Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00264)

In a message dated 3/5/06 9:56:53 PM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes:
Hi Cass,

I guess you mean John Nash, the guy who came up with game theory, and was 
deemed a schizophrenic because he claimed he talked with Masters. :-) 

Anyway, you have me baffled.   I don't understand your reference to 
"Fibonacci rule" or Nash's game theory, and their connection with what I wrote below.   
Maybe you should quote the question or statement you're responding to, and 
then answer or comment on it. 

Also, if you want me to read a letter in response to what I wrote, it's not a 
good idea to change the subject.   My box is so full that I only respond to 
mail with my name in the subject line, a thread I started, one I responded to, 
or something that is pertinent to my scientific way of looking at theosophy -- 
like "NOT FIBONACCI </:-)>

Best wishes,
Len

> Hi Leon,
> Not the Fibonacci rule, but the one that the chap IN A BRILLIANT MIND was 
> given the Nobel Prize for.  Sorry can't recall the name at the moment.  
> Something to do with odds and evens.
> Cass
> 
> leonmaurer@aol.com wrote: Maybe, I should have written that last sentence of 
> mine below as...
> 
> > What can we Theosophists, Buddhists, Idealists, Realists, Freemasons, and
> > other scientist-philosophers under one label or another, who are also 
> atheists
> > (or anti religious in the common Judeo-Christian-Muslim sense) do to 
> further
> > spread broadcast this idea of a "scientifically and philosophically
> > intelligent" universe -- in the ordinary "language of this age"... That 
> sees God as
> > nothing more than the impersonal, fundamental cosmic consciousness
> > (awareness-will) and G-force (potential mass energy) underlying and 
> governing all forms
> > and radiant energies of nature, in perfect accord with the fundamental 
> cyclic
> > laws inherent in that original "spinergy"?
> >
> Is there anything wrong with thinking that the motive for all this evolution
> stuff could simply be to replicate itself in individual creatures with all 
> its
> inherent potential capabilities, just to see what happens?  
> 
> You've got to admit that would be one helluvan interesting and absorbing 
> trip
> -- just to watch, and maybe get a little wiser along the way. Everyone 
> learns
> from their mistakes, don't they? :-)
> 
> It's fun to imagine... That, when all those creatures evolve to the same
> condition or state of impersonal goodness as the one who dreamed them up in 
> the
> first place, and all that original flung out spin-energy that constitutes 
> the
> individual particles and forms of matter have run themselves down to zero in
> infinite space -- it can go back to sleep in its black hole singularity -- 
> and
> have just as much time to dream up a new system when it awakens in another 
> Big
> Bang and another, even greater loop de loop trip through infinite forms and
> infinite experiences.   WOW I can't wait to see and experience that one for
> myself... 
> 
> Also, when I come to think about it (just now after instant meditation on 
> all
> that) the universe really had no choice -- since it can only be governed by
> its own inherent nature -- which, being "no-thing" in essence (or Ein Soph 
> as
> the Kabbalists might say) can never change.   Wouldn't that mean that even 
> if
> there were an infinite number of parallel universes (as modern quantum
> cosmology speculates) they would still all have to be governed by the same 
> laws of
> nature?
> 
> Isn't that one for the books? ;-)
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> LHM
> 

> 
> In a message dated 3/1/06 6:35:02 PM, leonmaurer@aol.com writes:
> 
> 
> > In a message dated 3/1/06 2:37:57 PM, pabloreyes@hotmail.com writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > FASEB opposes using science classes to teach intelligent design,
> > creationism, and other non-scientific beliefs
> >
> > Editor's note:
> > The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB)
> > has issued a statement supporting evolution and opposing the teaching
> > of intelligent design and creationism in science classrooms.
> > Supported by volumes of scientific evidence in numerous fields,
> > evolution is among the most thoroughly tested theories in the
> > biological sciences. The FASEB statement affirms that intelligent
> > design and creationism are not science. These concepts fail to meet
> > the necessary requirements for legitimate scientific theories: they
> > are not based on direct observation or experimentation nor do they
> > generate testable predictions. The Federation believes allowing the
> > concepts of intelligent design and creationism into the science
> > curricula will ultimately impair science education. "Evolution is a
> > critical topic to science education and is the basis for
> > understanding biology and medicine," said FASEB President Bruce R.
> > Bistrian. "The scientific community must rise to the challenge of
> > defending science education against initiatives that push for the
> > teaching of creationism and intelligent design in classrooms," he
> > said. "To not do so would be a grave disservice to our nation's
> > students."
> >
> >
> > I guess that also includes theosophical metaphysics, ABC, and any other
> > scientific theory that might contradict evolution by random mutation and 
> natural
> > selection, or that the DNA code must be created by an intelligent 
> "mind"...
> > That could very well be, if the "scientific" laws of conservation of 
> energy
> > are valid, the Mind (Mahat) of the universe itself.
> >
> > See how Perry Marshall effectively refutes the above statements by FACEB, 
> as
> > well as all other theories of evolution based on scientific materialism --
> > using direct scientific proof that the DNA code had to have been devised 
> by an
> > intelligent mind -- without in any way claiming that such a Godlike Mind
> > justifies the separate personal God idea of the "Creationists."ï¿Å¨
> >
> > Language, DNA and Intelligent Design
> > http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis1.htmï¿Å¨
> >
> > Information Theory and DNA: Me vs. 30 Atheists
> > http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm
> >
> > What can we theosophists do to further spread broadcast this idea of a
> > "theosophically intelligent" universe in the "language of this age"?ï¿Å¨
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > LHM
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]