Free verse № 107001
Recycled Stardust
Time flows unimpeded
through the vastness of space,
precursor of awareness and meaning
in an ever expanding continuum;
like flower petals unfolding,
probing in search of the light
that sustains all life:
rose and thorn--saint or sinner.
Tiny craters formed by raindrops
dance across the water's surface,
rippling outward from the center,
a microcosm of the universe
expanding in creation's renewal.
Seeded by exploding stars
creating recycled stardust,
scattered like wind blown pollen
on currents of random destination.
Over time, stardust merges
in increasing order and complexity,
from darkness to light--
oblivion to self-realization,
creation's emergence played out
on earth's temporal stage;
the universe embodied and aware.
Superstrings a cosmic symphony
vibrating in infinite repertoire,
emerging pointless particles
in a nine dimensional space,
like tiny loops of string
curled up in a ball.
Bizarre concepts beyond reason,
when reality becomes fantasy
and perhaps returns
back to reality once again,
unsure of what is real
and what is illusion.
A child grows old and dies,
stars are born and transform
into supernovae or dwarfs,
as from order to chaos
the second law pervades.
Time passes in accord with entropy,
robbing the universe of self,
cosmic anarchy the result--
a closed system inevitable.
In the blackness of space,
shining and vibrant,
the earth in shades of green and blue.
Verdant and teeming with life,
a reversal of entrophy
as order and complexity increase,
open-ended and unimpeded
in the long journey from oblivion
to the recognition of shared essence--
stardust magically transformed
into you and into me.
105 comments
That's not the point, you say, I'm being metaphorickal, the science doesn't matter.
If that is the case, your face is beautiful as a bum.
If I wanted to be all those things then I would use -= ZODIAC =- (notice the larger-than-life capital letters.
take the time to critique one of my poems and you
are no exception. However, I cannot believe you
are serious in stating that "every sentence" in my
poem is "wrong." Perhaps you could enlighten me on
those sentences or concepts you deem inaccurate.
Such a blanket statement as yours needs some
specifics and you offered none but rather, a meaningless indictment backed up by nothing concrete
or even close to justify its validity.
So check out this hook, cool:
1) Time does not "flow unimpeded through space", as any scientist since at least the great Dr Carawax can tell you, but is in fact impeded by practically every object with mass (or energy) everywhere. (BONUS: It's not "ever expanding" either!)
2) Raindrops probably don't form "tiny craters" on what I imagine you mean to be flowers. And even if they do, they are not a "microcosm of the universe", which is a silly expression anyway.
3) "exploding stars creating recycled stardust" is also silly to the max; but the wrong part is probably "random destination", which would be untrue even if it weren't an enormous contradiction.
Would you like to hear more?
omments on yours.
In a time/space continuum, time does flow freely at its
outer limits as there exists nothing to impede its flow.
Time is being created, not in a conventional sense but
in accordance with quantum theory and a four dimensional
time/space. Light is indeed impeded by gravity and other
things such as mass but that is not what is happening as
time becomes extant.
What is so silly about comparing the small craters created
by a raindrop (yes, they do cause craters to form but on the waters surface, not on a flower.) or the
unfolding of a flower petal? Like the universe, they expand
from within and are indeed a sort of miniature likeness in
their expansion.
"exploding stars creating reycled stardust" is what, "silly
to the max?" In fact, we and every element in the universe
were created either in the bowels of a star or by the explosion
of a supernova. And these stars are currently second generation
which makes them recycled. This "stardust" is a shared common
bond and links us all in a physical as well as a mystical way.
"random destination" is not an "enormous contradiction",(better
called an oxymoron). Random is defined as "chance" or "not
determined" So if I said "undetermined destination", would that
still be a source of irritation to you?
outer limits as there exists nothing to impede its flow" is wrong. And it's essentially saying, 'Time is not impeded unless there is something to impede it', which is doubly silly. And that's not what you're saying in the poem.
"Time is being created, not in a conventional sense but
in accordance with quantum theory and a four dimensional
time/space" is a bunch of big words you have no idea about. You don't know what quantum theory has to do with time (hint: practically nil); you just thought you could talk enough science to scare me off. Without that buncombe bit about "quantum theory", you're essentially saying, 'Time is created along the principles of time-space'. Congratulations! Why do you think it's called time-space? COULD IT BECAUSE BECAUSE TIME EXISTS (IS POSSIBLY 'CREATED') AND INTERACTS WITH SPACE IN IT?? YES!!!
