>Is humanity about to face disaster? A conversation with Geoff Hasselhurst
>Geoff Hasselhurst is the owner of http://www.spaceandmotion.com, a popular philosophical & scientific site. The first few comments are a record of the conversation I’ve been having with Geoff this last week. We now want to open the conversation up to others so please feel free to chip in!
>I first introduced the site to Geoff, before asking 'what is information?' The word is banded about in scientific works but without any explanation of the actual concept. Where could I look to find an answer?
>Geoff: The problem you face is that humans are programmed machines – and they are programmed by things that are not true which makes them stupid and discussions a waste of time.Sorry if that sounds pessimistic / arrogant – but you need just observe the state of our world to see the collective insanity that drives it. What is information – Energy exchanges.How does this occur? Because every particle is really a wave center of a spherical standing wave. The spherical in waves carry information from the rest of the universe (the source of your sense of the external world).The energy exchange is due to waves travelling at different velocities for different wave amplitudes – so waves flowing in through other high wave amplitude wave centers travel faster (for same phase / like charges), thus there is an advancing of the in wave that relates to other matter in the universe – this is the source of information. No one knows this, because they have silly 'particle' foundations for their physics.
>I do indeed find your view a little pessimistic however. How do you define truth and reality? How do you verify what they are and share your knowledge without discussing it with other people? Much of what we base our knowledge on today comes from people who used pure logic to extrapolate basic scientific truths. Indeed by your logic, if humans are no more than programmed machines then what is the point in anything?Even if we are merely machines with fated actions based on previous causal events we still exist in this moment and so do our feelings. To exist is to be a machine but to feel is to live. If we are machines then we are machines. That knowledge has no great impact on what you are from the day before you knew to the day after. So it is still necessary to find our beliefs, and debate what else we should accept into those beliefs because it will still impact on the rest of your life. If we're all machines it simply means that we were meant to take those decisions. It is part of the scientific outlook to be open minded too. Even if you think you know everything you want to, you clearly feel a desire to share that knowledge with others otherwise you wouldn't have started your own site.
>Geoff: We are machines with limited free will. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Free-Will-Determinism.htm My depression comes from the fact of building this website – getting half a million page views a week – and discovering that humans are by and large oblivious to logic / reason.And this is going to cause billions of humans to die as the systems that support life on earth collapse.I assume this will likely be the cause of death of my children – and I am powerless to stop this insanity.Cause for depression don't you think. My experience of discussions – they are full of nonsense – people's opinions without any real knowledge. I see you had a link to an article on time travel – complete nonsense – but the masses love it. Along with big bangs and black holes and worm holes and all the other nonsense that masquerades as science. My work is now devoted to providing a foundation for humanity after the collapse.Not what I hoped for when i first studied physics and philosophy 20 years ago.
>No I do not think it is cause for depression. You seem very similar in outlook to one of my close friends. He believes that he would be much happier in life if he were ignorant. Yet these 'machines' you speak of contain subjective data. A knife is not innately bad or good. That verdict is made by people based on how other people use it. I believe information is much the same. You imply that based on your personal experience with people the human condition is innately stupid. Yet you do not think you are. Is this a contradiction or do you think that you are just a minority? If you're part of a certain percentage of people that can analyse logic/reason in the 'correct' manner and therefore make good choices for our future, can this percentage not change over time? There are many problems in the world today. For example there are more slaves than have ever existed in the history of mankind. There is also great poverty and deprivation. Yet statistics show that these figures are changing. Discussing these things helps us improve our perspectives and make better decisions in the future so that our children will not face the same conditions that depressed us, or will at least be better informed to face those events/decisions. The article you refer to about time travel was in fact written by myself. I am a complete scientific novice (I never studied anything other than what was compulsory up to the age of 16) yet I concluded that time travel was not possible and invited people with more knowledge to refute my answer so that I and others like me might be able to learn more. This is the purpose of my site. Part is because I like discussing these issues. But the main part, and I suspect the reason I like debating, is that I want to learn. However in order to have come to the conclusion that these things are nonsense I assume you have studied them in detail? If so then you too were suckered in by the subjects at some point. If not then you're being hypocritical. About the free will – determinism debate I agree with you in part. But I define the concepts slightly differently. I define determinism as things being caused by past occurences, but not necessarily by someone or thing in particular i.e. determined but not predictable. And I define free will as the ability of a life form to form a cognitive decision making process without external effects stopping that process (you could alter a persons' brain but this would only alter what they want to do, not whether they can do what they want (even hypnosis can't change what a person wants, it only makes them more suggestive)). People think that free will and determinism contradict each other but they do not by these definitions. Let's say that for example you're sat at a table with three plates in front of you. You have the free will to choose which you will eat from, but that free will is determined by your past choices, your predictions of what the consequences of your choice may be, the choices of others around you, your genetic make-up, tastes etc and also the effects of society e.g. you may think you look out of shape compared to some of the people you see on TV and therefore take the healthy choice. Your free will is absolute as you're able to make any choice. But the choice that you're going to make is determined by what has happened before you and what is happening at that moment. To say that there is not complete determinism is to say that some things are not caused. To say that we have no free will implies no cognitive decision making. Hence both must be true.
