revolution
- Thread starter soulman
- Start date
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Ninjaboy said:
2 cunts.
Bush is the bigger one but blair is a stupid one.
If I could work out how to add an image to imageshack I would show you my tony t shirt.
xxspeedball said:
If it's family history then they must proves their worth themselves but if it's done as a result of hard work then I see no problem.
Yes it may be greed but often it's a desire to succeed as much as to profit from the business.
A man starting a business takes great risk and often works for years with little money from that business.
I see no problem at all with someone like this getting good reward from his business.
I also say that unless his workers are willing to do the same they have fuck all right to have a say in that business.
I worked for 3 years in poverty before I got my business going well so anyone walking in and wanting a say can fuck off unless they do the same first.
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
A complete revision in our knowledge and understanding of the universe that includes human beings.
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
Does that mean you think such a revolution could happen?muser said:
I claim to have found good reasons to believe that it could as the result of a scientific discovery.
Trouble is, that such a discoery could be made is by no means obvious and, from my own experience so far, prominent members of the scientific community will be the last people to recognise the possiblity, at least from any argument from an unknown non-member of the scientific community.
"the revolution begins and ends with you" Jarvis Cocker
the only meaningful revolution, IMO, is overthrowing the carnal self and 'awakening'... in a Buddhist sense.
most political revolutions just add more blood to the great river that flows throughout the documented history of mankind...
the only meaningful revolution, IMO, is overthrowing the carnal self and 'awakening'... in a Buddhist sense.
most political revolutions just add more blood to the great river that flows throughout the documented history of mankind...
merlin wood said:
Sorry, it was late at night and I thought you meant to say that we need a change in how we conduct our lives not a rethinking of how we understand the universe and our place in it. Can you divulge what your discovery is. I was reading a book by W W sawyer recently in which he states that maths is constantly evolving, that new theorems are being developed weekly and the wider mathematical community can barely keep abreast of new discoveries. Maths is in its infancy, and while it is, it can only give an imperfect model of the universe, I trust that millenia from now (should humanity be in existence!) maths will be in a position to answer all of the universe's riddles and its own foibles.
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
Ah now here's two interesting replies that are each at the opposite ends of the rational-intuitive divide.
So the ituitionist says that the revolution can only come from within the individual by subjective renewal and the rationalist says that the revolutionary truth can be revealed with mathematics.
I say the the revolution will come in a way that, as far as I know, all scientists and others have missed. That is, by means of a scientific discovery that's largely and essentially non-mathematical.
So if you were to ask what has been the most revolutionary scientific discovery so far some might well say it was Darwin's non-mathematicl theory of evolution.
Whilst it could be proposed that you could completely describe the world including the the brains of human beings and other animals by mathematics and provide no knowledge or understanding of its most significant features, which are the mind and consciousness, that is, subjectivity itself. And to the extent that one could imagine that if modern science was to bring about a revolution as I defined above then it would include a discovery of how the mind and consciousness is the way that it is.
Then one could point out that the limitations of measurement and mathematical calculation now extend to explaining how matter in general exists at all. So while quantum theory has explained much about how matter radiates, reflects and absorbs energy, the chemical and nuclear reactions of many forms of matter, and their electrical and magnetic properties, in terms of the behaviour of the subatomic parts of matter, this theory still can't explain how matter can be or remain organised out of these parts.
So that descriptions of the wave function or the Pauli Principle or the uncertainty principle are inadequate because it makes no sense that the particles could organise themselves into atoms and molecules, and let alone trees and human beings and despite the action of the forces. And one could conclude that no mathematical formula could help to answer this question of how the natural organisation of matter is possible.
Whereas from the quantum evidence one might ask could the answers come from justifying and describing enough details of a cause acting in addition to the forces? That is, a cause that physicists have almost entirely missed out on and largely because it cannot be described by any mathematical formula from the quantum evidence? and could the existence of such a cause have anything to do with the problem of mind and consciousness?
I argue that the answer to these questions is yes and my argument can be found by clicking onto my name above and then homepage.
So the ituitionist says that the revolution can only come from within the individual by subjective renewal and the rationalist says that the revolutionary truth can be revealed with mathematics.
I say the the revolution will come in a way that, as far as I know, all scientists and others have missed. That is, by means of a scientific discovery that's largely and essentially non-mathematical.
So if you were to ask what has been the most revolutionary scientific discovery so far some might well say it was Darwin's non-mathematicl theory of evolution.
Whilst it could be proposed that you could completely describe the world including the the brains of human beings and other animals by mathematics and provide no knowledge or understanding of its most significant features, which are the mind and consciousness, that is, subjectivity itself. And to the extent that one could imagine that if modern science was to bring about a revolution as I defined above then it would include a discovery of how the mind and consciousness is the way that it is.
Then one could point out that the limitations of measurement and mathematical calculation now extend to explaining how matter in general exists at all. So while quantum theory has explained much about how matter radiates, reflects and absorbs energy, the chemical and nuclear reactions of many forms of matter, and their electrical and magnetic properties, in terms of the behaviour of the subatomic parts of matter, this theory still can't explain how matter can be or remain organised out of these parts.
So that descriptions of the wave function or the Pauli Principle or the uncertainty principle are inadequate because it makes no sense that the particles could organise themselves into atoms and molecules, and let alone trees and human beings and despite the action of the forces. And one could conclude that no mathematical formula could help to answer this question of how the natural organisation of matter is possible.
Whereas from the quantum evidence one might ask could the answers come from justifying and describing enough details of a cause acting in addition to the forces? That is, a cause that physicists have almost entirely missed out on and largely because it cannot be described by any mathematical formula from the quantum evidence? and could the existence of such a cause have anything to do with the problem of mind and consciousness?
I argue that the answer to these questions is yes and my argument can be found by clicking onto my name above and then homepage.
rhys gethin
New Member
big footed fred said:
Can we shoot them when they give us our P45s then?
A revolution is a change from state control by one class to state control by another, or so I was taught in nursery school.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
A revolution is a complete cycle; something that has turned and come back to it's starting position, which is why the term 'revolution' used to describe social change is ludicrous (it should be called inversion or something that means 'opposite of what you have now'), but depressingly accurate in that it usually describes events that lead to something new but depressingly familiar having replaced the old...
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
The only 'revolutions' that have led to permanent and significant change in the conditions of life for millions of people have been technological and in health, education and the welfare state.
But come the real world revolution...
But come the real world revolution...