"Light is indeed impeded by gravity and other
things such as mass but that is not what is happening as
time becomes extant" is similarly wrong. That's exactly what happens to time (cf. Theories of Relativity 1:1).
Re: "(yes, they do cause craters to form but on the waters surface, not on a flower.)" - you have no basis for saying that, except that it sounds cool and semi-scientific and you don't imagine anyone has the cojones to call you on it. Think again, buster.
"exploding stars creating reycled stardust" is essentially the same thing as saying, 'Empty aluminum cans creating recycled aluminum'. If you can't see why that's silly, please check yourself before you wreck yourself.
Please don't tell me what an oxymoron is. I didn't attend 7 years of Accredited Poetry School for nothing. Being slightly drunk now, I can't recall exactly why I said "random destination" is an enormous contradiction, though I imagine it must have been because the word destination in itself connotes some sort of determination, which is the opposite of random, or because I was talking out of my ass. Obviously, I can spin a globe and decide that wherever my finger randomly lands on it will be my destination, but that's not what you've said in your poem, anyway. So: buncombe.
4) You don't know what superstrings are. Or, I daresay, dimensions.
5) "Bizarre concepts beyond reason, when reality becomes fantasy" is too gufftuous to bother with disembow'ling. At any rate, "reality" (or "what is real") is, by definition, anything which is in the universe. It's entirely different from "fantasy", not at all "beyond reason", and you're just ass-talking to the Nth degree. The only people "unsure" of the difference between fantasy and reality, I'm afraid, are monstrously deformed clods.
6, 7, & 8) Etc., etc., etc.
comments only briefly. You say reality or what is real is, by
definition, anything which is in the universe. Wrong!!! Reality
from a human perspective is that which we personally perceive
to be real and we all pick and choose differently. Reality to
one individual may be fantasy to another and we all tend to
view the world based, not upon reality but rather, on what we
expect to see, what we have seen before. It is a concept/percept
continuum which negates reality and promotes complacency as you
so aptly demonstrate in your writing. You can't see the forest
for the trees dimwit and it is you who is "ass-talking", not me.
The only difference between fantasy and reality lies in your
pre-conceptions which are based, not on reality but upon that
which you choose to acknowledge in a feeble attempt to bolster
your personal bias, your world-view which has no validity
beyond the limitations of your perceptions. You say that I have
no knowledge of superstrings and I say neither do you or the
physicists who postulate them. That being the case, what is
wrong with a bit of fantasy? After all, self-imposed realities
tend to be just that, beliefs and concepts unique to each of
us and mere conjecture based upon a very limited amount of
information which we pick and choose to suit our particular
preferences. I could go on but it is late and time for some
refreshing oblivion. Peace!
Look at it this way: suppose I were a person living a thousand years ago and said the reality of earth was that it is covered by a blue-painted shell about a two hundred feet up. Now, do you think the 'reality' of earth, even a thousand years ago, is what I ignorantly spout on about it (that it's covered with a shell), or that it's covered with several miles of air that refract white sunlight, giving the appearance of an opaque blue surface?
Now, suppose modern science is wrong and scientists discover in a few years that earth is really surrounded by banks of tel-o-matics upon which aliens project eye-pleasing blue images. Then has reality changed? No! Not at all!!! Only somebody's admittedly-ignorant idea of 'reality' has changed. The main difference between a scientist and a regular person at that point will be that the scientist will revise his theories and then go on about trying to understand his revised model of the universe, while the regular person will scream bloody murder, sacrifice a half-dozen virgin pullets, and start sucking at his thumb with a maniacal fervor. Then, depending on what sort of undergarment style he prefers as much as anything else, he'll either loudly proclaim that whatever he has always believed without need of proof or verification is now true and'll lord it over everybody else; or he'll claim that the new evidence is flawed, that he doesn't need evidence anyway, and that he's still right in whatever he's always believed. Then they'll start some massive globe-encompassing war with each other using the pure instruments of science for wanton destruction. Tell me, IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT??!?!
