A Good One, and maybe you are right about the article quality. I used to be a big fan of science, but it seems that every answer just raises more questions, so how can any journalist dig for the truth? You will probably not read any science article now and have an Ah Ha moment./. usually covers a wide range of interests
It is all part of the relentless drive to answer the question, is there or isn't there a God. And if there is, what exactly is it?
Scientists take the long (empirical?)route, philosophers take the short (personal experience?) route. But in either case maybe the question is not satisfactorily answerable.
I didn't see what the original comment was, but I am guessing it was not about the technical merits of satellite internet. There is a difference between the intent and purpose of launching a communications satellite, and shooting one down. Maybe got he/she this confused.
I believe you have framed the actual situation very accurately here. The MS leadership didn't actually have a lot of vision, they just bought up cool stuff companies who seemed to be succeeding in the marketplace.
It was never about rebutting or proving anything. I think if you look at any of my slash dot posts about any topic in the past the theme is always about casting dispersion on the "I'm right and you are wrong, and here's why" approach as a means of arriving at the truth, or in the case of science or religion arriving at Reality. Thats just what you have done here, and of course with the BIG EGO the next step is DENIAL, "no I'm not doing this and here's why". It's classic, but you don't see that, because EGO is about deception, mostly self deception. Your self deception is that you know the truth about everything, and my position has always been "relative thinking processes can never know the truth" therefore it is always about "don't believe or don't disbelieve" because time changes theories. The world is not flat this year, but it was some years back. Is cholesterol good or bad for you this year, I forget?.
Here is a copy of my very first post in this endless series. It would seem that as of today we are up to the fourth cable cut, and not anywhere near shipping, in fact an area off limits to ships. I think there were only two when I originally wrote this. It was merely pointing out the probabilities of accidental in such a situation. Not "I'm right and you are wrong", but then I'm not a self appointed moderator, my ego does not require that. >>>>>>>>Remember this: "There are times when things can be accidentally coincidental. But when the probability mathematical odds get really high, then the question should always be: was it deliberate? If it was terrorists there is a high likely hood that there would be a: "look what we did" news cast. But if it were the covert actions of a semi legitimate government, then it would be made to look accidental."
They were the darling of Wall Street, so I invested a few bucks. They went bankrupt and got bought out by one of their partner/creditors when the "dot com" bust came. The original stockholders got shut out, and now they are up and running again under the Global Crossing name. Apparently they are one of the big undersea cable players.
Your $0.02 is ignoring one very important principle "innocent until proven guilty". And certain other human rights such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", that Fascism tends to deprive people of.
Rights is what the whole issue is about, are the SPECIAL legal rights granted to copyright holders, more important than the GENERAL human rights of the population at large?
Copyright as I understand is about exact or nearly exact copy. MP3 is not nearly exact copy, maybe about a 10% copy of the original. (a 60M MP3 translates to about a 600M CD) The concept of copyright was originally for publishers. Only publisher "A" can publish and sell my work, and not publisher "B", because I only gave publisher "A" the rights. And way back, it was a way of controlling the printing press, as a threatening (to those in power) technology. Only you by "Royal Decree" can own and operate a printing press.
But what if there is now no real need for printing presses, or recording companies at all? Oh but you can't let them go out of business, well what happened to the horses and buggies, and are we any worse off? So the real issue then is not that the publishers, and record companies are loosing money, but that "we the people" need a new social contract with artists, musicians and writers. So they have ample opportunity to earn a living, if they produce works considered to be popular and of value. That might be a different kind of free or government controlled market model, but in which (printing press) publishers and (hard media) recording companies do not exist.
I deal a lot with legal documents, and interpretation most times hinges on what precedes or what follows, in this case it means "good job", because you are looking at all known inclusions or possibilities, and not unnecessarily excluding any possibility at this point.
