Sascha Ignjatovic wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 1998, Norman K. McPhail wrote:
>
> > This is already a remarkable range of ideas. No doubt, we can make do
> > with this list. But it would be better if we had a few more "wild
> > guesses."
> >
> > I think that most of us have a vague notion about what happens in the
> > transition zone between the our experiences, thoughts and imagination
> > and the real world. Some of us think in terms of what the differences
> > between the brain and mind are. Others prefer to picture this as the
> > difference between heaven and earth. Are there one or two more
> > thoughtful people still out there that have the courage to throw their
> > favorite best guess ideas into the ring?
> >
> > Norm McPhail
>
> hi my name is sasha i am 34 years old man born in belgrad serbia living in
> vienna austria working on a concept of bringing
> religion science policy economie culture and work together into a
> universal societal system wich will have the goal for common understanding
> about the origine of this universe we live in and the world in large
>
> becouse i have studied the vedic scriptures-veda means knowledge in
> sanscrit and is a compilation on many knowledge aspects for some time as
> a young monk so i am now trying to unite the
> religious/theological/philosophical and scientific political economican
> and cultural world views we have today into a global world view
>
> the problem with the scientific world views is that they do the botom up
> aproach there is a problem with this kind of aproach
>
Yes, I agree totally.
> like for a ant it is dificult to try to understand the world from the
> point of view she/we are in
>
> as for a ant she may be living in a house and a city and this city is a
> part of a country wich is a part of a continent wich is on this planet
> wich is a small part of a imens big universe wich is one of many wich ...
>
> it will be dificult and almost imposible for a ant to find out the origine
> of this system by studying the consitance of way she goes and the food she
> finds
>
> i was yesterday at a leacture about the "theorie of everything" by
> prof.stewen hawking hier in vienna and it was very impressive but the
> problem with the hard physics world view they can not explain our
> societal systems by the means of physics - there is no way to come up from
> the situation in subatomic space to the situations in our countries
> economies etc..
this is the problem.....it takes a totally different approach!
>
>
> so my aproach is to use from each part of the society the best they can
> offer and put it all working together
>
> in religion and philosophie the "ultimate highest point in the system"
> is the "absolute truth" wich is a description for the "highest posible
> truth about the real origine and the structure of the wholle system"
>
> the wholle system is the sum up of all existence-in "my" world view
> this is this unviverse many other unvierses-see
> http://www.sciam.com/1998/0398cosmos/0398linde.html all universes together
> are callt material world wich itself is a part of the antimaterial world
> wich hase no time and space boundaries any more but hase a origine
> the origine of all energy the absolute truth the highest point in the
> system callt "world"
>
> in my try to bring the religion and science together i have chosen the
> the way of abstractest system-theoretical and philosophie of mathematics
> research available
>
> the concept of big bang-and nothing befor ? is like you have a bunch of
> stones and if you put some dynamite below it and blow it up it will build
> a house? you can try it good luck :-)
compliment to science. In a mechanistic/reductionist world, there are no
closed causal loops and therefore we need the concept of god.(not that either
god is a closed causal loop or even THIS idea doesn't help!)
However, we can produce models of systems (organisms for example) which are
closed under efficient cause. In such cases no outside explanation is needed.
>
>
> it is needed a incredible amount of intelligence to compile this
> increadible complex system we call earth living entities planets
> unvierse/s ....
>
> as in our case you need a architect than he makes a plan than you angage
> some companys than buy some materials angage some workers etc.. all this
> things have to be done .. than you have a house -you can call it evolution
> of the house but it is done by some inteligence and living entities-so
> with your eyes you see a hous growing but with your brain you understand
> there was many thinking and work behind it ! it is dificult to find out
> something about the person who plans the house by studying the stones and
> walls etc ..
>
> similar to this our universe is done and managed by higher level of
> intelligence living entities-remember the problem a ant hase to understand
> the system of a city she is living in-she dont sees and understnads the
> city at all and the human entities living there :-) so similar we have
> also not the posibilitys to see and understand higher dimensional
> intelligence wich suround us ..
>
> so what is the highest complexity we human can think about or what is our
> "highest posible system" understanding ?
>
> "infinity" we will say
>
> as i have spocken yesterday after the lecture personaly with prof.hawking
> who is mathematican about the future rolle of mathematics for physics
> research-he hase cited a colegue who said "physics is dead it is already
> only mathematics"-they will not be ablle to achive the needed energy to go
> as deep into the matter as the plank length is-wich is needed to veryfy
> something like supersymetrie etc ..:-) the only way to go on is
> research in mathematics and systemstheorie
>
> so "infinity" is a big problem in physics today they can not do
> calculations with infinity
>
> so my question is
>
> what is the "basic structure" and "the system" of infinity and
> "where it comes from"
>
> we should be ablle to study such complex systemtheoretical concepts
> as a training for even more complex systems :-) like
>
> absolute system
>
> without the concept of absolute systems there is no way to understand any
> part of it complitely if not considering any "partial system" in his
> relations to the "wholle system"
>
> and also the existence of the wholle system can not be understand without
> the concept of the absolute
>
> absolute is a very abstract-actualy the highest philosophical concept
>
> wich i have tryed to make accesable to science by using a "mathematical"
> model to explain it
>
> 7
>
> 6 8
>
> 5 1 9
>
> 4 2
>
> 3
>
> 1 Suprime Personality of Godhead
>
> 2 His Divine Ego
>
> 3 His Divine Intwelligence
>
> 4 Hid Divine Mind
>
> 5 .......... Ether
>
> 6 .......... Air
>
> 7 .......... Faier
>
> 8 .......... Water
>
> 9 .......... Earth
>
> what i am trying to do is to make a "systemathik of everything"
>
> you can not understand the existence of personality-comming out of
> chemicals ?-if yes than try it do mix some chemicals and make some living
> entity .. good luck :-) without asuming that the personality must be a
> property of the origine of this system we call the universe
>
> so i have mixed hier many things and not done it systemathicaly and is
> sounds for you not "very scientific"-i am not a scientist more something
> like a universalist :-)
>
> but it is a "very wild guess" i guess :-)
>
> thanks
> sascha
> ps.i am interested in any hints about very very very complex systems
> research as stated on the principia cybernetica project server
>
> "ultra meta-systems" :-)
>
> or just simple
>
> "absolute (truth) systems"
respectfully,
Don Mikulecky