PS-The rest of your comment is too silly for words, and shows you to be manifestly unqualified to use science-words (or very many other words, for that matter,) in your poems. Leave them alone. They belong to somebody else.
So GET OFF MY BACK, man. You've gotten in way over your head here! Just take a chill pill, and back yourself up. And so on and so on and so on.
and your belief that science and poetry are not
compatible. I do, however, disagree and think
there should be more, not less written on the
subject. One major problem when writing about
science or quantum mehanics, (cosmology), is the
difficulty in avoiding abstractions but I believe
that is acceptible considering the rich amount of
material available and the fascination we all share
for the universe and the meaning and purpose of life.
Perhaps some of my other poems are more likely to
portray this though I am sure some think my work is
generally not good or of interest. (but I try)
Time blahblahblahblah
like flower petals blahblahblahblah
Do you don your star trek costume and play this back on your computer voice generating program while jacking-off?
Never mix ecstasy with vodka and PBS, it always turns out ugly.
P.S. There's no such thing as time.
You are correct in saying there is no time if you mean
at the infinite level where there is no beginning or end.
No beginning doesn't make any sense so congrats on your
keen observation. But you know how elusive time is to
us mere mortals and answering your rubbish is surely a
waste of same. If mixing ecstasy, vodka and PBS always
turns out ugly, so be ugly. I'll have a glass of chablis
and be beautiful for a "time." Love and kisses creep!
the Roger Ebert of poetry? I have read some of your work and
found it to be generally mediocre. Pick your best poem and I
will pick mine. Then we can compare and critique each other
and let other members express their opinions. That would cut
through all the bullshit and self-serving rhetoric. Your move,
turkey.
excellent movie critic. Actually, my favorite was Siskel
who is no longer living.
You've said:
1) Someone [i.e., god'swife] is unqualified to critique your poem because she is a mediocre poet, irrespective of whether or not she's a good poem critic.
2) Someone [i.e., Roger Ebert] is qualified to critique a film despite that he's not even a mediocre filmmaker, because he's a good film critic.
Do you think the factor that makes someone a bad critic for you might actually be THAT HE OR SHE HAS TRASHED SOMETHING OF YOURS??!?! YES!!!
BONUS: Why don't you go the full monty and say one (or both!) of the following?
1) All people are qualified to write poetry about science, whether they know anything about science or not.
2) Only people who know anything about science are qualified to write poetry about science.
Otherwise I choose derringers at dawn. Asshat.
Time is a device for our own convenience; it really doesn't exist.
probably perceive it to be profound. And reality exists only
in our perceptions and this varies with each individual. Reality
is not a constant or a fact, rather a conception based upon
perception. My reality is unique to myself as is yours. It is,
(or should be), constantly changing and evolving and that is
why I have such an affinity for poetry. Poets are constantly
exploring and challenging mundane and fixed realities, sort of
like pioneers in the quest for truth in a world where reality
is too often preached from a pulpit and where reality is
rooted in dogma and superstition. In such a scenario, reality
is that which we are taught with little or no original
thought, mere acquiessence to the self-serving "truths"
of others.
Now dig this beat, homeslyce: The Ebert analogy is yours, not mine, from your comment of 2-Jul-04/8:35 PM. And it's a buggyload of crap, for the reasons I've given you twice already.
Other than that, you've simply repeated for the tenth time that "reality is personal, variable, and unique" like some fucking mantra, while not even bothering to consider my points and otherwise blundering all over this site with the (frankly absurd) suggestion that I am somehow being closed-minded while you're not. Get over yourself, cowboy. Yes, conceptions of reality are changing practically daily, but this business about pioneers "challenging mundane and fixed realities" is a mountain of guff and you know it. Pioneers don't create new, say, territories, you dimwit, or principles, or anything else. They just find ones that are ALREADY THERE. Anybody knows that. Sometimes they're wrong, and most of the time what they discover is incomplete or subject to later questioning and revision. Anybody knows that! That's why no one bothers talking about 'reality' with any sort of preachy pulpity certainty but inveterate guffers and poets.
What I mean is, do you believe that the concept of 'gravity', which forms part of the basis for most people's notions of 'reality', is really real and can be applied in a predictable fashion to almost anything; or would you say it's "that which we are taught with little or no original thought" and a "self-serving 'truth'" which is "unique" and "varies with each individual"?
