03-04-2009, 05:23 PM
Well, first, so far ass all this is concerned...
...I have to say that if you understand this well enough for it to be a fact for you, then that's great, but I don't, and so will not accept it until I can somehow understand it to be true. That may be impossible as I don't have a strong background in math and physics, but that's just the way it is with me. So, I'm trying to SEE, because knowing without seeing (as in realizing conceptually) is just memorization. Even if I were to accept it simply on the merit of who has advocated it, that wouldn't get me any closer to understanding it. That's my only goal here. Also I don't see a buddhist imploring you to accept axioms because he said so, I think that most would implore you to do the work in order for you to see it yourself, ie enlightenment.
Well, forgive me, but I feel it may take many more examples and illustrations before I can really picture the reversal of space and time, a vector of time and a scalar of space. That's a duzy for my imagination. I really do want to, though. The dream thing helps, I can sort of understand through my own experience with dreams how it is simply a very otherworldy type of experience, not following normal rules of time progression and spacial consistency and accuracy. Still, it is difficult.
Indeed I would say there is, as this may relate to archetypes. Which in some ways remind me of attractors. What do you think of the idea that t/s's tendency towards greater organization interacting with s/t may have something to do with not only the formation of life, but also attractors as well as archetypes?
Sorry, but I don't completely understand what you mean by this, which probably has more to do with the fact that I'm weak in physics than with your explanation. Are you saying that your velocity, in the first example, would be zero because you wound up where you started from? IF so, I don't really understand why zig-zagging down a street would make a whole lot of difference in that respect, especially since either way you are moving across a planet that is spinning, orbiting a sun that itself is orbiting a center of the galaxy, which is part of a universe that is expanding out in all directions...but I guess all that isn't taken in consideration and you're just trying to give an example I can understand (but in vain, haha).
Well, sorry I'm a bit slow with this kind of thing, and thanks for having patience. I do want to learn.
Quote:The Buddhist in me says to simply accept that which is. Does one understand why gravity is? Why men like sports? Why women like shopping? Why no one likes Dick Cheney (yes, we all love him, I know, but we don't have to like him, do we)?
...I have to say that if you understand this well enough for it to be a fact for you, then that's great, but I don't, and so will not accept it until I can somehow understand it to be true. That may be impossible as I don't have a strong background in math and physics, but that's just the way it is with me. So, I'm trying to SEE, because knowing without seeing (as in realizing conceptually) is just memorization. Even if I were to accept it simply on the merit of who has advocated it, that wouldn't get me any closer to understanding it. That's my only goal here. Also I don't see a buddhist imploring you to accept axioms because he said so, I think that most would implore you to do the work in order for you to see it yourself, ie enlightenment.
Well, forgive me, but I feel it may take many more examples and illustrations before I can really picture the reversal of space and time, a vector of time and a scalar of space. That's a duzy for my imagination. I really do want to, though. The dream thing helps, I can sort of understand through my own experience with dreams how it is simply a very otherworldy type of experience, not following normal rules of time progression and spacial consistency and accuracy. Still, it is difficult.
Quote:I also think that there is a common ground, of sorts, between the two, which is in the form of symbols or icons that can more completely transcend the translation. (There's room for a lot more discussion here)
Indeed I would say there is, as this may relate to archetypes. Which in some ways remind me of attractors. What do you think of the idea that t/s's tendency towards greater organization interacting with s/t may have something to do with not only the formation of life, but also attractors as well as archetypes?
Quote:Okay, movement, like speed (40mph) is scalar. Velocity, the vector, includes a direction, or displacement, parameter. If you drive at 40mph to and from work, your speed was 40mph, but your velocity was zero, since you had no net displacement. Similarly, if you travel down Lombard street in San Francisco (the notoriously crooked street going down the hill) at 25 mph, your velocity would only be about 8 mph because you'd waste a lot of motion moving left and right in the turns.
Sorry, but I don't completely understand what you mean by this, which probably has more to do with the fact that I'm weak in physics than with your explanation. Are you saying that your velocity, in the first example, would be zero because you wound up where you started from? IF so, I don't really understand why zig-zagging down a street would make a whole lot of difference in that respect, especially since either way you are moving across a planet that is spinning, orbiting a sun that itself is orbiting a center of the galaxy, which is part of a universe that is expanding out in all directions...but I guess all that isn't taken in consideration and you're just trying to give an example I can understand (but in vain, haha).
Well, sorry I'm a bit slow with this kind of thing, and thanks for having patience. I do want to learn.