I have more than a passing interest in this, because I put money on the line a few years back and lost it. A company named Global Crossing, with an IPO of about a half billion capitalization, and two years later Chapter 11. They were in undersea cables, when the flavor of the month was bandwidth, percent of dark cable, and redundancy.
That's it, now you are doing your homework! You might have to cut and paste this link, and it will give you some indication of just how many cables there actually are. They take out your cables, they take out your satellites, jam your radio waves, and pretty soon you are blind and deaf. Then they attack. That region is so peaceful, this could never happen, right. I bet the Israelis see it that way too. A lot of things are just what they seem, but sometimes they are not.
You make the assumption that what is reported is always accurate, or even the intended truth. That might be a little bit naive. Oh no, those in control or who might loose face never manipulate the media, do they?
For systems with built in redundancy, you might question the odds, of a complete failure. Or why do cables come ashore, at ports or where ships normally anchor? Or do they? Some of these considerations might even be a bit of a credulity stretch don't you think.
Well if it ain't the GREAT BIG EGO again!!! MR. RELATIVITY THINKING HIMSELF!!! Welcome back. It's a small world and a big Universe. Why are the polar ice caps melting on Mars at a faster rate than on earth??? Why is there evidence that other planets are heating up faster than earth??? No human intervention there. Consider some data and ignore others, "the scientific way". I see you haven't changed, still think that only YOU know the truth, when there are Heisenberg Uncertainty, plus Probability theories out there!!! Who appointed you the TRUTH gatekeeper?
Exactly, there are lots of big brand names that that no longer exist. All it takes is a short term business outlook, and/or wrong business model. Blackmail and holding your customers to ransom is never a good long term strategy. Because customers tend to have a very long term memory, and when a deal is no longer just about the money, (competitive) then other factors such as ethics and business relationships are considered.
Example: IBM used to be king of the PC world (no viable competition) they made a lot of "take it or leave it" PC deals. But when IBM eventually had dollar for dollar value competition, then the memory and past "business relationship" factors came into play. Result: IBM is no longer in the PC business.
There are times when things can be accidentally coincidental. But when the probability mathematical odds get really high, then the question should always be: was it deliberate? If it was terrorists there is a high likely hood that there would be a: "look what we did" news cast. But if it were the covert actions of a semi legitimate government, then it would be made to look accidental.
You got it wrong here, MS never does what they are accusing IBM of, do they? In a bully's world, what goes around should never come around, but it does.
You would not even have to loose your home, and your car and your first born, like the RIAA normally takes for a few song downloads. Only in the good old USA can people make major decisions about how to destroy someone else's life, who were not smart enough to get off jury duty.
And there you have it! A point that I made years ago. To some degree a lot of people besides artists do original creative work that is actually unique but because of its nature or their job, they cannot copy protect it. They only get paid for creating more new creative material and do not continue to get paid for copies of what they had already produced. My question was always why a different model for musicians and writers? They are no more important than the producers of food or housing or clothing etc. Then there are artists who seem not to have viable income most of the time.
Now musicians, artists and writers etc. need to be able to earn a living, (as well as make a social and cultural contribution) but maybe the model for how they earn that living needs to change, and with modern technology it is doubtful if the services of publishers and recording companies will be needed much longer.
In your example, now that the public has got a taste of your wares, it may be possible for you to do live paid performances, and make some decent income. I know some different people where I work that have music as a hobby, and they live perform sometimes for money and sometimes for free. But I don't think that they use your distribution model, to let the world at large determine the popularity of their music.
The promotional side of the equation that recording and publishing companies used to provide is still a requirement, but for the making of copies and the distribution of these their services are no longer required. So live performances / talks / shows / lectures etc. may be the replacement income generator for artists/musicians/writers, I don't know.
Exactly! I see this argument all the time, where the interests of the John Q Citizen is presumed to be served by the free market. Like the interests of the large Corporations and the individual were presumed to be one and the same by the elected government. So when it comes to government loyalties, is it where the votes come from, or where the money comes from? The conflict of interests broken government contention! (I am presuming that your post was sarcastic here.)