Did you ever consider taking the philosophical/metaphysical approach? Which goes hand in hand with poetry much more gracefully than science, in my opinion. (and no, I don't mean to belittle science in any way shape or form-- so all you cursed magus' of strict order & verification can refrain from swarming in packs 'pon my back..)
Also, the way you worded it made it obviouse that you were in the throes of seduction.. and the thing you have with stardust does seem like your modern "new-age occult hippie-ism."
I liked the core idea of the poem despite all that, though my understanding of it could be my deluded twisting at work... I suggest going about it again in a less romanticised fashion and try to be more organic & I dare say aesthetic to effectively express your apparent solipsism.
personal name calling by someone whose arguments are mostly
bogus and self-rightious.
I bet you would like me to "walk off a cliff." Then you could
peddle your comments and opinions with no one to dispute them.
I will try once again to explain reality but I doubt you are
capable of understanding anything beyond your own personal bias.
We can no longer view the world or universe as being separate
from ourselves. Humans are part of an intrinsically dynamic
universe that is in constant flow and change and reality must
be, according to quantum mechanics, one which recognises the
basic unity or oneness of all things. The reality is that
nothing exists in isolation and our perception of a world
"out there" is bogus. Still, a perceived reality is still
valid in the mind of the observer who is still bogged down
in a "Newtonian", classic concept of the world. In modern
physics, mass is no longer associated with a material
substance and particles are actually bundles of energy. So
from a quantum view, I can dismiss your arguments regarding
reality and take comfort in knowing that you actually believe
reality exists in your dualistic mind-set. So chill out, turkey.
Things are not as they seem and your arguments concerning
reality are merely illusionary nonsense.
And regarding the Ebert analogy, I only said I liked him as a
movie critic. You are the one who turned this into an analogy,
though a very weak one. Have a nice day, dipshit.
:P
not yours.
And you clearly haven't bothered very much reading my 'arguments' or you would have seen that I was speaking purely scientifically and no offense intended. What I meant was, do you believe the notion we call 'gravity' is something personal and variable (eg, you might not, in fact, fall when you walk off a cliff), or is it part of a useful model for the universe which may be applied pretty consistently to almost all imaginable situations (eg, you probably will fall, like most things do)?
theory, gravitons exist tho very difficult to find as they have
no mass. The major difference between gravity and the other three
forces is its pervasive nature. In its most striking and potent
form, it prevents light from escaping from a black hole once
inside the event horizon. It also, in Einstein's general theory,
causes space/time to be curved. How that is possible, I have no
clue but this effect is pretty much accepted by physicists. As to
whether it may be applied consistently and is a useful model for
the universe, I think most definitely. It is probably the most
esoteric of the four forces and is the main roadblock in finding
a GUT that unifies the strong and weak nuclear forces, electro-
magnetism and, of ourse, gravity.
I would be interested if you have read of any recent discoveries
or theories regarding gravity as it is the least understood of
the four. And though I believe you started the name calling and
ridicule, I propose a truce. Who knows, if we ever met in person,
we might find we share many mutual interests and opinions.
listening to your previous posts. In fact, I agree that there
is a fixed reality and your anology on gravitons is right on.
But, what I have been saying is simply that, from a human,
finite perception, ones reality concepts are not the same as
everyone elses. Each of us view the world differently and,
to a degree, we often pick and choose. What is seen as reality
varies but you are right in that reality is a constant. What
are not constant are our perceptions of reality. If you ever
read any of Castaneda's books,(A Separate Reality, etc.), then
you can better relate to what I am saying.
Finally, in my saying reality changes depending on who's looking
at it, I mean a person's perception of reality, not reality
itself.
This is not uncommon now nor has it been throughout human
history. Going back only one hundred years, the universe was
generally viewed from a universal Cartesian reality that
has now been proven wrong by quantum mechanics. So now, we
have a different reality that is believed to be fixed and true.
Yet, will it stand the test of time or will it also prove to be
wrong.
And so the beat goes on.....
a) This poem is wrong
b) Science is true.
or material world. It is "true" only to the extent that we
trust our methods of measurement and observation. Many people,
myself inluded, doubt that any real "truths" exist st the empirical level. In quantum mechanics, there exists a basic
oneness that transcends the physical, more of an intuitive
truth than a factual one.
me as long as I consider the source. You are pathetic.
two of your poems on the list of the 20 worst. Nice job,
you turkey.
are lousy, just say so. I can accept that but I see no reason
for personal attacks and would never criticize you except in
self-defense. I mean, out of nowhere, you bad mouth me for no
reason so what do you expect me to do?
