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

Penrose: The Answer's Not 42

Expand Messages
  • Light Eye
    Dear Friends, This is a 2 page article so click the link if you can t proceed tot he next page.
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      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 »








      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Regan Power
      Why do intelligent scientists ( brilliant minds , best brains on the planet , etc) keep deluding themselves with the idea that a universal Theory of
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        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 »
      • Jahnets
        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,
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          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
        • Bill Hamilton
          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
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 4, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            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
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Jahnets
            Brain and consciousness splitting... The brain is a tool, just like the body. I would think that the cord that holds the soul to the body do not separate or
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 4, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Brain and consciousness splitting... The brain is a tool, just like the
              body. I would think that the cord that holds the soul to the body do not
              separate or you do die. Now your spirit can and does leave every night. Most
              just don't realize it... Your spirit is working through your personality to
              create in this world, or should be. So those personalities that are truely
              fighting for control with that small voice in their head are allowing their
              ego to run their lives without the benefit of the full knowledge that their
              spirit is aware of..The whole point of enlightenment to get in touch with
              your inner self and evolve... Those that aren't consciously striving for
              this are like a car being driven by it's computer instead of the
              driver...Ever drive down the street and almost get into an accident and your
              hand suddenly of it's own volition move an inch and you miraculously miss
              each other. That's your spirit...


              -----Original Message-----
              From: Bill Hamilton [mailto:skycom22@...]
              Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 8:16 AM
              To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42



              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
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >






              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • Skywatch
              Jahnet, I do not agree. The spirit that is YOU is not an Astral body tied to a cord. The Astral body may or may not have a cord, but a spirit is pure
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 5, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Jahnet,

                I do not agree. The spirit that is YOU is not an Astral body
                tied to a cord. The Astral body may or may not have a cord,
                but a spirit is pure potential and may not even be located in
                space or time.

                Bill
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Jahnets" <Jahnets@...>
                To: <ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 7:14 PM
                Subject: RE: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42


                >
                > Brain and consciousness splitting... The brain is a tool, just like the
                > body. I would think that the cord that holds the soul to the body do not
                > separate or you do die. Now your spirit can and does leave every night.
                > Most
                > just don't realize it... Your spirit is working through your personality
                > to
                > create in this world, or should be. So those personalities that are truely
                > fighting for control with that small voice in their head are allowing
                > their
                > ego to run their lives without the benefit of the full knowledge that
                > their
                > spirit is aware of..The whole point of enlightenment to get in touch with
                > your inner self and evolve... Those that aren't consciously striving for
                > this are like a car being driven by it's computer instead of the
                > driver...Ever drive down the street and almost get into an accident and
                > your
                > hand suddenly of it's own volition move an inch and you miraculously miss
                > each other. That's your spirit...
                >
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Bill Hamilton [mailto:skycom22@...]
                > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 8:16 AM
                > To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42
                >
                >
                >
                > 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
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > --
                > No virus found in this incoming message.
                > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.1 - Release Date: 3/4/2005
                >
                >



                --
                No virus found in this outgoing message.
                Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.1 - Release Date: 3/4/2005
              • Jahnets
                I said the soul is attached to the body not the spirit...I think the astral body is just your own projection of what you think you look like. It is something
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 6, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  I said the soul is attached to the body not the spirit...I think the astral
                  body is just your own projection of what you think you look like. It is
                  something to help you give form to your light so you aren't confused. A
                  thought construct of your own making. The astral body is not your spirit...



                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Skywatch [mailto:skycom22@...]
                  Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 3:28 PM
                  To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42



                  Jahnet,

                  I do not agree. The spirit that is YOU is not an Astral body
                  tied to a cord. The Astral body may or may not have a cord,
                  but a spirit is pure potential and may not even be located in
                  space or time.

