Janny wrote: "Ah, no wonder you didn't know if you were coming or going. grin"

(G) "Anyone who isn't confused doesn't really understand the situation." -Ed Murrow

Somewhere along the line I read that "confusion" is part of the learning process.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." -Alexander Pope

"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." -Carl Sagan

Janny wrote: Ah, no wonder you didn't know if you were coming or going. grin"

We're supposed to?!!!

;-)

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Janny wrote (re :"freight train discussion"): I sort of thought one that stays on track, but runs out of control, and visits lots of stations."

When I googled for the meaning of "freight train dis..."

Ah, no wonder you didn't know if you were coming or going. grin

Janny wrote (re :"freight train discussion"): I sort of thought one that stays on track, but runs out of control, and visits lots of stations."

When I googled for the meaning of "freight train discussion, I found the following:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/discuss...
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=52...
LOL - That REALLY threw me off track. :)

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "What's a "freight train discussion"?"

I sort of thought one that stays on track, but runs out of control, and visits lots of stations.

What's a "freight train discussion"?

Janny, I haven't seen that film with the old lady who earned her limp, but I know I've earned my wrinkles. :)

I'll check out Stonewind and Reiki:
http://www.stonewindretreat.com/
http://www.stonewindretreat.com/stonewin...
Thanks.

Jennifer, Nick, Jim, Stefan, Joy - I think I am floored. I had no idea this thread was being read - felt like one of those crazy freight train discussions that happen in corners at parties. Thanks for being here. Esoteric subjects are great fun.

Joy - I am trying to recall the film - can't - where an old woman talking to the young (was it test pilots?) in a fly boy bar gave a flinty response that - she'd EARNED her limp - or something to that effect.

For the ouches - I could suggest you stretch another step and look up a retreat in Arkansas called Stonewind, then read their material on Reiki.

Janny wrote: "Thanks for posting that, Joy - I'm definitely of the camp that feels you haven't lived if you don't risk the bangs and the bumps."

Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!
I guess I've lived! :)

Janny wrote: "Thanks for posting that, Joy - I'm definitely of the camp that feels you haven't lived if you don't risk the bangs and the bumps."

No wonder I feel so old some days!
;-)

I've truly enjoyed following this thread. It makes my head spin, too. But Janny, you use words well, and I feel enriched by your thoughts on perception and reality. Thanks.

This thread makes my head spin....I think I'll need a year to digest even part of it. I'm not complaining, just saying =D

Thanks for posting that, Joy - I'm definitely of the camp that feels you haven't lived if you don't risk the bangs and the bumps.

Jim wrote: "That's an awesome poem, Joy. I'm not much for poetry, but that one is cool. It would be great set to music. Janny...?"

Yes, Jim, it is awesome. I can't understand why it's not well-known. It helped to heal scars for me at a time when they needed healing. IIRC, a friend passed the poem on to me back in the 1980s. That's how I discovered it.

That's an awesome poem, Joy. I'm not much for poetry, but that one is cool. It would be great set to music. Janny...?

Well, I've finished reading "To Ride Hell's Chasm" and will now switch to the spoiler thread. Since this is a non-spoiler thread, I won't comment here about the ending of the story.

However, I'd like to say that the ending reminded me of a poem which I found years ago. For some strange reason, the poem cannot be found in many places on the Net. In fact, the two copies which I do find on the Net are there because I am probably the one who first posted it there (via alt.quotations newsgroup). (A friend has posted it at his own website as well.) Below is the poem:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
VILLANELLE OF CHALLENGE
by A.M. Sullivan

Go count the scars upon your soul and sing,
They are proof that you have met the foe,
A battered crown sits well upon a king.

Since Time makes honey out of sorrow's sting
And wounds turn purple for the public show,
Go count the scars upon your soul and sing.

While sword or ploughshare on the anvil ring,
Soon, come what may, the fretting world will know
A battered crown sits well upon a king.

And care no more for what the dawn may bring,
Yours is a realm no knave can overthrow,
Go count the scars upon your soul and sing.