"colossal boob" and claim you are doing so for my own good,
motivated by kindness. Yet, you give no specifics or reason
beyond a simplistic claim that you "like to help people who
are colossal boobs by telling them they're colossal boobs."
This ludicrous statement needs no opinion from me. It stands
without rebuttal as coming from a simpleton who should reflect
on the absolute stupidity of such discourse.
Regarding an "intuitive bad mouthing" compared to a "factual bad
mouthing", I can only shake my head in disbelief.
There is an apropo suggestion I have for you that was written by
Mark Twain:
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to
speak and remove all doubt"
So please get off my ass as I don't really enjoy these type
of vindictive and shallow arguments which do no one any good.
PS-'Upon reading your comment, X, I could only shake my head in disbelief and utterly fail to respond to your points,' is the bullshit floundering of a desperate sinking guff.
PPS-You misspelled apropos.
assertion" that you refer to says nothing specific and sounds
like the words of a little kid without the knowledge to debate
beyond juvenile name calling.
As to your assertion that I have been, "soundly flogged by
specifics", in your dreams, turkey. You and Dark Angel are
both simpletons and should take turns congratulating each other
on your self-perceived, mutual profundity.
One hundred years ago, science universally believed in a
Cartesian, mechanistic reality which has now been replaced by
the dynamic reality of quantum mechanics. What we have is
a change in reality based upon a new way of viewing the world
we live in. And as time passes, this reality may be once again
proven to be bogus. So, reality or our perception of it does
indeed change. Is that so tough to comprehend, you lame brain.
Of course -=Dark_Angel=- believes in quantum physics. The only person who doesn't is the straw dunce you've been madly attacking. But -=Dark_Angel=- doesn't believe that saying the word "quantum" gives one license to invent all sort of mystic pseudo-scientific guff-malarky and trump it about the place without cleaning up afterwards.
Have you actually studied quantum mechanics academically? Or have you just read a few popular science books which glossed over the details and filled your head with a load of vaguely-defined buncombe? Tell the truth now.
in physics from The Jerry Falwell Institute of Advanced Studies
and Creationism. Praise the Lord!
For that matter, so do I. You are a colossal boob. Three days into this conversation, you still have no idea what's the difference between somebody's perception of reality and reality itself. You're still talking about how some "reality may be once again proven to be bogus", which is not only grammar-rape but STILL TOTALLY WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!! And instead of even TRYING to get it, you've tossed a bunch of nasty names around here, calling -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. and I and a lot of other people "simpletons", "clothes-minded", and "hopeless crippled introverts", and generally made a HUGE FLOUNDERING BOOB out of yourself. But let me tell you something: I least we can grasp the basic concept of most English words (especially science-words such as "reality") having specific and more-or-less inviolable meanings, while you still fancy them some kind of unwieldy rank meat-hat signifying 'winner' with every burbling sweet-sick exhalation.
When I'm thirsty, the set of impressions which I call a coffee cup do a decent job getting the set of impressions I call liquid where I want them. I guess you could call that a guffy way to deal with the problem of coffee-cup existence/nonexistence - and it is. And it's convenient.
If it's ever not - if, say, a coffee cup suddenly becomes gaseous in my hand or fails to act according to my notion of gravity - I'll have to modify my behavior to account for the change. I imagine I would be pretty level-headed about it, anyway, but it hasn't happened yet.
At any rate, I do believe there's a reality of "coffee cup" only dimly perceived and expressed by me. Why shouldn't there be?
language and name-calling. In fact, you started this whole
thing. And once more for your feeble mind, the central theme
in quantum mechanics is the basic inter-relationship and
inter-connectedness of ALL things. It is a complete change
in how physicists view the world and the old, Cartesian reality
has been replaced by a perceived oneness. So the reality of
Newton and other scientists of his time has been replaced
by the new physics of quantum. Our reality Has changed, you
dupe, but you are obviously unable to grasp such a basic
and obvious fact. And don't be surprised if our current
realities change once again as we gain more knowledge of
the universe we all share. And PLEASE read a good book on
quantum mechanics and spare me your obvious ignorance on
the subject.
too would reality. And the physical world Has changed and will
continue to do so as we expand our knowledge. Our reality today
may be rubbish tomorrow and what is left will be the oneness of
all that we perceive to be separate. Kinda like the quantum
effect where the parts are only manifestations of the whole.
