BF2S Forums A Conversation between a Darwinist and a Creationist

Spark wrote:

but no one can prove WHY it exists.

Einstein did.

But how can evolution and creationism co-exist? Enlighten me.

Let me try to explain this better, gravity is a curve in space time, so why is the perferred state of matter to create a larger mass?  Einstein proved the how, but in my opinion not the why.

On part 2 - evolution marches through time.  Pick a point and there is stuff before and stuff after.  If it's linear, where's the beginning?

Kmarion wrote:

Pug wrote:

Someone mentioned gravity, which is a good example of scientific faith.  We all know it exists, but no one can prove WHY it exists.  .

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 … ranom.html
Almost there also..

Can I be an asshole for a moment?

But, doesn't this so-called debate sort of feel like - hey "voodoo" is knowledge; it's equal to science...

Or

I don't doubt the integrity of faith - but I doubt the integrity of science/scientists.

Or

Gaps = Gods.

topal63 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Pug wrote:

Someone mentioned gravity, which is a good example of scientific faith.  We all know it exists, but no one can prove WHY it exists.  .

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 … ranom.html
Almost there also..

Can I be an asshole for a moment?

But, doesn't this so-called debate sort of feel like - hey "voodoo" is knowledge; it's equal to science...

Or

I don't doubt the integrity of faith - but I doubt the integrity of science/scientists.

Or

Gaps = Gods.

Yep that just about covers it..

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-04-07 23:59:31)

It occurred to me that I might be misunderstood as a bible thumper...I just want to clarify that I was lumping "creationist" theory and intelligent design together.  Pure creationism is a bunch of BS.  Intelligent design in my opinion is an overhaul that draws too much doubt upon itself to be become a "fact", and evolution can be proven.  The only reason I popped in here is to talk about scientific faith, which is actually a component of science - making a hypothesis...

Plus the thread needed a little neutral view, but that was yesterday.  Die thread die....

your using the word faith as if it is something that is needed to connect the dots.

if a detective has two clues he doesn't need to see every process and step involved in the crime. the clues give the answer themselves. he doesn't say its faith, he says its common sense or intuition.

the clues being fossils and diversity of individual species in different environments (Galapagos islands for instance), common sense tells us that yes they adapted and evolved. it has nothing to do with faith.

Spark wrote:

But how can evolution and creationism co-exist? Enlighten me.

Intelligent design can incorporate God creating the world's life through evolution.  Essentially, a Christian can believe that the evolutionary process itself was started by God.

I don't personally believe that, but it's a very valid possibility.

Turquoise wrote:

Spark wrote:

But how can evolution and creationism co-exist? Enlighten me.

Intelligent design can incorporate God creating the world's life through evolution.  Essentially, a Christian can believe that the evolutionary process itself was started by God.

I don't personally believe that, but it's a very valid possibility.

That is not what I.D. theory is.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

twiistaaa wrote:

your using the word faith as if it is something that is needed to connect the dots.

if a detective has two clues he doesn't need to see every process and step involved in the crime. the clues give the answer themselves. he doesn't say its faith, he says its common sense or intuition.

the clues being fossils and diversity of individual species in different environments (Galapagos islands for instance), common sense tells us that yes they adapted and evolved. it has nothing to do with faith.

Ah, but it does. One still has to have faith in either ones intuitive powers or in ones chosen deductive methodology to deliver one to the correct conclusion.

Ah, but it does NOT! It is not faith - it is "Sesame street" logic; that is the basis for all thought. "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong, can you tell which thing is not like the other, before my song is done … and now my song is done."

Pattern recognition is the basis for almost all thought. This applies to almost all matters concerning thought. We arrive at specific conclusions based upon a patterns we observe; we arrive at conclusions based upon generalizations by induction (Bertrand Russell basically got it right, and stated all knowledge is obtained this way. There is not another way, in nature, and your brain as a naturally evolved pattern recognition device is proof of it). You learn procedural knowledge (deductive methodology, language, mathematics, etc) the same way as you do anything else (simple recognition of someone's face you remember meeting once before). It is all pattern recognition (experiencing patterns in some form or another and continually building upon them; it is also the basis for neural-nets and A.I.). Just because you are not self-aware, of the underling process does not mean it is not there.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Objective reality. Subjective reality. Consensus reality. 3 realities. All real. All different.

