Monday, June 2, 2008

Freedom is slavery

Double think of beleaguered Burmese people

He who makes his living by agriculture is called a farmer. He is not a porter.

He who makes his living by selling beverage merchandise is called a beverage merchant, not a builder of union solidarity and development.

He who makes his living by varied crafts is called a craftsman. He is not a volunteer of rebuilding the debris.

He who makes a living by priestly craft is called a ritualist, not a gospel of Dhamma.

Double think of Burma’s evil government and its servants

He who makes a living by artillery is called a soldier, not your father or mother.

He who makes a living by stealing is called a robber, not a government.

He who makes a living by serving the evil Burma government is called a servant, not a public officer.

He who makes a living by always nodding to superiors is a sycophant, not a disciplined manager.

He who governs the city and realm with force is called a tyrant, not a leader.


More about "Doublethink", follow this link:


Yahoo's Wand said...

Is this doublethink or doublespeak.
The print of Orwellian sign boards all over Burma reads

CRUSH both external and internal saboteurs as "common enemies of the Public".

The actual meaning is MURDER anybody who are against the government and "there will be no penalty for such action". If you have some time,let's discuss more about "double speak" or "newspeak".

Star Train said...


I appreciate what you brought,this great gem of Buddhism,"Bhramana Suttra" into our modern world of ideological lies.

Not only this suttra is a weapon for deconstruction of double think, but it is a ground zero bombing on the primary foundation of Western philosophy, "Corgito ergo sum", that most people know as "I think therefore I am" of Descartes.Some critics have already used doubtfulness of syllogism - a critique against the logic arguments whose logical conclusions are arisen from the premises that are doubted to exist. "I am" is based on two premises in Descartes' argument, "I and think". If either of these two doesn't exist, "I am" argument will be wrong under this power of doubtfulness of syllogistic criticism.

Perhaps, the approach of Buddha in this Suttra is much simpler.Let's see Descartes' argument of existence of I through the lens of Bhramana Suttra.

"A person who thinks is a person and not I".(It is even fit with Descartes' logic as he said I think therefore I am)

"Something that thinks is something and not a person".

"Some phenomenon that is said to think is some phenomenon and not a something"

"Nothing found to think is nothing and not something"

"Nothing is not an entity of anything and there is no I"

You could see that either in the logical approaches of "Corgito ergo sum" of Descartes or Bhramana Suttra of Lord Buddha, "there is no I" in the end.Ironically, Decartes has already argued on the side of Eastern Buddhism "with his logic of existence of I" to show that "there is no I in our magically schzophrenic world".

In brief,I want to thank all these great minds, and effort of yours as well to bring illumination to our paranoid world of ideological illusions.


MG said...

Your banner is great again!

I sighed many hapless woes of this bad Burmese future as well.

I didn't see any word like "liberty" in Burmese literature.In their imperfect vocabularies, Burmese seem still not notice that their backs have been stomped for half a century.Most probably, they are confusing "Independence from British" as freedom and liberty. There is only one single Burmese word for all these three differnt meanings and Burmese today can't understand what is the meaning of liberty. If you don't know what is the meaning of liberty and freedom, how you can fight to get it? If you don't know what is liberty, how you can value it. Perhaps, the greatest barrier to enlightenment of Burma is their undeveloped language itself that had only around 4 decades available for a naive enlightment during the reign of Birtish and post-independence, yet so cramped by traditional style accolades,rigid orthodoxies and self-praise of nationalism that Burmese today still think this ignorance as strength.


Jampa said...

Burma and Tibet are both under the communist ruler. Difference is that Burma is ruled by their own people, but Tibet is ruled by outsider Chinese govt. One similarity is that monks community is the main source of freedom struggle in both. I hope there will have freedom in both of these countries with the power of truth and compassion.
Free Tibet.
Free Myanmar.

Jampa said...

Burma and Tibet are both under the communist ruler. Difference is that Burma is ruled by their own people, but Tibet is ruled by outsider Chinese govt. One similarity is that monks community is the main source of freedom struggle in both. I hope there will have freedom in both of these countries with the power of truth and compassion.
Free Tibet.
Free Myanmar.

MG said...


Dear Jampa,

This is what O'Brien said to Winston.