You mean Practicality!! I have been challenged on this many times before, that: "it is the System of Thought itself that is the problem". The "relativistic" system of thought. This example you use here: "Creationism is wrong and Evolution is right". And then the Egos of the experts?? proceed to give "relativistic" examples of why their position is so.
Hitler, Albert Einstein, and the present day Suicide bomber, all use this same "relativistic" system of thought. The relativistic "right and wrong" are NOT relative to each other, or to "Reality", they are only relative to the Ego that conceived them. Shakespeare's Hamlet might have been onto something with: "for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so". So that might explain why Hitler's "good and bad", was so very different from say Mother Theresa's "good and bad". It is the relativistic thought process itself that is the problem. It would even seem that the allegorical "garden of Eden" brings up this very "relativistic" thinking as being the "original" problem. ("eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil")
The example that you use "Love", is in fact at the core of all the world's religions, even the religion of the "suicide bomber". So then, what exactly is this "love" and why does it seem to be so very different from the "relativistic system of thought". If you take it to it's very fundamental essence, it implies that there only is "ONE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT IS ALL ONE".
That what you do to any part of it, you do to the whole, and the fact that Ego and relativistic thinking crept in, has created an illusion of not ONE but many, and such allusions as self and other. But all the myriad of relativistic ways of thinking in a ONE THING Reality, is not in fact VALID. Each religion taught this in a different way, depending on the time, the place and the culture. You are a Christian, so Jesus taught "Love" and "as you do it unto the least of my brethren you do it onto me". Can you see that this is another way of saying "ALL IS ONE". Science will eventually also find this Reality, and when it does they can teach it in the schools.
Big Egos never give up. Hitler finally had to put a bullet in his brain. Because personal opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. You just keep proving the points that I made earlier. Your fantastic scientific position which always seems to be: "I am right and you are wrong". Sign of the big ego again, you know the mentally created self that does not exist, except in your mind. The illusionary "system of thought" that you are trapped in. You own little "closed" world of pseudo reality. I can reflect this back on you forever, and you can continue to prove all the points that I made before, about where your big illusionary ego and "closed" little world comes from. Only big egos even consider that there is actually a dualistic "right and wrong". The garden of Eden was the allegorical birth of the dualistic "good and evil" big ego "system of thought". Your "system of thought" is your prepetual tormentor. But I think that maybe somewhere you already know that.
There is some kind of distinction to be made between business and charity. I believe the OLPC is a not for profit, philanthropic venture. I work for a large corporation, larger than Intel, and they seem to be able to make a clear distinction between business and charity, and the methods used for each.
And what ARE the implications? That you replace one "system of thought" (religion), for another "system of thought" (science) one dogma for another dogma and neither one comes even close to representing Reality. Did you ever consider that it is thought itself that corrupts Reality? Because thought always needs a "closed" system to operate in, where there are just limited inclusions, and major exclusions. That reality might just be a totally "open" system where there can be no exclusions, or just chosen inclusions? Don't you think that maybe the crossroads that Quantum physics is currently at, may be because of this very question? Or that the very theories which seem to imply that there is no God, are only mental conveniences, so the BIG (first cause) question never has to be broached, or can be kept silent.
Science seems to be about "cause and effect" that every "effect" is somehow preceded by a "cause", and yes simple observation would seem to support this. So that would suppose that there was a very FIRST cause, or that there was no BEGINNING at all. This poses a little bit of a dilemma, because then you have the questions of either "what is the nature" of this "first cause"? Or since the implication of "endless time" (time just seeming to be a "before and after" mental ordering of things) brings the "cause and effect" theories into question. To use these kinds of "systems of thought" things have to be circular, closed, or bend back on themselves, including the "systems of thought" themselves. Reality just might be a lot simpler, and less corrupted than this.
Oh Yea, the whole of the observable Universe and everything in it came into existence all on it's own. It even cultivated intelligence??? when this attribute did not originally exist.