1.) Objective reality is the totality of reality you are not ever really experiencing - how the hell can you - with a limited human mind? You aren't - and it seems to me you can't (though I don't know what the limit is; to understanding or science). So you don't even know what the real is - in totality... "Reality external of your mind" - seems, to me, a more appropriate approximation; as a short statement. Real but what is the totality of it? This is the indefinite - we hold in mind.

(Objective reality) "Objective" in this sense implies - is an attempt to infer the details of the "real" - free from sentimental attachments; like "faith" - that cloud our ability to understand natural (real) phenomenon. Objective reality can be an operational definition for: explanation of parts of the "totality" of the "Reality external of your mind," (or objective observations of that).

This is real even if we cannot define the totality (we are only defining part of it; observing part of it).

2.) Subjective Reality - is purely in-mind, it is not the real (external of your mind) - your mixing shades of meaning like "fork" was/or does. The process of thinking is a "real" thing. Making value judgments are subjective determinations; creating models (or paradigms; abstractions) to aid in understanding (the objective observations of) the "real external of your mind" involve subjective thought as well. But they are "real" only in the sense (context) that they are a process: called thinking or thought (as mind is brain; and that is nature as well) - they are not "reality" or more appropriately "the totality of reality external of your mind."

It doesn't make any sense to call anything subjective "reality" - or that it is real. The thinking process is real (mind existing as "brain" is real). The "Subjective Reality" can often be easily shown to be so disconnected from the "reality external of your mind" - and that it is not real - or rather it is not anything like the reality external of your mind. Or, even when considering a paradigm of the Universe - "relativity" contains unreal subjective ideas.

Lets consider something that almost appears objective.
The fabric of: Space-time.
and: Time itself.

These are purely subjective - there is no evidence period for either; there is no direct evidence. It is only inferred subjectively (as in-mind creations) as a way of understanding phenomenon. It is a paradigm. Space-time, and Einstein's reaction to the error of Classical Physics - the notion of Absolute time - is based upon this simple idea: how can the speed of light in a vacuum (as observed) be a constant? How does it have a constant speed and not a relative speed (light + the speed of the object emitting light). For all objects (matter) even in Classical Physics, it is correct to say speed is relative to something else (it is measured against something). You on a train going 100kph, you throw a ball at 50kph, the ball is moving 150kph to an observer off the train, and 50kph relative to you. The same should be consistent for everything if the paradigm is true - yet it isn't for light (nor for gravity).

If absolute time were true - the observations of it is false. But how can these detailed observations (light in the so-called field of time:t - in an equation; or measurement) be false over and over and over - every time? Something has to give way. It is the notion of absolute time. But how do you explain the revelation? By creating a model (a paradigm) that can predict the behavior observed. So now the observations match the subjective (the model; the paradigm). In classical physics the observations did not match the subjective; the model (they were different; and not-precise for large scale observations; for both light, and the effects of gravity - or ultimately energy). In dispelling, and rejecting these (2) notions: that light like a wave, must be moving in a medium "ether"; and that time is absolute, strangely enough, Einstein has replaced those hypothetical(s) with (2) more subjective hypothetical(s).

The medium (fabric) of Space-time & time itself. Space-time curvatures are products of mind – they might easily simply not exist; and there is no real direct evidence for either. Time dilation has been measured, and the effects of gravity are predicted; but this is proof of the rationale of the paradigm; not the existence of it. In quantum physics we know that in measuring energy we must use energy to observe energy; this obviously affects the state of it. The same is true for the rate of change (the changing state of it). And this ultimately is what "time" is: a rate change. It is not a thing in-itself.

Time does not even appear to be component of reality (IMO). It is part of the paradigm not found in nature. There is no instant in time; there is no time particle; there is no such thing as an interval of time that really isn't in fact a subjective comparison of subjective time-frames based upon an arbitrary unit of measure (for comparison). It is a subjective creation of mind. We want to measure (t: time; as) change - so that we can predict it. Nature does not infer it, t: time, we do.

Time is more properly described as a rate of change relative to an arbitrary standard of measure.

The rate of change; or energy wave oscillations being compressed in the direction they are moving; will cause the measure of it (t: time; the rate of change - changes; it compresses) to appear less, but this doesn't mean that time is a real thing; not at all. As we know energy affects energy and the rate of change or oscillations of the wave thereof. Since energy (real) is the opposite of the unreal (nothing; nothingness; void; etc); nothing is the un-limiting component and energy therefore is effected only by other energy or itself.

