The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

It's OK. After awhile it becomes obvious that these scientologists only follow their leader, L.Ron Hubbard.
. They think no other rules apply to them so when they get out in public it's easier to just them wander - they'll return back to the flock soon enough.

It is a headless flock Giz.

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

It is a headless flock Giz.

True. But they provide so much amusement.

Sort of like the old saying " You can take the boy off the farm but can't take the farm out of the boy" .

There are those who got their butt out of scientology but don't realize they have their head still stuck deeply in it. Like they express them self without using the cult speak ( & remain unaware of deeply using cult speak ties them to the cult mindset ).

Ah, it all works out in the long run anyway.

giz

PS - I got a few travel days coming up but do keep the dash to Glory afire !

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Plato considers mass and physical energy to be part of the world of illusion of time. Mass and energy are just pictures of reality; therefore they are not real. Did I not say it ? So what you assumed I said was correct.

I guess you said it, I just didn't read it thoroughly enough. If what I assumed you said was correct, which is what I did, then my post stands and all those mental gymnastics I did paid off for me. I don't know if they helped or hindered the understanding of anyone else.

You could apply a parallel universe to my argument. Let's say a parallel universe has no time and someone jumps from that parallel universe with no time to our universe with time and then returns to his parallel universe. My observation holds up. That being is now returned to a "no time" universe but now he has experienced time. That introduces complexities, the question is does it introduce some time into the parallel universe, now that one of its population has a time computation going? I believe that you did comment on this in your reply.

There is an old book about a similar thing happening as regards the 3 dimensions of Space, The book is called Flat Land. In the aerospace industry I met several people who had read it. I read it in Houston in 1965. Flatland is a two dimensional world on a flat plane, They have no concept of height. A mathematically talented flat lander is lifted off his plane by a 3 dimensional being and looks down on his city from above. He is swept away by the concept and his mind is racing with excitement He is placed back into his plane and he encounters many problems because he can't quite explain to anybody what he experienced. It is really a fascinating little book.

A being from a no time parallel universe, perhaps something like Plato's universe, frequently accesses a universe with matter and energy, and thus time, in his dreams. However, Plato considers the world of matter, energy and time to be only a dream. A citizen of a parallel universe with no time would probably consider the universe with time as a real universe and not just a dream.

Who is to say where dreams end and reality begins? To me a dream universe such as Plato hypothesized and a parallel universe are virtually indistinguishable. What can be said for parallel universes can be said for Plato's universe as well.
Lakey

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Hey, did any of the Apollo people make either one of these shindigs held in the LA Basin over these last few days ?

Cross posted from another thread....


" Center for Inquiry: Give Scientologists a Chance

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blog...gists_a_chance

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

This past Sunday, CFI Los Angeles and our Orange County group each hosted author Tony Ortega and Paulette Cooper to discuss Tony’s new book, The Unbreakable Miss Lovely: How the Church of Scientology tried to destroy Paulette Cooper. Monday, I was fortunate enough to attend a book launch party at the home of ex-Scientologist Spanky Taylor who, with Tony, is featured in Alex Gibney’s HBO documentary, Going Clear. Many other ex-Scientologists were also at the party.

Leah Remini, another ex-Scientologist (and former co-star of King of Queens) was there, and mentioned at one point that most Scientologists were good people. That shouldn’t have surprised me. I was sitting in the midst of a crowd of people who to a person were kind, fun-loving, decent people. Many were at one time not just Scientologists, but big hitters in the church with serious positions and responsibility."

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Pop quiz : ( This is the first of 500 )

Who is Jonah Cardeli Falcon & what is he most famous for ?

giz

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I guess you said it, I just didn't read it thoroughly enough. If what I assumed you said was correct, which is what I did, then my post stands and all those mental gymnastics I did paid off for me. I don't know if they helped or hindered the understanding of anyone else.

You could apply a parallel universe to my argument. Let's say a parallel universe has no time and someone jumps from that parallel universe with no time to our universe with time and then returns to his parallel universe. My observation holds up. That being is now returned to a "no time" universe but now he has experienced time. That introduces complexities, the question is does it introduce some time into the parallel universe, now that one of its population has a time computation going? I believe that you did comment on this in your reply.

So far so good Lakey, but of course returning to a 'time' universe is not exactly correct since even in this world we must call it timespace. Time is never independent in that way, so we must grant that the Minkowskian finding of time as a dimension of space means that Time cannot be idealized by being referred to independently. At most what we have are effects of gravity that are timeline, lightlike and spacelike. Just sayin'. This way of folding time into space has actually simplified problems, not made them more complex, at least from the point of view of calculation. I am not speaking of populations. What I said was that a point or local timespace has variables which mark it as such. If we could put a pin on that spot, such that it would function as a set of coordinates. From that set of coordinates (a local time space) time passes normally (as we conceive of normal) in this world which has time-spaces. In the same world with timespaces possible, there may be another local timespace. In Einstein's train example, the rider on the train is anchored at one local timespace which is different from the timespace of the person standing at the station. These two timespaces are local. The perceiver at such a timespace feels 'time' pass normally. However, if there were an absolute position outside of timespace, which physicists do have mathematically, from the perspective of computation, then it would be clear that those flows of time are not in sync, not the same, and that what happens before in one local timespace might happen after in another local timespace.

As for the idea that the verse becomes more complicated because an alternate or parallel world is assumed. Why is it more complicated? Do we only see one man and one woman alive or are their millions of people? If a phenomenon exists why would it be limited to one production or example? Just wondering what mechanism would limit a system to only produce one version of itself.

As for the problem of switching from one world to another and the idea that one world might have time, less time, no time. It seems here that a common factor is just gravity. While to a local perceiver on a faster moving timespace (lets say planet x) time passes normally, perhaps our time here passes quickly, as our local timespace. The absolute observer would see that on planet x 50 years passed but here only a few hours. Now that is just within our world....so the discrepancy you mention, the effect of time, happens already but in a less experiential way. The perceiver in either timespace remains unaware of the situation in the other location. Now, if the astronaut sent to planet x returned, he might be shocked to compare that he has had 50 years and everyone at home just had a birthday party for his child and that was all that transpired. But let us take your example and translate it to a different, parallel universe. First, I am not sure that the idea of a no time universe works for me since I think we already are in that universe and that all we have is lightlike and timelike and spacelike features in varying degrees. But let us say that we are in a universe with spacelike and lightlike features and no timelike features (something I never said is true and is not my opinion of the state of affairs.) In that universe the human being previously accustomed to time is now feeling a bit nuts since there is no time reference. Or perhaps he is used to this, maybe he never experienced timelike features and he is native to this parallel world without timelike features. So now he comes here to our world and can 'compare'.