PS-stop hitting return at the ends of your lines. It marks you as a world-class moron!
"Reality", as zodiac said earlier, is simply a word referring to all things that exist. To say that something is real is simply to say it exists, nothing more. To say something is unreal is to say it doesn't exist. Reality is the collection of things that are real -- that is what it means.
Do you accept this? I'm sure you're going to think you don't. But shut up for a minute, and read this.
You're claiming that if "humanity ceases to exist", i.e. if all humans die, then "so too would reality." Now there are TWO SEPARATE reasons why this is absurd, which if you're going to argue about you're going to have to address separately.
1. If all humans died of poison, the universe would not stop existing. This has been a subject of philosophical argument for centuries, so I'm not going to insist one way or the other. If you want to think the universe would stop existing, great.
2. Reality is a set. It is the set of all things that exist. Now if you know your elementary set theory, you know that no set can contain itself. Therefore reality does not contain itself. Therefore reality is not a "real thing" -- It is not something that you can say "exists". The idea that reality could exist or cease to exist is just wrong-headed. But according to you, "reality would cease to exist". This is trivially a paradox.
Actually, the stupidest thing of all is that none of this has anything to do with quantum physics or scientific revolutions. Thanks!
i.e. you can only make such an assertion knowing all future models, which you can not and which is probably logically impossible.
N.B. love the way you addressed the difficulties of the whole reality concept thingy by putting the word in quotation marks.
One of the first things my Quantum physics lecturer said to me (and I only studied it in my first year at University) was "Light isn't a wave. Light isn't a particle. Light is light." His point was that the job of physics is to model the physical world, not to define it. Thanks for listening.
Is no get out because you claim that the world did not work in a newton-model-like way when scientists believed in newtons model. By throwing out the newton model you are using very strict standards of usefulness which you must apply to the Quantum model.
Also I have consistently said what you have said in your final sentences. I would go as far as to say any description that does not regard light (and we are not encompassing the physical properties of light) as purely light is making a jump accross modes that could be regarded as metaphysical.
I've changed my mind about Quartons poem, as far as I am concerned he can write it about Newtonian mechanics if he wants. If he maintains internal consistency the poem does not fail. 'Call the roller of big cigars' I say to him.
As to your stance on science, if you have consistently been arguing what I said in my last few sentences, then great! Because we agree, and have probably been bizarrely misinterpreting each other. Either that, or you're lying and haven't been consistently arguing that. I definitely have been arguing that. And in a mature and kindly manner, as well. Since you deleted the whole discussion, I GUESS WE'll NEVER KNOW LOL
is probably not the best way to say:
'The point I was trying to make was that reality (as any sane person understands its definition) hasn't changed; only our means of modelling it have.'
As a member of a poetry site one would think you would work harder on your articulation.
'The purpose of science is to model the physical world, not to define it.'
Yes, that's right. Up until 1904, everyone in the scientific community believed that all objects were stationary.
"Science could be called systematic knowledge of the physical
or material world."
No, Science is the mystical black art of trying things out to see if they are true or not.
"It is "true" only to the extent that we
trust our methods of measurement and observation. Many people,
myself inluded, doubt that any real "truths" exist at the empirical level."
Everybody thought of that when they were about five. It is just a useful approximation to assume that things exist and that inference is reliable.
"In quantum mechanics, there exists a basic oneness that transcends the physical, more of an intuitive truth than a factual one."
What? A basic oneness? Do you mean that all wavefunctions must be normalized to one? That is just a statement of the conservation of probability.
Did you claim at some point to have a qualification in some kind of scientific discipline? Did your degree come off the back of a cereal packet or something?
Now go away and think about what you've done.
1) That you think science needs to be shot down, tied to the back of a pickup truck, and dragged through town for its narrow-minded hubris; and the best way you can think of doing this is by using the language of science against it; or
2) That science-words give your poem a credibility and appearance of depth which other words don't, even though you don't personally know much about science or think it's necessary to know much about science other than it's bad.