If Space is a fabric that can be bent; it implies a reality to it. But what is that reality going to be tied to? Energy or the absence of it? It doesn't make any sense to consider space as a fabric without there being an energy component to it! Everything considered real is limited by there being an energy there to give it a "reality," else it is not. This is where the, even more subjective, hypothetical(s) of String theory P-branes comes in, they use the undetectable idea (indirectly inferred idea) of Space-time fabric, and give an Energy component to it (as a giant stretched out string); then tie the other strings to it (as those energies now have an energy component to react with and to).

But there is no reality to time.
And Space as a bendable fabric implies an energy component that is utterly un-detected, and appears to be undetectable. Being real is not implied. The validity of it being a model of prediction: predictability (a paradigm) in science – is accepted; irregardless of it being purely subjective or not.

There is no reality to your "subjective reality" and it is not real, and it is only considered valid if it can help predict the real, or help explain observations of the "reality that is external of your *mind."

3.) Consensus Reality, what the heck is this? Is this a weak stab - at the Global Warming Consensus? Or just a subjective creation of your mind? Let us assume, for a moment that String-theory is correct, it is subjective model/paradigm, yet let us assume it is real & correct. It is a model that matches reality and that space-time is a P-brane! How many people do you think actually understand this reality, could understand it - right now – in the world? A thousand out of 6-7 billion? There is no consensus on the "reality external of your mind" as a statistical measure. Nor is there agreement in the world as to what the totality of reality is. So you must be inferring either mob-mentality agreement, or a scientific-community consensus of opinion as to the validity of a paradigm.

Either way I don't see it as being a "reality," and don't see any validity in comparison.

Reality is the totality of it - external of your *mind. *(<--- I am inferring in-mind subjective thoughts).
Subjective reality.
Consensus reality.
1 reality.
1 is real.
2 are, more or less, the same (they are in-mind abstractions).

The last two are both actually the same; they are both subjective.

________

And the comparsion issue-error (the object of this thread), is the same, as shades of meaning - indicated by the word "belief," they are not the same meaning - when (or how they are) used. I don't even need the word "know" or "knowing." "Belief" will do fine as to illustrate the difference in knowing something and not-knowing something. One use is not the same as the other.  As a meaning indicated by their use - they are not interchangeable; or often they simply should not be liken to; nor compared.

It is a sliding scale:
Not-knowing-------------------------[true/false]-------------------------Absolute Knowing.
Pure Faith----------------------------[true/false]-------------------------Knowing for certain.
True------------------------------------------------------------------------False.
False-----------------------------------------------------------------------True.

No one knows for certain, the totality of reality; it would be absurd to suggest: I am in possesion of "Absolute Knowing". But many things are not that "fuzzy" or indicative of not being closer to the absolute side; then the other side; simply not knowing.

Examples of knowing.
(a) We know reality at a minimum: is. Even if you say "Reality is an Illusion,  or the Dream of God" - you are still implying that it is "something." So this is near absolute knowing to say "I am," what I am is a different animal.

(b) It is near absolute knowing to say: "I believe that, on this Earth, a ball will fall to the ground, if I let go of it."

(c) It is near absolute knowing to say: "I believe that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, based upon past recollections of the event (pattern recognition), barring a cataclysmic event."

In the JTB : Platonic idea of knowledge, a belief is justified if it is true. But some things cannot be determined to be true or not. So how can they ever fall into the category of being justified; and if not can they even be called knowledge? As an idea this does not go very far nor is it very useful (as practical knowledge).

Examples of pure-faith (not knowing; not practical knowledge).
(a) It is near the not knowing end of the spectrum to say: "I believe in the God Thor and that he is."

(b) It is near the not knowing end of the spectrum to say: "I believe that UFOs have visited Earth, because I believe there should be other life out there."

(c) It is near the not knowing end of the spectrum to say: "I believe that babies are delivered by a stork, because my daddy told me so."

(d) It is near the not knowing end of the spectrum to say: "I believe crystals can help heal disease."

(e) It is near the not knowing end of the spectrum to say: "I believe disease is caused by demonic spirits."

