Jason, the example I gave is the best I can do. Think of the set of all integers: 1, 2, 3...Now think of the set of all positive integers: 2, 4, 6...Both sets are infinite. But the former is necessarily bigger than the latter since it contains the latter plus the negative integers.
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:28 PM, Jason <jedi_sp...@yahoo.com> wrote: What exactly do you mean by different sizes? infinity is an infinity. How do grok an infinity? Your answer puzzles me. Cantor himself went mad during his latter days, trying to resolve this issue. --- Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Jason, it's quite easy to grok different sizes of infinities. Think about all > the integers: 1, 2, 3...Now think about all the even integers: 2, 4, 6...Are > they not both infinite? Yet which is necessarily bigger?! Thus we have > different sizes of infinity! Kind of mind blowing. Yay! > > > > On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:15 AM, Jason <jedi_spock@...> wrote: > > > > > --- <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > Science moves on but pseudoscience does not. The Meissner > > effect currently requires very low temperatures (like > > -187°C) to work. This whole thing with the Meissner > > effect was an analogy. The attempt to explain (assuming it > > were true) meditators etc., doing a group program by using > > the analogy of the Meissner effect. Meditation etc., is a > > whole other system. If it has rules they are not the same > > rules as in low temperature superconducting physics. You > > are mistaking the use of an analogy for reality rather > > than noticing it as an attempt at an explanatory device. > > That the Meissner effect works in physics does not mean > > that its effects carry over into meditative systems. That > > would have to be demonstrated by whole other means, and > > this has not been done, not even close, in a way that > > would satisfy most scientists. Science does not even have > > any agreement as to what consciousness is. We intuitively > > have some sense of that, but defining it in a way that > > makes it scientifically respectable subject matter is > > something else altogether. > > > > > > People practicing spiritual techniques may go through > > many stages of experiential transformation in which the > > sense of what consciousness changes (you know, like TC, CC > > etc.) and it is difficult to get a handle on just what it > > going on from a scientific point of view. Frankly I think > > the mystery of conscious experience will never be solved > > scientifically even if we humans manage to make conscious > > machines someday. It is absolutely paradoxical. You can > > live the paradox, but an explanation that is really > > satisfactory may never come. > > > > One reason it looks paradoxical is because a lot of > philosophical positions seems to have some logical basis, > even if it's not complete logic. > > The phenomenon called "noise" in biology. When they tried to > clone animals, geneticaly identical clones manifested > differences in appearance. > > The enigmatic puzzle of the structure of the benzene > molecule. It has neither single bond nor double bond. A > highly advance mathematics is used to explain the half > bonds. > > And then, the wave-particle duality in physics. If you see > the wave, you don't see the particle. If you see the > particle, you can't see the wave. > > And then, Cantor's proof in mathematics that some infinities > are greater than some infinities, and Godels incompleteness > theorum. > > The paradox simply doesn't stop there. It goes all the way > to the Unified Field itself. It is silent and dynamic at > the same time, simultaneously. It's Shiva, empty void, > static, and yet it's Vishnu, totality, vibrant, full of > potentalities. > > As Paligap mentioned, Mysterianism rules.! > > > > > > > I have no objection to people learning to meditate or > > practicing their techniques in groups, but fraudulent > > explanations and rigged science is not in the end a means > > to truth. > > > > > > --- <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Anartaxius, Yes, we are talking history here and > > > what a crock you trot out here. Science moves on and > > > you are out of date with this old saw of an argument. > > > It was only valid in context of time. But time has > > > moved on. That guy is dead and long gone. Anartaxius, > > > did you happen to catch the interview John Hagelin gave > > > with Rick Archer. That had a very good summary update of > > > where science currently is with consciousness. See > > > Buddha at the Gas Pump, http://batgap.com/ > > > http://batgap.com/ > > > > > > > >Anartaxius writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > Heinz Rudolf Pagels, Ph.D. (1939-1988) Physicist. Was > > > > executive director and CEO of New York Academy of > > > > Sciences; President of the International League for > > > > Human Rights" > > > > > > > > "My summary opinion, as a theoretical physicist > > > > specializing in the area of quantum field theory, is > > > > that the views expressed in the literature issued by > > > > the Maharishi International University, and appearing > > > > in the "World Government News" and other publications > > > > associated with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi that purport > > > > to find a connection between the recent ideas of > > > > theoretical physics--unified field theory, the vacuum > > > > state and collective phenomena--and states of > > > > consciousness attained by transcendental meditation > > > > are false and profoundly misleading. No qualified > > > > physicist that I know would claim to find such a > > > > connection without knowingly committing fraud." > > > > > > > > "Individuals not trained professionally in modern > > > > physics could easily come to believe, on the basis of > > > > the presentations in the Maharishi literature, that a > > > > large number of qualified scientists agree with the > > > > purported connection between modern physics and > > > > meditation methods. Nothing could be further from the > > > > truth." "What was especially interesting to me, in > > > > reviewing this literature, is the claim put forth by > > > > the Maharishi and his followers, that transcendental > > > > meditation and 'The Science of Creative Intelligence' > > > > qualify as a science. Although the word 'science' is > > > > much abused, it continues to imply an adherent to > > > > logic, the clear presentation of assumptions and > > > > deductions, and the experimental method. Most > > > > importantly, any science necessarily contains a recipe > > > > for its own falsification. None of these central > > > > features of the Western concept of science are present > > > > in 'The Science of Creative Intelligence.' This is not > > > > science." > > > > [snip for brevity] > > > > > > > > . . end . . > > > > > > > > > > The Meissner-like Effect of consciousness > > > > > coherence, continued: > > > > > > > > > > 1978,, > > > > > Discovery of the Extended Maharishi Effect -square > > > > > root of one percent of the population practicing the > > > > > TM and TM-Sidhi program together in one place > > > > > produces coherence in collective consciousness > > > > > promoting positive and progressive trends in > > > > > society. Maharishi tests this formula by sending > > > > > Governors of the Age of Enlightenment to the most > > > > > troubled spots on earth to calm the violence and > > > > > turbulence. Again scientific research validates the > > > > > success of this program. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 12 January 1977 > > > > > >