And can't you see that both of these ideas are first-rate crap? For one thing, nobody even remotely connected with science on this site has said anything like you imagine scientists (on, say, "The Hulk") saying. They don't believe their current ideas about 'reality' are correct and infallible. They don't cling to some disproven notion, or discount the possibility of other models for things. In short, they don't cackle madly, mutter myopically over beakers in basement labs, oblivious to the 'reality' going on around them, or anything of the sort, except in the guff daydreams of silly young poets. Besides, since practically no one on this site can manage to use a science-word coherently in a sentence, and since a scientist is likely to consider incoherent babble rather meaningless, then it's not like you're going to hurt them, nor anyone else who believes in science, reason, or anything except floundering guff-talking.
As for possibility 2 - well, clearly they don't, since science poems, like this poem, are almost always obviously wrong. Wouldn't it work a lot better, seem deeper, etc., if you simply used language and concepts you were familiar with instead of the foreign language of science? You're asking about a dust-particlee being observed in two places at once - Can you not think of A SINGLE EXAMPLE of something similar in your everyday life? (Hint: I can!) Why don't you just use that instead?!!?!
As it happens, it is partly real and has mostly to do with the equation for the probability that an electron will be in a certain volume of space at a certain instant. The equation is defined for all space and time, with the result that the electron is calculated to be in all possible places at any instant, though when you actually observe an electron you find that it's actually only in one place at any instant. For reasons beyond my comprehension, some people say the wave function has "collapsed" at that point and it's some huge mystery.
Now, since I've been nice and told you, let me make a serious suggestion that I hope you will seriously consider: PLEASE DON'T WRITE ABOUT THIS.
For them, true understanding of the universe comes in spending half an hour reading a jazzed-up, non-technical popular summary of a recent scientific experiment, leaping to whatever wrong-headed conclusion suits their fancy, and writing a poeme about it.
The idea of actually really trying to understand the experiment in a technical, mathematical way, is completely preposterous to them. They consider anything beyond the contents of a typical New Scientist article to be minor details, unimportant in comparison to the grand, overarching poetic understanding they've gained from reading the summary.
I conjecture this is because they weren't very good at maths or physics in school, and faced with the choice between admitting they're thick or telling themselves that science is BAD, and scientists JUST DON'T GET IT, they make the obvious choice.
Thanks.
1)Science doesn't have all the answers you know.
2)Science doesn't explain feng shui.
3)Therefore feng shui must be real.
4)QED
I just... well, I just don't want you falling in with that crowd. They're smelly and do the pot.
The basic oneness of the universe is one of the most important revelations of modern physics. At the subatomic particle level, all things are interrelated, interconneted and interdependent. Reality is an abstraction devised by our discriminating and categorizing intellects. To believe our concepts of separate things and events are realities of nature is an illusion, plain and simple. If you don't believe me, then you don't believe in quantum mechanics, period, and all of your arguments have no basis in fact. If you don't know this basic truth, then you should avoid the subject rather than expose your ignorance which so far, has been considerable.
PS-I'm moving to the Middle East today. Sorry I can't stick around for more of this amazingly! exciting! and worthwhile! discussion!!!!!!!!!!!
And I can't beleive you just said "If you don't know this basic truth, then you should avoid the subject rather than expose your ignorance which so far, has been considerable." Come on, you must be taking us for a ride? Do you *really* believe all this holistic mumbo jumbo?
If you want to know about quantum mechanics, please see my excellent piece entitled "Why you don't fall through the floor." (Although please ignmore all the nasty business about manhole covers. I was young and foolish.)
Thanks for listening, I've been ?-Dave_Mysterious-?.
Allow me to quote ?-Dave_Mysterious-? from another forum:
"The most monumentally wrong thing Quarton wrote was this: 'And once more for your feeble mind, the central theme in quantum mechanics is the basic inter-relationship and inter-connectedness of ALL things. It is a complete change in how physicists view the world and the old, Cartesian reality has been replaced by a perceived oneness.'
This was so wrong that the only appropriate response I can think of is 'No it isn't.' He/she might as well have said: 'The central theme in archaeology is that all toast-racks are green.' "
Thanks, I've been ace.
Log in to add a comment.