                  Bill
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Jahnets" <Jahnets@...>
                  To: <ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 7:14 PM
                  Subject: RE: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42


                  >
                  > Brain and consciousness splitting... The brain is a tool, just like the
                  > body. I would think that the cord that holds the soul to the body do not
                  > separate or you do die. Now your spirit can and does leave every night.
                  > Most
                  > just don't realize it... Your spirit is working through your personality
                  > to
                  > create in this world, or should be. So those personalities that are truely
                  > fighting for control with that small voice in their head are allowing
                  > their
                  > ego to run their lives without the benefit of the full knowledge that
                  > their
                  > spirit is aware of..The whole point of enlightenment to get in touch with
                  > your inner self and evolve... Those that aren't consciously striving for
                  > this are like a car being driven by it's computer instead of the
                  > driver...Ever drive down the street and almost get into an accident and
                  > your
                  > hand suddenly of it's own volition move an inch and you miraculously miss
                  > each other. That's your spirit...
                  >
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Bill Hamilton [mailto:skycom22@...]
                  > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 8:16 AM
                  > To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > 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
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --
                  > No virus found in this incoming message.
                  > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                  > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.1 - Release Date: 3/4/2005
                  >
                  >



                  --
                  No virus found in this outgoing message.
                  Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                  Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.1 - Release Date: 3/4/2005





                  Yahoo! Groups Links
                • Skywatch
                  OK, I agree that the AB is a thought construct. Strange how it glitters. Bill ... From: Jahnets To:
                  Message 8 of 8 , Mar 6, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    OK, I agree that the AB is a thought construct.
                    Strange how it glitters.

                    Bill
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Jahnets" <Jahnets@...>
                    To: <ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 8:38 AM
                    Subject: RE: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42


                    >
                    > I said the soul is attached to the body not the spirit...I think the
                    > astral
                    > body is just your own projection of what you think you look like. It is
                    > something to help you give form to your light so you aren't confused. A
                    > thought construct of your own making. The astral body is not your
                    > spirit...
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: Skywatch [mailto:skycom22@...]
                    > Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 3:28 PM
                    > To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Jahnet,
                    >
                    > I do not agree. The spirit that is YOU is not an Astral body
                    > tied to a cord. The Astral body may or may not have a cord,
                    > but a spirit is pure potential and may not even be located in
                    > space or time.
                    >
                    > Bill
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: "Jahnets" <Jahnets@...>
                    > To: <ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
                    > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 7:14 PM
                    > Subject: RE: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42
                    >
                    >
                    >>
                    >> Brain and consciousness splitting... The brain is a tool, just like the
                    >> body. I would think that the cord that holds the soul to the body do not
                    >> separate or you do die. Now your spirit can and does leave every night.
                    >> Most
                    >> just don't realize it... Your spirit is working through your personality
                    >> to
                    >> create in this world, or should be. So those personalities that are
                    >> truely
                    >> fighting for control with that small voice in their head are allowing
                    >> their
                    >> ego to run their lives without the benefit of the full knowledge that
                    >> their
                    >> spirit is aware of..The whole point of enlightenment to get in touch with
                    >> your inner self and evolve... Those that aren't consciously striving for
                    >> this are like a car being driven by it's computer instead of the
                    >> driver...Ever drive down the street and almost get into an accident and
                    >> your
                    >> hand suddenly of it's own volition move an inch and you miraculously miss
                    >> each other. That's your spirit...
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> -----Original Message-----
                    >> From: Bill Hamilton [mailto:skycom22@...]
                    >> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 8:16 AM
                    >> To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
                    >> Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> 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
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> --
                    >> No virus found in this incoming message.
                    >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                    >> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.1 - Release Date: 3/4/2005
                    >>
                    >>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --
                    > No virus found in this outgoing message.
                    > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                    > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.1 - Release Date: 3/4/2005
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --
                    > No virus found in this incoming message.
                    > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                    > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 3/4/2005
                    >
                    >



                    --
                    No virus found in this outgoing message.
                    Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                    Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 3/4/2005
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.