| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
Recycled Stardust (Free verse) by Quarton 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.
Up the ladder:
Hiding
Down the ladder:
The Grand Adjustment
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 5.8
Posted: July 1, 2004 1:26 PM PDT; Last modified: July 1, 2004 1:26 PM PDTWeighted score: 5.4 Overall Rank: 3183 The following users have marked this poem on their favorites list:
Comments:
[8]
Dovina @ 24.52.157.176
|
1-Jul-04/1:35 PM
|
Reply
Good Title. Good ending. In the middle, you have some good lines, but the flow bogs in side issues and themes not very well connected to the main story. Not that they don't connect, I'd just work on how you connect them. Especially like, "when reality becomes fantasy and perhaps returns back to reality once again."
[n/a]
Quarton @ 12.217.221.61
> Dovina
|
1-Jul-04/1:45 PM
|
Reply
Good advice. Thanks for the comments.
From a scientific point-of-view, every sentence in this poem is wrong.
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.
With the vocabulary and the big telling that comes from the big words this quickly becomes a tough sell.
Is -= Zamzara =- the "zany", "clever", "wildly imaginative" username you were referring to earlier?
this is not the name I was referring to earlier - and I used none of those words, girlfriend.
If I wanted to be all those things then I would use -= ZODIAC =- (notice the larger-than-life capital letters.
You know, Zodiac, I always appreciate those who
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.
I'm afraid I'm dead serious, Quarton. And it is yourself, not myself, which is making unsupportable 'blanket statements' (or, alternately, 'meaningless indictments') all over the place and fancying yourself clever.
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?
zodiac...Yes, I would like to hear more but first, some
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?
"In a time/space continuum, time does flow freely at its
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.
I grow weary of your bullshit and will waste my time on your
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!
I'm afraid you're the one who's wrong. Reality IS what exists in the universe, including many things which humans have only perceived inconsistently or wrongly.
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.
PS-Now, please stop spitting and pay attention. I'm not insane pointing out that the uninformed pseudo-science in your poem is guff and unnecessary guff, as that's essentially what EVERY SINGLE PERSON who's bothered to comment on your poem has said.
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.
richa: Thank you for the comments on my poem
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)
Science is a great poetic topic, almost as mysterious and wonderful as love. Good reply to Zodiac, I'm anxious to see his response.
"To represent a (scientific) concept in a precise and cogent way," or to relate it to other aspects of life is the poetry of science. Much of science borders on mystical - string theory, quantum mechanics, evolution - and thus attracts metaphor and image. A poet who understands a scientific topic is not likely to make the science more vague, but rather enhance others' understanding of it. Furthermore, "to read things into scientific findings in the aesthetic and philosophical world," if done artfully, expands our understanding of both the scientific and the aesthetic. Poets can and do abuse science, but they often enhance it.
Robert Frost
Robert Frost brought us the elegant theory in his poem, SNOW, "Save us from being cornered by a woman." Consider yourself saved. He expounded on science in several poems without proposing new science.
An enjoyable read. Blessed with nine.
This thing is a total piece of shit that makes absolutely no sense.
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.
god'swife...
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!
Yes well... I mean it became apparent to me quite some time ago I wasn't going to be winning the Miss Congeniality prize this year, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to writing poetry. You're not very good at it, and that's just the cold-hearted facts. Hey, but it's a free fucking country here in Poemrankia, so you just go on hanging round the other talentless citizens, blowing smoke up each others asses. Enjoy your monkey's tea party, and tottle off to sleep each night with a self-satisfied grin all over your clueless mug. Sweet dreams.
You are entitled to express your opinions but what makes you
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.
Would you say Roger Ebert is an above-mediocre filmmaker?
I don't know about filmmaker but I perceive him to be an
excellent movie critic. Actually, my favorite was Siskel who is no longer living.
Now look what you've done. You've contradicted yourself right into your own overlarge unblinking eyes. Let's recap, shall we?