The answer I think is that generally there is a firewall in experience. Due to Carnap's irreversibility (and maybe I am stretching the way this problem works since I am not limiting his findings to the past), it is very expensive energy-wise to accomplish the change from present to past and in my own analogy, from one world to another. Even to travel from Rome to NY costs something energetically. So to travel to the moon even more. To another planet even more. And then add to that that even within our own world there will be timespace variations which cause time to appear as before or after. And that is without even bringing in a parallel world. The reason CERN is so expensive just to do a tiny movement of this sort, to open to a parallel universe, is exactly this issue of the energy cost. So what I want to point out is encapsulation. Timespaces, and I never read this, but it's what I am thinking, are encapsulated. And when these encapsulations are breached, let us say, by force, it is very expensive and almost impossible. So the scenario you gave of switching worlds is extremely expensive when attempted via physical means, thus the collider. And that would not even be sufficient to transport a perceiver. But let us suppose that we have a wormhole or portal which makes it less expensive, in fact, makes it easy as punch. Then we can take up your supposition. This is possible due to Reimann's supposition of folds in space. So perhaps there is as fold in space that allows the no time universe you speculated on to touch the edge of the time universe you speculated on and at the point where they touch your traveler passes through. Now what you are asking is whether some sort of time leak happens in which at the wormhole time slips in.

I imagine that in theory, since there is a sort of osmosis going on with all of reality, in which to lesser or greater degrees things leak into other things, then yes. There could be a negligible leak. But the answer I want to give, and ALL of what I write here is speculation is that just as bodies have skin which keeps us from leaking into the air around us, so also worlds have encapsulating systems too, such that the wormhole is like an air lock and doesn't leak much if at all. And such that the worlds, unless they suffered a huge puncture, would also not leak any time or lack of time back and forth. This is or was a concern at CERN, that by opening to the parallel world, that breach would destroy this world. Of course there is always a sort of leak. When people travel on the bus they leave DNA, fingerprints, bacteria behind. They are leaking organic material onto the inorganic bus railings and seats.

There is an old book about a similar thing happening as regards the 3 dimensions of Space, The book is called Flat Land. In the aerospace industry I met several people who had read it. I read it in Houston in 1965. Flatland is a two dimensional world on a flat plane, They have no concept of height. A mathematically talented flat lander is lifted off his plane by a 3 dimensional being and looks down on his city from above. He is swept away by the concept and his mind is racing with excitement He is placed back into his plane and he encounters many problems because he can't quite explain to anybody what he experienced. It is really a fascinating little book.

I have read that very wonderful little book.

A being from a no time parallel universe, perhaps something like Plato's universe, frequently accesses a universe with matter and energy, and thus time, in his dreams. However, Plato considers the world of matter, energy and time to be only a dream. A citizen of a parallel universe with no time would probably consider the universe with time as a real universe and not just a dream.

Why would a no-time universe being consider the time universe real? I don't see how that follows. What would be real to him is his own perception universe. If he never saw time he'd think that was a crazy ass experience! Not real in fact? I like Plato's view of the world and the worlds within worlds as dreams. I also like the idea of all worlds as dreams, be they parallel or not. Dreams would be like dimensions. We could postulate that the firewalls between dreams keep us from experience certain dreams outside a certain range of things. As a general rule but not a hard and fast rule lets say. A lot would have to do with the speed of the dreams (worlds) and thus Einstein's equation in relation to velocity and how that produces this timespace perception as opposed to another one. I think that a mind breaks when its own timespace is severed too much. Thus within this world, there may be variations in timespace but not enough to break a mind. if the variations were severe then possibly. So the person who ALWAYS lived in a no-time world (as you formulate it not as I formulate it) would suffer when entering a time world. Such as one gets the bends when returning from the deep sea dive. This process would have to be regulated in order to create adjustment to the new 'skin' or situation. Since I assume that in each case the perceiver's body would be a constant that would have to be preserved. Unlike in dreaming at night in which the body asleep is not involved in the dream and is safe and sound snoring. Well I hope you enjoyed this reverie/flight of fancy into the permutations of how local and more severe timespace shifting affects a person.

Who is to say where dreams end and reality begins? To me a dream universe such as Plato hypothesized and a parallel universe are virtually indistinguishable. What can be said for parallel universes can be said for Plato's universe as well.
Lakey

I have submitted more purple prose in response. PS there would never be a case where a being in plato's universe accessed a time universe since there are no 'beings' in that sense in the real universe of Plato. All that would be there are souls and forms and the good beyond all being (Plato's equivalent of God). Souls could not enter time except by the same mysterious way in which souls inhabit bodies. And in that process we have thousands of years of philosophy discussing/explaining. And Scn's explanation is the POOREST of all of those explanations in my view.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Carnap's irreversibility problem has to do exactly with this thought of encapsulation. It is a boundary problem, where systems are closed to each other. Such as the past closed to the present and another universe closed to this universe. There are different sorts of irreversibility, such at entropic and so on. And I hope I did not reduce too much or oversimplify that issue or aspect. Since entropy is always increasing in a timespace scenario as it 'develops' then irreversibility in that context means that due to that (second law of thermodynamics) it would be very expensive to fight those effects of gravity (perceived as time entropy or the arrow of time (also speed and direction of). Thus near impossible to go from one universe to another. Literally, requiring atom smashers.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

A problem I am having with this whole line of conversation now is that I am out of my depth. While I feel ok talking about it generally, in very broad layman's terms, I also realize that my knowledge in those areas is very limited unless we leave the realm of physics and decide to content ourselves only to speculative spiritual worlds, i.e., theoretical metaphysical stuff.

So in that sense (if we limit our speculations to spiritual domains and leave the world of facts behind) we are giving opinions and theories about stuff which are not scientific.

Starting from that non-scientific basis, admitting that its merely belief and opinion, in that case, we can talk about Scientology as a form of Crowleyian metaphysics and black magic, or talk about Scientology as a mish-mash of other poorly understood -isms or talk about Scientology as a set of terms used by an organization who believes words can be trademarked and their concepts as well. And we can do all this without ever having to in any way claim to be discussing facts or anything scientific. Since we have admitted the more humble and finite position of human beings who are dealing only in our desires, beliefs, opinions, feelings, thoughts, and in no way has any of this or could it ever be VERIFIED by science as it never has in the many thousand years that humans have mythologized and believed specific stories and based their lives on various truths as they were able to perceive these.