Aye, sing the praise for every lonely thing
that breaks its heart on
all we say or know;

A battered crown sits well upon a king
who stands aloof and fills his empty sling
with words and stones to meet fate
blow for blow;

Go count the scars upon your soul and sing,
A battered crown sits well upon a king.

by A.M. Sullivan (aka Aloysius Michael Sullivan) (1896—1980)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloysius_Mi...
http://www.someworthwhilequotes.com/CERT...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Janny wrote: "You'll just have to read to the last page, and find out. ;)"

I'm on p.648. I plan to finish the book today. Have to wait for a quiet moment when I can brace myself for the worst. :)"

Ah - that is very close to finished, indeed. I hope you'll drop in the spoiler thread when you arrive. Dare I suggest you might be a wee bit of a pessimist? ;)

I will check back here later, when I've finished writing the current scene in my ongoing hot deadline.

Janny wrote: "You'll just have to read to the last page, and find out. ;)"

I'm on p.648. I plan to finish the book today. Have to wait for a quiet moment when I can brace myself for the worst. :)

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Janny wrote: "... You're pretty far into the book, right now, too - I hope you are enjoying the intensity of the ride!"

ENJOYING IT? I'm exhausted! LOL I've been riding through Hell's Chasm for se..."

You'll just have to read to the last page, and find out. ;)

Janny wrote: "... You're pretty far into the book, right now, too - I hope you are enjoying the intensity of the ride!"

ENJOYING IT? I'm exhausted! LOL I've been riding through Hell's Chasm for several weeks now! :)

Yep, I'm on p.619 of _To Ride Hell's Chasm_ . I keep wondering how you keep coming up with all the ways Mykkael manages to survive. Please don't let him die. :)

Only about 50 more pages to go. If he dies, I'll never forgive you. :)

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Janny wrote (in Message #58): "... I left astronomy because I was the technician working the telescopes for the class in college - every clear night for lab, point it at this, or that or the other ..."

Joy - I've no intention of dumping curiosity.

You're pretty far into the book, right now, too - I hope you are enjoying the intensity of the ride!

Janny wrote (in Message #58): "... I left astronomy because I was the technician working the telescopes for the class in college - every clear night for lab, point it at this, or that or the other known object. Three PHD research astronomy professors were present, one night - and stuff happened, where I said, (naked eye, pointing,) HEY, what IS THAT? (NOT a satellite or known object, trust me, I've done a lot of sky gazing telescope or not, since childhood). ..."

Janny wrote (in Message #60): "I write fantasy PRECISELY because I can take every sort of idea - fictional, real, theoretical, or just messy supposition - and throw them together into the mixing bowl - and cast a wedge into what we see as immobile or fixed ideas. ...
====================================================
Janny, you have an interesting background. Your passion for your ideas is evident in your writing. That's what makes you an exciting author, along with your unique writing style, your articulateness and expressiveness. So keep on mixing it up in that mixing bowl. You've certainly mixed ME up! LOLOL :)

Stefan wrote: "Not exactly distressed, although as the moderator of this group, I vaguely feel as if I should try to drag everyone on-topic again.

Then again, the author of the book under discussion is partici..."

First of all, Joy's curiosity and love of debate is infectious.

But secondly, I don't truly see this exploratory discussion as that far "off topic" - here's why.

To Ride Hell's Chasm is all about different points of view - and what happens when a shift in perception over a hot problem leads to tension between characters.

It explores other dimensional threats, reacts on that angle with everything from a political statesman's cast iron view, to the duty of the warrior to defend and protect, to the otherness of shamanic perceptions, which hint at WHOLE other sets of energetic underpinnings to what we know as readers, of our reality. It addresses other means to contain and unleash - powers perhaps imbued by the practice of geometry, used with intent and wisdom, and also plays with RESONANCE (song) as a disruptive force) - if that is not pure physics, and the model of a holographic universe, what else?