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.
Like I'd ever stand a fair chance. Most participants on this site vote based on mutual mastrubation not on anything that could be identified as an understanding of the techiniques of poetry writing. Like you said, and I'm paraphrasing, it's not so much about reality as preceptions. Iy's all about preceptions,I am erroneously perceived as a bitch, I'm more of a cunt really. If we sent our 'best'(what ever the fuck that is) poems to an arbritrary workshop or critic I'd agree to that and I'd kick your sorry poetry ass.
Otherwise I choose derringers at dawn. Asshat.
I am sure your poems mean wonderful things to you, and this is not meant as a criticism of you, but read godswife, zzinnia, poetandknowit, christof and you will find great attention to engage the reader, to not make sweeping statements but to make subtle insights.
god'swife - thank you.
Time is a device for our own convenience; it really doesn't exist.
Please read what you've just written. Is that really what you want to say?
yes. You're making assumptions again.
Like, "You're trying to make sense"?
Your anology regarding Ebert isn't worth a comment though you
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.
Oh dear. Are you about to pop? Have you, in fact, already popped.
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.
PS-Speaking purely scientifically and honestly no offense intended, would you mind very much walking off a cliff?
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"?
I think perhaps having wrapped up your point under the stout umbrella of science wasn't exactly the best choice you could have made... science being a beast of logical order and strict substantiation leaves little room for a poet to roam creatively.. etc, etc.
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.
Zodiac....My, my, we are getting testy. Not unusual plus the
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.
What the hell is wrong with you? I'm not zodiac. I'm SupremeDreamer, also known as DreamerSupreme, Don-Quixote, Y2kSlamPoet, and Shit-Crumpets. I am wholly different and seperate from zodiac, so please don't mistake me for him.
:P
Sorry. I should have put my comments under Zodiac's post,
not yours.
Your spelling of 'self-righteous' is bogus and self-righteous.
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)?
Zodiac....I believe gravity is a constant and, although still
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.
Having only accomplished college-freshman physics and chemistry, and that ages ago, I have very little idea about gravitons, etc. I do, however, propose that if scientists build a machine to prove that gravitons exist, THEY WILL NOT BE CHANGING REALITY. They will simply be exposing some part of reality which has ALWAYS BEEN THERE. Suppose, to take it a step further, scientists in this decade 'prove' that gravitons exist and scientists in the next decade disprove them. How many times would you say reality has changed? You're wrong. IT HASN'T CHANGED AT ALL. Please, please, say you understand this now. Where you've buttocksed yourself beyond recognition is on the semantics of it. The word reality ONLY MEANS things which are real, which have existence. We know this because we made it up to mean that, just as if I invented a word - say 'Verschnugle' - to mean 'things which are red'. To say some parts of reality are real and some parts aren't, or that 'reality' changes depending on who's looking at it, is at best merely uninformed to the max, and at worst the most hideous sort of stoned undergraduate late-night guff-talking, something along the lines of, 'Hey, maybe what I think is brown is, like, some other color for you, maaaannnnn. Like orange... Yeaaahhh, dewd! I'm blowing my own miiinnnd!!!'
I understand what you are saying and perhaps I wasn't
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.
But if you say that "there is a fixed reality", then you must agree that it's possible for some people's ideas of reality to be the right ones, while some other people's ideas of reality (ie, that the earth is flat or there's no such thing as gravity,) are probably wrong. In saying that it's cool for everybody to have different reality concepts, you're really just saying it's okay for many people - most people, probably - to be dead wrong about everything. Well, sure it's okay - but who would want to be in the dead-wrong group???!?!
Yes, I agree on some factual realities and some specious ones.
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.....
This entire argument could have been avoided if Quarton had used the word "model" instead of "reality". However, he was forced to use the word "reality" because popular science books always use the word "reality" because "changing realities" sound much more exciting than "changing models". Thanks.
Yes.