It is then just a matter of belief or delusion or whatever. And of course some delusions are logical as are some beliefs.

But logic is not by itself a scientific process. REPEAT. Logic does not imply Science. It did in archaic times. It now is but a tiny arm of science. It is a part but not the definition of science.

Logic is not Absolute. There is a logic of geometry, of gardening, of tying a shoe of best practices in plastic surgery. Etc. The Nazis had a logic for what they were doing, an evil logic. Logic is not Absolute as a method. It is only reliable when considered as a way of organizing data and in that case it is only as reliable as the data one chooses to organize. If the data is faulty and if the motivations are evil or incorrectly based, then the logic can only do what it does, organize that mess into an 'order'. So the Nazis were quite orderly in their thinking. But their thinking was based on motivations found reprehensible. Order does not imply Science and neither does Logic.

Scientology may have an internal logic but this does not in any way imply that Scientology is scientific or factual in its logic or in its 'ordering' of life.

If anything that logic has caused harm.

So logic as a methodology is only one bit of science and it's the oldest most archaic form of it. It's just a human being thinking and trying to make sense of things based on his own assumptions, perceptions etc. And these can be faulty.

An insane person's cosmology may be very cohesive and logical and yet be completely wrong. Many philosophical systems throughout history are logical and coherent and yet we know now looking back that they were historical products and they were wrong about quite a bit. Thus we can see errors in Aristotle's views which errors were not evident to him since he did not have the scientific instrumentation of today. (But we can still admire Aristotle in spite of some errors, since other things he said are still of interest to us today.)

So we should probably leave physics soon unless there is a physicist here who would like to comment or explain. No doubt I would be unaware of any errors in my own thinking on that topic anyway since my 'training' in that field is only my own reading of things as a layman or tourist.

But on the subject of philosophically placing a metaphysical system, now that I feel ok to speak about, admitting at the same time that others may know more than I do and also admitting that we have left the realm of facts and now we are in the world of theorizing and thinking. We are not talking about reality we are talking about belief and opinion.

Is it possible that there are metaphysical truths? SURE! Can we prove even one by scientific, logical, human, or any other perceptual means?

NO.

Do I have beliefs or opinions. Yes. But this in no way implies the backing of science.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

So far so good Lakey, but of course returning to a 'time' universe is not exactly correct since even in this world we must call it timespace. Time is never independent in that way, so we must grant that the Minkowskian finding of time as a dimension of space means that Time cannot be idealized by being referred to independently. At most what we have are effects of gravity that are timeline, lightlike and spacelike. Just sayin'. This way of folding time into space has actually simplified problems, not made them more complex, at least from the point of view of calculation. I am not speaking of populations. What I said was that a point or local timespace has variables which mark it as such. If we could put a pin on that spot, such that it would function as a set of coordinates. From that set of coordinates (a local time space) time passes normally (as we conceive of normal) in this world which has time-spaces. In the same world with timespaces possible, there may be another local timespace. In Einstein's train example, the rider on the train is anchored at one local timespace which is different from the timespace of the person standing at the station. These two timespaces are local. The perceiver at such a timespace feels 'time' pass normally. However, if there were an absolute position outside of timespace, which physicists do have mathematically, from the perspective of computation, then it would be clear that those flows of time are not in sync, not the same, and that what happens before in one local timespace might happen after in another local timespace.

I don't like to use timespace in my discussions on origins of the universe. Few of the public are familiar enough with it to know what is being talked about. Unless we are talking specifically about relativity theory, I just use time and space as separate entities to keep more of the general public in the conversation. I am not aware of any absolute position outside of timespace which psysicists do have mathematically, from the perspective of computation. I think that was what Relativity Theory was all about. The Michaelson Morley experiment sought to find and absolute point and that experiment failed. Einstein offered his relativity theory to explain why their experiment failed. Relativity theory denies the possibility of such an absolute points. All observation points must be "relative". I'm not aware of any newer theory supplanting that.


As for the idea that the verse becomes more complicated because an alternate or parallel world is assumed. Why is it more complicated? Do we only see one man and one woman alive or are their millions of people? If a phenomenon exists why would it be limited to one production or example? Just wondering what mechanism would limit a system to only produce one version of itself.

A fork with only one tine would be simpler than a fork with two tines which would be simpler than a fork with three tines,... ad infinitum. That was my thinking. To me, each new tine adds more complexity to the fork. That was the sense in which I was using the word. When a universe is formed, more likely it gets more complex as time passes. More beings enter into it, more species, etc. Maybe in a final decay state, the process reverses. I don't know, I may well be wrong, it is just my opinion.

As for the problem of switching from one world to another and the idea that one world might have time, less time, no time. It seems here that a common factor is just gravity. While to a local perceiver on a faster moving timespace (lets say planet x) time passes normally, perhaps our time here passes quickly, as our local timespace. The absolute observer would see that on planet x 50 years passed but here only a few hours. Now that is just within our world....so the discrepancy you mention, the effect of time, happens already but in a less experiential way. The perceiver in either timespace remains unaware of the situation in the other location. Now, if the astronaut sent to planet x returned, he might be shocked to compare that he has had 50 years and everyone at home just had a birthday party for his child and that was all that transpired. But let us take your example and translate it to a different, parallel universe. First, I am not sure that the idea of a no time universe works for me since I think we already are in that universe and that all we have is lightlike and timelike and spacelike features in varying degrees. But let us say that we are in a universe with spacelike and lightlike features and no timelike features (something I never said is true and is not my opinion of the state of affairs.) In that universe the human being previously accustomed to time is now feeling a bit nuts since there is no time reference. Or perhaps he is used to this, maybe he never experienced timelike features and he is native to this parallel world without timelike features. So now he comes here to our world and can 'compare'.

Here you are getting into an area which I am not all that familiar with. I probably don't know enough to comment on what you wrote above. I will say this, suppose an observer on planet x gets his beard trimmed just before he decides to launch a rocket to a friend of his on Earth, 10 light years away. The guy on planet X writes a note to his counterpart on Earth saying, I just got my beard trimmed this morning and places this note in the departing rocket. The rocket is capable of traveling at C, the velocity of light just for sake of this example. When the rocket arrives on Earth, exactly 10 years later, the note is inside the rocket. In this instance, both observers know for certain that the beard was shaved before the rocket was launched. Thus in all frames of reference, anywhere in this universe, the event of the beard being shaved occurred before the rocket was launched towards Earth. This has to be true for all parts of the universe. If it were not true, then the note would not be able to exist (if course no lying is allowed).