The beliefs attached to herbs - or the properties beyond our knowing that may be inherent in certain plants - and the invention of intuitive problem solving.

I write fantasy PRECISELY because I can take every sort of idea - fictional, real, theoretical, or just messy supposition - and throw them together into the mixing bowl - and cast a wedge into what we see as immobile or fixed ideas.

A good book provides breathtaking surprises - and science on the edge is every bit as graspingly strange as any fictional scenario I've ever visited.

I LIKE that the modern and the ancient can be made to collide - and even - connect into a whole that, like the idea of multidimensional chess - can fit together in conficts and harmonies that are wonderous strange and delightful, or that open pitfalls underfoot that we have only to take one tiny step out of our known bounds to encounter.

Not exactly distressed, although as the moderator of this group, I vaguely feel as if I should try to drag everyone on-topic again.

Then again, the author of the book under discussion is participating, so how can it really be off-topic, right?

So, um - carry on :)

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Janny wrote: "I think the purpose of truth is to continuously evolve and find a better truth - it doesn't stop..."

Nick wrote: "Well, there is the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. I suppose i..."

Joy, it perhaps shouldn't surprise that I started out with the "idea" I'd choose the sciences for a career, and astronomy was huge on the list...the questions asked were on the edge, truly, but I found that box was not large enough, very quickly.

Theory on the edge gets messy very quickly. grin.

Life is messy, anyway - in a glorious profusion.

I left astronomy because I was the technician working the telescopes for the class in college - every clear night for lab, point it at this, or that or the other known object. Three PHD research astronomy professors were present, one night - and stuff happened, where I said, (naked eye, pointing,) HEY, what IS THAT? (NOT a satellite or known object, trust me, I've done a lot of sky gazing telescope or not, since childhood).

They responded - We have NO idea.

Me: Aren't you curious?

PHD profs: NEVER! We couldn't write a paper on THAT without getting drummed out of the scientific community.

This happened, not once, but a LOT.

What good is a field that denys eyewitness stuff and ISN'T EVEN CURIOUS?

I picked a field where any sort of question is not considered valid or not valid by reason of ridiculous herd-bound taboos.

Read those articles - they may let you see some really cool ideas that are past "the bitter end" - fun!

Jim wrote: "How cool! Mini black holes & fantasy worlds!"

Yup, we are not a faint-hearted, narrow-minded bunch, but intrepid explorers of ideas on the edge.

I am proud to be a reader of speculative literature and speculative science and myth.

How's that for popping the mundane envelope?

Stefan, are you distressed? grin.

Jim wrote: "Joy, Schrödinger's cat boils down into a quandary as to what makes reality. It depends on where you are observing from. ...
...If you get a chance, you should read Einstein's explanation of relativity sometime. He does a great job using trains to explain the seeming paradoxes involved based on whether the observer is standing on the train or the platform. You don't have to be a scientist to understand it. It's really fascinating reading."

Jim, thanks for those link to "Einstein's explanation of relativity".
http://www.bartleby.com/173/
I shall bend my mind to it.

BTW, my computer had a "serious blue screen error" this morning. Now THAT'S REALITY! LOL I'm waiting for some tech advice from my son. Meanwhile, I'm hanging in here. I guess I can always access Goodreads from my husband's laptop if necessary.

Joy, Schrödinger's cat boils down into a quandary as to what makes reality. It depends on where you are observing from. If you're outside the box, the cat is both alive & dead until you observe it. Then, either one determined reality lies ahead or two realities diverge; one in which the cat is alive, the other where it is dead.

However, if you're the cat, it's an entirely different situation, isn't it? Lots of very smart people have been burning lots of brain cells on this for years because it illustrates some of the absurdities behind quantum mechanics in a real world situation.

If you get a chance, you should read Einstein's explanation of relativity sometime. He does a great job using trains to explain the seeming paradoxes involved based on whether the observer is standing on the train or the platform. You don't have to be a scientist to understand it. It's really fascinating reading.

