I suppose in the world of the less creative,there must be a lot of
fear of making a mistake out of disaproval from anonymous peers and
very little seems to get done when such as situation exists.On the
other side,the celestial/terrestrial arena gives an incredibly
breathtaking experience in its ferocity and in its tranquility yet it
always allows for the fragile existence like our own and more than
anything this is why investigation is worth pursuing.

So far I discovered that geologists don't really like geology ,the
same with astronomers for in both forums there is nobody who can
converse like an adult.Western humanity can probably tell you who the
current most successful businessman is in the world or the greatest
golf player but here nobody could tell you who is the most eminent
geologist on the planet is or the most reknowned astronomer.,the fine
line between anonymity and mediocrity is breached and it shows so
much in the lack of good discussions.

This place could use people who are not afraid of the usenet

and are
confident enough to adapt when needed and not stick with silly
conclusions ,this era no longer entertains trickle down discoveries
but requires the background against which insights and methods are
played out.

oriel36 wrote:
I suppose in the world of the less creative,there must be a lot of
fear of making a mistake out of disaproval  from anonymous peers and
very little seems to get done when such as situation exists.On the
other side,the celestial/terrestrial arena gives an incredibly
breathtaking experience in its ferocity and in its tranquility yet it
always allows for the fragile existence like our own and more than
anything this is why investigation is worth pursuing.

So far I discovered that geologists don't really like geology ,the
same with astronomers for in both forums there is nobody who can
converse like an adult.Western humanity  can probably tell you who the
current most successful businessman is in the world  or the greatest
golf player but here nobody could tell you who is the most eminent
geologist on the planet is  or the most reknowned astronomer.,the fine
line between anonymity and mediocrity is breached  and it shows so
much in the lack of good discussions.

This place could use people who are not afraid of the usenet

Sorry Oriel, ..   $$$ is not like that.  You don't understand what
science is about.   Stepping out brave and bold in thought and verse
does nothing for publication rate. Then the wife will have something
to say if there's any likelihood in a droop there too.

You gotta play the game matey, ..be a team player, ..  Exhortations to
be of Independent thought and action is in there, but it's after the
fashion of "improvements" in wet sponges that manufacturers are
continually foisting us in the name of "more value for money".  Value
to whom?   It's codespeak for the very opposite in benefit to the
consumer.  Likewise run a mile whenever you read the opening sentence
of your local science magazine designed to give you confidence:-  ..."
Teams of researchers".. "beavering away on the problem of such-and-
such" .. "Have come up with this solution which explains for the first
time.." etc etc.   It's codespeak for "Crass regurgitation of a load
of old wank, but anyway it's been a while and we hope we can sell a
few copies on the back of it."

and are
confident enough to adapt when needed and not stick with silly
conclusions ,this era no longer entertains trickle down discoveries
but requires the background against which insights and methods are
played out.

... What value is confidence when they have no convictions to begin
with? ..when all they can waffle is about the last conference they
went to, ..boldly carrying the latest issue of 'Science-Rag'  like a
password.so others would talk to them.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

On 6 mar, 22:07, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:55 pm, sir.jpturc...@neuf.fr wrote:

On 6 mar, 22:07, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:

ha ha ha you fraud LE TURD !

You gotta play the game matey, ..be a team player, .. Exhortations to
be of Independent thought and action is in there, but it's after the
fashion of "improvements" in wet sponges that manufacturers are
continually foisting us in the name of "more value for money". Value
to whom? It's codespeak for the very opposite in benefit to the
consumer. Likewise run a mile whenever you read the opening sentence
of your local science magazine designed to give you confidence:- ..."
Teams of researchers".. "beavering away on the problem of such-and-
such" ..

... What value is confidence when they have no convictions to begin
with? ..when all they can waffle is about the last conference they
went to, ..boldly carrying the latest issue of 'Science-Rag' like a
password.so others would talk to them.

"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote in message

news:9dc5c1c3-b05f-4dee-8ee7-1c52f93a9d8f@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...