(f) It is near the not knowing end of the spectrum to say: "I believe that my car is in the parking lot, where I left it." (This one is telling: it seems justified, it is based upon solid reasoning - even knowledge; correct recollection; yet it can be false - if your car is stolen).

The last example is the illustration of the problem, and why even solid reasoning can be un-justified if it is not properly qualified; it is the "if" problem. "If my car were not stolen" would make the "belief" justified. Is anyone theologically willing to justify there beliefs – by qualifying them properly? Are you prepared to accept you are not in absolute possession of the truth? Will you say agnostically that my God (or God in general) is an if-God? I don't see that (alteration; qualification of religious belief/faith) happening in the world - any time soon (or ever).

Science (empirical philosophy, natural philosophy, etc & whatever) is not trying to claim absolute knowing - but realistically as practical knowledge - it is far closer to knowing and being true; than it is not-knowing or opinions derived of; or at; in pure-faith. In each example of knowing, we can ascertain that they are basically true as well. In the examples of not-knowing, there is no-evidence to suggest they are true, and in some cases knowing the reality of it (truth of the car: or disease causes) invalidates the belief. But are they ever comparable as being justified, if they lack reason and or proof (or worse - they are contradicted by proof otherwise)?

Conceptually you cannot compare the different uses of the word: and then say all "faith/belief" is one and the same - they aren't (and do not get hung on a word; they are concepts: faith & the scientific method, they are different; they are not the same ideas).

My final thought, is the same as it was - or more or less - always has been:

topal63 wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

It seems to me that different people just interpret different information in different ways.

Here is another interpretation (I already posted in this thread):
"This is a personal problem, or a theological problem, or an inertia problem for institutions & traditions, that requires adaption to change. The transcendent worldview is not-invalid... but it is up to those practitioners of a "faith", or you, to figure out how to adapt your worldview to the increases in understanding gained by the scientific method. It is a boon; a gift."

If God created everthing then the scientific method is tied to that same creation; in my view; if there is a God; the gift of the method is something pointless to rail against.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-19 08:40:01)

topal63 wrote:

^^^ Which one? Which conclusion?

That 'subjective reality' and 'consensus reality' are both not 'real'.

EDIT: Actually - I read the whole of your post - why don't you try reading mine!

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2007-04-09 22:18:36)

RAIMIUS wrote:

Evolutionary theory has a lot of evidence for it, but still has some large gaps to be filled.

This is one of the reasons I like atheists/agnostics over religious folks. In a religion, you are given the answer, and the answer is often times "Cause god(s) says so". I prefer seeking the answers ourselves and not diminishing the light of human curiosity to supplement the ego of a deity who may not even be real when we could instead allow our real, present and accountable selfs to prosper.

While this isn't to say that there are people of religious faith out there who are doing amazing things to explore science, it's not uncommon to hear the "our religious texts say X, so X it is" based education.


I want to jump back here a few posts (because I'm the admin and no one can complain about me doing so - ha!) and pickup on something. There's a LOT of confusion at thread start about the difference between knowledge, belief and faith. Specifically, "belief" and "faith". (In so much, this is how the first conversation manages to twist the terms around each other to make a shallow thinking point.)

Many people use these two terms as interchangeably, and incorrectly, in the same flippant way that "theory" is switched with "fact" or "hypothesis". It's particularly prevalent in settings like this where the discourse so sorely depends on shared meanings of these concepts.


My background puts me raised Lutheran (christian) turned agnostic/atheist. But one of the important things I took away from the bible study classes was a very certain distinction between faith and belief. The difference is action. Faith is not a noun, it is a verb. To me, anyway. Faith is not belief, faith is action based on beliefs which you hold.

Faith in god means belief in something that can not be proven and acting upon it anyway.
Faith in science is belief in something repeatedly demonstratable and acting accordingly.

So for me, EVERYONE has faith. The means and manner by which people gather knowledge and beliefs are different, but we all have the faith to act upon them.

Can't we ban this guy for spam already?

And although it may seem that they both have faith, it is the basis that counts. Creationists base their faith on others faith. Evolutionists base it on what we can see as tangible facts - a lot of us can comprehend basic ideas of it. We still have to have a degree of faith in the scientists, but this is no more than people have faith in Jesus performing miracles (less faith required, even, as such miracles are deemed never to truly have been performed since).
They are both points of view - the time of understanding for each of us will come too late to influence our decisions in life (or anyone else's).
Just don't worry & get on with your bloody life!
All the best,
Andy

Actually, scientific instruments have no perceptions at all, they can only probe the real objective reality.