Hello. Perhaps I can shed some light on this matter. I have a degree in science from Strathclyde Univesity, and I can confirm that:
a) This poem is wrong b) Science is true.
Science could be called systematic knowledge of the physical
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.
You colossal boob.
I've read your comments before and they really don't bother
me as long as I consider the source. You are pathetic.
Oops, I forgot to congratulate you on having, not one, but
two of your poems on the list of the 20 worst. Nice job, you turkey.
How dare you? If 159 people chose to vote -0- on "AIDS in a van" and "The Nude" it doesn't mean I don't have talent. I do! I know I do! And it doesn't mean I'm pathetic. I think your the pathetic one! Not me!
You started the name calling, not me. If you think my poems
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?
I didn't bad mouth you for no reason. I bad mouthed you for being a colossal boob. It was therefore you who was the one who started the name calling, not me. Had you conducted yourself in a less bum-like manner, we would not be having this conversation. My bad mouthing was motivated by kindliness, because I like to help people who are colossal boobs by telling them they're colossal boobs. Your bad mouthing was motivated by a desperate need to save face. Yours was more of an intuitive bad mouthing than a factual bad mouthing. Mine was a factual bad mouthing. In conclusion, the only thing that transcends the physical round here is your appalling disregard for the thoughts, feelings and emotions of your fellow rankers.
Your convoluted logic is quite incredible. You call me a
"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.
"You give no specifics" is the buncombe dodge of an inveterate guffer. Look back at the comments on this page. Now, have you at any point said anything more specific than "What is seen as reality varies but you are right in that reality is a constant" - which, incidentally, is not what ANY OF US have been talking about here, yourself included? Have you given any reason or proof for ANY OF YOUR ASSERTIONS AT ALL???!?! Yet, you've been soundly flogged by specifics all over your page, not the least of which is the perfectly specific assertion that -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. likes to "help people who are colossal boobs by telling them they're colossal boobs," - for which NO FURTHER JUSTIFICATION IS NEEDED.
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.
You are really incredible. Dark Angel's "perfectly specific
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.
If zodiac "sounds like a little kid without the knowledge to debate beyond juvenile name calling", you sound like a duncely teenager desperately trying to talk like a grown-up.
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.
Are you going to answer the question or just keep repeating the same few catchphrases you've been doing for the whole thread?
Actually, I am the proud owner of a mail order master's degree
in physics from The Jerry Falwell Institute of Advanced Studies and Creationism. Praise the Lord!
Do you know how fucking stupid that sounds? really? Your becoming the next candidate for my blessed jester crown if so, and if you can kill me while lifting its from me drafty dome... assuming that I haven't sucked you dry of life before hand.
Yes, the bit from -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I.'s comment which you quoted is perfectly specific. It leaves no room for any confusion about either what kind of people -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. likes to help or how he likes to help them. Anyone even halfway literate knows -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. likes to "help people who are colossal boobs by telling them they're colossal boobs".
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.
Ahh, but tell me this zodiac: do you make a distinction between an object and its sensible properties? You can see your coffee cup, you can touch it, and if you tap it with your spoon you can hear it ping. Are all these properties what you mean by the word "coffee cup", or do you think the coffee cup is the 'thing itself', something separate from what we might say about the coffee cup?
I don't find that it's necessary to make those distinctions.
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?
Oh. I imagine there being all kinds of problems with that.
Listen buddy, you and Dark Angel are the ones with the foul
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.
Are you some sort of lunatic? To my knowledge, not a single person on this page has disputed the fact that there are significant differences between Quantum mechanics and Newtonian mechanics. Nor have they disputed the fact that Quantum mechanics is a better model of the physical world than Newtonian mechanics. All anyone has said is that although our models of the physical world have changed, the physical world itself hasn't changed. When scientists believed in Newtonian physics, it was still the case that 'reality' behaved in a Quantum-like manner. That hasn't changed. We just didn't know about it. You and zodiac have already both agreed that by 'reality' you actually mean 'our perception of reality'. This entire argument has nothing to do with whether or not anyone has read some popular science books. Its just a stupid dispute over the definition of the word 'reality'.