His book is fairly short although he packs many thoughts into it. You can read it online at:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/
or download it at Project Gutenberg:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5001

PS-About the word "HADRON:
In particle physics, a hadron ... is a particle made of quarks held together by the strong force (similar to how molecules are held together by the electromagnetic force).
FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron

A quark ... is an elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter. Quarks combine to form composite particles called hadrons, the most stable of which are protons and neutrons, the components of atomic nuclei.
FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

Janny wrote: "I think the purpose of truth is to continuously evolve and find a better truth - it doesn't stop..."

Nick wrote: "Well, there is the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. I suppose it's point is to observe the unobservable, to "see" the "cat" inside of the impenetrable box, to "see" the subatomic particles tha..."

Stefan wrote: "Wow, we went from To Ride Hell's Chasm to the Large Hadron Collider. That must be a record for the most spectacularly off-topic discussion we've had since moving to GoodReads. :)

This "off-topic: subject has raised my curiousity. Below are some items I found by googling:

There's an article (published 8/8/09) about the Large Hadron Collider at:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5384...
It says: "When launched to great fanfare nearly a year ago, some feared the Large Hadron Collider would create a black hole that would suck in the world. It turns out the Hadron may be the black hole."

There's a good explanation of the "black hole" concept at:
http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia...
It says: "Scientists today call such an object a black hole. Why black? Though the history of the term is interesting, the main reason is that no light can escape from inside a black hole: it has, in effect, disappeared from the visible universe."

I found more info in an article published 9/19/06 at:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...
It says: "The accelerator, known as the Large Hadron Collider, is under construction in an underground circular tunnel nearly 17 miles long at the world's largest physics laboratory, CERN, near Geneva."

"If theories about the universe containing extra dimensions other than those of space and time are correct, the accelerator might also generate black holes..."

"Black holes possess gravitational fields so strong that nothing can escape them, not even light. ... Although black holes can't be seen, astronomers infer their existence by the gravitational effects they have on gas and stars around them."

"A number of models of the universe suggest extra dimensions of reality exist that are each folded up into sizes ranging from as tiny as a proton, or roughly a millionth of a billionth of a meter, to as big as a fraction of a millimeter."

See more about "extra dimensions" at:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/06...

Interesting stuff. Perhaps there ARE more truths. :)

I looked at link (which Jim posted) about the "Schrödinger's cat thought experiment" at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6d...

I'm afraid my eyes glazed over as soon as I read the words "quantum mechanics". :)

At the above page I found the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6d...
The page explains the experiment as follows:
"Schrödinger's cat is a paradoxical thought experiment devised by Erwin Schrödinger that attempts to illustrate the incompleteness of the theory of quantum mechanics when going from subatomic to macroscopic systems. This means that there can be two different universes depending on the action taken which in this case is opening the box to see if the cat is dead or not you can not say the cat is alive or dead until you open the box."

Well, I guess we'll all have to wait until they open the box. :)

How cool! Mini black holes & fantasy worlds!

Wow, we went from To Ride Hell's Chasm to the Large Hadron Collider. That must be a record for the most spectacularly off-topic discussion we've had since moving to GoodReads. :)

Well, there is the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. I suppose it's point is to observe the unobservable, to "see" the "cat" inside of the impenetrable box, to "see" the subatomic particles that result from the collison of two atoms without the observation having any effect.

I remember when the US was going to build the supercollider around Waxahachie, TX. I'm sure it's cancellation was due to political reasons, but there was certainly a lot of angst about its practicality. Figures that it would eventually be done in a country that didn't have to stop for Thanksgiving.

Wikipedia says that the actual collison of two particles shot at each other around the entirety of the Swiss collider is scheduled for 2010. (Forgive me if my science or my facts are a little rusty. I only "look" at these things as a layman, my observations being quite incidental.)

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Janny wrote: "There are as many realities as there are observers, which makes for endless fascination. To observe different views, one has to change stance - not guesswork at all, but an adjustment..."