The answer I think is that generally there is a firewall in experience. Due to Carnap's irreversibility (and maybe I am stretching the way this problem works since I am not limiting his findings to the past), it is very expensive energy-wise to accomplish the change from present to past and in my own analogy, from one world to another. Even to travel from Rome to NY costs something energetically. So to travel to the moon even more. To another planet even more. And then add to that that even within our own world there will be timespace variations which cause time to appear as before or after. And that is without even bringing in a parallel world. The reason CERN is so expensive just to do a tiny movement of this sort, to open to a parallel universe, is exactly this issue of the energy cost. So what I want to point out is encapsulation. Timespaces, and I never read this, but it's what I am thinking, are encapsulated. And when these encapsulations are breached, let us say, by force, it is very expensive and almost impossible. So the scenario you gave of switching worlds is extremely expensive when attempted via physical means, thus the collider. And that would not even be sufficient to transport a perceiver. But let us suppose that we have a wormhole or portal which makes it less expensive, in fact, makes it easy as punch. Then we can take up your supposition. This is possible due to Reimann's supposition of folds in space. So perhaps there is as fold in space that allows the no time universe you speculated on to touch the edge of the time universe you speculated on and at the point where they touch your traveler passes through. Now what you are asking is whether some sort of time leak happens in which at the wormhole time slips in.

I have never studied the first part of the paragraph and am not able to make an intelligent comment. On the worm hole principle, I only know of it through sci-fi and I tend to believe worm holes do exist and probably, with enough tech know how they can be traversed. That is just opinion with no facts behind it.

I imagine that in theory, since there is a sort of osmosis going on with all of reality, in which to lesser or greater degrees things leak into other things, then yes. There could be a negligible leak. But the answer I want to give, and ALL of what I write here is speculation is that just as bodies have skin which keeps us from leaking into the air around us, so also worlds have encapsulating systems too, such that the wormhole is like an air lock and doesn't leak much if at all. And such that the worlds, unless they suffered a huge puncture, would also not leak any time or lack of time back and forth. This is or was a concern at CERN, that by opening to the parallel world, that breach would destroy this world. Of course there is always a sort of leak. When people travel on the bus they leave DNA, fingerprints, bacteria behind. They are leaking organic material onto the inorganic bus railings and seats.

These items all exceed my level of knowledge. I am not qualified to comment so I can only give you my opinion which is that all of this paragraph seems logical to me.

There is an old book about a similar thing happening as regards the 3 dimensions of Space, The book is called Flat Land. In the aerospace industry I met several people who had read it. I read it in Houston in 1965. Flatland is a two dimensional world on a flat plane, They have no concept of height. A mathematically talented flat lander is lifted off his plane by a 3 dimensional being and looks down on his city from above. He is swept away by the concept and his mind is racing with excitement He is placed back into his plane and he encounters many problems because he can't quite explain to anybody what he experienced. It is really a fascinating little book.

I have read that very wonderful little book.

Great, that you read it and think it is wonderful.

A being from a no time parallel universe, perhaps something like Plato's universe, frequently accesses a universe with matter and energy, and thus time, in his dreams. However, Plato considers the world of matter, energy and time to be only a dream. A citizen of a parallel universe with no time would probably consider the universe with time as a real universe and not just a dream.

Why would a no-time universe being consider the time universe real? I don't see how that follows. What would be real to him is his own perception universe. If he never saw time he'd think that was a crazy ass experience! Not real in fact? I like Plato's view of the world and the worlds within worlds as dreams. I also like the idea of all worlds as dreams, be they parallel or not. Dreams would be like dimensions. We could postulate that the firewalls between dreams keep us from experience certain dreams outside a certain range of things. As a general rule but not a hard and fast rule lets say. A lot would have to do with the speed of the dreams (worlds) and thus Einstein's equation in relation to velocity and how that produces this timespace perception as opposed to another one. I think that a mind breaks when its own timespace is severed too much. Thus within this world, there may be variations in timespace but not enough to break a mind. if the variations were severe then possibly. So the person who ALWAYS lived in a no-time world (as you formulate it not as I formulate it) would suffer when entering a time world. Such as one gets the bends when returning from the deep sea dive. This process would have to be regulated in order to create adjustment to the new 'skin' or situation. Since I assume that in each case the perceiver's body would be a constant that would have to be preserved. Unlike in dreaming at night in which the body asleep is not involved in the dream and is safe and sound snoring. Well I hope you enjoyed this reverie/flight of fancy into the permutations of how local and more severe timespace shifting affects a person.

I have submitted more purple prose in response. PS there would never be a case where a being in plato's universe accessed a time universe since there are no 'beings' in that sense in the real universe of Plato. All that would be there are souls and forms and the good beyond all being (Plato's equivalent of God). Souls could not enter time except by the same mysterious way in which souls inhabit bodies. And in that process we have thousands of years of philosophy discussing/explaining. And Scn's explanation is the POOREST of all of those explanations in my view.

Plato's Universe goes beyond my field of expertise. I am not qualified to reply intelligently but I will give you my opinion. Plato was one man, albeit a great man and an extremely brilliant man. He lived about 2000 years before Newton and about 2,300 years before Einstein, Mach, Minkowski and that whole group of geniuses. Plato's model of the universe undoubtedly contains some truths, coming from such an intellectually and morally elevated man, nevertheless, had he have been able to avail himself of the works of Newton, Einstein, Minkowski, Mach,, et. al., I belief that his model would be different, maybe just a little or maybe a lot but the difference would be in the direction of making it a better model. I am just guessing on this but I feel that I am on pretty solid ground. Maria, I think you are better qualified than I am to offer an opinion on this so please do so if you like.

That is all I can write, much of your post is beyond my level of expertise. I answered you where I could and gave opinions or just said no comment on the parts in which I know absolutely nothing about. Believe me, Maria, if you have a grasp on all these complex principles above, Martin Gardners hook will be extremely easy for you to grasp. It is written on a par with the Flatland book, perhaps a little more complex than that plus it has beautiful illustrations and good examples which aid in learning the material. I still think you should read it, especially that section between pages 40 and 50 where simultaneity is discussed.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Plato's Universe is a specialized model put together by one man, a very brilliant man, but also a man who lived about 2,000 years before Newton and 2,300 years before Einstein, Minkowdki, Mach and other great physicists. It is totally possible that his model contains significant truths. I feel that his model might be different, perhaps even better, if he had access to modern physics. All I know about the Platonic model comes from what you have written here on ESMB. I really am not qualified to comment any further on Plato's view of the universe. I may have an opinion or two on a couple of facets of it but no more than that.

