Martin Karne on 8/4/2010 at 05:30
Is this place where we live in real? Or is just a an empty scenario like some scientists suggest and also some asian religions mentions as an illusory place?
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle)
Quote:
The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories which states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. First proposed by Gerard 't Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind.
In a larger and more speculative sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies. Cosmological holography has not been made mathematically precise, partly because the cosmological horizon has a finite area and grows with time.[1][2]
The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which implies that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a black hole, the insight was that the description of all the objects which have fallen in can be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon. The holographic principle resolves the black hole information paradox within the framework of string theory.[3]
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm)
Quote:
The holonomic model of the brain
Bohm also made significant[peacock term] theoretical contributions to neuropsychology and the development of the holonomic model of the functioning of the brain.[1] In collaboration with Stanford neuroscientist Karl Pribram, Bohm helped establish the foundation for Pribram's theory that the brain operates in a manner similar to a hologram, in accordance with quantum mathematical principles and the characteristics of wave patterns. These wave forms may compose hologram-like organizations, Bohm suggested, basing this concept on his application of Fourier analysis, a mathematical method for decomposing complex waves into component sine waves. The holonomic brain model developed by Pribram and Bohm posits a lens defined world view— much like the textured prismatic effect of sunlight refracted by the churning mists of a rainbow— a view which is quite different from the more conventional "objective reality" - not to be confused with objectivity - approach. Pribram held that if psychology means to understand the conditions that produce the world of appearances, it must look to the thinking of physicists like Bohm.[2]
Are we in the Matrix or not?
fett on 8/4/2010 at 05:46
Quote Posted by Illuminatus
Best fuckikng summary of the "Middle Ages" I've seen so far
Some of the assumptions about the Middle Ages itt are almost worse than typical assumptions about the Bible. Almost.
SD on 8/4/2010 at 15:36
Quote Posted by Illuminatus
Point being, so much of Western culture/advancement is due to religious institutions
Due to or in spite of?
Can we really attribute the genius of Leonardo or Michelangelo to the existence of the Catholic Chhurch, for example?
I think we're going to need some supporting evidence for such a claim here.
Illuminatus on 8/4/2010 at 16:41
Such as the evidence listed right before that claim....?
The notion that all the Church did was run around burning heretics is really counterproductive to a serious historical understanding of the period. It’s impossible to ignore that religious scholars and institutions were at the forefront of Medieval science, art, architecture, philosophy, etc. From Oxford to Al-Azhar, the earliest universities all have monastic origins. Modern philosophy and literature is rooted in the work of theologians like Aquinas and Averroes, or religious poets like Dante. In general, these cultural currents paved the way to what is now called the Renaissance (in addition to the huge influx of Greek Orthodox scholars from the ex-Byzantine Empire). Mentioning Michelangelo in this context is especially ironic, seeing as the Catholic Church was his greatest patron.
Matthew on 8/4/2010 at 16:53
Quote Posted by Illuminatus
Averroes
Nah, raph's not
that good.
SD on 8/4/2010 at 17:26
Quote Posted by Illuminatus
Such as the evidence listed right before that claim....?
The notion that all the Church did was run around burning heretics is really counterproductive to a serious historical understanding of the period. It’s impossible to ignore that religious scholars and institutions were at the forefront of Medieval science, art, architecture, philosophy, etc. From Oxford to Al-Azhar, the earliest universities all have monastic origins. Modern philosophy and literature is rooted in the work of theologians like Aquinas and Averroes, or religious poets like Dante. In general, these cultural currents paved the way to what is now called the Renaissance (in addition to the huge influx of Greek Orthodox scholars from the ex-Byzantine Empire). Mentioning Michelangelo in this context is especially ironic, seeing as the Catholic Church was his greatest patron.
Yeah, none of that was evidence, just a repetition of the same baseless assertion.
Correlation is not causation.
If religious institutions were so key to cultural and scientific advancements, wouldn't you expect such advancements to slow down in these increasingly godless times? Yet if anything, they've sped up.
Same old nonsense being pushed, really.
Illuminatus on 8/4/2010 at 18:46
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD: Correlation is not causation.
Look closer: I said that religious institutions, from remote monasteries to the Holy See, were largely responsible for funding/preserving/proliferating the cultural achievements that created Europe as we know it. This is not mere correlation. Aquinas, Charlemagne, and company did not achieve what they did “in spite” of Christianity; this is basic high school history.
You have to get beyond the stereotype of “Religion!” as a reasonless and oppressive structure and understand it for what it was at the time: the shared cultural vocabulary within which a continent redeveloped its institutions and society after Ancient Rome’s passing. Of course its influence declined as the modern era transitioned into a more secular cultural system. However, denying Christianity (and of course Islam’s) immense cultural contribution and influence upon our present “godless times” just betrays a lack of historical understanding.
hopper on 8/4/2010 at 19:36
Post more.
SD on 8/4/2010 at 20:09
Quote Posted by Illuminatus
Look closer: I said that religious institutions, from remote monasteries to the Holy See, were largely responsible for funding/preserving/proliferating the cultural achievements that created Europe as we know it. This is not mere correlation. Aquinas, Charlemagne, and company did not achieve what they did “in spite” of Christianity; this is basic high school history.
It's
your spin on history.
Of course they funded a lot of that shit - they had all the money and all the power, most of it ill-gotten.
If it wasn't them, it would have been someone else - and likely someone who didn't excommunicate and imprison Galileo for proving what a nonsense the Bible was, or someone who didn't censure Leonardo for his anatomical studies and turn him into such a paranoiac that he started writing his notes backwards.
Leonardo was imprisoned twice for his homosexuality by the church - you think that helped or hindered the Age of Reason, huh?
Fucking apologists :nono:
Chimpy Chompy on 8/4/2010 at 21:15
Given we're talking the middle ages, I imagine much money and power in general was ill-gotten and your "someone else" probably would have been repressing someone or other too.
I don't think you have to be a particular fan of organised religion today to get Illuminatus point - that religion played a big part in the development of things like art or philosophy. That's not taking away from how science and understanding of the natural world took huge leaps once the Enlightenment rolled around.
Just, I dunno, you don't have to vomit jets of pure fermented hate every time a comment on religion isn't purely negative. You won't lose your shiny Superior Reason badge or whatever.