You gotta play the game matey, ..be a team player, ..  Exhortations to
be of Independent thought and action is in there, but it's after the
fashion of "improvements" in wet sponges that manufacturers are
continually foisting us in the name of "more value for money".  Value
to whom?   It's codespeak for the very opposite in benefit to the
consumer.  Likewise run a mile whenever you read the opening sentence
of your local science magazine designed to give you confidence:-  ..."
Teams of researchers".. "beavering away on the problem of such-and-
such" ..

Emily Dickinson calls them "clerks in counting rooms"
when she talks about the properties of nature and our
'modern' reductionist attempts to unravel them.

And in this blistering attack on reductionist science, she
correctly states the obvious. That the yet to be discovered
uncertainty principle, which she so clearly understood, means
specializing/reducing to part properties is a futile attempt
to detail that which is inherently unknowable.

And she points out that their 'show' easily fools many
due to the fact reductionist science, like all of
mathematics, is designed to be self-consistant
to allow proofs. They worship proof and evidence
as she says they live a life of evidence. Which
only leads them in exactly the wrong direction
from truth and simplicity.

The worship a method that only leads to ever
increasing piles of data and axioms. So many
increasing so fast, that no one person could
possibly comprehend the totality. And as time
goes by, it only gets worse.

      Their height in heaven comforts not,
      Their glory nought to me;
      'T was best imperfect, as it was;
      I 'm finite, I can't see.

      The house of supposition,
      The glimmering frontier
      That skirts the acres of perhaps,
      To me shows insecure.

      The wealth I had contented me;
      If 't was a meaner size,
      Then I had counted it until
      It pleased my narrow eyes

      Better than larger values,
      However true their show;
      This timid life of evidence
      Keeps pleading, "I don't know."



... What value is confidence when they have no convictions to begin
with? ..when all they can waffle is about the last conference they
went to, ..boldly carrying the latest issue of 'Science-Rag'  like a
password.so others would talk to them.

As she said...'insecure' and 'timid'. This is the result
of our modern scientific method of reducing and
specializing. It makes us feel overwhelmed, small
and unable to find meaning.

And in the end modern science will always answer the
big questions, the questions of  purpose with the
same answer. As she says "I dont' know".

And the reason is simple. Science cannot accept the
fact that not all is knowable. And in their obsession
to know everything, they take the easy path, the
wrong path towards specializing, that takes them
ever farther from understanding the simplicity
of the universe. As she says.

    "But nature is a stranger yet;
        The ones that cite her most
      Have never passed her haunted house,
        Nor simplified her ghost.

      To pity those that know her not
        Is helped by the regret
      That those who know her, know her less
        The nearer her they get."

s

When Wegener spoke of the idea which stands a chance of success
is the one based on the best arrangement with availible facts and
subject to change and modification as new data becomes availible,
he is demonstrating an almost lost way to approach terrestrial/celestial
phenomena. It is not possible to start with definitions and axioms in
matters such as evolutionary geology or striuctural astronomy yet that
is exactly what the 'scientific method ' tries to do,at least
beginning with Newton who decided to 'define' time,space and motion
for everyone and set in motion a very restrictive way to approach
natural pheneomena.

The energy of a great work is often felt in the struggle to bring
clearer outlines into existence,Beethoven fighting to bring form to a
work that is before him ,,Michelangelo removing pieces of marble to a
work already formed in his imagination ,these men were not working
from the ground up but skillfully bringing form to a work that is
already there.

...These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate
and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly
and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being
able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics, because the
principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it
would be an endless matter to undertake it.

Better to finish on a note of hope than a sour one

When Wegener spoke of the  idea which stands a chance of success
is the one based on the best arrangement with availible facts and
subject to change and modification as new data becomes availible,
he is demonstrating an almost lost way to approach terrestrial/celestial
phenomena. It is not possible to start with definitions and axioms in
matters such as evolutionary geology or striuctural astronomy yet that
is  exactly what the 'scientific method ' tries to do,at least
beginning with Newton who decided to 'define' time,space and motion
for everyone and set in motion a very restrictive way to approach
natural pheneomena.

I think they took the path of least resistance. By relying on facts
and evidence of the world around us to understand nature
and reality, they are relying on the...present and past...or part
properties to guide them. Which is the path of least resistance?
To look at some complicated natural system and take it apart
piece by piece and document it to the n'th detail?
Or look at the global...behavior... instead of part details?

