tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8794705822085417527.post6835923679269341837..comments2017-12-01T20:13:16.684+11:00Comments on Pandemonium for dummies: The Guts and Toes of the Meaning of Lifemasterymisteryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844831221838590812noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8794705822085417527.post-67726836274933240252017-01-09T08:53:00.831+11:002017-01-09T08:53:00.831+11:00Hi Tim,
"Bohemian Gravity" -- highly en...Hi Tim,<br /><br />"Bohemian Gravity" -- highly entertaining! Utterly brilliant! Thanks so much!<br /><br />I think all living organisms are communities of organisms which themselves are communities of organisms. The material Universe is one such community, and a very large one it is too! But the material Universe herself lives as an organism inside another community of organisms: Reality as a whole.<br /><br />Re nested organisms (e.g. bacteria inside humans): Within the (eukaryotic) cells comprising humans and other animals are the "descendants" of (prokaryotic) bacteria that live inside the cell organelles such as mitochondria ... According to biologist Lyn Margulis. That seems to be a step beyond symbiosis: when the material substance of a living being is made up of other living beings.<br /><br />I believe the whole of Reality is alive, an actual organism or Person if you prefer, and that every organism is composed of "nested" "sub-organisms" much like matryoshka or "Russian dolls". <br /><br />We (language-users) created the word "Everything", and we established its meaning. So the meaning of "Everything" is axiomatic -- it doesn't flow as a consequence of something else; it is established "by fiat", by declaration, and therefore is not open to discussion or debate. The word means what the word-creator creates the word to mean. <br /><br />So for me, the statement that: " 'Everything' includes every thing, including the Real as well as the Unreal", is established as an incontrovertible axiom ("theorem" ?). And if you don't agree that the word "Everything" includes the Real as well as the Unreal, then I hereby create a new word, "Bongletude", which I define to mean every thing, including the Real and the Unreal. And from now on, all mentions of and references to "Everything" shall be taken to refer to "Bongletude".<br /><br />You hit the nail on the head referring to the issue of the interaction, if any, between Nothing and Everything. Clearly, "Nothing" isn't "Everything" but "Nothing" is "Nothing". <br /><br />But this comment is becoming overly long, so let me content myself with a short poem and a link:<br /><br />NOTHING IS WAITING<br />Nothing means something: it's a word, it's a thought <br />that likes to run free and never be caught. <br />Nothing means nothing but nothing itself.<br />Nothing is left alone on the shelf.<br />Everything means something, somewhere and somewhen.<br />That's why it's true, again and again<br />that nothing means nothing: no more to be said.<br />Every thing lives and nothing is dead.<br /><br />Here's the link: <br /><a href="http://cosmic-rapture.blogspot.com.au/2009/06/statements-about-nothing.html" rel="nofollow">sTATEMENTS aBOUT nOTHING</a><br /><br />Well, this has been a very long response to your original comment. Which I clearly found thought-provoking! Thanks.<br /><br />S.<br />masterymisteryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844831221838590812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8794705822085417527.post-61022088918249864292017-01-08T02:52:56.541+11:002017-01-08T02:52:56.541+11:00"...in living organisms" -- i recently r..."...in living organisms" -- i recently read that there are more non-human bacterial cells living in a human body than there are human cells.. so we are more communities of cells than distinct unique only-one-type-of-creature.<br /><br />Is Everything limited to 'things' real or unreal? Can NOTHINGNESS be considered part of everything? Can the CONTENTS OF THE NULL SET be part of everything or can we only hold on to the idea of the CONTENTS OF THE NULL SET.<br /><br />Back in 1975, in WU SHU class Master Sin The (pronounce 'tay') wrote ideogram names on our GI jackets ~ whatever we like. I asked him to write "Tree" - my dorm nick name due to my 2 meter tallness. He asked "do you mean real actual tree or the idea of a tree?"<br /><br />If you haven't heard this music, this song, I believe you will love it:<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rjbtsX7twc&list=RD2rjbtsX7twc<br /><br />acapella science - brilliant, isn't it?!<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04242662715764685396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8794705822085417527.post-59917403396494412112016-07-18T06:58:21.066+10:002016-07-18T06:58:21.066+10:00HI mgeorge, There should be a law that physicists ...HI mgeorge, There should be a law that physicists are required to add four words to the end of every statement they make: "as we know it". It's likely that dark energy comprises 69% of all mass energy, "a.w.k.i.". Thanks to Gene Roddenberry, the inventor of "Star Trek" for those immortal words from Spock's mouth: "It's life Jim, but not as we know it!" Thanks for your comments. masterymisteryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844831221838590812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8794705822085417527.post-14580396055188463662016-07-15T17:07:16.742+10:002016-07-15T17:07:16.742+10:00It gets even more weird:
A physicist who is also ...<br />It gets even more weird:<br /><br />A physicist who is also in cosmology noted the strong similarity of these:<br />- the separate "orbits" (tracks) of electrons around an atomic nucleus.<br />- the separate orbits of stars around the central black hole of our galaxy.<br /><br />Dark matter has been outclassed or outnumbered. The theorists now say it only makes up 26% (compared to 5% for garden-variety matter). The new Big Thing is dark energy which contributes 69% of the total energy (mass-energy) observed. mgeorgenoreply@blogger.com