Originally Posted by TheMadcap

I have always assumed it was each photon. Is that wrong?

Originally Posted by carlo

I'll speak to one part of your presentation in that you said that I don't believe that science is correct. I've given that impression, for sure, but the "facts" brought forth by science cannot be gainsaid and to this end modern materialistic science sits in proper place and time within the movement of the individual man. One cannot deny "science" in its particular findings or "facts",etc...

At this point I'll have to use an example, i.e. Newtons treatment of light vis a vis its passage through a prism. I know, I've brought this up many times but again is again. Newton posited that upon passing through the prism and hitting a screen light was broken up into the colors or rainbow type colors. He posited that "light carried the colors within" and through the agency of the prism they were separated out.

Anyone who performs the same experiment knows that only at specific angles did the colored rainbow appear and this was noted by Goethe. He performed the same experiments and realized that the "theory" of Newton couldn't be. As an aside note one has to be aware that other thinkers (read scientists) of that time did not agree with Newton, I believe Christopher Huygens for one.

Now, Goethe worked up"on the "findings or facts" as a "scientist" and came to the conclusion to wit, "brightness" and "darkness". It gets complicated here for it does call for some background but one can say that he considered "darkness" as an entity in and of itself as did he consider "brightness". Not only is there variations of "brightness" but also variations of "darkness". Darkness, in his findings, was not the "absence of light".

Now both Goethe and Newton did the same experiment and had differing conclusions, ideas or presentations. Both of these men did "science" but the presentation of Newton took hold of the "scientific world" and persist up to the present time.

Newton believed the light broke up into individual parts and Goethe saw the resulting color consequential to a light which interacts with the receiving entity. Therefore one may read in his literary works "colors are the deeds and sufferings of light". In abstraction, if one punches another in the arm the resulting bruises are consequential to the interaction. The bruises are definitely not contained in the fist of the puncher.

Through Newton the particularity of light was brought forth and one can note that the aforementioned Huygens is considered the originator of the "wave theory of light". All this from yesteryear.

Goethe saw "science" as working within the consequences or presentation of the experiment itself and then presenting an understanding. I suspect that many here and elsewhere could not argue with this and in fact believe that that is the way with modern science and therefore through education especially give full acknowledgement to our scientific times which are justified. Put another way Goethe worked with the given and attempted to explain the experiment results within the findings themselves.

Newton, believe it or not, projected from within his head a particularity which was not evident within the particular experiment. Democritus rises up through Newton and particle physics arises throughout the whole realm.

One cannot deny the wonderful technology/science of our times but in the explanation of the world via the "scientific materialism" is , in my mind always to be examined. the Wright Brothers flew the first plane and Edison invented the light bulb quite without the meanderings of modern science of flight or of light. Of course the further course of these "sciences" will speak to a truth and so one shouldn't throw away one's wind tunnel.

I'll say this as a postscript; modern science only considers "science" as related to the earth. It projects earthly findings into the starry heavens and states that all is of the earth. Only spiritual science can find and present man's relationship to the cosmos to which modern materialistic science not only denies but states that this is an epistemological impossibility. I just opened another door here and one can skip the last paragraph fopr its loaded with possibilities and calls for a strengthened background.

Originally Posted by FortunaMaximus

What is indefensible still warrants a defensive strategy, even if it is Pyrrhic.

What is it about wave-particle duality that is so difficult to apply to temporal thermodynamics?

I mean, I'll leave a written quantum solution @ Vari as usual, but...

Yeah, I know.

Take it easy.

Originally Posted by chezlaw

cachinnate

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick

Assiduous obfuscation used as an apperatus of delectation must be encumbered by a coherent sense of both the target assemblage as necessarily isolated from the prolitariate assemblage that must not understand lest the jocosity be lost only to be replaced by its iniquituous sibling ill will.

Furthermore, obfuscated equivocation is antediluvian except on the rare occasion in which the obviousness is not readily apparent to the uninformed.

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick

Assiduous obfuscation used as an apperatus of delectation must be encumbered by a coherent sense of both the target assemblage as necessarily isolated from the prolitariate assemblage that must not understand lest the jocosity be lost only to be replaced by its iniquituous sibling ill will.

Furthermore, obfuscated equivocation is antediluvian except on the rare occasion in which the obviousness is not readily apparent to the uninformed.

Originally Posted by damaci

Carlo, you are losing it. I would expect better from you since you seem to be quite an intelligent person (despite the fact that we disagree on practically every fundamental matter). The modern science, of course, projects its earthly findings (i.e human all too human findings) into the starry heavens, because there is no getting around the fact that we are humans (i.e slightly evolved primates). Any knowledge we produce by necessity is human. If there is any knowledge that is not human in a radical sense (and I am not claiming that there cannot be such knowledge), then this knowledge is forever closed to us, by definition, since as humans we would not be able to comprehend it (that is the wisdom of Islam for you in a nutshell, a real religion in my opinion, as opposed to the kindergarten stories of Christianity).