The defining system behavior or output of say a market system
is it's self tuning properties, which give it a direction towards
ever greater efficiency and order. Such properties are /emergent/ and
have no direct mechanism to examine. The second such a system
is halted to examine the components, these defining emergent
system properties ...vanish...into thin air. One simply cannot
see or study the most important of all natural laws from
the easier reductionist or objective approach. Facts imply
a level of precision not possible in observing intact
natural systems.

The energy of a great work is often felt  in the struggle to bring
clearer outlines into existence,Beethoven fighting to bring form to a
work that is before him ,,Michelangelo removing pieces of marble to a
work already formed in his imagination ,these men were not working
from the ground up but skillfully bringing form to a work that is
already there.

And above you hit the nail on the head. In the classical scientific
method we're relying on facts and evidence as they exist now
and in the past, really only in the past. But the creativity you
cite they do just the opposite. They /imagine/ what....could be...first.
They begin their method of understanding by relying on the......future!
As what 'could' be exists only in the future and our imagination.

A scientific method with a hope of unraveling the beauty and
simplicity of the universe ...must...have this same frame of
reference. A goal driven method which has as its starting
point imagining the ideal future or optimum solution to any
given problem. Utopia comes first! Not reality.

The classical way would have us learn most of the tools and
axioms of all the disciplines ...first...then figure out later what
to apply them to. Pahlease!

Until we know what we ...want...how can we know what to
study? In this method the facts on the ground DO NOT guide
us and form our axioms and laws. The future and our imagination
serve as the starting point.

...These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate
and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly
and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being
able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics, because the
principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it
would be an endless matter to undertake it.

Right, as we split up the natural world into finer and finer gradations
for scientific detailing, the number of discilpines proportionally grow.
With it the total data, so that we have a mathematical relationship
with objective fact based methods where as we steadily increase
precision over time the total data goes towards infinity, and with
it the chance of  total understanding....wisdom....goes towards
....ZERO!!!

That's the path we're on by relying on the past...the facts...objective
...provable...or classical methods. We move farther from an
understanding of nature over time. Not closer.

Since our current path is precisely in the /opposite/ direction any
rational person would desire. We merely need to /inverse/ rigorously
our frames of references from classical to goal or output driven
methods.

A subjective goal driven method which begins with our imagination
of what is most desirable for our future.

And don't you see what happens? As time goes by we converge
to simplicity and wisdom, not diverge away. Until in the end
....a single concept...serves as a basis for understanding all
that exists in the universe.

Don't you see the Great Mistake of modern science???

As we expand to the whole with the new method, instead of
reducing to parts, we suddenly realize that the fundamental laws
of the universe are best seen in the MOST COMPLEX the
universe has to offer. By reducing all this time we've been deriving
universal laws from THE SIMPLEST the universe has
to offer.

That backwards frame of reference is the Great Mistake.

For the MOST COMPLEX the universe has to offer is
....guess what???   It is NOT a force, it is NOT a basic
particle. It is NOT an equation?

The most complex the universe has to offer is life...it is
intelligence....it is our imagination.

So now we can see the simplicity that flows from deriving
our universal fundamental laws from complexity....from life
....from DARWIN. This is what Complexity Science is
doing. Completely starting over, from the ground up.
From a holistic or systems approach based on the abstract
mathematics of Darwinian evolution.

Not particle physics.

Dude, listen to me, I'm telling the truth.

It is entirely wrong to believe that we should first
understand the physical universe in order to
understand life later. We've had it wrong all this time.

Life, as the most complex the universe has to offer, best
displays universal laws for the physical universe.

As a result we cannot hope to derive fundamental laws
from facts. We have to use our imagination....or more
simply, we just have to figure it out.

Better to finish on a note of hope than a sour one

There is a single answer to all questions. There is one
concept that explains all others. Once we've taken
our new frame of reference to it's logical limit where
to we converge???

Hint:  Imagine any ordinary cloud.

It ...could be...either water, or just air.
Those are it's opposites extremes in possibility.
Those are the opposite extremes of what
that system...could be.

