|
|
|
Borchardt-Markiewicz Exchange ..., Subjective Universe ..., Some global questions for America ..., The Bull and the Chickens ...
Glenn -- we discussed something similar in the past and recently a rather unexpected thought came to me. I'm not sure how to define my position but if you find it serious and interesting I'd enjoy it. In any case, I'd like to know what you think.
Regards, William
William:
Nice to hear from you again. I think your thoughts are fine on microcosmic and macrocosmic infinity. Like you say, it’s all a matter of proportion. I like to think of different levels rather than of dimensions. Then, the universe consists of xyz things with other things within them. I would remove the part about "the world is built with the observers’ participation." That is definitely not true, because the earth, for example, took billions of years without us to get to where it is now. If you mean that we now participate in the evolution of our corner of the universe, then that is true, of course. The literal interpretation was the downfall of the quantum mechanics folks, as typified by the solipsistic quote by John Wheeler in TSW.
Glenn Borchardt
gborchardt@gmail.com
www.glennborchardt.com
Glenn -- but here is the problem... different levels, but where to contain them? It is an existential problem that must be resolved by some "other" existence. It puts existence itself under question; even the infinite small must have its "kingdom." I look for a solution in surrealism, in poetry, even if it makes no sense. The problem outgrows our human condition. I don't think about spiritualism because it is a solution of facility which keeps us in our narrow human condition. I think of "existence beyond existence." I'm inspired by "Matrix," by hologram, by Schreidinger's cat... It may lead no farther but that's what happens when we quit our human condition. I admire Einstein and quantists who dare that leap, even if "they don't understand a single word" they say...
William
There is no containment. That is what INFINITY says, in spite of what we would wish. It is always a passing of the buck and the only way to make a universe. I define existence as anything that is an xyz portion of the universe having location with respect to all other things, so there is no empty space and no possibility of nonexistence. And certainly, there is no "other" existence or "existence beyond existence." You cannot make a universe out of finite particles and there can be no end to the universe. Understanding the above amounts to the mature development of our understanding of our condition. Most folks, having been brain washed by indeterministic assumptions will never get it. That, especially, includes Schroedinger and Einstein.
BTW: Have you read TSW yet?
Glenn
Glenn -- you write: "I define existence as anything that is an xyz portion of the universe having location with respect to all other things" It's OK but it doesn't explain what is matter. Matter is so universal that we may forget that it is the most elusive, most mysterious phenomenon possible. Can it get infinitely small forever? Its very nature denies it but still it has to.. It cannot also reach the limit stage of diminishing, and becoming -- what? The CERN collider reached its limits, not ultimate limits. Anyway, we look for reduction, not for breaking. When we have explored all the possibilities, we have to look for new ones, including the impossible. Matter running toward infinite reduction is impossible, the universe we live in is impossible.. Didn't we come to surrealism by its absurdity? There are so many things we don't know so with all due skepticism let's explore the improbable. I'm sorry to share with you my incertitudes. William
William:
We know exactly what matter is: Matter always contains other matter and is surrounded by other matter, ad infinitum. Yes, we assume that it can get infinitely small (and large) forever. We do not look for impossibilities. As I always say: "There are an infinite number of possibilities, but not a single impossibility." All possibilities are determined by the univironment, the interaction between the microcosm and the macrocosm. It is absolutely not true that infinite reduction is impossible, and of course the infinite universe we do live in is not impossible, because it exists! What is improbable is a finite particle filled with solid matter (never observed), which is identical to all other finite particles (never observed). An infinite regress has to be the only answer. If you think that improbable and therefore worthy of exploration, then go for it!
Glenn
I just wanted to draw your attention to the following website,
www.SubjectiveUniverse.com
David
William, would you put your excellent analytical mind to answering the following questions:-
1. With China, a rising economic power, and Russia, still a military power with nuclear capacity able to obliterate the US, while China’s rising economic star does threaten US economic dominance, then to maintain US global hegemony, will the US through reliance on force any time soon seek to repeat the debacle that was the invasion of Iraq? In raw power terms will the US bear out what George Kennan predicted:-
George F. Kennan quotes( architect of the ‘cold war’)
“Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.”
So – must we conclude that perpetual warfare is the ‘American way’?
2. If the answer to 1 above, is “no” then what alternatives do the US have, given the pivotal position that the military-industrial complex occupies in the US economy?
3. If the answer to 2 above is “none” then please post the answer very quickly – or – if you plan to delay, then tell me where the nuclear bunkers are built around the globe.
As always, myself and all the others appreciate your insights.
Courtenay Barnett
( www.globaljusticeonline.com)
Courtenay –- thanks for “excellent analytical mind.”
1. I don’t believe in Russia’s nuclear capacity to obliterate the U.S. Do you remember the Startrek ‘Borgs’; their fighting power was unbeatable because the whole spaceship was one fighting tool. No matter how wounded or destroyed was their ship, it continued on its trajectory, being repaired almost instantaneously under our eyes. All the nuclear powers except the USA have their nuclear fighting system concentrated in relatively small areas while America’s power is enough distributed to cover the country. This prepares the U.S., like the Borg spaceship, for quick reestablishment.
2. We might quote the Biblical phrase ‘beating swords into plowshares’. The present technology is elastic enough to transform peaceful industry into military and vice versa. Remark Japan: from ultra militaristic system it became peaceful and prosperous. I think the U.S. is more prepared than Japan to make this leap.
3. In my view, the present situation is built on three errors: first, Israel’s lack of sense of proportion. They were ready for eternal war with an eternal American ally on their side. It was already a mistake over mistake. You don’t build your future on mighty friends. America didn’t use its power to push Israel toward more elasticity which would have brought peace long ago. Instead, after wishy washy Presidents came religious bigot, military minded Bush who encouraged Israel to be rigid and more, which, in consequence, brought September 11th. (Reread "When the Lie is Repeated, It Becomes Truth") Obama appears to be more firm and therefore he’s accused of being ‘anti-Semitic.’ The Israeli hawks still don’t see that Obama is still on the side of saving Israel from itself.
Those two previous mistakes inflated into the third fatal one: invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan which developed terror to its present Sumo wrestling match with the West. This situation can last indefinitely. WM
A couple of weeks ago I clicked on a web news video titled “Angry Bull Attacks Crowd.” The scene was a bull ring in Spain and the bull, running fast, jumped out of the ring into the scattering, frightened crowd. My first thought was, this is not an angry bull, it’s a terrified bull. If the bull were angry he would have attacked his tormentors in the ring. The scene was played over and over in the news which focused on how many people were injured. I wonder what happened to the bull?
Then, more recently, came the big salmonella egg scandal. Here, the attention was again on how many Americans were sick because the chickens were kept in unhealthy conditions. There were complaints that American egg producers were not required to vaccinate their hens to prevent these situations. Even after the pictures of the horrific conditions the hens endure, the focus stayed on ‘us.’ We don’t like it that the chickens are in a ‘dirty’ place causing our food to be contaminated. But do we mind that they suffer? Do we mind that the entire life of each of these chickens is endured in suffering slavery?
I’ll say this for the bull – at least he lived a life in pasture up to the day of his final terror. Imagine the life of those chickens and other factory farmed animals.
Today I read a short blog enty about one market in England that labeled its eggs like this: “laid by hens free to nest, perch, and roam in spacious barns.” The same store also had eggs “from caged hens.”
That would be something worth thinking about when we buy our cheap supermarket eggs.
Back to the index of the Vagabond
William Markiewicz