Then this intelligence ponders the laws under which the Universe came into existence, and came up with "cause and effect" scientific laws? And also scientific laws of conversation, that pretty well say that nothing is either created or destroyed, just transformed. Then they have the Scientific theories of evolution, that require time in the equation. (before and after problems) The problem posed by this (time)is at some point you have to use regression. We have the "Big Bang", and that's where it all began. BUT WHERE DID THE MATTER IN THE "BIG BANG" COME FROM, AND WHAT WAS BEFORE THAT??? Oh!! we had the "BIG CONTRACTION".
Can you not see the dammed paradox here, in these two diametrically opposed ways of Scientific??? thinking. (conservation versus evolution theories) Scientific dogma created by "closed systems" of thought is no more credible than religious dogma created by "closed systems" of thought. They should ban both of them from the schools, particularly science, because it masquerades as the "one right way", when it is not even close to accurately describing Reality.
Because Science also creates illusions, by refusing to address the central question, of "what is thought?" "what is intelligence?" Why can it not apprehend the nature of anything that is without bounds (that is not "closed") such as Infinite Space, Endless Time, Instantaneous Speed or interaction, etc etc. Why does thought always need "closed Systems" of dualities to operate in?
Crap? A very scientific response. Your system of thinking seems to be a "closed" system. And Quantum is pointing to an "open" reality only, and that "closed" is just a mentally convenient illusion. I believe the Roman Catholic church of the middle ages, had a similar mental illusion about the relationship of the earth and the sun.
The only difference I see here is that they had the power to burn people at the stake, who didn't subscribe to their pet "closed" system of thought, and the "closed" theories this produced. We don't want heretics now do we? It might upset the status quo of the current theories, which of course we know are all correct, because they have never ever been found lacking. Right?
Slashdot Mirror
A Good One, and maybe you are right about the article quality. I used to be a big fan of science, but it seems that every answer just raises more questions, so how can any journalist dig for the truth? You will probably not read any science article now and have an Ah Ha moment. /. usually covers a wide range of interests
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljbI-363A2Q
My point: It is science itself that is full of uncertainty, so how could any article about science meet you quality standards?
It is all part of the relentless drive to answer the question, is there or isn't there a God. And if there is, what exactly is it?
Scientists take the long (empirical?)route, philosophers take the short (personal experience?) route. But in either case maybe the question is not satisfactorily answerable.
I didn't see what the original comment was, but I am guessing it was not about the technical merits of satellite internet. There is a difference between the intent and purpose of launching a communications satellite, and shooting one down. Maybe got he/she this confused.
I believe you have framed the actual situation very accurately here. The MS leadership didn't actually have a lot of vision, they just bought up cool stuff companies who seemed to be succeeding in the marketplace.
It was never about rebutting or proving anything. I think if you look at any of my slash dot posts about any topic in the past the theme is always about casting dispersion on the "I'm right and you are wrong, and here's why" approach as a means of arriving at the truth, or in the case of science or religion arriving at Reality. Thats just what you have done here, and of course with the BIG EGO the next step is DENIAL, "no I'm not doing this and here's why". It's classic, but you don't see that, because EGO is about deception, mostly self deception. Your self deception is that you know the truth about everything, and my position has always been "relative thinking processes can never know the truth" therefore it is always about "don't believe or don't disbelieve" because time changes theories. The world is not flat this year, but it was some years back. Is cholesterol good or bad for you this year, I forget?.
Here is a copy of my very first post in this endless series. It would seem that as of today we are up to the fourth cable cut, and not anywhere near shipping, in fact an area off limits to ships. I think there were only two when I originally wrote this. It was merely pointing out the probabilities of accidental in such a situation. Not "I'm right and you are wrong", but then I'm not a self appointed moderator, my ego does not require that.