"You are now a filth,Winston.You believe that you are still a human? Then this is humanity.You are THE LAST MAN IN EUROPE".

I think it doesn't matter that Burmese are ruled by their own race or Tibetans are ruled by a different race. One commonality under those tyrannies is that the ruled are no longer treated as human. Perhaps,a Tibetan as you are , and a Burmese as I am, if fallen into the hands of Immanuel Goldstein,in their torture chambers of room 101s,at that time. I will certainly remember you as I am not alone for THE LAST MAN in Asia.

MG (Teacher)

NKhm said...

Dear Jampa,

Perhaps, love is a problem as Buddha has pointed in Four Nobel Truths.Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century theologician, defined love as "a want to make somebody happy".

Loving Tibet, you want to make Tibetans happy.Loving Burma, many Burmese dissidents want to make Burmese happy.Loving China,Chinese authority today want to make the whole China (I am sure, not only Han Chinese; all over and above, it includes all Tibetans).Loving the union of Myanmar,the military dictators have the same mind set that they want to make all Burmese (all races+ majority Burmese)to be happy.Overall, I begin to think that this mind-set for an illusion for utopia, that is "wanting to make all happy" is the most dangerous problem to us.Buddha said "Romanticism forthwith resulted in Suffering" in his first principle in his original Dhamma wheel of Four Nobel Truths.In their dreams to make the whole community happy,these dictators and dissidents did the wars,imposed their own ideologies,and made dirty tricks against each other. This is a stupid and complete misunderstanding of our moral duties. The fantasy and caprice to establish a living heaven on earth finally produced a hell in our living world.It leads to intolearance,intrusion of privacies and, mistrust towards those whom we originally have amiable intention.In Tibets' case, this is the cultural genocide attempted by the Chinese govt in hope that there will be happiness if Tibets become to see themselves as Chinese.

This is my diagnosis and I think this is a social disease, and is the origin of all problems.Both the Chinese communist govt and Burmese military dictors are suffering from "hypermania",a moral illusion to think that they can make all the people happy.In fact,the highest and one of the most refined values in human life, "happiness" should be let to individuals of their own and not the matter of concern of these governments.Their indispensible concern should be to protect the pain of the people, the injustice against the unprivileged, and the suffering of the poor; this is not their business for the happiness of all the people or the majority of the public.Burmese even have an officially recognized motto that reflects their cognitive model of hypermania,"Towards the new heavenly kingdom of ultimate happiness" (Santhi Sukha Naing Ngan Taw Tit Sei Doet)

As for my love towards Mahayanism as a moral obligation to make all creatures on earth enjoy liberation and happiness, at first I felt strongly dissentive towards what Bumakin said: "justice is defined only in negative direction".This made me think very seriously as he also had a very strong argument in showing there is a great problem toward the humanity if justice is defined in the positive direction.
This is a great enlightenment and I want to thank Burmakin here.I also began to realize that in the Four Bhramana Principles, Buddha didn't say about love.He just said "Non-hatred (metta), Compassion,Empathy and finally Equanimity".I will not be also wrong that the Burmese heroes throughout their revolutional history could probably interpret non-hatred as love, and this finally led to the rule of the military in our country- a cognitive model of we Burmese to think the military leader as a Bhraman to prevent against the break-up of the union.This military coup has been still a strong legitimacy in our Burmse cognitive model,as we like to define justice should be weighted more in the positive direction.I was more clearer to understand why five moral precepts are all in the negative direction rather than a fulfilment- not to kill, not to steal, not to enjoy somebody's wife,not to lie, not to drink.These are root moral principles in Buddhism, universally and timelessly not to be violated.

I wish these unelightened governments of China and Burma,and their unenlightened dissidents as well, began to understand this fact. Their love for their country and their people is the main causation of the suffering of the people. I wish they also realize justice is only in the negative direction as Burmakin said in his enlightenment article, "Recycling is the essential concept in Buddhism".We have been so tired to try mistakingly in our illusion, our illusive best for the best happiness to all but we got wrongly into a wrong living hell by these wrong illusive ideologies to think justice in our illusive ego- justice should be defined in the positve direction. Unless the root values of humanity are understood, the world will never be at peace, liberty and happiness.

