Mountain Man wrote:

FROM: BedRock UseNet Exchange in reponse to Norm...
nlynagh@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Norman Lynagh") wrote:

>> Albert Einstein said
>> "I shall never believe that god plays dice with the universe".
>>
>> Stephen Hawking said
>> "God not only plays dice with the universe, he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen."
>>
>> Norm said ...... Can you please correct these if necessary and date them.

These two statements are derived from two boys playing a little game
between their evolving mathematical mind and their given material
building blocks at the close of the second millennia AD.

Both sought/seek the fundamental expression of the nature of reality in
terms of their intellectually derived and mathematically constructed
frames of reference.

Both of these lads have failed to provide a general solution to the
classical three body problem of (celestial) gravitational mechanics.
Both of these lads, like Isaac before them failed to explain *EXACTLY
HOW* the relationship between the earth and the moon and the sun may be
expressed.

They simply reduced the celestial problem to two dice and a table top, in
some shady terrestrial hang-out and attempted to play dice against
Poincare's solution to the three body problem. They both may have won on
the day, but in retrospect, did they?

Albert refused to believe Poincare's "No Solution" solution, and Steve invented a black hole out of it.

I have carefully considered their quotes in this matter,
and have derived a more correct expression, in that,
what they should have said is the following ...

"If God played dice, then his dice would be the earth and the moon and the sun - and all that is therein."

This at least brings the cradle of life into the formulation. Without life,
the rest is purely intellectual speculation and maths games for the boys.

With LIFE in SCIENCE we could begin some real progress towards understanding the
nature of nature, but neither of the boys at the time were sufficiently
skilled in natural cunning, or in the ways of chaos, and thus, took it
personally, which is about par for a geocentric intellect.

I have made a correction to their statement as required, Norm.
Are there any questions about this correction?

Fred Flinstone.

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 95 23:46:11 -0800
From: Anthony Potts
To: sci.physics
Subject: Quanta and Consciousness

Anthony Potts wrote:
>
>
>On 20 Nov 1995, Mountain Man wrote:
>
>> sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti ) wrote:
>> >
>> >I suspect Mountain Man carries a loaded rifle in his
>> >pickup truck and goes to his local militia meetings
>> >regularly. :-)
>>
>>The only gun I carry is 6'9" long as was made by Simon Anderson.
>>I load it every morning with a little more surf wax before heading out at
>>dawn to shoot an hour or twos worth of waves.
>
>You don't know how jealous I am of you. Every morning I have to take my
>life in my hands and cross London by motorbike, before being bored out of
>my mind at work. I can just see those waves now, crashing onto a golden
>beach all day long.
>
>I guess that it was a mistake to ever watch point break really.
>
>When you are out there tomorrow, spare a thought for me siting in traffic
>trying desperately not to lose my mind and start a reampage of physical
>violence triggered by the fumes and the other idiots on the road.
>
>Anthony Potts

Date: Tue, 12 Dec 95 14:10:47 -0800
From: Mountain Man
Organization: Mountain Man Graphics, Australia
To: sci.physics
Subject: Consciousness for Robots (R2D2 thread) ......

>>>>
>>>>mentifex@scn.org (SCN User) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Consciousness is an epiphenomenon atop the substrate of the
>>>>>associative processing of incoming perceptions. The chain of
>>>>>associations is so lightning-fast and so manifold, that we
>>>>>perceive the chain itself as a phenomenon - an epiphenomenon.
>>>>>
>>>>>Consciousness is the associative awareness of self and of
>>>>>surroundings. Awareness, or associative remembrance of stimuli,
>>>>>automatically constitutes a mechanism of attention as the brain-
>>>>>mind selects for deeper scrutiny the associatively most evocative
>>>>>stimulus. When the brain-mind becomes aware of its own body,
>>>>>sensations and thoughts, it knows: "I think - therefore I am."

>>>In article <49mfkb$3vs@kettle.magna.com.au>, Mountain Man commented:
>>>>
>>>>Not quite correct ........
>>>>
>>>>Consciousness is better described as the associative awareness of
>>>>self and its natural faculties of the mind and the heart.
>>>>

>>to which ggarve@atl.com (Granite Garver) wrote:
>>>
>>>On Sci/Phy we usually speak in Scientific rather than Philosophical
>>>terms. The heart is more concerned with pumping than thinking.
>>>Even ancient man was conscience when he became aware of himself,
>>>his surroundings, and the concept of death. This was long before
>>>dissection, autopsies or the study of human anatomy. The heart and
>>>its function was still a mystery but that didn't mean he was not conscience.
>>>I have nothing against fantasies such as the "Wizard of Oz" but please,
>>>lets not confuse that with reality.
>>

>In article <4a7keq$naa@kettle.magna.com.au>, Mountain Man differs ...
>>
>>On the contrary, I believe it has everything to do with reality, and
>>will eventually be seen to be responsible for the "generation" of our more
>>fundamental assumptions about the world in general, and specifically its
>>definition as per the Physical Sciences.
>>
>>The heart was also the "ancient mind" and as such, must therefore give
>>rise to our "more ancient" reckonings ...
>>
>>One observation which is experimentally verifiable is that, if you were
>>to cease speaking voluntarily (ie: vow of silence) you would observe that
>>words (as such) do not originate in the intellect (ie: higher mind) but
>>in fact are derived from the heart.
>>
>>Mathematics has its place in the description of the world, but I would
>>consider that words have a more fundamental function in the same regard.
>>Maths theory is no good unless it can be communicated somehow.
>>
>>The heart may have been "precluded" in traditional physics, but with
>>the recent entry of science into the explanation of consciousness, there
>>will be very little progress made until it is acknowledged.
>>
>>And furthermore, who would like to draw the line between Science and
>>Philosophy on the basis of one printable word "heart" which has
>>everything to do with life itself. Perhaps the Physical Cosmos cannot be
>>entirely separated from life - to the chagrin of the traditional physical
>>scientist?
>>
>>If the universe is alive I for one would not want to approach it as the
>>Tin Man did when I know I have a heart. Quantum rumblings indicate the
>>remote feasibility of the universe having a mind .... why cannot it also
>>therefore have a heart and so be (terrestrially) complete?
>>
>>At least in this way we have (a priori) a natural spectrum of duality.
>>(Gravity - Light ...... Matter - Wave .... Certainty - Probability, etc)
>>
>>Perhaps, in its pumping, it provides a wave-guide for the mind.
>>
>>And finally, in the Cartesian separation of the mind and the heart we
>>have certainly come a long way down the path of delivering a
>>specification for the "physical universe", but there has been an
>>undisputed "blockage" of generic theoretical advancement at a
>>fundamental level. Perhaps it is thus time to have another look at this
>>primal duality in a living man - scientifically.
>>

GGARVE@corp.atl.com (Granite Garver) wrote:

>I must say, its obvious you have given this "Heart/Conscience" thing an
>awful lot of thought. Well, I don't have a PhD, but I do try and follow
>the latest theories on this matter. This is just a new one on me. But
>just as Penrose has concerned himself with the very difficult task of
>trying to explain this complex and intricate abstraction on a quantum
>level, many new ideas are surfacing about the nonalgorithmic nature of
>human thinking. His ideas though disputed by many, make a lot of
>sense to me. Like Galileo and Einstein he's ahead of his time. I will
>always yield cautiously to the possibility of other talents out there ready
>to express their ideas and change mainstream thinking. You included.

Peace, G.

Mountain Man's UseNet Archive Science, Dice and the Cosmos - Mountain Man
Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia in the Southern Summer of 1995