I don't know quite what to say. just yesterday, you stated that you were going to purchase Martin Gardner's book, a popular book on elementary relativity, meant to assist the man or woman on the street to understand the basic principles of elementary relativity theory. You expressed the thought that Gardner's book might be over your head because relativity theory is not really your in your field of study.

Today, you post advanced aspects having to do with relativity theory, parallel universes, time travel, types of universes, boundary conditions between universes, entropy, leakages and all manner of things having to do with advanced physics. As I see it, correct me if I am wrong, your post above is much more about physics than it is about philosophy. Your post is written as if you yourself wrote the text. It does not appear that you copied sections of it directly out of a book.

I feel like I was sucker punched. You led me to believe that Gardner's book might be out of your league whereas your post today reveals a level of expertise which you have on this subject which is light years (sort of a pun) ahead of the material discussed in Gardner's book.

Look, Maria, the origins of the universe debate is just a hobby for me, I only dabble in it and I have not devoted any major study to this area and I just engage in it as a hobby, a secondary hobby at that. I don't claim to be an expert on the topic. To me, the little bit which I write about is superior to most of the crazy ideas which most other people propose; that being said, Ii am far from being an authority on the subject, To me, understanding and living among people along with animals is more germane than figuring out our universe or universes. Frankly, some of the areas which you touched on in your post are new to me, I am really not qualified to make any comments about them, I just don't know enough to make an intelligent comment.

Here and there in your post, there are a couple of areas which I feel qualified to comment on so I think I will go back into your post and make whatever comments I feel I am qualified to make in red ink. Those comments would be a critique of your post.

I have always thought that you were an extremely intelligent person but as I suspected and commented on sometime in March, you may be more intelligent than you lead people to believe. I mentioned that in March and you denied that. However if you wrote your post above, unassisted, I believe that I was correct in my early assessment of your intellect back in March. You call what you wrote, prose, my question to you is, "Did you write that prose unassisted or did you quote much of it from some other source?
Lakey

Dear Lakey,
I have no way to judge if what I wrote is advanced or juvenile, since I never took a physics course. I only know the above 'stuff' via shamanism (their version of journeying alternate worlds etc.) Since it is metaphysics, I can't prove any of it. Also, I have read a little bit of Kaku, and I read as of three weeks ago, a little bit of Einstein, and I am still going to read and comment on Gardner.

Thank you if it seems that I am speaking in an advanced level. I am viewing what I wrote as philosophical speculation and of course I want to continue along that vein, as long as I am not claiming to be a physicist and say something definitive. Maybe a physicist would find my views in need of correction or maybe they would see them as valid but overbroad. I have no way to know that. I did know a physicist who lived next door and he liked the things I said although he never corrected me or even clarified anything. So I can't say that he agreed or not since he revealed nothing to me. But then his employment maybe does not ever allow him to speak of those matters, so perhaps in that sense, he had nothing to say. He did however like what I had to say and the way I took it into metaphysical terrain. He was Indian and as a Hindu, the animist version of things fit SOME aspects of Hinduism. I don't remember the exact details of how the fit works although I did get the impression that there are broad areas of interest between the metaphysical and physics among some physicists today. Even if only a few.

The things I wrote above, I wrote. Yes, I authored that entire post. Those were my views of physics. Wrong or right that they may be. That was my content and I wrote it without referring to anything else, in order to answer your questions or comments. I did not copy them from anywhere. Yes, I wrote it unassisted.

I have 100s of pages written on such ideas. But I could never publish them except speculatively since I am not sure how I could contextualize what I had to say in a way that limited itself to the actual discipline I have studied, which is philosophy. Yes, my post was about physics. All I wanted to say was to qualify that since I am not a physicist (yet anyway) I might be wrong about something, so forgive me in advance for that. I just wanted to be sure that I was not claiming to be an authority. I am more than happy to continue to discuss these things as long as everyone knows that I don't claim to be an expert on those things and that I view my comments as possibly either naive or else 'beginning' ideas based on the little I know.

I have only read two of Kaku's books, the train book, a tiny bit online from Minkowski and Carnap, and that is about it. That is my entire training in physics. So you can see why after making that complicated post I felt a bit audacious! And it's true, in life I am told that I tend to 'not see' myself clearly, in the sense I tend to think less of myself than I should. Not because I am in any way down on myself. I am merely a bit self-critical and well aware that the world is filled with those who are way smarter and that I'm nowhere near a position to boast. I am unemployed. So there is no line forming to hire me in any capacity. LOL. Just sayin'.

Oh, and you may be interested in some purple prose I wrote to Hats in response to something she had to say. There I limited myself to discussion of forces from a metaphysical standpoint. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...chic-attacks&p=1036965&viewfull=1#post1036965

So Lakey, in answer to your question, I wrote what I wrote unassisted. I would never take from sources unless I quoted them and was clear as to what I wrote and what someone else wrote.

Thank you for finding it interesting. I probably qualified my statements to say I was not a physicist as a knee jerk reaction since I didn't want to be attacked again for being perceived as someone who views oneself as an expert. It's only been a week since the last attack and I of course want to make sure that I'm not trying to claim to be a physics professor! Since I am not one.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Pop quiz : ( This is the first of 500 )

Who is Jonah Cardeli Falcon & what is he most famous for ?

giz

Are we playing that measuring game again?

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Plato's Universe goes beyond my field of expertise. I am not qualified to reply intelligently but I will give you my opinion. Plato was one man, albeit a great man and an extremely brilliant man. He lived about 2000 years before Newton and about 2,300 years before Einstein, Mach, Minkowski and that whole group of geniuses. Plato's model of the universe undoubtedly contains some truths, coming from such an intellectually and morally elevated man, nevertheless, had he have been able to avail himself of the works of Newton, Einstein, Minkowski, Mach,, et. al., I belief that his model would be different, maybe just a little or maybe a lot but the difference would be in the direction of making it a better model. I am just guessing on this but I feel that I am on pretty solid ground. Maria, I think you are better qualified than I am to offer an opinion on this so please do so if you like.

That is all I can write, much of your post is beyond my level of expertise. I answered you where I could and gave opinions or just said no comment on the parts in which I know absolutely nothing about. Believe me, Maria, if you have a grasp on all these complex principles above, Martin Gardners hook will be extremely easy for you to grasp. It is written on a par with the Flatland book, perhaps a little more complex than that plus it has beautiful illustrations and good examples which aid in learning the material. I still think you should read it, especially that section between pages 40 and 50 where simultaneity is discussed.
Lakey

Yes, I agree, physics can't locate absolute points. I only meant to say that we can imagine something like an external point, not that we actually ever have one. And thank you for the comment on why you refer to time and not spacetime. It makes sense.

