2015.07.07 13:00 - Blinking In and Out of Reality

The Guardian for this meeting was Darren Islar...

Avaline DeCuir: Hey Stuk
Darren Islar: grins ... hey sweet
Darren Islar: I didn't expect you
Avaline DeCuir: I wasn't expecting to come but I was alseep so early last night I woke up and wasn't tired anymore
Darren Islar: oh good
Darren Islar: since you see there is no-one here
Avaline DeCuir: yeh I see that ... maybe they are scared of my proposed topic
Darren Islar: grins
Avaline DeCuir: erm did you write it down because I can't remember it
Darren Islar: no, but the question is whether both Kant as Whitehead can be right at teh same time
Darren Islar: or two different approaches
Avaline DeCuir: ah yes whether we can hold two opposite beliefs to be correct at the same time
Darren Islar: yes

--BELL--

Darren Islar: you still like to discuss it or do we wait till next week?
Avaline DeCuir: well I would say that it is possible as long as you don't attach yourself too strongly to one belief system or ideal over and above another
Avaline DeCuir grins
Darren Islar: what if one excludes the other one
Avaline DeCuir: it doesn't matter I don't think ... as long as you are not attached to either but are able to hold on to both for their individual merits

Avaline DeCuir: let me give you a black and white example
Darren Islar: ok
Avaline DeCuir: pro and anti vaccination .... you would think that one pretty much excludes the other
Avaline DeCuir: especially when you read debates about it on facebook
Avaline DeCuir: yet is is possible to hold both to be true
Darren Islar: how?
Avaline DeCuir: pro ... vaccination prevents communicable diseases and leads to eradication through herd immunity
Avaline DeCuir: anti - vaccination leads to other problems and herd immunity is a myth
Darren Islar: okay on a more concrete level, do I take that seringe or not
Darren Islar: ?

Avaline DeCuir: the balanced view is that in most cases some vaccination of diseases that are life threatening for most people if they catch it has merit unless you are allergic to it
Avaline DeCuir: the idea of herd immunity indeed does appear to eradicate the disease yet we know that is not actually true since those we thought had been eradicated arise again
Avaline DeCuir: the reasons being that not everyone is fully immune from vaccination ... and it is possible to lose immunity over time
Darren Islar: there are theories that other diseases are caused because of using vaccins as for example MS which only occur in rich countries where vaccinations take place
Avaline DeCuir: so herd immunity in the way that pro vaxers think is not actually true
Avaline DeCuir: yes .. that is the anti vax stance ... and we actually don't know how bombarding our bodies with so many vaccines affects our immune system
Avaline DeCuir: we could be over stimulating the systems of young children who are vaccinated for everything at a very young age ... causing auto immune diseases
Darren Islar: in that case there is no middle-stance possible, when that proofs to be right, hypothetically
Avaline DeCuir: of course there is
Avaline DeCuir: the middle stance is to only vaccinate for the deadly diseases ... and to vaccinate on a more expanded schedule to allow the body to recover between shots
Avaline DeCuir: vaccination every year for flu for everyone for example is not a good move
Darren Islar: if that works, what happens if that doesn't?
Avaline DeCuir: I think that in vaccinating you need to balance risks .. the risk of getting the disease against the risk of the vaccination
Avaline DeCuir: for example measles ... we vaccinate because in a few rare cases it can kill
Avaline DeCuir: but most kids just get a rash a temp and a runny nose for a week
Darren Islar: so the next question would be: is there always some sort of balance possible?
Avaline DeCuir: the vax itself can and does kill in equally frightening numbers
Avaline DeCuir: it depends ... if you are willing to allow that the opposite view of the one you hold could be equally possible .. then yes
Avaline DeCuir: looking at a more esoteric topic ...
Avaline DeCuir: does God exist for example
Avaline DeCuir: we can hold both to be true at the same time and still remain sane

--BELL--

Avaline DeCuir: God exists and is exactly what we imagine him to be
Avaline DeCuir: God doesn't exist in any form
Avaline DeCuir: God exists or not in some form we cannot yet understand and that in itself makes him both existant and not
Darren Islar: yeah ... but that's the discussion
Darren Islar: the 'cannot yet understand' is what raises the question
Avaline DeCuir: perhaps it does but I think the question is more about attachment
Avaline DeCuir: each side of the argument is so attached to their belief that they can't concieve that the opposite could also be true
Avaline DeCuir: the argument is not whether God actually exists or not but whether we can admit that it might or might not exist and each argument is equally true
Avaline DeCuir: until such time as there is definite indisputable proof of one side against the other then both continue to be true
Darren Islar: in a way yes, but it takes the discussion out of the discussion :)
Avaline DeCuir: and I think that even with definite indisputable proof both will still end up being true
Darren Islar: in what way?
Avaline DeCuir: well I think that God (and everything else for that matter) are possibilities rather than hard absolutes
Avaline DeCuir: therefore both can be true at the same time
Avaline DeCuir: Perhaps we could say that the nature of God is the elements ... a flame for example is there and not there
Avaline DeCuir: the ocean is both present and not ... each microscopic drop being so mutable that it exists and ceases to exist exactly as it was within the apace of a breath
Avaline DeCuir: wind (or air) is there but it isn't .. we can't see it or touch it .. or pin it down although we can contain it
Avaline DeCuir: but saying what the nature of God is ... doesn't mean that God exists ... it also doesn't mean that it doesn't exist
Avaline DeCuir: Which bit of water for example is water?
Darren Islar: those are moving molecules we detect as wind ... might it not be that there is as Stephen Hawkins expects, a final part or parts which in different connections show to be something different
Avaline DeCuir: Is it the hydrogen and oxygen atoms? But they exist outside of water too