P.S. You're an idiot.
Reality is a human concept. Should humanity cease to exist, so
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.
Are you aware of how many times you've contradicted yourself on this page?
PS-stop hitting return at the ends of your lines. It marks you as a world-class moron!
No. Now read the following very, very carefully before continuing to bang on like an escaped nitwit with a saucepan stuck over his head.
"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!
Are you ten years old?
Thanks. But really it's about whether Quarton's poem is a festering mound of nonsense. When I called him on his crap science, he grasped for the bit about "reality becomes fantasy" and has clung on for his life ever since, though it's meant contradicting himself at every turn.
To say the world behaved in a quantum-like manner when scientists believed in the newton model is to say given the presence of only the newton model, that the world worked according to the newton model when scientists believed in the previous model.
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.
P.S I said the world behaved in a "quantum-LIKE" manner. I know that Quantum Physics isn't a perfect model, I'm fairly sure it will be changed at some point in the future, but the fact remains that many observable properties are quantum-like in that quantum mechanics gives a reasonably accurate model of their behaviour, where newtonian mechanics fails utterly. That won't change, nor has it ever been the case in the past that the physical world didn't exhibit such quantum-like properties. There are also many properties that can be explained using Newtonian mechanics, and yes these have also always been there, even before scientists knew about Newtonian mechanics. It is no coincidence that for objects travelling at low speeds, the model based on relativity, and Newton's model, both give you very similar results. What Quarton seems to have been suggesting is that before Newtonian mechanics, reality wasn't Newtonian in nature; then when Newtonian physics came along, reality was Newtonian; and when Quantum Physics came along, reality wasn't Newtonian, it was Quantonian, etc.
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.
'P.S I said the world behaved in a "quantum-LIKE" manner'
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 I mentioned in my previous post, all I mean by "quantum-LIKE" is that certain aspects of the physical world exhibit quantum-like behaviour, which is unexplainable in Newtonian terms. I have never claimed that the world does not contain Newtonian-like observables, for the very obvious reason that Newtonian mechanics gives you accurate (as verified by experiment) results for everyday objects travelling at low speeds. Does the world behave in a Newtonian-like manner? Yes, but it isn't exactly Newtonian because, for example, you don't seem to be able to go faster than light. Just as it probably isn't exactly Quantonian. Have a look at Quarton's stance: he is saying that when we believed in Newtonian mechanics, reality was exactly Newtonian, and there were no observables that could only be explained with Quantum physics; then when we dismissed Newtonian mechanics in favour of Quantum mechanics, Quarton thinks reality was exactly Quantonian, etc. 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 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
'When scientists believed in Newtonian physics, it was still the case that 'reality' behaved in a Quantum-like manner.'
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.
I'm sorry if that's the case. When I wrote "-like", I was honestly trying to convey what I later decribed to you in more detail. Besides, you're hardly one to talk; blabbering on about science being the quest for "absolute truth", (saying, if I recall correctly, that science couldn't be about producing pragmatic models of the world because there is nothing absolute in that) is hardly the best way to say:
'The purpose of science is to model the physical world, not to define it.'
I have always said there is no such thing as absolute truth. There is no contradiction between that and saying usefullness is a matter for pragmatics. A model is a model not because it is useful, something is useful because it is useful.
I'm sure you don't think there's such a thing as absolute truth. What you were arguing is that science should be left alone, or whatever, because its aim was to find absolute truth, not simply to model the physical world. But the only person who thinks that science is the pursuit of some sort of absolute truth is the straw scientist you stuffed up your face. Forget pragmatics, and absolute truth; do you think the aim of science is to construct as accurate a model as possible of the physical world? Because if you do, why in Sodomy did you criticise science for having unstable theories? Instability is inevitable when scientists are in the business of constantly refining their models of the world.