How have scientists responded to the science done by those physicists? They've largely ignored it - grin. Put them out of a job, to admit reality is affected by the individual observer.

Put all the cattle in one pen, they will violently disagree with the one who's standing free, outside the fence.

I thinks the purpose of truth is to continuously evolve and find a better truth - it doesn't stop (except a mother preparing for Thanksgiving, I admit that force stops the world in any sincere family oriented household.)

Jim wrote: "Back in the 1930's, Einstein & some buddies got together & had lots of fun with quantum physics. It's is more like philosophy and precisely to the point that Janny makes. Reality is up for grabs. Read up on Schrödinger's cat some time. It's the perfect example of reality versus observation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6d...

Thanks for the link, Jim. Looks very interesting. Will read it and comment when I return from our shopping trip today.

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "I wonder how the scientists would reply to that statement. It seems to put into question all scientific discoveries..."

Back in the 1930's, Einstein & some buddies got together & had lots of fun with quantum physics. It's is more like philosophy and precisely to the point that Janny makes. Reality is up for grabs. Read up on Schrödinger's cat some time. It's the perfect example of reality versus observation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6d...

Janny wrote: "There are as many realities as there are observers, which makes for endless fascination. To observe different views, one has to change stance - not guesswork at all, but an adjustment of how free choice governs exactly what is perceived."

I wonder how the scientists would reply to that statement. It seems to put into question all scientific discoveries. It's true that Einstein changed our concept of gravity*, but there must be some incontrovertible truths out there. Are we to doubt every truth we've ever learned?

*See article re Einstein's 1916 paper on "General Relativity" at:
http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia...
It says: [Einstein's theory was:]: "A far cry from Newton's view of gravity as a force acting at a distance!"

Interesting stuff. However, I tend to leave all this speculation to the true scientists. I have enough to worry about just getting ready for Thanksgiving. :)

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Janny, I try to see things from a scientific point of view. I believe that there is a scientific explanation for most things. Where there is no scientific explanation, there's only guesswork."

Joy - that is why I listed the experiment with the photon - it showed a range of events, when taken by a camera, and only one event, when an observer was present. Effectively, there, quantum physicists have already proven that the reality of an outcome is affected by the observer - which upends the idea that scientific results are "inviolate" and always exactly repeatable.

The brain further quantifies what is "important" to that observer, and disregards 75 percent of the available range of data.

Belief dictates what the brain considers relevant.

There are as many realities as there are observers, which makes for endless fascination. To observe different views, one has to change stance - not guesswork at all, but an adjustment of how free choice governs exactly what is perceived.

Janny, I try to see things from a scientific point of view. I believe that there is a scientific explanation for most things. Where there is no scientific explanation, there's only guesswork.

Joy - I've had a whirlwind week (houseguest friend, and husband off to a huge art show) so I'm a bit trying to get back on track.

I think what I was driving at was that each of us has a point of view - from that point of view - what is truth? anything we believe absolutely, today, becomes outgrown with time and experience. I was debating the point that what we think we know, we are only discovering.

If the universe is constantly expansive (we outgrow all our viewpoints, eventually) How does one seek to grow? Some wait for necessity or crisis to be the mother of invention. Some sit about and hope for chance. Others use the compass we are all given: does it make you happy? If so - why - pursue that. If not, why, refine that and consciously phase it out.

New creation cannot happen without demolishing an old idea. An epiphany is that moment where we discard the old and see a new angle.

By that definition "what is spiritual" changes.

What is NOT spiritual?

All of this boundary making is point of view, in the moment, based on beliefs.

What if we consciously shift belief - not waiting for the head on with life, but looking to what we WANT to believe, and experimenting with how the angle shifts.

Spiritual by one individual's definition can be anathema to another...the only certain thing is what the myth creates or exposes.

Change myths - a whole other truth emerges.

Which facet of the prism are you splintering your logic from?

