huesdens,
I have cut and pasted this response to the same subject in a discussion on another boatd. This coment was posted by a member with the board name "Thinknot". It to me is as about as clear as one can get on this issue.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>It has been very interesting to watch this discussion so far. Thanks. Call it "much ado about nothing", maybe?
A few observations and thoughts:
* Logic and words are often inadequate when talking about abstractions that are too many steps removed from our sensory-based reality
* Mathematics can be the "blind man's stick" that we use to "feel" the parts of the universe that lie beyond our sensory perceptions
* But we need to realize that the blind man's stick may not always explain everything. There is an interesting fable "The blind men of Hindustan" (See
duke.usask.ca/~eppw/misc/prose/hinustan.htm
) that is a useful analogy for explaining what can go wrong when we perceive things through indirect means
* Not that the math is necessarily wrong. But if we need to translate the math to a form intelligible to human understanding. It would be good to resist translating things just for the sake of translating. If we cannot explain something using formal logic and words, it should be acceptable to simply point to the math and indicate that there is no translation available - at least none that requires the mind to stretch to fantasy
* In the case of some people, based on their knowledge of the math and extreme familiarity with related and needed complex concepts (like Mr. Hawking), it may be possible that they have a perception into some of this more than the average person's perception ... but their ability to perceive does not translate into ours, any more than any religious leader's ideology should
* The inability of science to articulate math in a sensory way should certainly not in any way, shape or form indicate the existence of spirits, demons and gods
* It doesn't help the cause of science for scientists to defend logic- and word-based articulations of math-based theories (like 11 dimensions, or "nothingness"). It's acceptable to use analogies and such, but it'd be worth pointing out that those are only a way to get a blind-person's grasp on the reality that seems to be indicated at this point in the evolution of scientific thinking. Scientists often do point these things out, but often get sucked into the trap of defending indefensible things with some prodding
* In the end, for most lay people who are one step removed from complex scientific endeavor, it comes down to whether to believe in what Mr. Feynman, Mr. Hawking and such believe ... or the beliefs of religionists. And whether there is at all a necessity to believe implicitly in either, for our day-to-day existence. As a starting point for my intellectual ruminations on the world, I'd easily pick Mr. Hawking over the Pope. And if I were on a sinking ship, and had the choice of trusting Einstein's theory of relativity or the Buddha's beliefs, my adrenalin would have me choose Mr. Einstein any day. </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
With regard to your links. I scanned the firt one and look briefly at those areas that were highlighted. Frankly I was not impressed. It appears to be a bunch of high toned talk with little meaning to the physical issue at hand. Statments about "IF rocks or magnets were conscious is totally off the wall". If there is anything in there of value one would have to suffer through jpages of gibberish to find it. I am not inclined to do that. Sorry.
"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