Apamadana Samadaitha,
Nun Khyamar

Ko Thi Ha said...

Dear Ko Star Train,

Your thoughts are provocative. I am thrilled to see such a Myanmar ever exist in this world to deconstruct the long-reigning corgito ergo sum of Descartes who could be said as the most powerful dissident against Anatta (non-I) principle of Buddhism.

Imitating your words- "Descartes argued for Buddhism", I also like to ask you a question, "Did Buddha ever argue on the side of Theology for existence of GOD?" I am dubious that the Cause and Effect principle of Buddhism is really working out for Anatta principle.

Buddhism is most commonly known as the principle of the cause and the effect.My logic is if we follow this logic,it argues that for every effect, there is a cause preceding it.Then, the existence of God is very possible in this logic,as everything must be coming out from something preceding, and finally the forms of all beginning have to be coming out from something that will be some supereme intelligence before the universe or God that creates the universe.Is the logic of cause and effect principle itself is a supporting evidence for existence of God?

I am happy to meet such a sharp eye like you. Don't think of this question as an embarassment.Just that I am trying to learn some insight from you.

Looking forward to your thought,
Ko Thi Ha

Anonymous said...

I agree with Ko Thi Ha. The Cause & Effect principle of Buddhism is looking like supporting theism.
If the formation of the universe is effect, God is seemingly the cause.
If Earth,Water, Fire and Air are the fundamental elements of a being or an object, then there must be a Creator to cause these things to become existent in forms as Buddhism says for every effect, there is a cause.Buddhism speaks of formation (Oo-book),abiding (Hti) and, destruction (Bin) as the characteristic phenomena of everything.Then there seems to be a transcendental being to cause these three phenomena.Then Buddha sounds like a supporter of theism.

I asked a similar question to Abi Dharma men and they unanimously answered that these three phenomenon happen spontaneously. I complained that Buddha said there is a cause for every effect; if you are saying about spontaneity, it implies that you are speaking for Ah-Haytuka Dhaik-Hti (there is no cause preceding an effect). They just got irritated by my complaint and blew me away with non-understandable terminologies. I am also finding somebody who could discriminate the logic of cause and effect principle clearly and distinctly from theism.In this modern plural world,I think Buddhist people need expand their thinking caliber to analyze carefully whether their Buddhist principles can tolerate an acid test of people with strong thinking caliber and a sharp tongue.

Freethinker said...

Well, I am not sure whether or not the cause and effect principle is the real basic tenet of Buddhism.

What I understands about Buddhism is that somebody should not uphold his or her own tenet if something empirical is proved with reason.This was exactly what Buddha made a rule before his debate against the sage, Sittsarka Hermit among his eight conquests of Buddha's lifetime.Buddha himself was ready to abandon his Anatta principle if Sittsarka could have empirically proved against it.

If we comply with this principle, we need to acknowledge that we have to drop off many principles in Buddhism, such as the cosmology of Abidharma.For instance,in Abidharma cosmology, the universe was first formed by a big rain.However,in 1960,modern sciences empirically observed that the universe was formed by a fireball,a great explosion of "Big Bang".Another wrong statement in Abidharma is that the world is flat and the sun and the moon are taking their way round the world. The description of the sizes of the moon and the sun are also not bigger than the New York.We need to confess that many tenets in Abidharma are ridiculous as proved by modern sciences.Let's think more about cause and effect that is also one of main tenets of Abidharma rather than coming from Buddha's direct words in Suttras.

Anonymous said...

Thank you,FREETHINKER.As to what you said,if the basic cosmology of Abi Dharma is wrong,how you think should we also doubt about authenticity of Abi Dharma?????

In Burma Buddhism history,Shin Ukatha strongly expressed against authenticity of Abi-Dharma and as a result of his freedom of expression, he was excommunicated by the Sanga(monks)society.What I like to argue is,as long as people don't know the value of freedom of expression and a change in mind-set for tolerance of listening to others of different opinions with empirical reason and evidence,our Burmese Buddhism will be pathetically vulnerable to critique from modern sciences, and will become just a funny Harry Potter story in our next generations.

