Hi John & others !
I've had a look at
http://www.nexial.org/BMI/ISSS2000/ISSS_2000_Kineman_e.html
and to my sorrow I am unable to read it without feeling annoyed by it,
I'm sorry. I have a feeling that what the text deals with I'd
pragmatically better leave to people who like these things better than I
do, and that meanwhile I'd better get on with the things on which I
think I *can* think and create meaningfully. To each person his/her own
fields of exploration.
*If* there is in the text anything that points towards making PRACTICAL
use of these insights (I mean: to create new technology), then please
make these things more clear to me. I have not found any of this in the
text; it seems to me that ALL of the text is rather exclusively
theoretical, even extravagantly so -- in my eyes (I'm sorry) it even
borders on the mystical, e.g. this :
> We could also, of course, speculate on the broader humanistic and
> religious aspects of the view presented. It provides many openings
> for traditional and non-traditional spiritual thought, especially
> Eastern metaphysics. It suggests the possibility of abstract
> universes, eternal time, and light singularities in a domain that is
> removed from the material world of observation. In an abstract
> realm, where many worlds are possible, many beliefs are also
> possible. Since the model is based on a causal relationship between
> these domains, beliefs themselves are significant. Can we not see
> the physical results of specific beliefs in the world today? Such
> thoughts were, in the recent past, dismissed from science using the
> assertion that all thoughts come directly from the world, and
> therefore can be ignored in its causal explanation. The view here
> says they do not, although there is clearly the means for mutual
> influence. While the potential for spiritual interpretation may be
> bothersome to some, the habit of scientific materialism has been
> bothersome for others. In the quest for truth one should not feel
> impoverished if it is found that different paths can begin with the
> same concept of reality.
I'm again sorry, but I am unable to interpret this as almost pure
religion. You seem to want to base models/science/philosophy/technology
on ''mystical'' things -- where I try to do the reverse: I am rather
intent on explaining everything that might *seem* mystical from
mechanical explanations. I believe strongly in my axiom/assumption that
everything is mechanical, you seem to beleive quite strongly in your
assumption that basically everything can not be mechanical.
Everyone his/her own tastes. IMO it's useless to discuss with people
whose opinions are TOO MUCH fundamentally different -- in such cases,
I think that e.g. tolerant coexistence might be more (mutually) useful.
--- Best regards, Menno (rubingh@delftnet.nl)------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ir. Menno Rubingh, Scientific programmer, Software designer, & Software documentation writer Doelenstraat 62, 2611 NV Delft, Netherlands phone +31 15 2146915 (answering machine backup) email rubingh@delftnet.nl http://www.rubinghscience.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ======================================== Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from "Menno RUBINGH" <rubingh@delftnet.nl>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 21 2000 - 01:05:38 GMT