Science

[Charlotte Gilruth]

Dear Friends,
Thanks to Allen, Tracy, and Soroush for their responses to the science
questions I brought up. (I sent the quiz about reading the mind of God,
through the music emanating from the strings theorized to be the foundation
of everything, according to the leading theoretical physicists.)

I agree with Allen that human beings do have the potential to "read the mind
of God," as our souls are actually part of God. This is what mystics and
saints have been talking about for millennia in their search for
enlightenment, nirvana, or whatever you want to call the highest state of
consciousness.

I'm thrilled with reading "Hyperspace", by Michio Kaku, the physicist I
quoted. It is a good way to stretch my intellect and keep me open to the
wonder and awe that are really a more appropriate response than rigid
concepts to the amazing reality of the universe.

Here are a few revealing passages; the parallels with homeopathy are
self-evident:

"It was soon realized that, in dimensions other than ten or 26 dimensions,
the theory [string theory] completely loses all its beautiful mathematical
properties. But no one believed that a theory defined in ten or 26
dimensions had anything to do with reality. Research in string theory
abruptly ground to a halt,...lapsed into a deep hibernation. For 10 long
years, the model was banished to obscurity.

....Then something strange happened....physicists slowly became accustomed
to working in hyperspace..., the idea of hyperspace didn't seems that
farfetched or forbidding anymore. Over time, even a theory defined in 26
dimensions didn't seem that outlandish. The original resistance to 26
dimensions began to slowly melt away with time."

(Do the paradigm shifts ever end in the evolutionary perception of truth?)

************

An analogy is given to describe the situation of the accidental discovery of
the string theory before the development of mathematics advanced enough to
explain it:

"To understand the frustration that we physicists feel, think, for a moment,
of how nineteenth-century physicists might react if a portable computer were
given to them. They could easily learn to turn the dials and press the
buttons. They could learn to master video games or watch educational
programs on the monitor. Being a century behind in technology, they would
marvel at the fantastic calculational ability of the computer. Within its
memory could easily be stored all known scientific knowledge of that
century. In a short period of time, they could learn to perform
mathematical feats that would amaze any of their colleagues. However, once
they decide to open up the monitor to see what is inside, they would be
horrified. The transistors and microprocessors would be totally alien to
anything they could understand. There would be really nothing in their
experience to compare with the electronic computer. It would be beyond
their ken. They could only stare blankly at the complicated circuitry, not
knowing in the slightest how it works or what it all means.

The source of their frustration would be that the computer exists and is
sitting there in front of their noses, but they would have no refrerence
frame from which to explain it. Analogously, string theory appears to be
twenty-first-centruy physics that was discovered accidentally in our
century. String field theory, too, seems to include all physical knowledge.
With little effort, we are able to turn a few dials and press a few buttons
with the theory, and out pops the supergravity theory, Kaluza-Klein theory,
and the Standard Model. But we are at a total loss to explain why it works.
String field theory exists, but it taunts us because we are not smart enough
to solve it.

The problem is that while twenty-first-century physics fell accidentally
into the twentieth century, twenty-first -century mathematics hasn't been
invented yet. It seems that we may have to wait for twenty-first-century
mathematics before we can make any progress, or the current generation of
physicists must invent twenty-first-century mathematics on their own."

******************

Much of the mathematical explanation for string theory, modular functions,
that has been developed came through a strange young Indian mathematical
genius working in total isolation, Srinivasa Ramanujan. His "legacy is his
work, which consists of 4,000 formulas on 400 pages filling three volumes of
notes, all densely packed with theorems of incredible power....'The work
of...one year, while he was dying, was the equivalent of a lifetime of work
for a very great mathematician.'" His sister said that, "Ramanujan used to
say that the goddess of Namakkal inspired him with the formulae in dreams."
******************
Not all physicists believe in the string theory. Some "derisively call
these theories 'theatrical physics' or 'recreational mathematics.' The most
caustic of the critics is Nobel Prize winner Sheldon Glashow of Harvard
University. He has assumed the role of gadfly in this debate....Glashow has
vowed (unsuccessfully) to keep these theories out of Harvard, where he
teaches. But he does admit that he is often outnumbered on this question.
He regrets, 'I find myself a dinosaur in a world of upstart mammals'
(Glashow's views are certainly not shared by other Nobel laureates, such as
Murray Gell-Mann and Steven Weinberg. Phycisist Weinberg, in fact, says,
'String theory provides our only present source of candidates for a final
theory--how could anyone expect that many of the brightest young theorists
would not work on it?'"

