Re: Old Man ....Re: The end ......?

From: mitch perkins (mitchsperkins_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/27/04 

Date: 26 Oct 2004 22:02:58 -0700

"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message news:<%Hyfd.7956$KJ6.2118@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > >
> [hanson]
> > > I wish I could see more and deeper, but these fucken things
> > > have a habit to reveal themselves at their own pace.
> >
> [Mitch]
> > Said pace perhaps being proportional to the rate of our collective
> > ability to perceive? Ooops, hat has fallen in front of mouth again!
> >
> [hanson]
> I don't know, much less whether it is proportional....ahahahaha...
> I often ask my self where-from and when does new knowledge
> appear.......ahahaha.... Some swear, it appears the moment you
> take a *** and pay concentrated attention, others insist that it
> comes when you pray and meditate in a state of being "one with
> the universe"...but neither one, nor its combo with all its variations
> has done it for me.....I can't even remember how it happened,
> except that it may have occurred after a great, exhaustive ***,
> day dreaming...and giving a *** about everything....ahahahahah....

  Anthropically speaking, and as a devout Tautologist, I propose that
new knowledge appears at the exact moment when all required
combinations of events have been satisfied for a particular piece of
new knowledge to appear. You can't argue with that, or you can.
> >
> [hanson]
> > > However, I am glad to see that a few deep thinkers like you,
> > > to take interest in that particular line of inquiry.
> >
> [Mitch]
> > Interest in my case may far outstrip ability to grasp, hence the
> > re-reads of your post.
> >
> [hanson]
> Yeah, most of us are like that. But consider if the interest, our
> nosiness, wouldn't be there as the prime motivator then why go
> thru the pain of grasping. I think the joy and excitement in trying
> to grasp is generating a feed back to/of/for interest & once one
> gets into that cycle one becomes manic about it. And that to me
> is the payoff. Whether it will produce result is a secondary issue.
> You have seen such manic behavior posted by Al in his Eotvoes
> gig.....ahahaha.... but, I am mindful of the fact that the millions
> of professionals before me have belabored the same issue and
> chances that I stumble onto something really novel is certainly
> close to nil...ahahaha...but the fun derived from it is worth it.

  Amen - especially to the last part about the chances being close to
nil. And yet...all odds are 50/50...in a tightly enclosed local frame
of reference; I will win or lose the lottery with equal probability
for each case - other ticket holders? What other ticket holders?
Straight-jacket a little tight here...
> >
> [Mitch]
> > So far it seems you are refering to a repeating cyclical type
> > of thingy, at shrinking/growing orders of magnitude, like fractals.
> >
> [hanson]
> Yeah, looking at nature in a way wherein a self-similar, not "like",
> repetition of events/processes or items.... differing in more or less
> regular intervals on a larger/or smaller scale, the scale step being
> the mole, Avogadro's constant with its strange dimensional attribute
> of "subunits/unit" or "marbles/bag".... appears to offer beckoning
> possibilities to model nature in a way that may allow us to probe
> deeper by many magnitudes, while incorporating all empiricals and
> still make integrated use of all current theories........ahahahaha..

  By assuming our so-called macro scale or level is but one stop on an
infinite bus route? If infinite, there are no orders of magnitude,
just as there is no fixed point/center of the universe?
> >
> [Mitch]
> > Is "size" a "direction"?
> >
> [hanson]
> Yes, it may be, but it doesn't need to be so, because you can twist
> anything into any form as long as it produces an internally coherent
> picture, in a pix that accepts all knows laws and fits with existing
> empiricals. One of the intriguing ways here is to get topology
> involved and one wonders furthermore whether the models of the
> "chance dominated" QM and the "geometry ruled" Relativity are
> easily connectable via the notion dubbed as "GeoCombs" using math.
> formalities offered by the solutions of contour integrals & combinatorial
> math, demonstrated by/with the simple guide post in the Gamma function
> ( - 1/2)! = sqrt (pi), or Green's function, or etc.......

  I will Google these terms, but know that I am only a layman, and a
very silly one at that.
> >
> [Mitch]
> > Can "gravity" be "scaled"?
> >
> [hanson]
> I dunno. But the question is intriguing. This has bugged me for
> a long time. I have posted my notions about that too before.
> There are still so many questions and possibilities open at the
> POSTULATE LEVEL......ahahahaha......that's where the fun is.
> But it's hard, lonely...and fucken iffy big time.... ahahaha......
> >
> [Mitch]
> > Does it seem like I "know" what I'm "talking about"?
> > I do not. However, I do not bowl, and TV is pretty dumb,
> > so here I am.
> >
> [hanson]
> ahahaha........Well, here I am too, and I don't know neither.
> Mexican stand off, dude.......ahahahaha....... Listen, don't take
> me too serious in all this.

  Nor you me!

> I do all this for recreation and out of
> boredom. Mostly on them long fucking flights or on contract like
> right now, where I am sitting alone, in some dimly lit darkness,
> with fucking nightvision gear, at 134227 ft, freezing my ass off,
> checking the Questar type attached pattern recognition gismo that
> buzzes when some fuckers do move 10K feet below & 8 miles way,
> and me using the posting and e-mails from here to check and insure
> that all the relay stations are operative.....Hey, the money is good...
> but not so the suffering ........ahahaha......

  So you work at WalMart?

> Anyway, Mitch:
>
> If you are really interested in reading what I have done with this
> issue then just google my archive for "hanson@quck.net + term"
> term = gravity, self similarity, scale, Avogadro, Planck, Dirac.... or
> whatever turns you on.

  OK but not right now; I am tired and my computer smells of
mayonaise.

> Now, I don't want to discourage you or make
> you angry.

  I am *enraged*. OK I'm better now.
  Wait!... Pissed off again...

> But, what I know about all these flights of fancy is in my
> google archive. I don't know anything more. And since hanson travels
> alone, most of the time, I have found that "discussions" at this level
> do NOT produce anything....

  I don't get the connection between [your being alone] and
[discussions at this level producing nothing], though I certainly
agree with the latter (except some laughs, eh?)

>....ahahahaha... it would be a discussion
> where everybody knows something about something producing
> nothing

  Now I get it.

> So, Mitch, I thank you for your interest ....and well... stay tuned....
> and always remember: hanson says a lot of things when the days
> and nights are long......AHAHAHAHAHA........don't take me serious!
> ahahahaha......ahahahanson
>
> ahahahaha.......***!, re-reading this, makes me realize that I begin
> to sound like Jack Sarfatti........ahahahaha......but, my excuse is
> that it may be due to the thin air here.......ahahahahaha....

  Except Jack never admits that he sounds like himself...or does he? I
always skip those posts. Am I missing out?
  BTW, if you're *truly* bored, here's something stupid to think
about:

  Say you're insane, and you want to prove that -
 
  "Things exist simply to validate, as it were,the fact that they
don't."
 
  Yin & Yang Y'know. So you design a ridiculously complex machine that
does *nothing*, but you don't build it.
  Well, now the machine doesn't exist, so it *has to exist*,
somewhere. But in order to prove it exists, you have to find it.
  Even just on this planet in this universe, you won't live long
enough to look *everywhere*, so you need to enlist the help of others.
But you can't do that, because you could never be *certain* that
someone wouldn't build the damn thing just to *** with your mind and
mess up the "experiment".
  You could never know if the machine really did physically exist
somewhere, and it would drive you insane, which you already were, and
that's *really bad*.

  See ya,
  Mitch

Loading