Where is this "spiritual science" that you romantically harp about? And, no, you did not open another door, or other possibilities by your suggestion of a spiritual science. I am sorry to say, but all you did was to project your all too human yearnings and wishes into a "hope" for a spiritual science. I understand your position and as a fellow human being, I may even sympathize with it. But I also clearly see that, as a philosophical position, it is indefensible.
Cheers

Originally Posted by carlo

Here is a start( spiritual science):http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA013/...013_index.html

I've rarely referred this book to anyone on this site because of the difficulty with the word "occult" but I do offer it to you.

I'll only say as apologia to those who are interested, the word refers to the inner knowledge of Man, which is garnered through different avenues than the modern materialistic methodology. The world of Hollywood and Stephen King so obfuscates this conceptual platform that one, knowingly or unknowingly carries Hollywood in their heart, much to one's chagrin.

You've said a lot about knowledge and Islam and Christianity but just so you know, I don't speak as advocate for the respective churches or religions in the conventional sense. I do see Christ as present in all of us, manifesting whether in Islam, Christianity, Buddhism or Judaism, etc....

The presentation of "spiritual science" is to find the particular perspective which brings clarity to the various religions and this modern science to which we are all aware. My example of Goethe and Newton tried to "characterize" the different perspectives and their consequences within our times and indeed within the movement of the human being himself.

Another point, you can't speak to knowledge which is "forever closed" to human beings unless you have some idea of what that knowledge is. To speak of something which one knows nothing about is an absurdity. the "hidden knowledge' is quite spoken to within the western ethos through the mystery centers which were brought to expression by lights such as Plato and Aristotle who brought forth the findings via the intellect (the necessary adjunct during our times). Prior to Grecian times( 800BC-1500AD) direct perception of the spiritual findings was commonly within all men to a lesser or greater extent( in fact did indeed continue, but more rarely so, until the beginning of our times within some individuals). I suspect that within Islam there is also this "hidden knowledge" for it was and is apparent within all cultures, again to a greater or lesser extent.I only speak with conjecture about it's presence within Islam, to your perspective, but certainly can't bring forth particular people or groups who manifest this within Islam.

We've lost "direct perception" of the spiritual world or that which our present sense bound reality is an external manifestation of the spiritual but have gained the intellect. Our return ""religare" or "reunite" within the spiritual world" will manifest within the future by our strength of intellect but the addition of the perceptive knowing of the past only metamorphosed into our newer state.

All the above is only soup in simmer and the real comprehension is study of the hidden in Man and that is the work of the Anthroposophical Society and "spiritual science". The "hidden' is not "secret stuff" for a exclusive few but that which is available to all as the necessity or our times.

Originally Posted by carlo

Here is a start( spiritual science):http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA013/...013_index.html

I've rarely referred this book to anyone on this site because of the difficulty with the word "occult" but I do offer it to you.

I'll only say as apologia to those who are interested, the word refers to the inner knowledge of Man, which is garnered through different avenues than the modern materialistic methodology. The world of Hollywood and Stephen King so obfuscates this conceptual platform that one, knowingly or unknowingly carries Hollywood in their heart, much to one's chagrin.

You've said a lot about knowledge and Islam and Christianity but just so you know, I don't speak as advocate for the respective churches or religions in the conventional sense. I do see Christ as present in all of us, manifesting whether in Islam, Christianity, Buddhism or Judaism, etc....

The presentation of "spiritual science" is to find the particular perspective which brings clarity to the various religions and this modern science to which we are all aware. My example of Goethe and Newton tried to "characterize" the different perspectives and their consequences within our times and indeed within the movement of the human being himself.

Another point, you can't speak to knowledge which is "forever closed" to human beings unless you have some idea of what that knowledge is. To speak of something which one knows nothing about is an absurdity. the "hidden knowledge' is quite spoken to within the western ethos through the mystery centers which were brought to expression by lights such as Plato and Aristotle who brought forth the findings via the intellect (the necessary adjunct during our times). Prior to Grecian times( 800BC-1500AD) direct perception of the spiritual findings was commonly within all men to a lesser or greater extent( in fact did indeed continue, but more rarely so, until the beginning of our times within some individuals). I suspect that within Islam there is also this "hidden knowledge" for it was and is apparent within all cultures, again to a greater or lesser extent.I only speak with conjecture about it's presence within Islam, to your perspective, but certainly can't bring forth particular people or groups who manifest this within Islam.

We've lost "direct perception" of the spiritual world or that which our present sense bound reality is an external manifestation of the spiritual but have gained the intellect. Our return ""religare" or "reunite" within the spiritual world" will manifest within the future by our strength of intellect but the addition of the perceptive knowing of the past only metamorphosed into our newer state.

All the above is only soup in simmer and the real comprehension is study of the hidden in Man and that is the work of the Anthroposophical Society and "spiritual science". The "hidden' is not "secret stuff" for a exclusive few but that which is available to all as the necessity or our times.