I notice my Gardner book has shipped and I look forward to reading it and especially the pages you mentioned.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Lakey,
You wrote:

A fork with only one tine would be simpler than a fork with two tines which would be simpler than a fork with three tines,... ad infinitum. That was my thinking. To me, each new tine adds more complexity to the fork. That was the sense in which I was using the word. When a universe is formed, more likely it gets more complex as time passes. More beings enter into it, more species, etc. Maybe in a final decay state, the process reverses. I don't know, I may well be wrong, it is just my opinion.

I have to paste this in as since you commented within my post, it would not quote for response by the usual forum mechanism.An argument I'd make about the fork analogy is that a fork with 1 tine would end up being a spear or knife, not a fork. The form of fork requires it to have tines.

But I think that my own original post could be clearer in its response to you on this point. The idea is this.

There is a world and it has been created (by God or by whatever other means someone in this forum otherwise wishes to accept). Let's assume, for now, it has a dual character, that the world has a spiritual counterpart realm in the same way as that paradigm that states a body has a soul.

So we have the physical and its spiritual counterpart. The cosmos has a spiritual counterpart, eternal realms lets say. And in the same way body is tied to a soul.

So there are many bodies and souls.

So why would their only be one 'world' and it's spiritual dimension.

Why would the source of creation stop creating after 1 world. Now let's say that it's a perfect world. Could not many perfect worlds be created?

Why would a painter make one painting?

Why would there only be one type of fruit? Only a banana, no oranges or pineapples or mangoes or apricots?

Why only one color? Red and not yellow and blue?

So let us take the concept of a tine. That concept has no meaning if there is only one tine. Like a comb. A comb for one's hair has no meaning if it has one tine. A fork has no meaning with one tine. The concept fork is not complex. It's as reduced as possible without ceasing to be a fork.

So I'm not opposed to one world, with its physical version and its spiritual counterpart. Not at all. Just not sure why its more valid than many physical worlds and many spiritual dimensions. Or many men and many women or many humans with their many souls.

What that speaks to for me is just a procreative aspect to creation. Creativity creates and generates more of itself.

Anyway, not sure this is exactly an answer to the simplicity question.

I do agree with your view of the finding the simple underlying...and I could even say that the fork is a more complicated version of a spear or knife, and that it reduces to 'sharp pointy object for stabbing, piercing or grasping something.' And that by adding these together in a cluster we get 'fork' which is also a pattern of forking sharp lines. Unique and one of a kind - an intersection of lines at one center whose end points are sharp and can grab something.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

A problem I am having with this whole line of conversation now is that I am out of my depth. While I feel ok talking about it generally, in very broad layman's terms, I also realize that my knowledge in those areas is very limited unless we leave the realm of physics and decide to content ourselves only to speculative spiritual worlds, i.e., theoretical metaphysical stuff.

So in that sense (if we limit our speculations to spiritual domains and leave the world of facts behind) we are giving opinions and theories about stuff which are not scientific.

Starting from that non-scientific basis, admitting that its merely belief and opinion, in that case, we can talk about Scientology as a form of Crowleyian metaphysics and black magic, or talk about Scientology as a mish-mash of other poorly understood -isms or talk about Scientology as a set of terms used by an organization who believes words can be trademarked and their concepts as well. And we can do all this without ever having to in any way claim to be discussing facts or anything scientific. Since we have admitted the more humble and finite position of human beings who are dealing only in our desires, beliefs, opinions, feelings, thoughts, and in no way has any of this or could it ever be VERIFIED by science as it never has in the many thousand years that humans have mythologized and believed specific stories and based their lives on various truths as they were able to perceive these.

It is then just a matter of belief or delusion or whatever. And of course some delusions are logical as are some beliefs.

But logic is not by itself a scientific process. REPEAT. Logic does not imply Science. It did in archaic times. It now is but a tiny arm of science. It is a part but not the definition of science.

Logic is not Absolute. There is a logic of geometry, of gardening, of tying a shoe of best practices in plastic surgery. Etc. The Nazis had a logic for what they were doing, an evil logic. Logic is not Absolute as a method. It is only reliable when considered as a way of organizing data and in that case it is only as reliable as the data one chooses to organize. If the data is faulty and if the motivations are evil or incorrectly based, then the logic can only do what it does, organize that mess into an 'order'. So the Nazis were quite orderly in their thinking. But their thinking was based on motivations found reprehensible. Order does not imply Science and neither does Logic.

Scientology may have an internal logic but this does not in any way imply that Scientology is scientific or factual in its logic or in its 'ordering' of life.

True

If anything that logic has caused harm.

Basically this is true, To me, some people felt that they were helped by it at times. I gave sessions where my pc's blew out and were writing big success stories and I had many big wins myself, mainly on the lower levels. I just can't completely ignore that this happened. However, I would say that the amount of harm that was caused was many magnitudes greater than any benefits which adherents received. Even for those who regularly experienced what they perceived as huge gains, they were being abused too and were heading downhill on their way to disaster.

So logic as a methodology is only one bit of science and it's the oldest most archaic form of it. It's just a human being thinking and trying to make sense of things based on his own assumptions, perceptions etc. And these can be faulty.

An insane person's cosmology may be very cohesive and logical and yet be completely wrong. Many philosophical systems throughout history are logical and coherent and yet we know now looking back that they were historical products and they were wrong about quite a bit. Thus we can see errors in Aristotle's views which errors were not evident to him since he did not have the scientific instrumentation of today. (But we can still admire Aristotle in spite of some errors, since other things he said are still of interest to us today.)

Excellent analogy!!

So we should probably leave physics soon unless there is a physicist here who would like to comment or explain. No doubt I would be unaware of any errors in my own thinking on that topic anyway since my 'training' in that field is only my own reading of things as a layman or tourist.

But on the subject of philosophically placing a metaphysical system, now that I feel ok to speak about, admitting at the same time that others may know more than I do and also admitting that we have left the realm of facts and now we are in the world of theorizing and thinking. We are not talking about reality we are talking about belief and opinion.

Is it possible that there are metaphysical truths? SURE! Can we prove even one by scientific, logical, human, or any other perceptual means?

NO.

Do I have beliefs or opinions. Yes. But this in no way implies the backing of science.

