number theory and advanced geometry before decamping
      > into
      > the physical universe) will undoubtedly limit the book's readership to
      > those
      > not easily intimidated by section titles such as "frequency splitting on
      > the
      > Riemann sphere" or "Hamiltonian dynamics and symplectic geometry."
      >
      > Yet, according to professor Seth Lloyd of MIT, those willing to invest the
      > energy to work through this mathematical Finnegans Wake will be rewarded
      > for
      > their efforts.
      >
      > The Road to Reality, Lloyd says, "shows (Penrose's) brilliant and unique
      > grasp of mathematics as it applies to the physical world. That is
      > evidenced
      > in the first part. The second part of the book shows his courageousness in
      > going on to propose fundamental physical effects even in the absence of an
      > explicit theory, which he thinks intuitively to be true. So he's very bold
      > as well as original and insightful."
      >
      > Those fundamental physical effects that Penrose proposes in Road, some of
      > which were first covered in his 1989 best-selling book, The Emperor's New
      > Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and the Laws of Physics, are as
      > controversial as they are bold.
      >
      > For instance, despite the stampede of physicists today seeking to unify
      > all
      > physical theories under the aegis of string theory, Penrose thinks his
      > colleagues are on a wild goose chase.
      >
      > In 2002, Penrose spoke at Stephen Hawking's 60th birthday celebration.
      > Penrose argued that the underlying assumption of string theory -- that
      > space-time consists of anywhere from 10 to 26 dimensions -- is simply
      > wrongheaded and unmotivated by either intuition or evidence. (Penrose
      > devotes much of the last four chapters of his book to this same argument
      > and
      > to an alternative model he sets up in string theory's absence, using a
      > mathematical formalism Penrose invented called "twistors.")
      >
      > One colleague, Penrose said, responded during the conference's lunch break
      > with the observation, "You're completely right, of course ... but totally
      > misguided."
      >
      > Story continued on Page 2 �
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic