|
|
|
Eternity and Determinism ...,
The book "Why Die?" ...,
Abdic ...,
How many Jews ...,
Rules vs Feelings ...,
Islam ...,
The times, they changed ...,
Lieberman ...,
Canada ...,
Vagabond ...,
Photographie ...,
Vortex Mirror ...,
Samurai's Way ...,
Artist site ...
Note:
By chance, I found old notes related to my "Return to Paris" (November 95 issue) and decided to include them. The new version has been uploaded.
Also, following some readers' suggestions, I have added a dialogue from the Communication Page of August 97 to my article, "How Many Jews ..." (September 95 issue). WM
Interesting Ideas, but there are a few holes.
1. You start off assuming the universe cyclical in its birth-death, which recent discoveries in astrophysics do not support. The universe will not collapse back unto-itself, and in fact all the matter in the universe is not only not slowing down, but its accelerating away from each other. The old question of weather or not there is enough mass in the universe to cause it to slow, stop, and collapse is now moot.
2. You assume if the universe did cycle, each cycle would be identical. This is pure speculation and so far nothing suggests this. I will grant that does not disprove the possibility, but it would take a blind leap of faith to accept it as true as well. I do not like blinding accepting things without a sound, logical foundation.
3. You state that a closed system remains the same forever, which again is untrue. Seal off a block uranium, and eventually it will decay into lead and stay that way. It goes through a one-way change and at no point will the lead spontaneously turn back into uranium and begin decaying again.
4. You state each action is a reaction as if this is a fact. Prove it. Hypothetically if the universe is non-deterministic then your assertion is false.
Basically your proof on this subject heavily relies on many assumptions which may or may not be correct. You can take nothing for granted and must prove everything.
In my proof I start off by assuming the universe is deterministic. If it were not, you would not need to read the rest of the proof because my point would be self-evident, so I take the stance that what I believe to be true is in fact false and then try and prove the fallacy to be true (or false). I do not simply state X is true and because X is true we can conclude Y is also true. That would be bogus logic if I did that.
There are many systems of logic out there, not just classic logic, and all of them are valid. Classic logic knows its limits and there are things that are definitely true that can never be proven with it. Read: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/INCOMP_THEOR.html . True randomness is one such thing that can not be handled by classic logic. I do not mean take a random number N and then if in is greater then 50 do X else do Y. I mean take a random N and if N is a Cat then A, or if N is 25 then B, or if N is blue then C, etc.. Since classic logic can not handle every case (we would have the be able to comprehend infinity to do so), its pointless to try and prove such things with it.
Good Luck,
Mark Walter
mdw@n-space.com
A cyclical universe seems to me a more logical conception than a universe which had a definite beginning and is never ending. The second concept is non-elegant and provides no answer to any question. I see the very existence of the universe as defying logic. If we cannot explain logically the very existence of the universe, then chaos is inexplicable as well. For me, a cyclical universe is the only concept that doesn't clash with anything on its way. The Big Bang and the Big Crunch cannot happen in small parts here and there. Therefore, as long as the universe around the sealed block of uranium remains constant, its one-way condition will remain constant. The deterministic universe is the easiest to comprehend because it offers a model of itself. The non-deterministic universe is inaccessible for understanding because you don't know at which point to start. You can only go from refutation to refutation, as in Zen. WM
I just wanted to ask any of you who have read "Why Die," and who have a few minutes to spare, to go to the Amazon web site and add a few comments about the book. There is only one reader comment out there so far, and it is probably not representative, so I would appreciate a few more notes that would give other potential readers some more information to go by.
You can use the link below to go straight to the "Why Die" page on Amazon.
Thanks!
Herb Bowie
herbbowie@mindspring.com
Author of "Why Die? A Beginner's Guide to Living Forever"
Thank you for your article about Abdic. It seems to me that you are the only
one to see the truth.
"Meho Cerimovic" xxi4uxx@hotmail.com
I found your article under:
http://archive.vagabondpages.com/september/jews.html
It is very interesting.
I am not sure if you had an opportunity to read the book of James A.
Michener - The Source.
You will definitely like it.
Anyhow in this book there is a fascinating statement: In the beginning of
1st century Jews were the majority population in the Middle East and
Mediterranean Europe: there were 10 million.
Chinese were also 10 million at this time.
Best Regards,
Alex Wainapel
alex_wainapel@bezeqint.net
Raanana, Israel
Dear Mr. Markiewicz,
I read with great interest your "Rules versus
Feelings". This is something I have written about animal rights. I would
be honoured and grateful to have it published by you. Alternatively,
feel free to refer people to the web site:
http://www.geocities.com/vaksam/animal.html
Animal rights is a catchphrase akin to human rights. It involves, however, a few pitfalls. First, animals exist only as a concept. Otherwise, they are cuddly cats, curly dogs, cute monkeys. A rat and a puppy are both animals but our emotional reaction to them is so different that we cannot really lump them together. Moreover: what rights are we talking about? The right to life? The right to be free of pain? The right to food? Except the right to free speech – all the other rights could be relevant to animals. .........
Sam Vaknin, Ph.D.
palma@unet.com.mk
I follow the author's suggestion and I refer you to the whole article because the text is too long for the Communication Page. WM
Hello William,
In reply to your e-mail, I would like to emphasize
that no religion is a bad religion. Only the people
are making use of religion for a political purpose. A
group of people that kills using the name of a
religion is a cult.
Concerning, Jihad, Mujahideen,and Fatwa in terms of its practices, all religions do have these. But with a different terms, and different ways.
Let me define the meaning of 'Jihad' (and the definition connected with Mujahideen and Fatwa) The word "Jihad" means struggle, or to be specific, striving in the cause of God. Any struggle done in day-to-day life to please God can be considered Jihad. One of the highest levels of Jihad is to stand up to a tyrant and speak a word of truth. Control of the self from wrong doings is also a great Jihad. One of the forms of Jihad is to take up arms in defense of Islam or a Muslim country when Islam is attacked.
Islam is religion of peace and submission and stresses on the sanctity of human life. A verse in the Quran says, [Chapter 5, verse 32], that "anyone who saves one life, it is as if he has saved the whole of mankind and anyone who has killed another person (except in lieu of murder or mischief on earth) it is as if he has killed the whole of mankind." Islam condemns all the violence which happened in the Crusades, in Spain, in WW II, or by acts of people like the Rev. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Dr. Baruch Goldstein, or the atrocities committed in Bosnia by the Christian Serbs. Anyone who is doing violence is not practicing his religion at that time. However, sometimes violence is a human response of oppressed people as it happens in Palestine. Although this is wrong, they think of this as a way to get attention. There is a lot of terrorism and violence in areas where there is no Muslim presence. For example, in Ireland, South Africa, Latin America, and Sri Lanka. Sometimes the violence is due to a struggle between those who have with those who do not have, or between those who are oppressed with those who are oppressors. We need to find out why people become terrorists. Unfortunately, the Palestinians who are doing violence are called terrorists, but not the armed Israeli settlers when they do the same sometimes even against their own people. As it turned out to be in the Oklahoma City bombing, sometime Muslims are prematurely blamed even if the terrorism is committed by non-Muslims. Sometimes those who want Peace and those who oppose Peace can be of the same religion.
Consequently, Islam is always thought of as a religion of violence by the media and the western world. Hence, they had the wrong idea that Islam was spread by the sword.
According to the Quran, "There is no compulsion in religion" (Chapter 2, Verse 56), thus, no one can be forced to become a Muslim. While it is true that in many places where Muslim armies went to liberate people or the land, they did carry the sword as that was the weapon used at that time. However, Islam did not spread by the sword because in many places where there are Muslims now, in the Far East like Indonesia, in China, and many parts of Africa, there are no records of any Muslim armies going there. To say that Islam was spread by the sword would be to say that Christianity was spread by guns, F-16's and atomic bombs, etc., which is not true. Christianity spread by the missionary works of Christians. Ten-percent of all Arabs are Christians. The "Sword of Islam" could not convert all the non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries. In India, where Muslims ruled for 700 years, they are still a minority. In the U.S.A., Islam is the fastest growing religion and has 6 million followers without any sword around.
And moreover, there is no concept of "Fundamentalism" in Islam. The western media has coined this term to brand those Muslims who wish to return to the basic fundamental principles of Islam and mould their lives accordingly. Islam is a religion of moderation and a practicing God fearing Muslim can neither be a fanatic nor an extremist.
Concerning attitudes to women, Islam elevated the status of women 1,400 years ago by giving them the right to divorce, the right to have financial independence and support and the right to be identified as dignified women (Hijab) when in the rest of the world, including Europe, women had no such rights. Women are equal to men in all acts of piety (Quran 33:32). Islam allows women to keep their maiden name after marriage, their earned money and spend it as they wish, and ask men to be their protector as women on the street can be molested. Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon him) told Muslim men, "the best among you is the one who is best to his family." Not Islam, but some Muslim men, do oppress women today. This is because of their cultural habits or their ignorance about their religion.
In the aspects of clothing for women in Islamic perspectives, in which I believe the media would suggest that Islam has been controlling women's freedom. However, the hijab is for the purpose of protection from being abuse, such as rapes and molest, etc. Hence the judgment of women's physical beauty plays no role whatsoever in social interaction. Hence, in Islam it is not permissible to oppress women, children, old people, the sick or the wounded. Women's honour and chastity are to be respected under all circumstances.
And with regards to the Security of Personal Freedom or Punishment in Islam: Islam has laid down the principle that no citizen can be imprisoned unless his guilt has been proved in an open court. To arrest a man only on the basis of suspicion and to throw him into a prison without proper court proceedings and without providing him a reasonable opportunity to produce his defence is not permissible in Islam.
With regards to Freedom of Expression, I am somewhat agree with you in this area. However, I am going to emphasize this in the Islamic view. Islam gives the right of freedom of thought and expression to all citizens of the Islamic state on the condition that it should be used for the propagation of virtue and truth and not for spreading evil and wickedness. Under no circumstances would Islam allow evil and wickedness to be propagated. It also does not give anybody the right to use abusive or offensive language in the name of criticism. It was the practice of the Muslims to enquire from the Holy Prophet whether on a certain matter a divine injunction had been received no divine injunction, the Muslims freely expressed their opinion on the matter.
And lastly, with regards to your opinion that criminals should be handled by police instead of thinkers. Here I would have a little comment in that: police will not have any ideas how to handle criminals without any guidelines. And guidelines came from the past experience, morality, and values. And thinkers as well as religious scholars, provide some basic judgement of proper behaviour.
I hope my comments here is a form of Freedom of Expression, which you have expressed in your November 1995 article.
Best Regards
Ena
komzrose@yahoo.com
Reference: al-usrah.net
http://www.al-usrah.net
Those who sang Dylan's "Your old road is rapidly aging, Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand, Oh, the times they are a' changing", have succceeded. Their "new road" is marked by recklessness and irresponsible use of military might and paved with hundreds of thousands killed and millions starved.
Those who sang "Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call, Don't stand in the doorway, don't block the hall", now are congressmen and senators themselves, supporting killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq, Somalia, Yugoslavia and elsewhere. Or they are voters who do not react to Ms. Albright's "it was worth it" (to kill 500,000 babies in Iraq).
The times they changed, indeed! People being murdered for humanitarian reasons.
To paraphrase Bob Dylan, "The line it is drawn, the curse it is cast..." Let the trial begin, while our Earth lasts!
Bob Petrovich
bojanp@home.com
LIEBERMAN CAN CONTROL THE CHRISTIAN ---
The most asked question of the week, with the most foolish answer is,
"WHY DID AL GORE PICK JOSEPH LIEBERMAN?" Only one answer
makes any sense at all, and I have yet to hear it. So I will shout it out. But
before doing so, I must rephrase the question as, "Why did the
Democrat National Committee pick Joseph Lieberman?"
........
........
cecarl@v12.net
As this essay is too long for the Communication Page, readers are invited to contact the sender at his email address.
FACT:
In 1867 there was NO confederation or anytime after. Sovereignty lies with the provinces. Canada is nothing more than a geographical expression.
I ask...what is the point of this website?
"karen & Mike" cyberstorm@better.net
The consecutive essays that arrived after this first email are too long for the Communication Page. Please consult the authors directly through their email. WM
Hello Mr. William Markiewicz,
I have wandered through your website and find it very
interesting. I was wondering if the individual issues are available at
any alternative bookstores or anything. I would really like to read
more Vagabond and hear about how it got started. Keep up the good work,
Denis Calnan
corner@webcity.ca
Denis -- you can read Vagabond only on the web. I enjoy the absolute freedom Vagabond gives me, that no newspaper would offer unless I were the owner. To publish my own newspaper would be a totally different venture and definitely not a one man job. Thanks for your appreciation. WM
Bonjour,
Mon site web photographique noir & blanc -
http://www.freespeech.org/jmf-photo
(environ 200 visiteurs par jour) a été mis à jour avec un nouveau design plus simple, plus facile à utiliser et des nouvelles photographies.
Miguel Ferreira
jmferreira@bluewin.ch
Vous êtes les bienvenus dans cette "galerie virtuelle". A bientôt!
G'day Mates,
We've passed the winter Solstice down-under, in the Antipodes, and look
lustily forward to our dizzy (staggering ..) spiral back into the warmth
and light of the rising (ultraviolet) Sun ...
You might find an interest in the recent series of articles in the Astronomical and Astrophysical journals discussing the helicoidal ('vortex mirror') structure of the cosmic hierarchy.
Nothing new for our natural philosophers; but compare the 'astronomical' and 'physics' communities who are ('naturally') always the last to see the obvious -- what every child could tell you. [That just as the Solar System and the Milky Way galaxy spin, orbit and propagate -- have helicoidal vortex topologies -- so too do all the clusters and mega- clusters of galaxies and galactic groups, at all scales. Aenertia, motion, is ubiquitous.]
Last month I was discussing a proposal to update the public illustration of those cosmic hierarchies with Guy Ottewell, author of the famous Astronomical Companion (1979), and Jim Hodges, fellow ratbag in Melbourne Australia.
Ottewell's dining-table-sized illustrated atlas (pages 58-69) depicts some large-scale hierarchal structures of the cosmos beginning with the 1) Solar System in the Milky Way, proceeding out thru, 2) the Local Group of Galaxies, thence thru the, 3) Virgo SuperCluster or SuperGalaxy, and finally to the 4) local 'Matterverse' as I name it in my "Undiscovered Physics". [As contrasted with its adjacent helicoidal 'Anti-verse' or 'Anti-matterverse' megastructure. There obviously is no 'universe' in a hierarchal cosmic continuum ...]
Again, as I discussed and illustrated in the "Undiscovered Physics" -- nature (the cosmos, experience, consciousness) ALWAYS manifests as a hierarchal helicoidal vortex filament continuum.
millennium twain
mtwain@ihug.co.nz
I'd rather be a celestial servant,
Slave or butler to the heaven's fate,
But not the king in earthly domain,
Prisoner of desire, love and hate.
Or should I accept earthly commotion,
As a prelude to heaven's place,
Like flame of fire that comes first,
And light follows as ultimate grace.
Slobodan Macura
Will
I invite you to visit my paper sculpture and card modelling site.The address is
http://www.marcelobicalho.com.br
It's still in Portuguese (I'm brazilian) but the English version is coming.
Fortunatelly this will be no restraint for anybody to get the free models.
Regards
Marcelo Bicalho
mbicalho@marcelobicalho.com.br
Back to the index of the Vagabond
William Markiewicz