Zeno's Paradoxes: A Thought Experiment

Overview

It is widely accepted that the solutions to the dilemma of explaining physical movement (commonly known as Zeno's Paradoxes), lies in assuming that all physical movement is comprised of a continuous, and contiguous series of 'infinitesimal' little movements, which together provide "perfectly continuous" and seamless movement.

The mathematics of calculus has been used to show that we can traverse an infinite series of such movements in finite time, thus enabling our everyday experience of physical movement.

This continuity of movement enables and fuels a machine world-view, in that the continuity of movement also implies continuity and predictability of operation and behaviour.

However, this widely-accepted theory relies on an absolute, never-ending continuity, which is at odds with the evidence of quantum theory. A new holodynamic systems model (one that includes a discontinuous-space | continuous meta-space duality) is required to fit the facts.

...(the idea) that space is continuous is, I believe, wrong.

Professor Richard Feynman
The Messenger Series: Seeking New Laws

A Clearer Light (reprint)

Excerpt:

There is absolutely no reason we cannot switch humanity to a correct perception of the world—and there are profound benefits in doing so.

The first benefit does not affect physicists (as physicists), and that is the spreading of the philosophical joy of discovering the mental nature of the universe. We have no idea what this means; and we seem to have no hope of ever learning what it means; but—the great thing is—it is true. Physics cannot help anyone from this point onwards. You may, if you wish, descend into solipsism (but do be careful not to blush); or, you can expand to the Deism of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Adams and Thomas Jefferson and the other non-Christian founders of America; or … something else, if you can justify it—just don’t ask physics for help!

Applying Key Principles

[Posted 3 Oct. 2008, 5.23am, by Stephen Pirie]

Are there some rules by which we can clarify our understanding of life? Are there key principles that can be used for practical results, to yield greater creativity, understanding, ease, peace-of-mind?

Clearly, a key principle must exist .. some connecting mechanism or principle has to be operating at a root level of life. Furthermore, whatever that principle, it has to accommodate the theories and proofs of science, particularly science's most successful physical theory in history (quantum mechanics).

How might we recognise this principle? What should we look for? Can we use it in any area of life, to more deeply understand any experience?

Introducing the Pairadox Rule -- a useful tool by which to assess 'truth' and by which to advance understanding, insight, creativity and effectiveness.

Q. Is Darwinian Evolution correct, or "Intelligent Design"?

Brains and Beliefs

The field of neuroplasticity is offering valuable and useful insights into how the brain functions.

Recommended viewing is this interview by Kerry O'Brien (ABC TV's 7.30 Report with Dr Norman Doidge).

From the interview:

for the longest time, for 400 years, we thought of the brain as like a complex machine with parts. And our best and brightest neuroscientists really believed that. It was a mechanistic model of the brain and machines do many glorious things, but they don't rewire themselves and they don't grow new parts. And it turns out that that metaphor was actually just spectacularly wrong, and that the brain is not inanimate, it's animate and it's growing, it's more plant like than machine like and it actually works by changing its structure and function as it goes along.

In a broader context, Visa International founder, Dee Hock voiced a similar perspective a few years ago ...

[from this FastCompany.com article ]

We are at that very point in time when a 400-year-old age is dying and another is struggling to be born -- a shifting of culture, science, society, and institutions enormously greater than the world has ever experienced. Ahead, the possibility of the regeneration of individuality, liberty, community, and ethics such as the world has never known, and a harmony with nature, with one another, and with the divine intelligence such as the world has never dreamed."

Can Science and Religion be Integrated?

by Prof. Amit Goswami (August 10, 2008)

Can science and religion be integrated? What comes to mind immediately is that religions themselves cannot agree with one another whereas science is basically monolithic. How can there even be trade between the two, let alone integration?

First, it is only a perception that religions are pluralistic and science is not. Science is monolithic only so far as science of matter–physics and chemistry–is concerned. Psychology, the science of the psyche, has three different paradigms–behavioral-cognitive consisting of hard science orientation, depth psychology consisting of Freudian psychoanalysis and Jungian analytical psychology and their derivatives with psychotherapy orientation, and humanistic-transpersonal-yoga psychology with positive mental health orientation. Both the later paradigms of psychology acknowledge downward causation and subtle bodies in some form or other. Medicine has the conventional allopathic medicine and also alternative medicine practices that complement it. A prominent part of alternative medicine is Eastern medicine that emphasizes subtle energies called variously as prana, chi, and ki. And biology is in transition right now. The materialist biology is highly developed but with some unsolved (maybe unsolvable) problems. Alternative biology is biology that sees life as the handiwork of a purposive designer with the power of downward causation; but at present it is so poorly developed that hardly anyone can call it a genuine alternative biology.

First Update on Consciousness Studies

[ By Dr Johanna de Groot, SMN Meeting 2nd December 2007 at Killarney Heights, Sydney ]

Introduction

I believe there may be small and uncertain but perhaps significant steps forward in the formulation of a paradigm for the study of consciousness since I last spoke on the topic. Those steps are a new look at ontological relativity and a possible breakthrough in establishing the route of neural correlates. Finally I will add a note about the topics of the extent of consciousness and of machine-consciousness. First follows, however, a brief recapitulation of my previous paper.

Pages