*******************
Eighteenth century philosopher Joseph Joubert: "It is better to debate a
question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it."

******************
"History has always shown...that the solution to the most difficult problems
in nature have been the ones with the most beauty."
Best wishes,
Charlotte

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Charlotte

May be I am being pedantic or obtuse, but as far as I am concerned, you
may - if you are lucky - find the HOW of God's creation, but now the WHY.

That being so, you can not read God's mind!

As I asked before, can the chair know what was in the mind of the carpenter?
Or can a little brick in a building know what was in the mind of the
architect?

However, given an intellect it may be able to find out about its
relationship with other things in the same building (which is what we hope
to be doing), but alas the mind of the architect is not in the building!!

Kindest regards
Soroush

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Science is man's attempt at solving the mysteries of the creation.

As a result of one fact becoming known, more questions and UNCERTAINTIES
arise.

I feel it is a measure of probabilities and not certainties. Few certainties
exist.

Colleagues mentioned that quantum physics should be applied to Homoeopathy.
And when we go into quantum physics we enter the zone of Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle!
"The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the
momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa. "
--Heisenberg, uncertainty paper, 1927

Which means that we cannot define all aspects and parameters EXACTLY.

So in reflection, when a colleague used the word GUESS, I think he was
perhaps meaning to say 'in the balance of probabilities'.

Have fun

Regards

Soroush

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

I had the distinct impression though that Chris's application of the
term scientific was to assert that there is less 'guess' in the
equation and more exact predictability, i other words implying that it
was an EXACT process?
Simon
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please reply to
this email and then delete it. Please note that any views or opinions
presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of any other party or organisation

The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the
presence of viruses. The author accepts no liability for any damage
caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

[Joy Lucas]

But there is a huge gap between 'probability' (refuse to use the word
"guess" because of its connotations) and 'exactness'.

Probability allows for far too much intuition or unreliable essence
prescribing that becomes hit or miss and it should be as exact as
possible because we have procedures to follow in finding the simillimum
and they should be adhered to, i.e. ranking sx, building a hierarchy of
what needs to be cured, then location, sensation, extension, causation,
concommitants, modalities.

In the recent 'Homeopath' journal which was themed around bird rx the
cases were interesting enough but there was virtually no
repertorisation. I couldn't believe it.

Uncertainties there may be but we have to eradicate as much as possible
and work toward exact predictability. Best wishes, Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
edited
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Hi Joy
That has been my big issue with The HOMEOPATH. To proper case analysis and
repertorisation. What are they trying to teach.

On the issue of probabilities, just think of the process of crossing the
road. The process is scientific
You make certain judgements and take precautions, make mental (or physical)
calculations of times and speeds etc and decide when it is safe (0
probability of being hit) and then attempt to cross.

But the process can go severely wrong.

It is also the case that in our case taking/analysis and repertorisation
again things go wrong and 'well indicated remedies' do not work - only
because something had not gone right in the process.
It is like any other experiment. Sometimes they go right and some times they
do not.

Just cast your mind back to the Horizon programme.

Rgds
Soroush

[Joy Lucas]

So why did the chicken (that was clucking its arms) cross the road in
the first place ?
Best wishes, Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com

edited

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

Not when it comes to science there isn't!

As understand it there is no such thing as exactness - only a very
high level of probability -
this is why I maintain that the use of the term 'scientific' to mean
exact (or a predetermined outcome of probability) is inaccurate, and
therefore not applicable to Homeopathy
Simon

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

LOL
It's only probably that it did!


Sion
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please reply to
this email and then delete it. Please note that any views or opinions
presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of any other party or organisation

The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the
presence of viruses. The author accepts no liability for any damage
caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

[Joy Lucas]

"exactness" in terms relating to "simillimum" is what I am referring to
and although the simillimum remains a probability until known to be so
we should aim to be as exact as possible. Exact = characterised by
strict, particular and complete accordance with fact, truth or an
established standard. Best wishes, Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]