CoS was sort of like the ship Titanic, it set sail with great aplomb, everybody started out happy, the ship was magnificent looking, the cabins were deluxe, the restaurants were of the highest quality with stunning fixtures, gourmet food and drink, the dance floor and the band were world class. The views from the deck were spectacular. When the ship set sail, all looked so rosy, it was the greatest ship in the world and the safest ship in the world. It was even considered unsinkable. Most people aboard the ship were having the time of their life while sailing in luxury towards the premature ending of their life.

CoS closely resembles the ill fated cruise of the Titanic. We set sail with bravado, "a society without war or criminals where the honest and hard working can rise to greater heights, where "If it isn't true for you, it isn't true", etc. We get tapped for money, we give for the bridge, then it is the IAS, then it is the Super Power Bldg., then it is,,,,ad infinitum. We cruise along with a carrot dangling before our eyes being held in back of us by LRH, DM or their aides. The end of our voyage is to have the answers to life but that never happens. We're always told that comes at the next level but at the "next level" you are told just one more level until finally, you get your answer. The whole operation is a rip off, merely one individual's grab for wealth and power. If you stay in long enough, the result is the same as sailing on the Titanic, a premature death, but not just of the body but of the soul as well.

On your comments vis a vis physics, philosophy and metaphysics, I for one have also had enough of talking about physics for a while. You, for someone not really in that field, posted many excellent posts having to do with physics or mixing physics with the other two subjects.

On philosophy and metaphysics, you are one of our resident experts on the Apollo thread. Most thread members are not too well read on those subject, including myself, while a few of the others besides you have some significant familiarity with those subjects. Maybe switching over to those two subjects is the best thing to do at this time.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Lakey,
You wrote:

A fork with only one tine would be simpler than a fork with two tines which would be simpler than a fork with three tines,... ad infinitum. That was my thinking. To me, each new tine adds more complexity to the fork. That was the sense in which I was using the word. When a universe is formed, more likely it gets more complex as time passes. More beings enter into it, more species, etc. Maybe in a final decay state, the process reverses. I don't know, I may well be wrong, it is just my opinion.

I have to paste this in as since you commented within my post, it would not quote for response by the usual forum mechanism.An argument I'd make about the fork analogy is that a fork with 1 tine would end up being a spear or knife, not a fork. The form of fork requires it to have tines.

But I think that my own original post could be clearer in its response to you on this point. The idea is this.

There is a world and it has been created (by God or by whatever other means someone in this forum otherwise wishes to accept). Let's assume, for now, it has a dual character, that the world has a spiritual counterpart realm in the same way as that paradigm that states a body has a soul.

So we have the physical and its spiritual counterpart. The cosmos has a spiritual counterpart, eternal realms lets say. And in the same way body is tied to a soul.

So there are many bodies and souls.

So why would their only be one 'world' and it's spiritual dimension.

Why would the source of creation stop creating after 1 world. Now let's say that it's a perfect world. Could not many perfect worlds be created?

Why would a painter make one painting?

Why would there only be one type of fruit? Only a banana, no oranges or pineapples or mangoes or apricots?

Why only one color? Red and not yellow and blue?

So let us take the concept of a tine. That concept has no meaning if there is only one tine. Like a comb. A comb for one's hair has no meaning if it has one tine. A fork has no meaning with one tine. The concept fork is not complex. It's as reduced as possible without ceasing to be a fork.

Thanks, that is an excellent point!!! Beyond a certain point an oversimplification can occur and something can lose its identity. Well I should start my argument with a fork with 2 tines!

So I'm not opposed to one world, with its physical version and its spiritual counterpart. Not at all. Just not sure why its more valid than many physical worlds and many spiritual dimensions. Or many men and many women or many humans with their many souls.

What that speaks to for me is just a procreative aspect to creation. Creativity creates and generates more of itself.

Anyway, not sure this is exactly an answer to the simplicity question.

I believe that I said that my feelings about truths tending to be more simple rather than more complex was just an opinion. I said that I could well be wrongl

I do agree with your view of the finding the simple underlying...and I could even say that the fork is a more complicated version of a spear or knife, and that it reduces to 'sharp pointy object for stabbing, piercing or grasping something.' And that by adding these together in a cluster we get 'fork' which is also a pattern of forking sharp lines. Unique and one of a kind - an intersection of lines at one center whose end points are sharp and can grab something.

Yep, you did well with my fork concept and made a lot of good "points" (nice play on words)! What would make a better example? How about a piano?
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

With all this intense and deep posting about physics, metaphysics, Philosophy, etc., and a lot of beautiful popular musical clips being put up, it is time for some classical music from my favorite composer, Mozart. A beautiful new recording of this recently appeared on my youtube account with a lovely and very young South Korean female pianist. I never heard of her before but she was playing in the Tschaikovsky competition.

This Piano Concerto #21 with the second movement used in the Swedish film Elvira Madigan, is one of Mozart's best and this young lady, Yeol Eum Son, and the orchestra give fantastic performance, the best I have ever heard of this great piece. The first movement is by far the best movement IMHO but the 2nd is best known. This piece came in #23 in the top 100 classical pieces as voted by KUSC listeners:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNU-XAZjhzA

This really helps wind down after all this intensive posting.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Yep, you did well with my fork concept and made a lot of good "points" (nice play on words)! What would make a better example? How about a piano?
Lakey

Yes. And it could not be simplified to one key. I like the piano example. Yet is as simple a concept as is possible. Just as a guitar.
If you removed strings and changed the body maybe a banjo.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

With all this intense and deep posting about physics, metaphysics, Philosophy, etc., and a lot of beautiful popular musical clips being put up, it is time for some classical music from my favorite composer, Mozart. A beautiful new recording of this recently appeared on my youtube account with a lovely and very young South Korean female pianist. I never heard of her before but she was playing in the Tschaikovsky competion.

This Piano Concerto #21 with the second movement used in the Swedish film Elvira Madigan, is one of Mozart's best and this young lady, Yeol Eum Son, and the orchestra give fantastic performance, the best I have ever heard of this great piece. The first movement is by far the best movement IMHO but the 2nd is best known. This piece came in #23 in the top 100 classical pieces as voted by KUSC listeners:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNU-XAZjhzA

This really helps wind down after all this intensive posting.
Lakey

Around 7:24 or so a long section starts that I found quite poetic.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

This was sent to me by a girlfriend a few minutes ago.


Five undeniable facts:

A wise person once said:

1. We all love to spend money buying new clothes but we never realize that the best
moments in life are enjoyed without clothes.

2. Having a cold drink on hot day with a few friends is nice, but having a hot friend on a cold night after a few drinks - PRICELESS.