EDIT: Note to self - post #137 is beyond absurd, and nauseau inducing.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Topal63: Hope you don't mind me quoting this...

Topal63 (via Karma) wrote:

I actually always understood that, I was just arguing semantics against forkey's premise - But you could also say it this way: Reality, worldview, shared worldview

yeah, I thought that quote of mine wasn't actually saying anything more than I'd already said - I just remembered I'd made a pretty good post on the subject, searched it out, gave it a quick scan, and posted...

Anyhoo, I do now have a little bit of time to answer your specific point more directly.

And that IIRC, was on the subject of the 'realityness' of Subjective and Concensus Reality (worldview and shared worldview respectively in your terms).

The important point with regards to the 'reality' of our individual personal subjective 'reality tunnel' is summed up in the question:

How do we know that something is 'real'?

We observe it, we touch it, we taste it, we smell it, we listen to it, and we probe it with scientific instruments.

If it conforms to everything we expect from something that is really 'real', we label it as such.
If it does not, we dismiss it as fantasy, illusion, and hallucination.

However, advances in the field of neuro-psychology and physiology are showing that the reality that we 'live in' - the reality that you see, touch, taste, smell, and hear - is a primarily internal, subjective, model of the 'external' objective reality.

Let me rephrase that to emphasise the point:

Objective reality isn't just external to 'mind'. It is external to everything we as individuals consider to be 'real'.

"Ah! But!" I hear you cry. "'we probe it with scientific instruments' you said!". Indeed we do. And this is where things actually get less clear and even more confusing.

This time advances in physics are changing our worldview in regard to what we consider 'real' from a scientific point of view. And again, those advances indicate that the 'reality' we study with science is not objective reality either.

Think of it this way - a spoon is made of billions of atoms - each atom a cloud of electrons, protons, and neutrons - each particle a collection of quarks - each quark a pattern of energy - each pattern a set of vibrating strings.

As we move down the scales the boundaries become more and more blurred. Moving from 'solid object', to 'clouds of particles', to 'patterns of energy', to 'sets of vibrating strings'.

At the level of objective reality there really is no spoon - the 'spoon' we perceive is just a ripple within a smoothly continuous energy field or net of strings. There is no part of objective reality that 'is' the spoon, rather the whole of objective reality contains a continuous 'spooness field' - the 'spoon' that we perceive is just those areas where the 'spooness' of that patch of reality exceeds a certain threshold.

So, in short, again, when we probe 'reality' with our scientific instruments, we do not probe true objective reality. We probe a mere projection. An illusion.

Well, that's all I've got time for, for now... I'll add a bit more on consensus reality when I get a chance...

I don't really disagree with any of that, more or less, but that does not change this:

That the illusion of reality we experience, indicated by the senses, probed by instruments, etc - is still real. It only means we do not experience the source of the effect. It is the old “Kant” thing in-itself problem.

My analogy - (copied) from a different thread:

Knowledge of energy's existence is based upon effects. Not the source of the effect. Consider as analogy the ripples on the surface of a body of water. DO NOT consider the medium - the water. Consider the ripples only. And, that you could hypothetically experience the effect of ripples without knowing that it is linked to water. (Water is not even the source of itself anyway). Energy-reality is experienced like this; as analogy; as rippling waves; where the source of the effect (or the ultimate source) cannot be determined. If you peel back a layer of the reality onion; it is another ripple; it is another effect and not the source. Even string-theory is NOT a T.O.E. (theory of everything); there is not a single reason, for me, to assume the string is the ultimate source of the effect; we could theorize as being a vibrating-string curled up in tiny spaces. Certainty in existence is never implied not in science; not ever.

