Free verse № 36028
The Golden Rule
Painstakingly, the omnipotent one
kneaded and shaped each figure,
pausing on occasion to admire His work;
fingers deftly molding the eternal clay
into a reflection of self, in His likeness,
perfect image embodied and aware.
His creations multiplied and were many
though he also engendered illusion
and in a singular, enigmatic way,
part of Himself became alone and afraid.
Unaware we are God's perfect image,
with dualism perceived as reality;
what purpose life's bumpy road,
why was temporal from eternal made?
Should we then give thanks to our God,
never questioning life's many absurdities?
Repeating over and over ad nauseum,
how He works in mysterious ways?
A mother cradles her precious child,
the essence of unconditional love.
But what of God and His children;
is His love for them somehow less?
For if magically given His powers,
who amongst us would not intercede;
to end all life's pain and sorrow,
do we not deserve the same?
Perhaps an answer in point
to this paradox not easily solved;
is to fairly do unto others
as you would have others do unto you.
With that thought firmly in place,
I sense hypocrisy from Heaven's gate
and am inclined to respectfully inquire;
"why not follow your own golden rule?"
28 comments
"Cautiously, the zebra wanders across the plain
Playfully, the giraffes dance and play in the water
Determinedly, the cheetah seeks his prey."
AAAHHHHH
Not to say this poem is horrid, it is just all about god this and not god that and after awhile the spiritual quest or the finding of comfort in the lack of spiritual quest is tiresome. Of course, every writer goes through it at some point. It was just the starting sentence, the adverbial clause, reminding me of that horrid book where the clauses fill each page, and the pictures cannot ease the pain of hearing my voice read those sentences. The horror. Sorry. Carry on.
And in quantum mechanics, a basic oneness seems more likely. A systems view that recognizes autonomous parts as manifestations of the whole.
Derive from observational statements about particle behaviour two statements of the form 'A' and '~A'.
Please do recommend some books on the subject.
quantum mechanics is by an experimental physicist, Leon
Lederman. The title is "The God Particle"and the guy really knows his physics. It is quite long and very funny in parts.
You have surely read Hawking and his, "Black Holes and Baby Universes", is excellent. Also, "Stephen Hawking's Universe", a
fairly small book, is outstanding. There are many others but the above are my favorites. If you like far out type books, try either Capra, "The Tao of Physics" or Zukhov, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters."
Your books sound rubbish. If you want to read about the conflict between logic and quantum physics, I recommend Hilary Putnam's article 'The Logic of Quantum Mechanics', which can be found in Volume 1 of his Philosophical Papers; and Michael Dummett's response also titled 'Is Logic Empirical?' which I believe is in 'Truth and Other Enigmas'.
I know who Stephen Hawking is, he lives next door to me. However, his work is entirely irrelevant to the debate we are currently having. Putnam and Dummett have written on precisely our topic.
Photons are not both particles and waves. "Photon" is just a term used in a particular model of light; one that models light as a particle. In fact light is neither a particle nor a wave; in some models we model it as a particle and in some models we model it as a wave.
There is no contradiction here. And even if it were true that light was both a particle and a wave, you have not shown that there is a contradiction in "X is a particle and X is a wave".
You are overestimating what logic is supposed to be. Logic (or a logic) is just a set of rules for manipulating symbols. I doubt it is "a tool used to understand our perceived realities by valid inference". I do not see how there is anything illogical about there being a nine-dimensional space. To show that there is something illogical, you will have to derive "A & ~A" from some necessary premise of there being a nine-dimensional space.
Your move, creep.
Such concepts are where my interests lie and I am tired of arguing with you. Light has a dual nature, (particle and wave) and it is beyond the capabilities of ordinary logic to understand. (remember the law of contradiction?) So enough is enough. Have a nice day, dipshit:)
"AS WE MOVE INTO THE FUTURE, THE MYSTERIES OF THE U-I-NI-VERSE WILL BE WITHIN THE GRASP OF MODERN SCIENCE" etc.
You are apparently still clinging to your idea that light is both a particle and a wave. It is not. Anyone with a degree in physics will tell you this. We *model* light as a wave sometimes, and as a particle sometimes. The business of physics is creating models, not pronouncing deep facts about the world. You do not seem to have grasped this. Perhaps they do not teach that in A-level physics. I can't remember, because I am so elderly and wise.
As for the Law of Contradiction, it is simply ~(A&~A). The Bertrand G. Wronglotion Quantum Challenge 2003 is thus to derive statements which counter this law. You have as yet failed to do this. I believe you will continue to fail. 'We could not -say- of an "unlogical" world how it would look.'
Oj yeah, tell stephen I said hello.
It's because he lives in a talking, flying wheelchair. He has a robotic voice that is simultaneously comical and terrifying. His face is grossly distorted, and the glimmer of life in his expressions are as hideous as they are reassuring that the wheelchair doesn't control the talking machine. Do you think "A Brief History of Time" sold so well because it was a good book? Of course not. Most people who have it gave up halfway through. IT SOLD BECAUSE IT HAD A PICTURE OF A DEFORMED, GRIMACING PHYSICIST IN A WHEELCHAIR WITH A ROBOTIC VOICE.
Now I am not saying that he is somehow a bad physicist, although you are hellbent on putting those words in my mouth. All I am saying is that his opinion is respected more than it should be in certain areas of physics. Surely you can see that this would be true. It's common sense. You can go on about his work "transcending" his physical problems, and for all I know that's true, because it sounds pretty magical and great, but it has little to do with why he's so famous or influential.
And I did watch "Gangs of New York" with him last night. And I shan't be telling him you said hello.
And "The God Particle" by Leon Lederman is not rubbish. One quote concerning his book, "The book proves that a monumental intellect, complete with requisite mussed white hair and A NOBEL PRIZE, can relate theory and experimentation without being a monumental bore..." Also, it is one of the funniest books I have ever read and for pure wit, it is quite engaging. I bet if you read it, you would be laughing out loud. So don't be a sourpuss, you could use a good laugh and might even learn something.
2. I asked you to recommend me some books in order to find out which books you would recommend. If your experience with the subject is limited to such 'Isn't the quantum world really weird, it defies all logic, my God it's both a particle AND a wave, AND IT KNOWS WHETHER WE'RE WATCHING IT!' popular science potboilers, then no wonder you're arguing as you are.
3. I see you've given up on the Bertrand G. Wronglotion Challenge.
is conceptual and not formal or involving mathematics.
I leave that to the physicists. And regarding the "quantum
world", I realize many writers and reviews on the subject
tend towards hyperbole and misinterpretation. I also become
weary of all the pseudo science and mystical posturing that
is so prevalent. I recall Stephen Hawking mentioned this in
one of his books, distancing himself from the crowd you have
previously mentioned. Personally, cosmology is the most
profound and interesting subject I have encountered over the
years and, like you, hate to see it cheapened by supposed
experts who senationalize the field with a lot of nonsense
in order to appeal to the many simple-minded and uninformed
readers who believe such claptrap. But, perhaps they gain
some insight into the quantum world and that is probably
better than being totally ignorant on the subject. Then again, who was that who said a little knowledge can be dangerous?
I thought you might like a little limerick I wrote recently:
There once was a theorist named Einstein,
the universe he sought to redefine.
He wrote of relativity
while hiding his proclivity
for reading his astrological sign.
Log in to add a comment.