Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00063)

HI All -

Below is a cut and paste of a conversation I am have ing on USENET -
comments greatly appreciated.
Namaste

Nos

"The Omniscient Blade" <blade@mysanctuary.con> wrote in message
news:994635351.28721.0.nnrp-14.c1eded33@news.demon.co.uk...> 
> "nos" <nos@granite.net.au> wrote in message
> news:el027.42$Az2.3800@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> <snip>
> > > > Reality springs into being only when we observe it. Otherwise it
> exists
> > in
> > > a
> > > > superposition state like the electron that passes through the
'two
> > holes'
> > > in
> > > > the well know test.
> > >
> > > All of reality is at any given moment in one actual state unless
you
> have
> > > something that is able to change state without any time passing.
It
> > doesn't
> > > matter that you don't know what that state is, it is still there.
> > >
> > > >Even the reality of the macroscopic world does not have
> > > > objectivity until we observe it
> > >
> > > You think we give it objectivity? No, all observing it does it
allow us
> to
> > > make subjective interpretations of it.
> > >
> > > >This is what I get from Heisenberg and
> > > > Schrodinger.
> > >
> > > These are only models for things that change so fast you can never
> observe
> > > an actual state in any meaningful way and that the fact that
actual
> > > observing something changes its state anyhow. An electron for
instance
> has
> > > many attributes, but try and look at what a given electron is
doing at
> > > anyone time and even if you get the data, its already wrong
because
> > actually
> > > looking at it made it change. Its currently impossible to observe
an
> > > electrons states yet they still exist.
> >
> > As a probability wave.
> 
> Thats only how we describe its behaviour. We can't actually look at it
and
> say what it is because doing so alters it. Mathematics can give a good
> description of what its expected to be like, its expected to be a
point like
> object with no real 3D characteristics as we would normally think of
them.
> Its actually a long time since I did anything about the nature of
electrons
> though.
> 
> <snip>
> > > > Theosophy as well as Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that The
universe
> has
> > > > been created and destroyed countless times. Every thing in the
natural
> > > > universe is cyclical including the universe itself. Therefore
before
> > this
> > > > big bang was a big crunch or as loosely translated from the
sanskrit
> 'be
> > > > with us days' when all monads return to the source.
> > >
> > > Well that's in direct contradiction of what evidence suggests is
the
> > actual
> > > case, that the universe will exist perpetually expanding and will
> > eventually
> > > suffer heat death where all energy is too dissipated to do
anything
> useful
> > > with.
> > >
> >
> > How do you define heat death - absolute zero ?
> 
> Heat death is where you have such a low energy density that it can no
longer
> be used to do useful work. You won't get stars and such so no more
light and
> forget things being able to live.
> 
> >
> > If you had some amount of energy to start with - x - even if you
divide it
> > by inifinte space you still dont get zero - you only approach it.
> 
> Actually any divide by infinity calculation gives exactly 0, but since
you
> can never actually reach an infinite volume (unless space can be
calculated
> by a divide by 0 calculation) you can never actually get absolute 0
which
> amounts to a 0 energy state.
> 
> >
> > maybe we live on the asymptote?
> >
> > How much energy did the universe start with?
> 
> Zero in most models actually so that the universe itself obeys the
2LOT.
> 
> >
> > where does used energy go?
> 
> It doesn't "go" anywhere because its never really used, just
dissipated to
> do work. As such it just gets spread around.
> 
> --
> Blade ICQ#27537648
> 
> Comparing religion to science is like comparing a molehill to a
mountain!
> 
> Change .con to demon<dot>co<dot>uk to send mail.
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]