--BELL--

Darren Islar: it's the combination
Avaline DeCuir: so is it the connection between the atoms that makes water ?
Darren Islar: yes, same for the atoms
Avaline DeCuir: but those connections also exist outside of water
Avaline DeCuir: so is it the ions and prions and electrons etc?
Avaline DeCuir: but they also exist outside of water
Darren Islar: for atoms yes,but each atom doesn't exist outside it's own structure, same goes for water
Darren Islar: for molecules, then for water
Darren Islar: in the concept of Hawkins this is possible, in the concept of Buddhism not, since, as they argue, change would not be possible that way
Avaline DeCuir: I am not sure what you mean
Avaline DeCuir: surely if as Hawkins says there is a final part or parts which in different connections show to be something else ... then change in the view of buddhism comes from change in those parts?
Darren Islar: which means there is no ultimate part, an ultimate part would be a part which can't change
Avaline DeCuir: why?
Avaline DeCuir: does Hawkins specify that it is a part that can't change?
Darren Islar: otherwise it's not an ultimate part ... something is changing which means it consists of other parts otherwise it cant
Avaline DeCuir: I don't agree
Darren Islar: I think so yes, would need to look it up
Avaline DeCuir: the ultimate part could be a mutable something which changes in relation to the atoms (and smaller parts) it is working with ... therefore it is constantly changing yet always unchanging at the same time
Darren Islar: where comes the change from?
Avaline DeCuir: think about it this way ... that ultimate something creates and recreates itself constantly ... it isn't a fixed thing ... therefore the possibility of change is constantly there
Darren Islar: so it changes and therefor isn't the ultimate part
Avaline DeCuir: why can't it be the ultimate part?
Darren Islar: when it can seas to exist it's not a part the whole universe is build upon
Avaline DeCuir: why not?
Darren Islar: because
Darren Islar: something ultimate can't be something different
Darren Islar: can't be and not be
Avaline DeCuir: let me try to explain my view ... lets call the part ether just for now even though it probably isnt
Avaline DeCuir: if ether is what holds water as water ... it also holds fire as fire ... and air as air
Avaline DeCuir: therefore it is not unchanging .. it changes depending on what it is holding together

Avaline DeCuir: I don't agree that something ultimate can't be changing
Avaline DeCuir: scientists have theorised that matter and anti matter actually exist side by side ... and that each potential blinks in and out of existence very fast
Avaline DeCuir: never together at exactly the same time but blinking on and off so fast that we can't trace it
Avaline DeCuir: that is the vibration of the universe in my opinion
Avaline DeCuir: and everything is crated in concert with this so that it blinks on as matter at the same time as everything else in on as matter

--BELL--

Avaline DeCuir: and blinks on as anti matter at the same time as everything else blinks on as anti matter
Darren Islar: yes, but to me that would support the Buddhist stance, not the theory that an ultimate particle exists
Avaline DeCuir: why can't it be both?
Darren Islar: since it also cannot exist
Avaline DeCuir: exactly
Darren Islar: it just isn't what some scientists are looking for
Avaline DeCuir: that is because scientists are concerned with dense matter ... even if it is very un dense
Avaline DeCuir: they don't have yet the concept of things existing and not existing
Avaline DeCuir: first you have to allow that things can bot exist and not exist at the same time
Avaline DeCuir: and I think they are coming close with the blinking on and off theory
Darren Islar: yes, but I don't see how both views can be there at teh same time, I mean can be true at the same time
Avaline DeCuir: because of potentiality
Darren Islar: hmmm, aren't we back where we started :)
Avaline DeCuir: we create our reality moment by moment ... therefore we can allow that things are both there and not there if we choose to

Darren Islar: it's time, I'm afraid I need to work on the pavilion .... you like to come?
Darren Islar: after I get my beer?
Avaline DeCuir: damn I was enjoying this
Avaline DeCuir: okay :)
Darren Islar: hehe ... next time we'll continue, I will make an e-mail to let others know what they can expect to be discussing here next time
Avaline DeCuir grins
Avaline DeCuir: okay