>>>>>>>>Remember this:
"There are times when things can be accidentally coincidental. But when the probability mathematical odds get really high, then the question should always be: was it deliberate? If it was terrorists there is a high likely hood that there would be a: "look what we did" news cast. But if it were the covert actions of a semi legitimate government, then it would be made to look accidental."
They were the darling of Wall Street, so I invested a few bucks. They went bankrupt and got bought out by one of their partner/creditors when the "dot com" bust came. The original stockholders got shut out, and now they are up and running again under the Global Crossing name. Apparently they are one of the big undersea cable players.
Your $0.02 is ignoring one very important principle "innocent until proven guilty". And certain other human rights such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", that Fascism tends to deprive people of.
Rights is what the whole issue is about, are the SPECIAL legal rights granted to copyright holders, more important than the GENERAL human rights of the population at large?
Copyright as I understand is about exact or nearly exact copy. MP3 is not nearly exact copy, maybe about a 10% copy of the original. (a 60M MP3 translates to about a 600M CD) The concept of copyright was originally for publishers. Only publisher "A" can publish and sell my work, and not publisher "B", because I only gave publisher "A" the rights. And way back, it was a way of controlling the printing press, as a threatening (to those in power) technology. Only you by "Royal Decree" can own and operate a printing press.
But what if there is now no real need for printing presses, or recording companies at all? Oh but you can't let them go out of business, well what happened to the horses and buggies, and are we any worse off? So the real issue then is not that the publishers, and record companies are loosing money, but that "we the people" need a new social contract with artists, musicians and writers. So they have ample opportunity to earn a living, if they produce works considered to be popular and of value. That might be a different kind of free or government controlled market model, but in which (printing press) publishers and (hard media) recording companies do not exist.
I deal a lot with legal documents, and interpretation most times hinges on what precedes or what follows, in this case it means "good job", because you are looking at all known inclusions or possibilities, and not unnecessarily excluding any possibility at this point.
I have more than a passing interest in this, because I put money on the line a few years back and lost it. A company named Global Crossing, with an IPO of about a half billion capitalization, and two years later Chapter 11. They were in undersea cables, when the flavor of the month was bandwidth, percent of dark cable, and redundancy.
That's it, now you are doing your homework! You might have to cut and paste this link, and it will give you some indication of just how many cables there actually are. They take out your cables, they take out your satellites, jam your radio waves, and pretty soon you are blind and deaf. Then they attack. That region is so peaceful, this could never happen, right. I bet the Israelis see it that way too. A lot of things are just what they seem, but sometimes they are not.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Technology/Pix/pictures/2008/02/01/SeaCableHi.jpg
You make the assumption that what is reported is always accurate, or even the intended truth. That might be a little bit naive. Oh no, those in control or who might loose face never manipulate the media, do they?
For systems with built in redundancy, you might question the odds, of a complete failure. Or why do cables come ashore, at ports or where ships normally anchor? Or do they? Some of these considerations might even be a bit of a credulity stretch don't you think.
Well if it ain't the GREAT BIG EGO again!!! MR. RELATIVITY THINKING HIMSELF!!! Welcome back. It's a small world and a big Universe. Why are the polar ice caps melting on Mars at a faster rate than on earth??? Why is there evidence that other planets are heating up faster than earth??? No human intervention there. Consider some data and ignore others, "the scientific way". I see you haven't changed, still think that only YOU know the truth, when there are Heisenberg Uncertainty, plus Probability theories out there!!! Who appointed you the TRUTH gatekeeper?
Exactly, there are lots of big brand names that that no longer exist. All it takes is a short term business outlook, and/or wrong business model. Blackmail and holding your customers to ransom is never a good long term strategy. Because customers tend to have a very long term memory, and when a deal is no longer just about the money, (competitive) then other factors such as ethics and business relationships are considered.
Example: IBM used to be king of the PC world (no viable competition) they made a lot of "take it or leave it" PC deals. But when IBM eventually had dollar for dollar value competition, then the memory and past "business relationship" factors came into play. Result: IBM is no longer in the PC business.
