[MD] BioCentrism: Was Zeno correct?

[MarshaV]

Adrie,

In the BioCentrism article, time and space are claimed to be tools 
of the mind.  That is hardly labeling them Absolute Truth, but maybe 
you didn't read the article.  And please save the use of an 'argument 
by authority' for someone else, for I am skeptical of scientific dogma, 
its scientific materialism base and the public-relation propaganda of 
its superstars.  Most of Hawking's theories are not yet testable, which 
put them in the category of speculation.   

You want a good laugh.  Watch 'Into the Universe with Stephen 
Hawking:  Episode 1 - Aliens'.  What a pathetic, animated joke!   


Marsha

 
 




On Nov 7, 2010, at 9:19 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:

> The Moq and Time, Mc Watt commenting on Pirsig's point of view
> towards Parmenides and Zeno,
> 
> (extract)
> On the other hand, from the Dynamic sense of the MOQ, Parmenides is,
> strictly speaking, correct as the concept of ‘change’ is an abstraction from
> Dynamic Quality and, therefore, (as with anything abstracted) doesn’t exist
> in an absolute sense.   Possibly, the koan-like theories of Parmenides and
> "Zeno" indicate (and they may have shared similar thinking to Zen masters
> for such verbal conundrums) ""the error of assigning absolute truth to a
> static concept when reality is fundamentally dynamic. ""
> (end)
> 
> 
> Can you pay attention to the endconclusion?, the endsentence.
> 
> on the same page, quote Mc Watt,
> 
> *"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a
> hypothesis: you can never prove it.  No matter how many times the results of
> an experiment agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next
> time the result will not contradict the theory. *
> And tends to support Pirsig’s caution about assigning anything objective as
> an absolute reality independent from any observer."
> 
> 
> again pay attention to the endformulation, ..(Zeno conflicts with everything
> by assuming reality to be independent from the observer,as an "absolute")
> 
> This is also to conflict Einstein,Hawking and about 95 % of science and
> scientifical evidence.
> 
> (i have the material to roll in Hawking's opinion if you like)
> 
> Adrie
> 
> 
> 2010/11/7 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> 
>> 
>> On Nov 7, 2010, at 7:08 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi, Marsha, it means only this, importing Zeno in the moq is not a good
>>> idea.
>>> better that it is told to you before it fires in your hands.
>> 
>> Please explain why?
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Nobody owns the truth.
>>> we cannot have reality blurred with occultism.
>>> dont get me wrong , i like mysticism, occultism, but do not make a widget
>>> out of it.
>>> Okay?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 2010/11/7 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Adrie,
>>>> 
>>>> Although I think that quantum physics represents the West's most
>>>> dynamic, cutting-edge science, what I find most interesting are the
>>>> enigmas, paradoxes and anomalies because they most likely are
>>>> the weak spots that may shatter the deep-seated belief in scientific
>>>> materialism.  Einstein and Hawking have offered ever-changing,
>>>> relational, impermanent intellectual static patterns of value, not the
>>>> Absolute Truth.   Space-time and wormholes are conceptually
>>>> constructed patterns overlaid onto a flow of Dynamic Quality.  So
>>>> citing Anthony citing Einstein and Hawking to bolster your opinion
>>>> that the BioCentrism article was wrong, means what?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha


 
___