HairSite - Hair Care & Hair Loss Forums
Topic M443 - Hair Multiplication & Other Advanced Treatments (forum # 36)

[ Male Forums |  Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]

Re: My take on embryionic stem cell research

From: Preistly to Bill
Date: 12 Jul 2001
Time: 11:36:23
Remote Name: 209.86.140.33

Comments

Bill,

>Quantum physicists don't know any more about 12 dimensions than you and I...

"Know" is a difficult term here. There are a number of n-space conjectural models about the structure of spacetime. Four dimensions is certainly not enough to account for all currently observable phenomena. There are several competing values for n that do account for both macroscopic and quantum activity - I like the 12-space version because it's the simplest which accounts for observation. It is still a hypothetical model not yet graduated to the status of theory. Quantum physicists do, however, know a significant amount more than you or I. The mathematics of tensors and Schroedinger's equations is WAY outside my fields of study.

>They don't even know what an electron is.

I disagree. We have a vast understanding of the nature of electron/wave-packets and a number of other "wavicle" aspects of reality.

>In fact, they have arrived at the Uncertainty Principle, which says there is no way to both know the position and the velocity of said particles, that also have wave-like principles.

Heisenberg merely defined the limit on the degree to which an observer can have simultaneous knowledge of both position and angular momentum of subatomic wavicles, due to the nature of the tools at the observer's disposal at his (and currently our) time. The very act of determining the position of a wavicle so interferes with the process under observation as to change greatly the angular momentum. The methods of detection of angular momentum provide relatively little information about position. The Uncertainty Principle states the mathematical description of the bounds of that simultaneous knowledge.

>We do not know what a photon is. We have to invent something called duality, when we could not explain its properties as being either a particle or a wave.

This is a not uncommon misapprehension about duality. Subatomic entities evince properties of both particles and energy-waves. The usefulness of duality is in the simplification of the mathematical modelling. There are some aspects of wavicles which are vastly more easily described in term of particle behavior - when "particleness" is of primary interest, e.g., position, the corresponding math is easier, using one class of equations. When the energy-wave aspects are of greater concern, another set of equations is more simply applied. The biggie in the Einstein/Minkowski formulation is the demonstration that energy and matter are equivalent and the statement of the equivalence relation. The pertinent equations on eother side of the duality fence merely make it easier for the physicist to address the aspect of immediate concern to his work. I won't be surprised, if someone derives a comprehensive, integration of the dual aspects of wavicles into one set of equations that are easily manipulated to describe either set of abstractions - I will be surprised, if it happens next week.

>And these are things that are here with us in the third dimension.

Ooops! We can't possible get away without four...spacetime or timespace, depending on your focus of the moment is no longer arguable. Reality is a (minimally) four-dimensional manifold.

>Christ says he is in this world, but not of this world. This is basically where the idea of soul is derived, in that it is this part of God that we have. Our bodies are in 3-dimensional spacetime, but our souls are not. And once again to ask WHERE it is implies an aspect to our soul that does not exist.

And here, I can not debate. Your statement is propounded on an unqualified belief to which do not subscribe.

>I agree that the fact that something has not been proven to exist does not exclude its existence, but in my previous paragraph, the soul, from the very essence of its beginning of use by us, is such a thing that does not exist in our spacetime.

Whereas, for me, to say something does not exist in spacetime is to say that it does not exist.

>Would you be willing to stipulate that something that does not exist in spacetime, could still have some sort of prescence, even though we will not be able to prove such prescence, due to our limitation of being STUCK IN 3 DIMENSIONS ?

Nope.

>The fact that I picked up my biology book is the argument I am using to say that a human zygote is the first and only step for the creation of life.

That a zygote derived from a human ovum and sperm is the first and only step on the road to a human being, I do not debate. That such a zygote must manifest the one of many possible potentials labelled "become a human being" I deny.

>You are right in the statement that because all B's are A's does not imply that all A's are B's, in a logical sense. But even if that is true for zygotes, we have no right to make that judgment about any one particular zygote.

While I take the position that it is we and we alone who have right and indeed the obligation to make exactly that judgement.

>What gives us the arrogance to decide that this zygote is not gonna make a human...

Again, we differ as to interpretation of the underlying ethics. I do not see it as arrogance in the least. We are exploring new and previously unsuspected realms of our human understanding of our own being. Who better to make such decisions than we? There's no higher intelligence with whom to commune on the issues.

>...because I can use that same logic that since we know that all B's come from A's, then at least some A's do indeed make B's.

...and some do not. QED

>I do believe that you would resist my green men, like most of us would...

Heck, Bubba, I'm FROM Georgia...we shoot back.

>..and I also believe that you will one day espouse the idea that no lifeform has the moral right to take anothers...

Lions are going to eat antelopes as long as both cohabit the same ecospace...I like being a lion. Don't bet anything on my conversion that you cherish too highly to afford to lose.

Regards, Priestly

poker

From: poker
Remote Name: 200.216.215.15
Date: 29 Mar 2006
Time: 22:49:11

Comments

<a href="http://www.freehomepages.com/pokertournam/">poker</a> [URL=http://www.freehomepages.com/pokertournam/]poker[/URL

<a href="http://www.cyberturf.com/pokertournam/">poker</a> [URL=http://www.cyberturf.com/pokertournam/]poker[/URL

<a href="http://www40.brinkster.com/poker23/">poker</a> [URL=http://www40.brinkster.com/poker23/]poker[/URL

<a href="http://www.freewebs.com/poker23/">poker</a> [URL=http://www.freewebs.com/poker23/]poker[/URL

<a href="http://freeweb.jamieweb.com/holdempoker/">holdem poker</a> [URL=http://freeweb.jamieweb.com/holdempoker/]holdem poker[/URL]

<a href="http://free.hostdepartment.com/o/onlinepokertourn/">poker</a> [URL=http://free.hostdepartment.com/o/onlinepokertourn/]poker[/URL]

Last changed: April 18, 2007

© Copyright 1997 - 2001  TSE Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this website can be reproduced. Contact info: HairSite@aol.com