Gaia: The Poet with the Soul of a Scientist - Incidental Stuff - A new calling.

Re: A new calling.

http://dbroadwell.gaia.com — Tue, 29 May 2007 02:51:18 GMT

I was never able to prove it, but in calculus, which saves me piles of algebra, i insisted upon there being both + and minus Infinity ... such that in a spherical log polar plane one can literally wrap around infinity. I'll make a picture sometime if I can it's tantilizingly pretty.

--

Science good, Spritiualism good. Together they do more than apart, as do we all.

Re: A new calling.

Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:06:24 GMT

Maybe personality is the illusion.

Re: A new calling.

http://etceterist.gaia.com — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:26:19 GMT

While this is in my clipboard:

“The laws of Nature are impersonal”. It's like Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s Church of the Apathetic Messiah in Sirens of Titan. Cosmically, nothing cares about me.

And I may be shaking my thunder stick at the sky here, but I'm gonna keep thinking too much about it. Devising my own interpretation of the data. It may be arrogance and it may be folly and the cognitive phenomenon I call me may have to do all this suffering over again because of it. I accept that.

The problem with ancient wisdom is that it's old. That doesn't negate its wisdom, though. It is inspired by Reality and thus has Truth. The aspects of maya that brought it forth are too different from me for the lies to translate well.

The probability of lost Truth resurfacing is 1, given time. Lies have a probability of resurfacing inversely proportional to their complexity. Lies are aberations, and lots of time doesn't help so much. This means an ornate lie, once forgotten, will probably never return. This also means that Truth, having a probability of 1, is the least complex thing.

So I ask questions. Statistically, some are beautiful.

What if infinity is the illusion?

Re: A new calling.

http://etceterist.gaia.com — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:07:08 GMT

I saw physicist Lee Smolin give a talk and he made the suggestion that at any point in history, whatever percentage of the population finds art inaccessible, that same percentage of the population finds science inaccessible.

Why is science so lonely? High school science is full of partial, confusing misconceptions inflicted upon id-driven hormone factories. University science is filled with "Spatiotemporal dynamics of RhoA activity in migrating cells" (to pick a letter to Nature magazine at random).

It's hard to have warm fuzzies in a clinical environment.

Lonely band of crusaders. I like that.

Re: A new calling.

http://Eves-Crossing.gaia.com — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:21:25 GMT

I have often been accused of reading too much nonfiction, something that started back in the late 1980's. I tend to read books and research subjects that are a bit on the "fringe" or things that the general public discovers years after I do. Perhaps because I am always searching for those small kernals of enlightened discovery, those "ah-ha" moments. I am sure it has much to do with my brain attempting to reconcile science with spirituality and phenomena. Why is science such a lonely subject?

I do not possess a college degree, although I am college educated, but my interest in what makes everything tick started at about age nine. Three husbands and four children later I am still searching for makes everything tick. Quantum Science has been the latest focus of my obssession, particularly in relation to our role in the evolution of the Universe. I feel like I am part of a lonely band of crusaders trying to wake everyone else up to the answers that science can provide in this crazy mixed up violent world we live in. There is no evil, no real wrong other than that which harms another intentionally, there is only free will and discovery. There is no end as with each new thing learned there is an exponential increase in more things to learn. This is my reason for living (next to my children and husband, of course). Discovery....what a beautiful adventure this life is.

A new calling.

http://etceterist.gaia.com — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:07:20 GMT

I was the first to enter Carl Sagan in the zBooks zone.

There are (as of this typing) 6 pods tagged with 'science' out of 845.

That's less than 1% of all existing pods having enough of a remote inclination towards the scientific paradigm to bother tagging it.

I find that fact shudderingly grim. Not surprising, but grim. Bookstores regularly have New Age sections significantly larger than their Science shelf.

Just because the scientific method has been what it has been doesn't mean a spiritual paradigm for the Twenty-First can ignore it, or the usefulness of its information.

So, rather than turn and run or sit and bitch or stand and pontificate, I'm going to do and transform.

Who's with me?