don't forget that any trauma we encounter is because we perceive it that way.
3D? More like 4D at least. Time is a dimension, and the trauma caused by the tumble from the third story balcony provides a cogent argument. There is no physical trauma suffered until the moment in time when the sidewalk is encountered, and any psychological trauma suffered before then is only due to the readily foreseeable future likelihood of that event.
Moving on to more earthly matters, and since the topic is Life, the Universe and Everything, I thought I'd share this bumper-sticker that I saw in the grocery store parking lot the other day in Castaic, California:
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
There's at least one logical fallacy at work here, but I haven't had a chance to parse it to bits just yet; hence, I submit it for crowd-sourcing.
> have you read The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot?
No I haven't jonapi, but Talbot's idea that we may not be 3D seems to be what they're looking into at Fermilab. Here's the thing though: when I was telling a friend about this idea recently, we were standing on her 3rd floor balcony and I was looking down over the rail to the sidewalk below; that's when I remembered what it feels like to fall from a height and land hard. If we're only 2D, I wonder why our landings end in trauma.
A man walks down the street
He says, why am I soft in the middle, now
Why am I soft in the middle
The rest of my life is soooo hard...
Enjoying the science discussion, guys. To follow up on "theory" from Mr Pid, unfortunately in common usage, people say "theory" when they really mean "hypothesis." As they do not understand the difference, the "only a theory" crowd tends not to understand exactly what kind of rigor a hypothesis is subject to in order to graduate to theory land. And given that many of their own hypotheses fit more into "wild-ass guess" territory than anything else, it's pretty frustrating when those kinds of theory-bashers start their bashing.
yep, totally agree with that Al! labels and names are ridiculous, futile and possibly scandalous!
and yes, interesting too Mike.
have you read The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot?
posits the idea that, despite its apparent materiality, the universe is a kind of 3-D projection and is ultimately no more real than a hologram.
an idea pioneered by two of the world's most eminent thinkers, physicist David Bohm, a former protégé of Einstein, and the quantum physicist Karl Pribram.
gives an explanation behind the theory of the holograph and how it provides a model for aspects of brain function and for whole areas of quantum physics. illustrates a paranormic way.
in the same vein as Frijof Capra's The Tao Of Physics.
I've been reading a book by an MIT professor named David Kaiser that's titled How the Hippies Saved Physics and thinking a lot about Bell's Theorem lately, which holds that "quantum objects that had once interacted would retain some strange link or connection, even after they had moved arbitrarily far apart from each other" (Kaiser xxiv). Now, my understanding of the origin of the universe is that its expansion emerged from a point of singularity, meaning that everything in the universe was in one place, which is nowhere, in an unknowable state just before time began. This leads me to think that quantum entanglement, as described by Bell's Theorem, is a phenomena well-known to many who have taken psychedelics or practiced meditation and come to the conclusion that we are indeed all one. There's still the difference of arbitrary distance to be considered, of course, but more fascinating to me is the connection that initial proximity appears to retain. We are all different and yet we are all the same; we are body and we are spirit, we are particle and we are wave.
"Screw the labels, ditch the stinkin' names; I don't want to be pigeonholed anyway, by anyone, including myself. "
I LOVE that statement!!
If I'm an aetheist, then I'm likely something less general and more specific: probably a Catholic aetheist. I was raised in a devout Catholic family, was a devout Catholic myself, so my path from believer to nonbeliever informs my nonbeliever beliefs to no small degree. Who knows? I am who I am. My mother is no doubt very disappointed in my deconversion from true believer to nonbeliever, though she's never broached the subject -- at least not directly. Indirectly, though, enough to lay some Catholic guilt on me, let me assure you!
Some of my friends who don't want to accept this about me have told me that I'm agnostic. To the extent that no one knows beyond a doubt about the existence or nonexistence of a deity, I suppose they are correct.
In a technical sense, that makes me an agnostic aetheist, as one who doesn't believe that a deity exists but who cannot rule it out as a possiblity.
But "agnostic aetheist," that just confuses people, doesn't it? Even "nonbeliever" is a little misleading, since I do believe that there is no deity. Is belief in a negative actually a belief, or is it really just the absence of belief?
Screw the labels, ditch the stinkin' names; I don't want to be pigeonholed anyway, by anyone, including myself.
You can call me Al, though, if you like.
"Listen to the river sing sweet songs to rock my soul"