Re: Interesting...

[johnmcc@aldiscon.ie]

[Larry:]
> As I understand it, quantum events have no "real" effect at the
> macro level

Yep, I also understood the idea to be that while *some* sub-atomic
demonstrate quirky behaviour (like moving through 'solid' objects and
arriving before they left without passing GO and collecting $200) not
enough do this so that the effect can be seen on a macroscopic level ..
i.e. human experience level. This is what caught my eye about the
Cahill-Klinger theory .. to some extent their ideas back this up (well,
that how I read it anyway..) by saying that higher levels are built on
lower levels using statistical methods. So some properties, although
present and observable, are "stastically negligible" and don't show up.
It's certainly a nice elegant idea.

> Yes, I've read and studied most of the literature on the subject
> of Super-string theory (or so-called 'theory of everything'),
> and it appears to approximate (at times) the mystical speculations
> of a 'hidden reality' or 'other planes of existence'-type stuff.

I have to say offhand that I don't know much about string theory, but this
thread brought up an interesting idea in my mind .. are we judging some of
these concepts by the language used to express them? If I couch a
particular idea in certain terminology, does it become more valid? For
instance, something like:

"Matter, at a fundamental level, is not made up of particles, but of
regressive and progressive levels, each referenced to its neighbours
stastically, organized in a fractal-like structure."

  or

"We are part of a reality much bigger than ourselves, with many hidden
levels which are no less real than the ones we experience."

They're essentially pointing to the same thing, but does the technical
'explanation' (yeah, well..) make one right, and one .. 'less right' ?
Especially if I stick "and Jesus loves you" or "and Shiva will enlighten
you" at the end of the second one. In other words, maybe there are truths
to be found in unlikely places.

> On the otherhand, religion is a closed book, it's dogma
> rarely (if ever) open to questioning and revision.

Yep, and a pity .. I've often felt that there may be more to be gained from
understanding the questions than from the possible answer ..

[Michael:]
> i love monasteries............always great big rooms with lots of delay
> but quite often, not enough plugs

Yeah .. if they were so enlightened, they'd have known they need some more
power outlets .. ;-)

John