HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

Dr Bunsen Honeydew wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:35 pm And that means we shouldn't have an opinion or ideas or discuss it, does it.

Richard, you are normally quick enough to tell anyone (everyone) whose ideas don't conform to yours that they speak so be gracious enough to accept the same from others.

If you accept that others may hold different opinions to yourself maybe there they would be less critical of what you believe.

Me, I'm with Lurcher 300b in the main.

A number of ideas here were explored in Star Trek The Original Series, including the episodes 'The Enemy Within', 'Mirror Mirror', 'Let That Be Your Last Battlefield', 'The Alternative Factor' and 'Tomorrow is Yesterday'. In one of my lectures to undergraduates I used to look at the computing technology which writers in the 1960s imagined would exist some 300 years in the future only to then discover that much of what was though might exist in 300 years actually existed some 40 years later.

Even the rather inferior Star Trek Deep Space Nine had people using what today we take for granted in the shape of the iPad.

As Donald Rumsfeld said, "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

"Albert Einstein is reported to have asked his fellow physicist and friend Niels Bohr, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, whether he realistically believed that 'the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it.' To this Bohr replied that however hard he (Einstein) may try, he would not be able to prove that it does, thus giving the entire riddle the status of a kind of an infallible conjecture—one that cannot be either proved or disproved."

Source: The usual online encyclopaedia.

Why did I say spiritual?
Because you said this:

Dr Bunsen Honeydew wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:17 pm All I know as a feeling and as an imperative within me is we are a product of imbalance, a product of a universal dichotomy, that may be temporary, caused by the big bang, that in our terms will take an infinite amount of time to re-achieve balance. Within that universe every small part of it including us as individuals desires that balance but cannot resist exploring the imbalances - we follow our path (tao) of our own making until balance is achieved at death. Perhaps the universe achieves its own balance eventually in its own death.

What I 'm referring to isn't anything to do with religion, it's to do with the need in all of us for "something." With me it's sport - for other people it is whatever their own thing is.

Background here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree ... n_a_forest

hillsanddalesrover wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:37 pm

Dr Bunsen Honeydew wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:35 pm And that means we shouldn't have an opinion or ideas or discuss it, does it.

Richard, you are normally quick enough to tell anyone (everyone) whose ideas don't conform to yours that they speak so be gracious enough to accept the same from others.

If you accept that others may hold different opinions to yourself maybe there they would be less critical of what you believe.

Me, I'm with Lurcher 300b in the main.

Complete nonsense, anyone can have an opinion, anyone can say I am talking bollocks. What I object to is the *superior* attitude of we are not scientists, so fecking what, I don't have to be a dentist to talk about my teeth. You need to learn to read.

CycleCoach wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:03 pm Why did I say spiritual?
Because you said this:

Dr Bunsen Honeydew wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:17 pm All I know as a feeling and as an imperative within me is we are a product of imbalance, a product of a universal dichotomy, that may be temporary, caused by the big bang, that in our terms will take an infinite amount of time to re-achieve balance. Within that universe every small part of it including us as individuals desires that balance but cannot resist exploring the imbalances - we follow our path (tao) of our own making until balance is achieved at death. Perhaps the universe achieves its own balance eventually in its own death.

What I 'm referring to isn't anything to do with religion, it's to do with the need in all of us for "something." With me it's sport - for other people it is whatever their own thing is.

I have no *need* for this, it just happened, a combination or what I learned from training in a Taoist art, it is not taught in words, it just becomes obvious. This creates the interest so you then explore the literature. If you do that first before you understand internally it will make no sense, in many ways the literature is like Zen Koans, without your experience it is pretty much meaningless. As I was told at the beginning, you don't learn tai-chi, with practice you become tai-chi.

There is absolutely no spiritual side to this, unless you are talking about chi (qi). For you that may seem spiritual being an etheric energy, but for me it is experienced everyday in everything I do the same as I experience my body moving and my brain thinking. It is the third leg on the stool that stops us falling over, with most of us it is on auto-pilot. It just makes everything work. It is also what creates birth and decides on death. We would still have the mind and the body but the energy that powers it has gone, very simple really. The energy that *is* life.

CycleCoach wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:13 pm

Dr Bunsen Honeydew wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:04 pm
Give me some more examples please.

There is no opposite of "Time"

Nor is there an opposite to "Gravity"

I'm sure I could come up with more..

I can't answer the opposite of time..


gravity is a word describing a force. There is an opposite or opposing force to gravity (in the context I was thinking about a few pages back.)
The one we know about is another gravity.

Who's to say that one day we will understand it more than we do today

SteveS57 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2017 6:37 pm

CycleCoach wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:13 pm

Dr Bunsen Honeydew wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:04 pm
Give me some more examples please.

There is no opposite of "Time"

Nor is there an opposite to "Gravity"

I'm sure I could come up with more..

I can't answer the opposite of time..


gravity is a word describing a force. There is an opposite or opposing force to gravity (in the context I was thinking about a few pages back.)
The one we know about is another gravity.

Who's to say that one day we will understand it more than we do today

http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/physic ... -direction

gravity is a word describing a force. There is an opposite or opposing force to gravity (in the context I was thinking about a few pages back.)
The one we know about is another gravity.

Gravity is an attractive force between any two (or more) masses. The opposite would have to be a repulsive force. We don't know of such a force.