>Also, you say that free will is restrained by the laws of maths and science. If you define free will as the ability to actually do or enact anything you feel like then yes free will is limited by abilities. Yet you can still try to do anything you want. So I believe that although relative to ability free will is limited, it can still be considered absolute based solely on the human being acting within the laws of science & maths. You can take any decision you want to (despite the fact that your decisions are determined), but other factors may stop your actual actions. Likewise if you define determinism as something determined by something/someone then we must also conclude that determinism must be relative and therefore limited. But I do not think that because we live in an infinite universe that everything cannot be determined. I do not believe God determined everything. I do not believe it is possible to know how things will pan out in the future (unless you slow your bodys' rate of change by such a degree that you can see for yourself) despite the existence of 'spooky action at a distance'. However this does not mean that things are not determined. It just means they are not determined by something or someone. They simply are. I think that this maybe why you said Spinoza was mistaken too, for you defined the concept in a different manner. But perhaps I misunderstand. I have reached the conclusion I have through pure thought. If you would care to enlighten me then I would be glad to learn how I am wrong. Lastly, you speak of a collapse of humanity. I'd be interested in knowing what you're referring too, especially as you mention it will occur in the lifetime of your children.
>Geoff: It is logical that billions of humans will die as systems that support life on earth collapse and people kill and eat one another to avoid starvation. This depresses me. Are you aware that 70% of world's food comes from 14 plants and 5 animals controlled by 5 corporations, using toxic chemicals to produce. That global food production is now declining due to decreasing fertility of soil, while global population is exponentially growing still. Clean water is becoming scarcer, necessary for life / food production.This is insane – contrary to how evolution / ecology works.Further, there are 80,000 man made chemicals – no one knows the effects these will have on life, on the structure of the atmosphere, on the energy that the atmosphere allows to enter to earth.It is insane. Everywhere you look in society you see this same insanity and unsustainablity. It must collapse.Humans are machines programmed by our genes, environment and culture. With myths as the foundation of programming for pretty much all humans – well this is the cause of stupidity. I am less stupid since I know what matter is, I am aware of my stupid programmed nature and can thus minimise it to certain extent. But I am ultimately stupid. All humans are.The problem was stated by Plato – we must wipe the slate clean (get rid of myths) – but this is impossible. Plato knew this – 2,500 years later this is confirmed.Time is a human construct. Just like particles. Neither exist. There is the wave motion of space that causes matter and time. This is the first step in philosophy – to correctly define our language by connecting it to real things that exist. I spent 10 years studying physics philosophy and metaphysics – the people you will discuss this with have not done this – they will not understand how to use language correctly – they will talk nonsense. (I have run two forums -I know this from experience).To understand free will and determinism you must know physical reality – the source of truth. The page explains this – but you would need to read it and rest of main pages on site, then think about it for several years as your mind adjusts to this knowledge. This is because we are programmed machines. Next to no one will do this."But I do not think that because we live in an infinite universe that everything cannot be determined."Determine the motion of a planet around a star a billion billion billion billion light years away from us. Impossible. You can't even see it. An infinite system is not deterministic. Reality is necessarily connected – we have limited freedom, limited determinism.Thought alone is dangerous – it must be in conjunction with a correct understanding of physical reality (we have fanciful imaginations).We live at the end of exponential growth that has occurred for 10,000 years since invention of agriculture. Read Jarred Diamond – he writes that agriculture was the worst invention in human history. Why – because it is destroying nature and replacing it with a toxic system that is now poisoning us / life on earth. It is obvious it will collapse. The system is very fragile – and any city is only 24 hours away from anarchy as food supplies vanish.But because we are programmed machines most just think the world around them of modern society is normal and carry on (the slowly boiled frog syndrome).I am 50. When i was 30 I thought I could change the world. I now realise that the only force that will change human behavior is the force of nature, as it collapses. Just read the climategate nonsense.http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/ This is how science really functions. Depressing. Applies to physics too. CO2 is not the problem. Human over population, the massive destruction of nature and pollution of life is the problem. This is obvious. Yet next to no one thinks this. Why? Because humans are stupid programmed machines.
