charles cure said:
and by the way are you talking about Quantum Mechanics? if so, how does that effects what exists and what doesnt and whether or not you can be sure if something exists? i love how you just drop something like that without expanding on it at all.
I 'drop' something like that for those who know Q(uantum) M(echanics) and thus can follow my statements from that perspective. QM doesn't 'effect' (sic) what is 'believed to exist', it attempts to 'observe and define/understand' what seems to exist, right 'down' to it's foundational level.
I'm sorry, but I cannot spend the time every few days answering the same fundamental questions, I rather spend my time diddling on the 'frontiers of thought'. (Reference the below quote regarding 'rewarding')
if you know something why dont you show us that you do?
It matters not one whit what you believe of me and what I understand for the simple reason that
I understand that which I understandand, and have no need to convince the 'mirror of my mind' of that which I have found. Understand? I am using this forum to 'hone' my understanding to the point where I will be able to publish a lucid and coherent paper of a new and cutting edge hypothesis for the cognitive enjoyment of those with
unclenched minds. I will be happy to post it here subsequent to publication for your perusal and remarks, but it will not be detailing all the 'basic' work, it is assumed by the author that the readers will be at or beyond a 'certain' level of understanding of the subject. Otherwise i would have to take voluminous fields of time to 'explain' each sentence. We are talking 'cutting edge' here, not 101. If you wish to know what I consider 'cutting edge', one example that comes pretty close comes from the site link below.
I have found certain 'values obtained' in the study and practice of many different 'paths', theoretical QM being one of them. If you are interested in finding your own 'fruit' in the wondrous study, then take your own decades and do the work.
And, even at the end of the day, after all is presented, and some minds grow stretch-marks and others warp trying to understand,
UNCLENCHED MINDS that is, the vast majority will take decades to be brought up to speed and there will still be the 'willfully deluded' and their 'churches'. Gallileo was just recently 're'communicated'!;
"The brain "tends to search for and hold onto the most rewarding view of events, much as it does of objects (Events, objects, concepts, beliefs)," -www.edge.org.
"It is much more rewarding to attribute death to God's will, and to see in disasters hints of the hand of God."
"We humans are naturally gullible — disbelieving requires an extraordinary expenditure of energy. It is a limited resource. I suggest ranking the skepticism by its consequences on our lives. True, the dangers of organized religion used to be there — but they have been gradually replaced with considerably ruthless and unintrospective social-science ideology." -
http://www.edge.org/
I am just offering something to 'play' with that
can be quite a powerful 'tool'. Right now, here, I am offering small bite-size canape's for those interested. But I am finding that the publishing way is the way to go for the initial 'presentation' to be 'taken seriously'. After that, discussion will be, I'm sure, forthcoming. After that, even if it all fades immediately into the mists of obscurity, it was still one helluva ride! If I win the Nobel Prize, I'm gonna get my car fixed!
*__-
