[MD] BioCentrism: Was Zeno correct?

Sun Nov 7 08:45:09 PST 2010

In the Oct. 2010 issue of Discover, theoretical physicists Stephen Hawking
and Leonard Mlodinow state, "There is no way to remove the observer -- us --
from our perceptions of the world ... In classical physics, the past is
assumed to exist as a definite series of events, but according to quantum
physics, the past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a
spectrum of possibilities."

This quote of Hawking was submerged within the article, and it is about the
only part that makes sense.
Biocentrism is an occult form of science,stating the theory of everything is
possible, and positioning biocentrism as such theory of everything.

According to Stephen Hawking an Robert Pirsig(moq), there is no theory of
everything,it is simply not possible.

Strange that biocentrism in the form of the article presented here is
rejecting
Hawking's models, and is quoting Hawking at the same time.???

Quoting you , Marsha, in the article time and space are tools of the mind
as in your abstraction of it, i hate to say it, but yes i was reading the
article
and your interpretation here is limping truly,
this is the correct sentence in the article.

"
In biocentrism, space and time are forms of animal intuition. They're tools
of the mind and thus don't exist as external objects independent of
life""(end.)

Speculation, hm , nope, hypothetical models are hypothetical models

Zeno and Lanza are on the speculative run.

2010/11/7 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>

>
> 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
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>

-- 
parser