>The majority of Americans don't even accept Darwinian evolution – 70% of them are overweight, while billions go hungry, they watch an average of 8 hours television full of crap (like their food). It is depressing, as it is their overconsumption, mirrored in western society, that is destroying our future. It is frustrating as with correct knowledge foundations humans could live in beautiful harmony with Nature.This may happen in the distant future – but first there will be a collapse – I assume billions will die (James Lovelock, who develop Gaia theory, thinks the same way – yet is ignored). Sad but true. If you pursue truth then you must read the evolution and ecology of knowledge first – in physics philosophy and metaphysics – from the ancients to now. Then you will understand that human stupidity has been around all the time – my children, all our children, are going to reap its fruits – and they will be bitter indeed. PS – These two pages have been re-written recently and are better than most, explain the basics. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/metaphysics.htmhttp://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical-physics/logic-truth-reality.htm
>I can't help but compare you based on what you've said to religious man prophesizing about the future. Yes they're are huge problems. Much of the decision making world is aware of them. But to say that we are doomed to let our greed and stupidity doom our planet and species seems highly pessimistic. Perhaps the worst will come to fruition. But we may still be able to change things. In other words we have no scientific proof either way. The only sensible thing is therefore to educate people about what is happening and try as best as we can to encourage better decision making in the future. Looking through the eyes of a historian our society is in fact changing very rapidly to the effects of environmental change. Environmental ethics are very quickly becoming moral norms when most other new moral codes took centuries to gain a grip. All humanity is stupid? Isn't intelligence relative? How can you say the most intelligent beings we know of are stupid? Perhaps what you mean is that we are not intelligent enough to avoid the natural disasters that are likely to come? That is completely subjective. Personally I think we have already made very intelligent advances in finding out about the world in which we live, as well as discovering new technologies and means by which we can avoid harming and even help the planet stabilize at an equlibrium able to comfortably support existing life. I agree that "the first step in philosophy – [is] to correctly define our language by connecting it to real things that exist". So what do you mean by time? Clearly you accept that some definitions of time exist otherwise you would not be changing. If you were not changing you would not be reading this right now. With regards to the determinism debate you seem to have misunderstood my point. I do not think it is possible to predict the actions of all things. But this does not mean things are not caused. Scientists and mathematicians often make the mistake of assuming that if only they can find a formula then they can find the answers to all relating subjects. This is not so. There are certain equations in mathematics that cannot be worked out. In fact all numbers have billions of digits and therefore we have no direct evidence of for how they behave. A man named Alexander Yessenin-Volpin claimed that because we have no experience of large numbers we cannot know they behave consistently or even exist at all. But pretty much everyone accepts the commonly presumed knowledge about these numbers nonetheless. The same is the case for reality. Of course I could be proven wrong, but every piece of knowledge I have so far leads me to conclude that everything is connected, and everything is caused. In my opinion there is nothing which is random. I know of certain supposed random ocurences but in all honestly how much do we know of these things? It is far more likely to presume that we do not know how they are caused than to presume that they completely disobey the laws of science and pop into existence. Therefore if everything is 100% caused by other things then everything is determined, and I state the dictionary definition of this word: "human choice is decided by part events". This does not mean that I can determine what something will be. But it does mean that that something will come to be, for the infinte chain of causal connections are already at work.
