Or as Hui Neng said: "From the first, there is nothing."
P.
At 11:37 AM 2/25/2007, you wrote:
Paul wrote:
"A poll of 72 leading physicists conducted by the American
researcher David Raub in 1995 and published in the French
periodical Sciences et Avenir in January 1998 recorded that nearly
60% thought many worlds interpretation was 'true'."
Despite "true" being a loaded-word, if there ever was one <g> there
is really no other way to scientifically explain how the so-called
"stochastic process" seems to deviate from true randomness - yet
always to deviate "as if" it were goal-oriented.
Now...how is that sentence sounding for being able to totally
disguise the "true" limits of "ID" (and were are not talking Freud here)?
Jones
BTW the "stochastic process" for those who follow this kind of thing
in the biological minutiae of life (and given the weekly timing)...
and further assuming that you wish to discover the hint of
spirituality which is present in Richard Dawkins writings, and which
reconciles that seemingly godless outlook with the blatant
spirititual overtones of Rupert Sheldrake .... well, it (the
"stochastic process") is as close to putting a name on divinity as
science allows, without resorting to "faith".
And if that phrasing is not confusing enough, let me add simply that
it is far from a clinical outlook and in fact is very comforting -
to those who have gotten a handle of the concept of "timelessness"....