There are times when things can be accidentally coincidental. But when the probability mathematical odds get really high, then the question should always be: was it deliberate? If it was terrorists there is a high likely hood that there would be a: "look what we did" news cast. But if it were the covert actions of a semi legitimate government, then it would be made to look accidental.
You got it wrong here, MS never does what they are accusing IBM of, do they? In a bully's world, what goes around should never come around, but it does.
You would not even have to loose your home, and your car and your first born, like the RIAA normally takes for a few song downloads. Only in the good old USA can people make major decisions about how to destroy someone else's life, who were not smart enough to get off jury duty.
And there you have it! A point that I made years ago. To some degree a lot of people besides artists do original creative work that is actually unique but because of its nature or their job, they cannot copy protect it. They only get paid for creating more new creative material and do not continue to get paid for copies of what they had already produced. My question was always why a different model for musicians and writers? They are no more important than the producers of food or housing or clothing etc. Then there are artists who seem not to have viable income most of the time.
Now musicians, artists and writers etc. need to be able to earn a living, (as well as make a social and cultural contribution) but maybe the model for how they earn that living needs to change, and with modern technology it is doubtful if the services of publishers and recording companies will be needed much longer.
In your example, now that the public has got a taste of your wares, it may be possible for you to do live paid performances, and make some decent income. I know some different people where I work that have music as a hobby, and they live perform sometimes for money and sometimes for free. But I don't think that they use your distribution model, to let the world at large determine the popularity of their music.
The promotional side of the equation that recording and publishing companies used to provide is still a requirement, but for the making of copies and the distribution of these their services are no longer required. So live performances / talks / shows / lectures etc. may be the replacement income generator for artists/musicians/writers, I don't know.
Exactly! I see this argument all the time, where the interests of the John Q Citizen is presumed to be served by the free market. Like the interests of the large Corporations and the individual were presumed to be one and the same by the elected government. So when it comes to government loyalties, is it where the votes come from, or where the money comes from? The conflict of interests broken government contention! (I am presuming that your post was sarcastic here.)
But we won't need any more than 64K of memory.
You mean Practicality!! I have been challenged on this many times before, that: "it is the System of Thought itself that is the problem". The "relativistic" system of thought. This example you use here: "Creationism is wrong and Evolution is right". And then the Egos of the experts?? proceed to give "relativistic" examples of why their position is so.
Hitler, Albert Einstein, and the present day Suicide bomber, all use this same "relativistic" system of thought. The relativistic "right and wrong" are NOT relative to each other, or to "Reality", they are only relative to the Ego that conceived them. Shakespeare's Hamlet might have been onto something with: "for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so". So that might explain why Hitler's "good and bad", was so very different from say Mother Theresa's "good and bad". It is the relativistic thought process itself that is the problem. It would even seem that the allegorical "garden of Eden" brings up this very "relativistic" thinking as being the "original" problem. ("eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil")
The example that you use "Love", is in fact at the core of all the world's religions, even the religion of the "suicide bomber". So then, what exactly is this "love" and why does it seem to be so very different from the "relativistic system of thought". If you take it to it's very fundamental essence, it implies that there only is "ONE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT IS ALL ONE".
That what you do to any part of it, you do to the whole, and the fact that Ego and relativistic thinking crept in, has created an illusion of not ONE but many, and such allusions as self and other. But all the myriad of relativistic ways of thinking in a ONE THING Reality, is not in fact VALID. Each religion taught this in a different way, depending on the time, the place and the culture. You are a Christian, so Jesus taught "Love" and "as you do it unto the least of my brethren you do it onto me". Can you see that this is another way of saying "ALL IS ONE". Science will eventually also find this Reality, and when it does they can teach it in the schools.