>You really are pessimistic. Regarding your comment about 10,000 years of growth, actually this is not true. Economic growth has only really been occuring since the industrial revolution. For most of history prior to this economic growth came in spurts in localised regions. Indeed one of the major reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire was that it did not know how to grow. Businesses did not invest in capital or new technologies, despite the fact that many were invented. For someone who believes that humans are unable to determines what will happen in the future you seem very certain of an apocolyptic future for which you have almost no proof. You say that you think the only thing able to change human behaviour is nature. But what is nature if not that which is natural? And what are humans if not a natural life form? We ourselves are part of the nature that can shape human behaviour. Have you never had your mind changed about something before? Of course we tend to stick to our viewpoints more and more as we get older, hence why it is easier for children to change their minds. But nevertheless viewpoints can be changed, as can decisions. About environmental change you say that it is obvious human overcrowding and pollution is the problem. Yet the proof I have seen is not as conclusive. Indeed this is a topic which I believe needs a lot more research and debate. People refuse to read the arguments of the sceptics because they seem to refuse common sense. Yet we refuse sense too in not opening our minds to all possible arguments. For instance it has been pointed out that for most of history it was not CO2 that came before temperature changes but rather the other way around. It has also been pointed out that while the ground temperature has been rising the temperature in the subtroposphere has not left its normal pattern. This, combined with the current Siberian conditions affecting almost the entire northern hemisphere implies a magnetic fluctuation in the Earth's core. I am not saying this is the problem, rather that it is food for thought.
>Geoff: Your reply shows this problem we humans have, as you have misunderstood several point I made. This is neither of our faults, but the feeble nature of our minds and the difficulties of language. True- Nature is very complex and hard to predict. But over past 30 years of my life I have come to this conclusion. Not from a closed mind, but an open skeptical mind that genuinely seeks the truth. I am a natural philosopher (in the classical sense). I do take truth seriously and carefully. "Environmental ethics are very quickly becoming moral norms when most other new moral codes took centuries to gain a grip." Yes. But did you read the climategate article. We focus on one trivial thing and ignore the other ten thousand profound problems. This relates mass hysteria which is part of human nature. And we are not good at science – humans form emotional beliefs first then find the science to justify it – bad science! This is also true in physics.Most of my knowledge is on site – albeit some not written very well yet. So what do you mean by time? If you search site you find this page. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Time.htm "With regards to the determinism debate you seem to have misunderstood my point. I do not think it is possible to predict the actions of all things. But this does not mean things are not caused." This is my exact point – reality is necessarily connected (causal) but not deterministic as it is part of an infinite system. Please re-read the article.http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Free-Will-Determinism.htm People confuse determinism with causation.I think you need to do a lot more research. And I can determine the future motion of the earth about the sun – but it is not strictly deterministic as I can't do this for ever, i.e. in 10 billion years I don't know its motions. Your arguments above are not a genuine seeking of truth – they are grasping at things to win an argument. This is common to most humans. "About environmental change you say that it is obvious human overcrowding and pollution is the problem. Yet the proof I have seen is not as conclusive." Exactly – just like most humans you assume your ignorance is truth. I wonder how old you are, how much of the world you have seen, whether you have spent 20 years living in Nature and understand it, seen that the small remnants of nature are dying and ecologically unsustainable, aware of the billions of tonnes of topsoil that erode off every continent into the rivers and oceans at millions of times the rate they formed, seen the use of chemicals and genetic modification / specialisation that is contrary to evolution / ecology. You are confusing global warming (probably not true – too complex to predict) with climate change (clearly true, logical consequence of changing life on earth, adding 80,000 chemicals). I know what humans are like – I have taken time with you as you seem nice and smarter than most. But it takes years / decades to change how our minds think. I hope that I have added some seeds that one day may blossom into beautiful (true) thoughts that will help humanity. And do not think I am a religious fanatic! I am just very logical / scientific and I have not had to work for 20 years so have read a great deal – while living isolated in Nature. Combined with the fact that I spend half of each day replying to people at the moment – wears me down – so I tend to be abrupt. (And I am not planning on doing this for much longer!)
