>"Australia Mining Pioneer & Founder of the True Geology" <jpturc
...@neuf.fr>
>wrote in >message
>
news:74359227-af69-441e-9b80-63f00e85162c@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> Excellent Mr Oriel ... I applaud both hands in fact at your
> remarks.
> By the way the epithet "real geology" used by Joe implies some doubt
> about the reality of present one....
> Could he be looking for True Geology by any chance ?
> jpturcaud
Well, if someone doesn't believe in modern science in totality, then
that person must be technically considered insane. Or at the very least
suffering from some disorder or another.
The majority is clear on this, and as always, will prevail.
But some look at the current state of modern science and
point out the simple fact that it's ..."just not good enough".
It's so annoying to them to have the gaping holes and logical
contradictions pointed out. Which spans the disciplines.
So many brick walls in space, time or energy for them.
Ask 'them' very simple questions and watch them babble away.
What's gravity? What's light? Oh ...well ...they might reply...
"someday we'll create energies above ...ten raised to the fourteen billion
electron volts, where we think all the fundamental forces and gravity
merge into one, and...
"Then we'll have it all figured out". They might say.
Oh, so then you'll be sure how life first started on Earth?
Or give us the equation for a good poem?
You'll be able to answer all the questions of meaning then?
"Science doesn't do that!" They're quick to respond.
And that's not a cop-out? Some deranged kook might ask.
Just today I read this Prof from Cambridge explain
the current state of the art with one of those questions
of meaning.
"The final display contains recent pictures of Mars, the center
of a current discussion about life's origins. Knoll said once
we understand how life on Earth evolved, we can begin to think
about the possibility of it arising on other planets as well."
"The final question is a big one," Knoll said.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/10.07/15-origins.html
Let me translate He said ......"I DON'T KNOW".
Why don't they just say that instead? Always the caveats.
And isn't it more likely that ...we won't figure out how life on
Earth formed, until we find how out life evolves ...elsewhere?
Caveats everywhere!
"If only" they will say, 'if only' we had a bigger computer, or could
smash things into smaller particles, or if we just had a larger telescope.
"If only" we could see farther away, dig deeper, heat things higher
or travel to another world.
Then... "we'll have it all figured out".
No they won't, not as long as they keep breaking things apart
in order to understand the whole. Not as long as they assume
detailing the simplest of the physical universe is the path to
understanding the whole....life.
For just as a large statistical sample gives the best representation
of behavior, the fundamental laws of the physical universe are best
derived from the most complex the universe has to offer.
Life!
"But life, emotions and all that can't be quantified" They say.
"Without exact answers it's not science" They say.
But even Dickinson, fifty years before the discovery of the
Uncertainty Principle, knew that objective methods alone
cannot answer the true mysteries of reality. And until
subjective and objective methods are merged, returning
the observer to the 'calculations, much as Einstein did with
relativity, we'll continue to see only half of what's there.
And we'll remain in the dark with everything except for the least
meaningful questions of all. Which is the specialty and limit
of our beloved 'modern science'.
"Perception of an
Object costs
Precise the Object's loss.
Perception in itself a gain
Replying to its price;
The Object Absolute is nought,
Perception sets it fair,
And then upbraids a Perfectness
That situates so far."
Only then will we be able to see the true simplicity of the universe.
Which is where classical behavior transitions to quantum behavior, where
both are intractably entangled, then self organization spontaneously occurs.
Or more abstractly....
At the Union of Newton and Heisenberg, ...Darwin emerges.
At the unstable equilibrium between the ultimate of opposite
extremes, the ultimate creation emerges.
Now that's a proper grand unified theory imho. Try it and see!
Newton Darwin Heisenberg
deterministic complex statistical
static > dynamic < chaotic
solid > liquid < gas
classical motion > thermodynamics < quantum motion
condensation cloud evaporation
gravity space-time cosmic expansion
dictatorship > democracy < anarchy
rule of law elections freedom
producer markets consumer
genetics natural selection mutation
knowledge > art/genius < imagination
truth beauty love
instincts intelligence emotions
geology biosphere life
science > philosophy < religion
needs contentment desires
matter light energy
words poetry imagery
male children female
Simple motion Cyclic motion Random motion
Newton Darwin Heisenberg
And so on And so on. And so on
s
|