Big Egos never give up. Hitler finally had to put a bullet in his brain. Because personal opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. You just keep proving the points that I made earlier. Your fantastic scientific position which always seems to be: "I am right and you are wrong". Sign of the big ego again, you know the mentally created self that does not exist, except in your mind. The illusionary "system of thought" that you are trapped in. You own little "closed" world of pseudo reality. I can reflect this back on you forever, and you can continue to prove all the points that I made before, about where your big illusionary ego and "closed" little world comes from. Only big egos even consider that there is actually a dualistic "right and wrong". The garden of Eden was the allegorical birth of the dualistic "good and evil" big ego "system of thought". Your "system of thought" is your prepetual tormentor. But I think that maybe somewhere you already know that.
There is some kind of distinction to be made between business and charity. I believe the OLPC is a not for profit, philanthropic venture. I work for a large corporation, larger than Intel, and they seem to be able to make a clear distinction between business and charity, and the methods used for each.
And what ARE the implications? That you replace one "system of thought" (religion), for another "system of thought" (science) one dogma for another dogma and neither one comes even close to representing Reality. Did you ever consider that it is thought itself that corrupts Reality? Because thought always needs a "closed" system to operate in, where there are just limited inclusions, and major exclusions. That reality might just be a totally "open" system where there can be no exclusions, or just chosen inclusions? Don't you think that maybe the crossroads that Quantum physics is currently at, may be because of this very question? Or that the very theories which seem to imply that there is no God, are only mental conveniences, so the BIG (first cause) question never has to be broached, or can be kept silent.
Science seems to be about "cause and effect" that every "effect" is somehow preceded by a "cause", and yes simple observation would seem to support this. So that would suppose that there was a very FIRST cause, or that there was no BEGINNING at all. This poses a little bit of a dilemma, because then you have the questions of either "what is the nature" of this "first cause"? Or since the implication of "endless time" (time just seeming to be a "before and after" mental ordering of things) brings the "cause and effect" theories into question. To use these kinds of "systems of thought" things have to be circular, closed, or bend back on themselves, including the "systems of thought" themselves. Reality just might be a lot simpler, and less corrupted than this.
Oh Yea, the whole of the observable Universe and everything in it came into existence all on it's own. It even cultivated intelligence??? when this attribute did not originally exist.
Then this intelligence ponders the laws under which the Universe came into existence, and came up with "cause and effect" scientific laws? And also scientific laws of conversation, that pretty well say that nothing is either created or destroyed, just transformed. Then they have the Scientific theories of evolution, that require time in the equation. (before and after problems) The problem posed by this (time)is at some point you have to use regression. We have the "Big Bang", and that's where it all began. BUT WHERE DID THE MATTER IN THE "BIG BANG" COME FROM, AND WHAT WAS BEFORE THAT??? Oh!! we had the "BIG CONTRACTION".
Can you not see the dammed paradox here, in these two diametrically opposed ways of Scientific??? thinking. (conservation versus evolution theories) Scientific dogma created by "closed systems" of thought is no more credible than religious dogma created by "closed systems" of thought. They should ban both of them from the schools, particularly science, because it masquerades as the "one right way", when it is not even close to accurately describing Reality.
Because Science also creates illusions, by refusing to address the central question, of "what is thought?" "what is intelligence?" Why can it not apprehend the nature of anything that is without bounds (that is not "closed") such as Infinite Space, Endless Time, Instantaneous Speed or interaction, etc etc. Why does thought always need "closed Systems" of dualities to operate in?
Crap? A very scientific response. Your system of thinking seems to be a "closed" system. And Quantum is pointing to an "open" reality only, and that "closed" is just a mentally convenient illusion. I believe the Roman Catholic church of the middle ages, had a similar mental illusion about the relationship of the earth and the sun.
The only difference I see here is that they had the power to burn people at the stake, who didn't subscribe to their pet "closed" system of thought, and the "closed" theories this produced. We don't want heretics now do we? It might upset the status quo of the current theories, which of course we know are all correct, because they have never ever been found lacking. Right?