But a cloud is both...it's neither at the same time.
Like light it's standing persistantly poised between
its own possible extremes in future behavior.

Neither water or air, but chaotically transitioning
from one to the other so fast one can't possibly
tell which-is-which at any given time.

That is the definition now of complexity. When either
water or air it is simple. When both at the same
time it is complex.

When opposite extremes in possibility stand persistantly
poised at the phase transition point between each other...
spontaneous order emerges. The system become more
that the sum of it parts, it spontaneously begins hill climbing
and evolving. When opposite extremes coexist in a
complex way....we find the impetus for the Creation
and Evolution of all things in the universe.

This is true whether it's a cloud standing persistantly
poised between condensation and evaporation.
Or light as both a particle and a wave, its own
opposite extremes.

Water or air
Particle or wave

In the abstract

solid or gas
matter or energy

Or generically static or chaotic.

This is true for everything that matters.
Whether it's a society where the optimum
struction is a balance or equilibrium between
the static world of Laws, and the chaotic
realm of Freedom.

When opposite extremes become one, Creation is found.

This is true of course when the opposites of male and female
become one. As with any other system, the whole becomes
more than it's sum....Creation and beauty are found.

So, don't you see what the single answer is?

What's another name for opposites that are one?

Love!

The latest non-linear mathematics is clear on this point.
For any real world system, love is the answer.

This is true even if we're talking about a system standing
persistantly poised between the opposite extremes of gravity
and cosmic expansion, when the two become one, we get
.....a universe.

"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:9dc5c1c3-b05f-4dee-8ee7-1c52f93a9d8f@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...



You gotta play the game matey, ..be a team player, .. Exhortations to
be of Independent thought and action is in there, but it's after the
fashion of "improvements" in wet sponges that manufacturers are
continually foisting us in the name of "more value for money". Value
to whom? It's codespeak for the very opposite in benefit to the
consumer. Likewise run a mile whenever you read the opening sentence
of your local science magazine designed to give you confidence:- ..."
Teams of researchers".. "beavering away on the problem of such-and-
such" ..


Emily Dickinson calls them "clerks in counting rooms"
when she talks about the properties of nature and our
'modern' reductionist attempts to unravel them.

And in this blistering attack on reductionist science, she
correctly states the obvious. That the yet to be discovered
uncertainty principle, which she so clearly understood, means
specializing/reducing to part properties is a futile attempt
to detail that which is inherently unknowable.

And she points out that their 'show' easily fools many
due to the fact reductionist science, like all of
mathematics, is designed to be self-consistant
to allow proofs. They worship proof and evidence
as she says they live a life of evidence. Which
only leads them in exactly the wrong direction
from truth and simplicity.

The worship a method that only leads to ever
increasing piles of data and axioms. So many
increasing so fast, that no one person could
possibly comprehend the totality. And as time
goes by, it only gets worse.


Their height in heaven comforts not,
Their glory nought to me;
'T was best imperfect, as it was;
I 'm finite, I can't see.

The house of supposition,
The glimmering frontier
That skirts the acres of perhaps,
To me shows insecure.

The wealth I had contented me;
If 't was a meaner size,
Then I had counted it until
It pleased my narrow eyes

Better than larger values,
However true their show;
This timid life of evidence
Keeps pleading, "I don't know."

... What value is confidence when they have no convictions to begin
with? ..when all they can waffle is about the last conference they
went to, ..boldly carrying the latest issue of 'Science-Rag' like a
password.so others would talk to them.


As she said...'insecure' and 'timid'. This is the result
of our modern scientific method of reducing and
specializing. It makes us feel overwhelmed, small
and unable to find meaning.

And in the end modern science will always answer the
big questions, the questions of purpose with the
same answer. As she says "I dont' know".

And the reason is simple. Science cannot accept the
fact that not all is knowable. And in their obsession
to know everything, they take the easy path, the
wrong path towards specializing, that takes them
ever farther from understanding the simplicity
of the universe. As she says.


"But nature is a stranger yet;
The ones that cite her most
Have never passed her haunted house,
Nor simplified her ghost.

To pity those that know her not
Is helped by the regret
That those who know her, know her less
The nearer her they get."