I criticised writing poems about science, poems are about image and surface, not about models.
Are they?
"... which has now been replaced by the dynamic reality of quantum mechanics."
Yes, that's right. Up until 1904, everyone in the scientific community believed that all objects were stationary.
You are a very silly person. Here is why:
"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.
May I interrupt long enough to ask any of you science people a question? Iâm fascinated with the news story that a tiny piece of dust has actually been observed in two places at the same time, a dice-throwing kind of outcome even Einstein feared. Iâm trying to find the person who witnessed this so I can thank him or her. It explains some things Iâd like to incorporate into a poem. Who was that?
Before I tell you (clue: and it's not as fearsome and 'reality-shattering' as you think!) I want to ask you something: Why are you so excited about using some bit of science you admittedly don't know very much about in a poem? Considering that all of the science-poem lovers on this site have long ago admitted to finding science bunk and a really piss-poor way of looking at 'reality' (or 'realities'), does it not strike you that you're in the middle of a giant contradiction? I see two possible explanations:
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?!!?!
You've been so helpful. Thank you so much!!!
There is a famous popular myth regarding electrons being seen in two places at once. I say it's a myth because the people spouting off about it don't have any more idea about it than if it were completely untrue (cf. yourself).
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.
PS-I'm saying that because I imagine you thinking it's a great way to prove science wrong when all it will really do is prove you wrong.
No, that wasn't it at all, but again, thank you. If you ever have a question on a subject that I have expounded as fully as you've expounded here, don't hesitate to ask, and I'll try to answer just as helpfully.
Do you mean that wasn't the news story you'd heard about or that it wasn't your intent to make it an anti-science poem? Because in all honesty, I've imagined it turning into a sweet poem about a scientist trying to balance his work and home-life with his secret identity as a crime-fighting superhero who uses science for good, rather than evil as you might expect.
You're wasting your time. There is a class of people on poemeranker who have decided that the only things worth knowing about science can be gleaned from popular science magazines and dubious philosophical manuals.
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.
What still amazes me is how easy things become if you just start with the assumption that logic and proof are bunk. It means YOU'RE ALWAYS RIGHT!!!!!
Yes, and you can also justify a belief in any kind of pseudo-mystical nonsense. For example, to justify a belief in feng shui, the argument goes something like this:
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
It's hard to answer from with this cloud of assumptions, like Galileo might have felt when asked about the sun's rising. I'm not anti-science, and think your outline is interesting.
Because I checked the details of my electron story on a dozen websites with animated gifs of dragyns and hilarious titles like "Scientists Prove Science Doesn't Know Anything!!!!"
I just... well, I just don't want you falling in with that crowd. They're smelly and do the pot.
I bet that is probably just popular science bullshit, or at least a discovery that has been made to sound much more weird and glamorous than it actually is by some journalist who doesn't really understand it.
I will try one more time in reference to reality and give you another chance to ridicule me. But, this will be my final post on the subject.
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.
Please give references to the papers or journals from which you've picked up this stupefyingly wrong-headed idea about the "central theme" of quantum theory.
You clod!
PS-I'm moving to the Middle East today. Sorry I can't stick around for more of this amazingly! exciting! and worthwhile! discussion!!!!!!!!!!!
Where have you got this nutty idea about "the basic oneness" being one of the most important revelations of modern physics? It isn't even any kind of revelation about modern physics. Nor is it the "central theme" of quantum mechanics. I don't belive you (because you are wrong), but I do believe in quantum mechanics.
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-?.
P.S. ?-Dave_Mysterious-? has a postgraduate degree in physics and has actually studied quantum mechanics in a technical and mathematical way. You, Quarton, you haven't. The only thing you have on your side is a vast arsenal of waffle which you can't possibly back up in any meaningful way because you don't really know what it means.
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. 328 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