>First off. I like Geoff Haselhurst (youve spelled his name werong btw – only one s). He sounds like a character from one of Michael Critchons books.Second, I completely agree that having discussions with people who have unfounded beliefs which they confuse with truth is a complete waste of time (unfortunatley this is most people, having mene infected by memes (ideas which spread like a virus).Third, people like Haselhust are the exeption to the rule, and should leed the way, based on a foundation of philosophy and science (with a little secretarial job in it for me of course).Fourth, systems ending doesn't neccesarily depress me – Indeed paradigm shifts are part of the natural order of things, (and also, most people will desrve it anyway).Fifth, people shouldn't mistake the end of humanity for the end of the world. we believe we have the power to destroy all life – no, just our own species. When i was 30 I thought I could change the world. I now realise that the only force that will change human behavior is the force of nature, as it collapses.ps I hope Haselhurst reads this.
>pps. I wonder, If haselhurst is as pessemistic/intelligent as my goodself 🙂 Then why would he choose to reproduce?
>scratch that last comment. Ive been doing some background reading and there is a glimmer of hop in his articles. One thing that does interest me thought, is that Geoff claims to like simplicity and precision (it is therefore easy to see why he like physics) however nature is extremely complex, and judging by the way human beings have turned out, certainly not precise. Just a thought.
>Hi Robin,Yes I read your comments – and appreciate them. Thank you.I just sent this article to my 14 year old daughter (from first marriage).This is why I work – to help protect my children with truth – and to help protect life on earth in general.Reality is simple – just one substance, space, exists. Just wave motions of space that form matter / cause time.Reality is mind bogglingly complex – each wave center formed from the out waves of around a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion other wave centers (All other matter in our Hubble sphere / observable universe within infinite space).Why do I re-produce. Well my genes are probably useful to the future of humanity, and my partner wants to have children, and having children is the most beautiful profound experience we can have.I hope to teach then how to survive assuming a collapse will come.I live on 650 acres of bush – we are slowly learning to be self sufficient.I am also slowly writing up principles / policies for a political party. You are welcome to comment on page.http://www.spaceandmotion.com/political-party/introduction.htmGood luck with your forum – you have some good ideas here.Cheers,Geoff
>Ok the next few comments are from a conversation I had with Robin based on this conversation:I asked him what he thought about Geoff…
>On some topics he holds very similar views to me. It is also clear that he has spent a lot of time researching. However i would say i have differing opinions which I believe to have more validity.He seems adamant that there will be a great 'collapse' in society – and he says his one goal is to secure a society afterwards for his children. This seems a little preachy to me, and of course, if he didnt have kids i wonder if he would be so focused…The other point (icant find it) was what he said about morals.
>I don't think I can agree that information IS energy exchanges. No doubt information involves some activity and therefore energy, but information does not necessarily involve EXCHANGE. Moreover, 'information' is not, by itself, necessarily energetic or active. In other words the proposed definition is confounding and unhelpful – even misleading. I would prefer a definition like: Information is facts combined in a meaningful structure i.e. facts in formation. (As opposed to data – i.e. facts not combined in meaningful formation).
>Yes he's definitely spent a lot of time in study. There's some really good stuff on his website. But (no offence intended if you read this Geoff) that some of his views are clouded by arrogance. On science and philosophy he has clearly read a great deal. But on the link he posted on his last comment he says that he should be made a philosopher King (Plato's reccomendations for those who don't know), after the great disaster that he is sure is going to happen.Generally reading such a thing would make one think it was a joke. But it's taken seriously!
>Robin: He is arrogant – but if you know better than other people then perhaps he has a right to be arrogant.
>Reaching political and social implications based on science and philosophy is obviously right up my street. But I don't think he does know more about politics then anyone else.
