Mystics and Zero

11-09-2000, 02:52 PM

In a message dated 11/09/2000 5:12:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ivanf@... writes:

<<
It appears that the scientific discoveries, postulates and
statements of modern physicists are now beginning to resemble the
intuitions and revelations of mystics of all ages.
>>
I believe on a Jewel list, I wrote recently: If mystics
had the language of physicists, we'd have had the laws
of physics centuries ago, having both helps one to
understand this is not a postulate but a fact.

Here's a question: In the manifestation - demanifestation
as spoken of are we at Earth - Water - Fire - Air - Aether or
Earth Water Air Fire Aether ? I had a lengthy discussion
with a scientist~spiritual person tonight. One of us believed
that the big bang created the gases, the other that the gases
and air existed and collated into the dense masses needed
for a bing bang by the black hole.

So, what do you all think?

van der ZeroZon going zzzzs as it's late :-)

11-10-2000, 02:05 AM

In a message dated 11/10/2000 11:14:03 AM Eastern Standard Time,
mark.otter@... writes:

<< Dear Bo,

I love you, but I object to your comments here. As a trained physicist
and an untrained mystic, I wonder why you feel the need to separate
human beings into two camps and postulate that one is smarter/faster
than the other based on completely speculative reasoning? The language
of physics was created by careful systematic observation, and you may
well be right that if mystics had done similar careful systematic
observation, they may well have done it faster, but how can you know
that? Why compete in this way? >>

Hi Mark,

This was not meant as a competition, perhaps your question
is why is that your perspective? What was meant is that, in
response to Ivan's post, yes, Mystics touch the field of unification,
we see it. So, the GUT theory doesn't need to answer
the question of why do the equations of gravity fall apart
when they meet the equations of quantum theory. Gravity
applies to a smaller system. Grand Unified Theory applies
to the whole, so, as mystics see this if they had the systematic
language as you call it, of mathematics, then it could be
described because the mystic doesn't think it, the mystic
knows this to be true.

Between thinking and knowing is the breadth of a hair,
and the breadth makes all the difference, and your hair dresser
doesn't know for sure *g*.

There is no competition, one is a collection of information
and knowledge of mathematics and the study of laws, the
other is a known ingredient of touching the face of God.

Much Love and Light,
Rainbows playing in Leela to you

11-10-2000, 05:38 AM

Dear Bo,

I love you, but I object to your comments here. As a trained physicist
and an untrained mystic, I wonder why you feel the need to separate
human beings into two camps and postulate that one is smarter/faster
than the other based on completely speculative reasoning? The language
of physics was created by careful systematic observation, and you may
well be right that if mystics had done similar careful systematic
observation, they may well have done it faster, but how can you know
that? Why compete in this way? I propose (as someone who regards
himself as both a physicist and a mystic) that we celebrate the language
and strategies of physicists and that we also celebrate the love and
honoring of the mysterious evidenced by mystics and join ranks to make
use of these two quite divergent skills and knowledge bases, giving
credit where credit is due, rather than making unfounded claims about
who's process is faster or slower.

Rainbolily@... wrote:

> In a message dated 11/09/2000 5:12:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> ivanf@... writes:

> If mystics
> had the language of physicists, we'd have had the laws
> of physics centuries ago, having both helps one to
> understand this is not a postulate but a fact.

11-10-2000, 06:02 AM

Rainbolily@... wrote:

>

Hi Bo,

Mark again... (I hope I clipped the right parts of the previous message
to indicate I was meaning to reply to your reply to Ivan, not to Ivan's
post directly... well anyway.) If I understand your question below, you
are asking a group of mystics to pontificate on whether the widely
accepted (albeit still tentative as are all scientific theories) picture
of the universe coming into existence in a "big bang" is correct versus
a model in which the universe already existed prior to its existence?
Is that what you mean by the phrase "One of us believed
that the big bang created the gases, the other that the gases
and air existed and collated into the dense masses needed
for a bing bang by the black hole. "?

Physicists very carefully avoid trying to extrapolate backwards to
before the singularity which is called the big bang. May I try to
clarify what I mean by this? As I understand the big bang theory, what
we observe in the universe today is something called a red shift, which
is thought to be caused by the Doppler effect. (yeah, some
clarification, huh? bear with me....) My Father used to enjoy startling
me by swinging his electric razor past my ear. Luckily I never lost any
of it, so once I calmed down, what I noticed (with prompting from Dad
the teacher) was that while the razor was moving alarmingly quickly
towards my ear, it sounded high pitched, and while it was moving away
from my ear, and I was recovering from first chakra activation, it
sounded lower pitched. Well the same thing happens with light, so that
things moving towards us have color that looks more blue (analogous to
higher pitched) and things that are moving away look more red. Well,
just about everything we see in the universe (stars, etc) look more red
than the would if standing still with respect to us) So, the "obvious"
conclusion is that the universe is expanding. (imaging a loaf of raisin
bread in the oven. As the bread rises, all of the raisins are moving
away from each other) Once this conclusion is reached, it is not too
surprising that physicists want to imagine runnning the "film"
backwards, and while you can imagine that the universe is a pretty big
place, if you run the film backwards long enough, without altering the
speed at which things are shrinking (because we are imagining the
expansion going backwards, remember), eventually they get really small
and disappear. Now that's as bold as physicists in general get. And
remember that we are talking about running the film backwards in our
mind's eye, but that's just to try to understand where we all came from,
and the universe is really running forwards, so it's expanding. So the
standard picture is that at some time in the past (still arguing about
when, of course), out of nothing suddenly something exploded and when I
say exploded, I really mean EXPLODED. It's thought to have been way hot
in the first seconds - way hotter than the sun, which is pretty warm.
In the early part of the universe it was so hot that only light existed
(according to the big bang model, of course) Then after some time, the
light cooled down and some of it became matter (gas - hydrogen to be
precise) which eventually cooled down enough to coalesce into big chunks
of hydrogen, called stars, in which all the other kinds of matter
(helium, oxygen, iron, etc) was created.

Okay, so now to your question. The Big bang model just talks about from
the explosion forward, so nothing into light into hydrogen, into the
universe as we see it today. But, many folks love to ask what will
happen in the future? This is an interesting question with 3 possible
answers. The answers depend on how much stuff there is. If there is
only a little stuff 9cosmicaly seaking of course), the universe just
keeps expanding, everything gets cold and the whole thing gets boring.
If there is precisely a specific amount of stuff, it basically does the
same thing, only the expansion gets slower and slower until it is
expanding so slowly that for all intents and purposes, we call it
static, but that's also cold and boring. If there is more than this
much stuff, at some point, the whole thing reverses and the universe
starts collapsing and then we can keep on running the film forward and
it will all collapse into a point. Some folks like to think that this
is what will happen and that this is what has already happened an
infinite number of times, so that the universe explodes into existence,
expands for awhile, creating all sorts of interesting life forms,
collapses back into nothing and then does it all over again. I like
this idea and I would propose we change the laws of physics each time it
explodes, kind of like turning the wheel on a kaleidescope, but who
knows for sure? I don't think even my hairdresser really knows...

Love, Mark

>
> Here's a question: In the manifestation - demanifestation
> as spoken of are we at Earth - Water - Fire - Air - Aether or
> Earth Water Air Fire Aether ? I had a lengthy discussion
> with a scientist~spiritual person tonight. One of us believed
> that the big bang created the gases, the other that the gases
> and air existed and collated into the dense masses needed
> for a bing bang by the black hole.
>
> So, what do you all think?
>
> van der ZeroZon going zzzzs as it's late :-)