Janny wrote: "Ah, Joy - the problem with the very concept of "all powerful" - is - what happens after you break that box and imagine something else more powerful still? ...
... Destruction - is actually re-creation ...
... The question becomes how you bust your boxes: do you wait for, or anticipate, or use pain to grow? Or do you seek to grow and bust boxes through the conscious application of seeking joy?"

Janny, I'm not sure I understood all of that. So it's hard for me to reply. Can you elaborate with examples?

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Janny wrote: "You really like (grin) to bust your brains thinking! Perhaps this is your book, Joy! Your interest says you would do it better than anyone.
The whole idea of a planet without a food c..."

Ah, Joy - the problem with the very concept of "all powerful" - is - what happens after you break that box and imagine something else more powerful still?

Premises exist to become outmatched.

Absolutes get busted by expanded ideas.

However far we imagine, there is always another something beyond what we can project?

So the reach of any creator is always a limitation. Stories exist to bust limitation and find or arrive at a changed outlook.

Destruction - is actually re-creation, each time the outlook of the past stance gets busted. Not circular. More like a spiral.

The question becomes how you bust your boxes: do you wait for, or anticipate, or use pain to grow? Or do you seek to grow and bust boxes through the conscious application of seeking joy?

Nick wrote: "Janny wrote: "Nick wrote: ""The right etiquette for authors"? Was there something specific you had in mind, Janny, when you mentioned that?"

Nick - there are two facets to this question. It woul..."

Nick, so sorry, I just realized I didn't respond to this!

What is polite etiquette when a creative person is told by a complimentary admirerer, "I like what you did here, now why not do that?"

My stock response (to the stock question, without the individual, particular slant) goes like this: "What an interesting idea my work has inspired in you. Why not pursue that spark of direction for yourself, since your enthusiasm has already lead you in that direction?"

Janny wrote: "You really like (grin) to bust your brains thinking! Perhaps this is your book, Joy! Your interest says you would do it better than anyone.
The whole idea of a planet without a food chain - there'd be creation, but no destruction???"

Janny, the problem of "no destruction" could be solved in a spiritual way. After all, it would be fantasy.

In a way, the author of fantasy is "all-powerful". A creator is all powerful and can do anything he wants. He just has to think of better ways of doing things and then do them. And if he's all-knowing, he should certainly be able to come up with good ideas.

Janny wrote: "There have been some fascinating and exciting physics experiments done that have proven reality IS in the eye of the beholder - that outcomes are impacted by the observer.
Basically this: they put ONE light photon through a slit, and let it strike a plate of photographic film - you'd expect a particle to strike and leave one exposed dot. It didn't. The Particle behaved as a wave, for the camaera, and left a gray ARC of dots - multiple impressions from one photon....
No observer - the one event yielded a range of probabilities. Which is truth?
So you and I can hold two beliefs - you that events are totally random, and me, that events may not be. We'd see different data, literally."
______________________________________________________

Strange indeed, Janny. But how does that relate to "randomness"?

About strange things happening, the following is really strange. See below... it's an excerpt from my notes about something which I found fascinating:
=========================================================
FROM: _A Short History of Nearly Everything_ by Bill Bryson. (p. 241, large type)
“[...:] The most arresting of quantum improbabilities is the idea, [...:] that the subatomic particles in certain pairs, even when separated by the most considerable distances, can each instantly “know” what the other is doing.
“[…:] the phenomenon was proved in 1997 when physicists at the University of Geneva sent photons seven miles in opposite directions, and demonstrated that interfering with one provoked an instantaneous response in the other.
“[…:] No one, incidentally, has ever explained how the particles achieve this feat. Scientists have dealt with this problem, according to the physicist Yakir Aharanov, “by not thinking about it.”

NOTE: After reading about the above in Bill Bryson's book, I found it online at: http://www.brentonklik.com/?m=200508
=========================================================

Interesting, n'est-ce pas?

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "... Don't get me started with my opinions about the "Food Chain". LOL I'll be back with a link to some of my meanderings about THAT! LOL"

The link is:
http://www.go..."