3. Breaking News: Condoms don't guarantee safe sex anymore. A friend of mine was wearing one when he was shot dead by the woman's husband.

4. Arguing over a girl's bust size is like choosing between Molson, Heineken, Carlsberg & Budweiser. Men may state their preferences, but will grab whatever is available.

5. I haven't verified this on Snopes but it sounds legit…. A recent study found that women who carry a little extra weight live longer than the men who mention it.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Lakey,
You wrote:

A fork with only one tine would be simpler than a fork with two tines which would be simpler than a fork with three tines,... ad infinitum. That was my thinking. To me, each new tine adds more complexity to the fork. That was the sense in which I was using the word. When a universe is formed, more likely it gets more complex as time passes. More beings enter into it, more species, etc. Maybe in a final decay state, the process reverses. I don't know, I may well be wrong, it is just my opinion.

I have to paste this in as since you commented within my post, it would not quote for response by the usual forum mechanism.An argument I'd make about the fork analogy is that a fork with 1 tine would end up being a spear or knife, not a fork. The form of fork requires it to have tines.

But I think that my own original post could be clearer in its response to you on this point. The idea is this.

There is a world and it has been created (by God or by whatever other means someone in this forum otherwise wishes to accept). Let's assume, for now, it has a dual character, that the world has a spiritual counterpart realm in the same way as that paradigm that states a body has a soul.

I prefer dividing the world into two parts, physical and spiritual. Vinny, in an attempt to simplify, got rid of that division and I bought into that but actually I prefer the dual approach.

So we have the physical and its spiritual counterpart. The cosmos has a spiritual counterpart, eternal realms lets say. And in the same way body is tied to a soul.

So there are many bodies and souls.

So far so good.

So why would their only be one 'world' and it's spiritual dimension.

One slight confusion on your use of the word world. To me a world consists of a planet or local area and all its inhabitants, while what you are calling a world, I would call a universe. The story in the Bible in Genesis, sort of tacitly assuming that Earth is God's only World, should simply be ignored in my opinion. I see a universe with countless populated worlds, quite similar to what is portrayed in sci fi, in fact the Star Wars series of movies provide excellent examples. I think Lucas, Spielberg, et al tapped into something and got that part right.

Why would the source of creation stop creating after 1 world. Now let's say that it's a perfect world. Could not many perfect worlds be created?

That is the $64,000 question. The only answer I can even imagine lies in the Judeo-Christian belief that God is a God of love and that he loves humanity so much that he prefers to stay here and oversee we beings here on Earth, or on a much grander scale stay in this one universe and oversee all the beings of this universe.. I don't believe that overseeing only planet Earth is the answer but overseeing this entire universe is a plausible answer.

Why would a painter make one painting?

Why would there only be one type of fruit? Only a banana, no oranges or pineapples or mangoes or apricots?

Why only one color? Red and not yellow and blue?

You make your point well, as regards variety of creations including one human creation, painting, and several devine creations such as fruits and colors.

So let us take the concept of a tine. That concept has no meaning if there is only one tine. Like a comb. A comb for one's hair has no meaning if it has one tine. A fork has no meaning with one tine. The concept fork is not complex. It's as reduced as possible without ceasing to be a fork.

I think it has ceased to be a fork when it has only one tine. How about shifting from a fork to a piano? With one key, it is still a piano, it has its unique piano sound (timbre) and rhythms can still be played on one key, sound volume can also be varied and the pedal can still be used. It's very funny and a great play on words but a fork is too simple of a utensil to be used to illustrate the idea of simplicity versus complexity!

So I'm not opposed to one world, with its physical version and its spiritual counterpart. Not at all. Just not sure why its more valid than many physical worlds and many spiritual dimensions. Or many men and many women or many humans with their many souls.

What that speaks to for me is just a procreative aspect to creation. Creativity creates and generates more of itself.

Your points are well taken! I thought up some answers for you but it was not easy. First, for human creations, after being created, these require care and maintenance. Your paintings have to be stored in a safe environment and when placed somewhere for viewing, they need frames, they need to be protected, etc.

On a Divine creation, it is really hard for one person to speak for a Deity. People's attempts to explain what a Deity is doing aren't worth much but I'll take a stab at doing it. On color, what was created was a vast spectrum of color based on various wavelengths which light can assume. The colors we can see with our analog style eyes are just a small portion of the overall spectrum. The spectrum itself is not infinite but it is vast. Even with artists, it is possible for an artist to mix up some new shade of color that is unique, is it not?

On fruits, only a finite number of fruits can be grown on the Earth if only due to there being a finite amount of land with good top soil and a finite number of people and animals to eat the fruit. As far as what fruits there are on Earth, I would contrast that with one finished painting by The Deithy. Which insects exist on Earth, another finished painting by the Deity. Which vegetables, which trees, etc, all finished paintings by the Deity. As the Earth's climate changes, some paintings may be become part of a Deity's history museum but more new paintings may still remain to be painted here on Earth as the planet goes through its life cycle. Eventually, Earth will no longer be able to support life and maybe the Deity will paint a new painting by forming a new planet which will spawn life.

So I ask you, Maria, with The Deity having so much to do here on Earth and the countless other planets in this universe which have life, why would The Deity have the urge to create more new varieties fruit here on Earth? Also, you have the possibility of the Deity delegating some of its creative powers to mankind, empowering mankind to create new types of fruit by grafting, such a tangelos, nectarines, which I believe are a combination of a peach and a plumb and seedless watermelons. Mankind has also fiddled with animal hybrids, such as donkeys or mules and now we have attained the technique of cloning and stem cells. In a form of speaking, maybe The Deity has recently delegated some of its creation "hat" to his/her creation, mankind, so it can work on other creative projects of its own. I'm just saying.... offering you some possible explanations....because I don't have any idea of what the Diety's actual priorities are.


Anyway, not sure this is exactly an answer to the simplicity question.

I do agree with your view of the finding the simple underlying...and I could even say that the fork is a more complicated version of a spear or knife, and that it reduces to 'sharp pointy object for stabbing, piercing or grasping something.' And that by adding these together in a cluster we get 'fork' which is also a pattern of forking sharp lines. Unique and one of a kind - an intersection of lines at one center whose end points are sharp and can grab something.

These are all excellent points IMHO; everything about them is outstanding, both in their concept and in their phrasing and wording!! You were really "on your game" when you wrote them. One thing about them is that they require some serious thought for the person who is supposed to answer them. I will try to rise to the occasion and give you some worthy answers. It is probably simpler to embed my answers in red below each question which I answer.