And your spoon (the Matrix: "it's simple... there is no spoon") argument (a meta-construct/subjective experience) could be leveled (is leveled) at the concept of “solid”. There is no such thing as solid. It simply does not exist in the common subjective form found often in one’s personal worldview. Solid really only indicates a state of matter, how it is packed, so that the electro-magnetic force is apparent to the senses as being “solid.” But when examined all that is there is: space, waves of probability, and an effect (not the source of the effect). Sand is a solid - but does not conform to the common experience of what solid is. Energy and electro-magnetism (as an effect) are not solid; that concept does not transfer. The meta-effect on the senses of there being a condition/illusion of solid - does not mean the meta-effect is not real. Or, that if I say “I struck the stone with my hand and it was solid,” this is not a false statement. The only thing indicated by this worldview - is a limit. It is not a universal subjective concept - that can be applied to matter itself. What is indicated is a, possible, limit to know-ability (knowledge). Also, even though it is easy to conclude that perfect certainty is not indicated by science - it is, also, easy for me to say this:

There is a HUGE difference here once again. It does not matter that we cannot experience reality in a complete way - all the way down to the source of all effects.

a.) Mathematical models = subjective models (part of a personal worldview).
b.) Scientific models = subjective models (part of a personal worldview).
c.) Myths = subjective models (part of a personal worldview).
d.) Superstitions = subjective models (part of a personal worldview).

All four are models of reality and not reality itself. All contain theories (ideas) about reality; and none can point to the source of all effects (one can guess/believe; but one cannot prove). But is the first pair considerably like the 2nd pair. The answer is a clear no - they are not alike - that has already been discussed.

The meta-effect of solid, is not a part of reality, intrinsic (as an experience) to matter/energy itself, it is part of the subjective experience. But objectively the experience is consistent over time. While it might be wrong to conclude subjectively that atoms are like little solid pebbles. It is not wrong to say I experience the effect of electromagnetic repulsion for matter that is packed in a way (in relation to each other) that causes the effect: labeled solid. Science helps to explain the effect and it does not matter if the explanation is incomplete - it is better than none. And, often it is a very detailed explanation even though it is incomplete (also it is a meta-physical explanation that is not discordant with the effects themselves).

My subjective idea of solid may be slightly different than someone else’s idea, and both of us might agree: “that that stone is solid.” It is not a subjective error for both of us to conclude that. The subjective-error happens when one inappropriately over-extends the knowledge of that experience in a way discordant with the "illusion of reality"; effects existing in reality; what can be known about reality (or what we can know about the real-effects we experience).

The main point is that there are many meta-physical subjective creations of mind, some are so disconnected from the effects themselves; existing in reality; or the **"illusion of reality" (they are actually the same thing, are they not). The disconnect can be so great - that the difference from consistent repeatable experience is beyond reasonable and incomparable as subjective creations of mind.

Some subjective creations of mind are clearly less objective than others. It doesn’t matter if there is an element of the unknown in science (that actually seems inevitable), it does not make it comparable to "faith," because subjective thinking in general is involved.

1.) **Illusion of reality is in many ways interchangeable with the shorter form: reality. A person, a diamond, a tree, an ant, a shrimp, a planet, a galaxy, are all macro-world experiences (real; from reality). The fact that there is more to it than meets the eye - does not alter the reality of the experience. It only limits the value of it in scope. The experience is real, what you do with that subjectively is another story. The macro-world experience of the spoon - is real. The macro-world experience of solid is real. Extending that experience (of solid) subjectively to matter (a layer of reality); is an error; and an example when experience subjectively becomes an "illusion."

2.) **Illusion of reality: is a limited concept, it can easily be interchanged with similar ideas (as it connotes a few different meanings, when used in different contexts): appearance of reality; the surface of things; limit of know-ability; limit of subjective ideas; etc.

Here is a few different ways to use the concepts - and they generally mean the same thing:
a.) Then Einstein's theory of relativity came along and shattered our illusions of reality - as to what is time and matter. Time being an absolute was shattered, and matter became interchangeable with energy.

b.) Quantum Theory challenges our common sense notions of what is real and what is not. There is a limit to subjective ideas - like the common sense notions of solid.

c.) If one were forced to think about the reality of a person standing before him; or her; self, it might take an eternity to apprehend the total scope of information contained in a person. If one had to understand nearly everything knowable (to experience a person); that lies beneath the surface of things, it would boggle the mind; to consider the DNA, the Evolutionary history of the DNA, the relationship of life to the chemical - the elemental aspects; the energy interactions at the electron shell; the multitude of whizzing energy; and billion upon billions upon billions of quantum states; the wave-vibrations beneath that level. . . the shear volume of things occurring beneath the surface of things, challenges our general perceptions of reality.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-20 00:50:49)