>I imagine he tires of having the same conversation with different people and getting knowwhere (i know how that feels after just 5 years)
>Yeah – it seems on a par with religion to me
>Perhaps our criticisms are just a healthy confirmation that everyone really is arrogant and that most people think they know better than others?Perhaps it's because we're all different and we're selecting certain truths that apply best to ourselves and then trying to extrapolate onto other people, who knows.
>I read an article somewhere that everyone has different opinions, goals, religions etc – (i mean there are hundreded of different religions) and every person is trying to push there opinions onto the people around them contantly – the was a simulation of a map of the world, and the coloured dots on it represent ideas – and over the years they expand and contract contsantly – and it made me think 'whats the point?'
>Haha. Now that is exactly why politics needs to have politicians!
>Well yeah – just cos somethings finite, doesnt make it meaningless.
>You know I listened to a podcast the other day. It gives people 60 seconds to say new ideas for reform. A philosopher said that he thought all cars and all roads should be destroyed.He had a phd, many years of experience and much respect in the academic community. Yet the idea is bloody lunacy! If philosophers want to get into politics then they should first learn about the political and economic ramifications of their suggestions.
>maybe they should it would mean nothing works for a while but in the long term who knows?And although you're right that people coming into politics should first learn about politics and economics i think all politicians should study philosophy too.
>It would mean a bloodbath and severe depression around the world, exactly what the 'educated people' are supposed to avoid.Althoug true on the last point, but then I would agree because I already have studied philosophy, politics and economics.
>i think philosophy gives politicians a wider picture.
>I can actually sympathize though. I'm being bombarded with suggestions about what else I should study at the moment, from religious people that I should read the Koran and Bible, from aetheists, their texts, from scientists theirs, for my French lessons french things, for my economics Masters economics stuff.And what's more it's all relevant. Everything would help me, just as everything would help leaders.
>Right – i don't think philosophy is practical – because as Geoff says, people wont change until nature forces them too. But it is a subject that transcends all other subjects.For example politics and the environment – all the money wasted on 'coaxing' people to be green – eventually people will realize it was all a waste of time because the government will have to use force.
>You say that philosophy transcends all other subjects, and you're right. But wouldn't a religous man, a linguist, a scientist, a politician, a historian etc all say the same?Though about the last point you're wrong and this is why Geoff needs to study political and social academia before he gets into politics.
>Yes – religion would also transcend (if it was right).
>Throughout history governments who have forced change have struggled. Governments who have followed change have been replaced. The thing is that, if I take a reductionist structuralist approach for simplification, there is a state structure, a social structure, an international structure etcAll these parts change all the time. To avoid war and conflict they need to change in sync and respond to one another.
>aha – and that takes time
>But with the environmental case things have moved faster than in most other areas of change. In fact much of the change has occured from bottom up.
>I've just decided that politics is 'focused philosophy'.
>Well there's an overlap between all disciplines I suppose.
>It focuses on certain areas (and neccesarily gets 'lost' in the depth).
>True. I think that's why people get so annoyed and dissolusioned by the petty arguments in the House of Commons.