You really like (grin) to bust your brains thinking! Perhaps this is your book, Joy! Your interest says you would do it better than anyone.

The whole idea of a planet without a food chain - there'd be creation, but no destruction???

I did encounter a very odd book that had beings that were pure spirit in it - the author described that concept as being very difficult to write! It's titled Speakers and Kings by M. Keaton.

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Janny wrote: "Joy, I can see the premise behind the point you are making, clearly enough.
We have, however, hit the wall of belief.
I don't discount what you are saying, in fact, I respect it, thor..."

There have been some fascinating and exciting physics experiments done that have proven reality IS in the eye of the beholder - that outcomes are impacted by the observer.

Basically this: they put ONE light photon through a slit, and let it strike a plate of photographic film - you'd expect a particle to strike and leave one exposed dot. It didn't. The Particle behaved as a wave, for the camaera, and left a gray ARC of dots - multiple impressions from one photon....

No observer - the one event yielded a range of probabilities. Which is truth?

So you and I can hold two beliefs - you that events are totally random, and me, that events may not be. We'd see different data, literally.

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "... Don't get me started with my opinions about the "Food Chain". LOL I'll be back with a link to some of my meanderings about THAT! LOL"

The link is:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/365...
See "PONDER THIS" in Message #2. If you're interested, you might like to read the messages which follow that message.

Among the comments at the above webpage, I mention the idea of creating a fantasy novel setting up a world which doesn't depend on a food chain. Hmmm, Janny, with your fertile imagination, perhaps you could write such a novel.

Janny wrote: "Joy, I can see the premise behind the point you are making, clearly enough.
We have, however, hit the wall of belief.
I don't discount what you are saying, in fact, I respect it, thoroughly, because from a linear based standpoint, the premise may appear true.
From another angle - that truth can be part of a larger one, viewed from a different angle, and definitely, from a different point of belief.

I do not believe we live in a linear universe - we have designed our thoughts to THINK we do - but there is more to be perceived. To do that, one must step out of the box, a bit further.
[...:]
How do you explain to a bottom dwelling fish about the existence of air above the surface? There would be no reference point, to the fish.

I do not feel the need to convince anyone to alter a fixed frame of belief. But I see that preferences can take many paths - up until a choice is made, there are many choices. We choose according to our current focus, which appears totally linear. I don't think it is, not anymore."
=========================================================
Janny, I'm not sure the word "linear" describes all of my premise (there must be another word), but I'm glad you understand my premise.

I too understand your premise. I think you are referring to the fact that there are other dimensions in the Universe besides the one we live in.

As for dreams, I think they are purely a function of the brain firing off random bits of data and then our brain trying connect it all into a logical meaning. Our brains are always trying to make things logical (I read this in an article somewhere.) That's what a dream is. We come out of a dream in stages and are liable to go through any number of stages like the ones you described. I don't put any worth in dreams above what I just described.

I think that now (in this discussion) we have both come down to speculating on whether there is another dimension besides the one we live in. Perhaps there may be. How it affects us is totally unknown. How we are related to another possible Universe is totally unknown. For us to try to speculate is difficult, like trying to imagine infinity and eternity. We have no experience here on Earth of time, space, or matter which has no beginning or no end. It's impossible to imagine it. What is outside of space? Impossible to answer. Space goes on and on, but to where? :)

I'm always flummoxed by the scientific theory that time slows down as we travel in space (or something like that). Our minds can't imagine exactly how that can be.

So it's true that our minds are limited as to what we can know about the Universe. Until we know more, we are stuck with our beliefs. :) You can imagine all you want... and of course you are excellent at doing that! (I so admire that and the way you express it!) Meanwhile, because we don't really know, no one is right and no one is wrong in his/her beliefs concerning how the Universe operates. We're all just guessing.

Thanks for a great discussion. I have found it stimulating and satisfying. Now I will go on with my pondering about the Universe.

Don't get me started with my opinions about the "Food Chain". LOL I'll be back with a link to some of my meanderings about THAT! LOL