>Geoff, your comments make me remember Arthur Koestler towards the end … shortly before he pulled the plug.I'm not a scientist, or a philosopher. I'm an engineer. I've spent many years guiding new products from idea to implementation. Presently I'm pursuing a masters degree in an area of neurology and for the first time in my life I am experiencing some de-mystication.In each area of my present studies, I am marveling at the design of the human being. Again and again, in the human design, I observe evidence of the same methods engineers use to develop new products. I observe the same methodologies in design, the same strategies for compromise to resolve specification conflicts, the same strategies of prototyping for design improvement and enhancement, the same kinds of approaches for achieving reliability and performance targets. Sure the technology and materials are quite unique – but the design approach is generic.No reasonably observant person can condemn Evolution as a process by which subsequent changes occur, but only the lunatic fringe induces that, because it happens sometimes, it is the full and only explanation for the way we are. Only an equally lunatic fringe maintains the only possible alternative to Evolution relies on a powerful, invisible, jealous, psychopathic and schizophrenic super humanoid, who delights by creating tragedy interlaced with moments of trivial glee in our individual lives. From my mountain top, I can see that ideological donkeys graze the narrow plains of human thought whereever people congregate to wonder and resolve the questions of what is right, what is true and what is best. Both parsons and scientists get paid to pontificate. Most join their professions years before the begin to gain any wisdom. Most allow themselves to fall vulnerable to conflicting vested interests. Both guide the masses who mass education has taught to follow faithfully, as a mass.In the end though, we are all deluded in most of our values and therefore in most of our learning and preaching efforts. As Geoff has observed (well I think) we are devices. We consume resources, move around and puzzle, because we have just enough intellectual capacity to wonder. However, as the device, neither as designer nor operator, we can't ever know either our designers or their purposes for us. We ought not therefore become too dogmatic about much at all. Nor should we become depressed that we cannot orchestrate futures or functions that were not scoped in our specification. Perhaps we can just be sad, or just be content, that we cannot know or change our long term destinies. If you work on a factory line you do not know what the Board of the company discusses. If you are a human being you take the tasks before you and perform them with one degree or another of competence. Whether a factory worker, or a citizen, or a refugee, our only prayer ought to be for more competent management. Maybe, just by hoping and praying, we might be able to pile up a sufficiently powerful wave to pop up an exception report on an unseen screen in some remote control center causing our "bosses' to notice our plight and perform some adjustments to our specifications and some enhancements to our design.
>hoping and praying won't accomplish anything – and we don't use the word 'design' when discussing nature – it's simply not cricket is it. But it's nice to get a response from an enjineers point of view – most of it I find interesting 🙂
>I read your comments. You have a nice group of people here – I do hope that you can grow this into a high quality discussion group.Just a few comments;Philosophy is unique amongst all subjects because it is the study of truth (and wisdom from this truth). And truth applies to all subjects!"I don't think I can agree that information IS energy exchanges." (Christy)You need to think about this more carefully – this is a common error in discussions – we read – it triggers a response from our mind based upon our pre-existing knowledge – we reply.You need to stop and think for a while – our minds are generally not capable of understanding new knowledge instantly.You will find that for any information there is an exchange of energy – any thought, any communication, any storage of data – all require an energy exchange. WSM explains how this is possible – by explaining how matter is connected across the observable universe (yes – you are all universal wave structures of space)."I imagine he tires of having the same conversation with different people and getting knowwhere (i know how that feels after just 5 years)"Yes – It is depressing.Here is an example – at the philosophy forum. There I am a liar, here I am simply arrogant (smile).http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/wave-structure-of-matter-38539.htmlThe truth is I am neither – I am a natural philosopher – just a bit busy and abrupt at times – I do mean well.But it is why I do not join most forums / discussions (I do use facebook).Finally – To have a good forum all members must be committed to seeking the truth – not just parroting their existing knowledge / beliefs.This is never easy."When the world ceases to be the scene of our personal hopes and wishes, when we face it as free beings admiring, asking and observing, then we enter the realm of art and science" (Albert Einstein)Everyone should read Einstein – truly brilliant and inspiring. This is also partly why I am convinced of the collapse – as Einstein predicted it in 1930 and things are much worse now – yet his wisdom alone would have solved most problems we face."We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive." (Albert Einstein, around 1930)"Communities tend to be guided less than individuals by conscience and a sense of responsibility. How much misery does this fact cause mankind! It is the source of wars and every kind of oppression, which fill the earth with pain, sighs and bitterness." (Albert Einstein, 1934)http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Albert-Einstein-Quotes.htmMy sincere best wishes to you all – it is your generation that inherits these problems – that must somehow deal with them.Truth and reality are the only solution (be wary of post-modernism!).Cosmic cheers,Geoff
>So what's the evidence for information being energy then? How was that conclusion reached and by who?
>I didn't mean that to sound quite so blunt by the way. Just wanted to have a look at the evidence.
>I am curious to know why the posts stopped on January 19th..the number (1) signifies beginnings and the (9) signifies endings..it is the beginning of the end of these very interesting comments..??"nothing real can be threatened and nothing unreal exists" ….Course in Miracles???