We need dialogs as such for acceptance of authenticity for our entrenched cultural concepts.We have been exactly in the same condition that Buddha lampooned as the people who pursuit the foolish things and getting no benefits, that is, to accept everything coming from a textbook as construe.
The only defense for Burmese Theravada Buddhism left to us is development of freedom of expression and inter-religious (inter-cultural if possible) dialogs especially from sects of Mahayanists who have experienced adapting and adjusting their Buddhist thinking to such such scientific discoveries with empirical reason and evidence.

BurmeseGoldBull said...

Well said, dear Mg.

Karaweik ကရဝိတ္ 妙声鸟 Alvin (Sumedha) said...

Hmmm... about Ko Freethinker's mention of Abidhamma Cosmology and the 'mistake' of seeing the world as flat...

I believe under Non-Euclidean geometry, we can also see the world as flat.

Einstein and space-time comes to mind.

Perhaps, Abidhamma Cosmology has to be further studied from the perspective of relativistic / quantum physics?

freethinker said...

Well, Ko Karaweik.Sometimes I feel that the gurus of scientific discoveries have never unearthed the diamonds underneath the world.Even though Kant's priori is regarded as successful for defending against Hume's taunting threat of "negation of cause and effect" on scientific community,he couldn't have overcome the fact that our knowledge about the reality of the world is ALWAYS synthetic.If reality of the universe could be just a synthetic interplay of human language and the world, then what we should say about the logical consistency of non-euclidean geometry, that is also just one of the human syntheses inspired by Gauss' controversy over the measurement accuracy of the sum of the angles of a triangle as 180 degree + a trial of error.However,I pay my utmost respect to their attempt for measurement of earth (geo-metry)even if they are imperfect for their human synthetic nature,as these great and PESSIMISTIC scientists try to negate frequently on their own findings with empirical reason and evidence.

The premises of Abidharma are not based on such kinds of negations, and lacks of conceptualization for any idea of precise measurement.In our priori, we couldn't deny the fact that Abidharma is most probably infected with innumerable bias from subjectivity of these ARTISTIC editors and commentators throughout, who have no NEGATIVE sense of scientific thinking of "active negators" about the objectivity of the universe, but regard themselves as the "passive discoverers" of the truth.

Karaweik ကရဝိတ္ 妙声鸟 Alvin (Sumedha) said...

Ko Freethinker,
Agree with your "... our knowledge about the reality of the world is ALWAYS synthetic..." mention in your comment. Interestingly, this also include our current 'world co-ordinate system' definition of flatness.

Let's think about a fish looking out of water near a river bank. The laws of light refraction would have distorted peripheral areas of its visual field. So, what is the meaning of flatness in the fish's perspective?

Ko Nova Lantern mentioned in a comment of another post that "Schrodinger's cat is both dead or alive as long as we don't open the box to observe.That is what Buddha said: Vinyana causes object (Rupa) and mental conceptualization (Nama).In simpler terms, only by observation,the system of the universe comes to be stabilized to affirmatively say that the cat is either alive or dead.This is one of the best paradoxes of the history of scientific revolution: we try to observe what is the universe- and then we realize that "our observation itself is determining" what is the universe at this subatomic level.This principle of quantum mechanics in modern times was also our Buddha's disclosure of the magic of the universe more than 2500 years ago"

Back to the primary foundation of Western philosophy, "Corgito ergo sum" ( "I think therefore I am") of Descartes... the cause is the "I think" and the effect is the "therefore I am". If I use another definition of flatness (as if I'm a fish looking out of water), the world is not flat but seen from a fish-eye lens.

Indeed, each one of us see the world with our own individual coloured lenses.

Lashio_tar said...

Hi Ko Free-Thinker ,
Can I ask you one simple question ? How sure are we about the fact that universe start from big bang, all the dark matter gone also ? And if that is true , how can we explain that the universe start from big bang , then expand , then collapse again to singualrity point , then big bang agian ? Why it is happening that way and not the any other way ? I'm just curious , I like to think also :D Pls enlighten me

Freethinker said...

Well, Ko Lashio Tar, these are the pillars on which our current understanding of the universe rests on.

(1)The first pillar: Einstein's general theory of relativity (1916)

The equations in this theory predict that an infinite, homogeneous,and static universe is impossible. The universe has to expand or contract.From this realization, the big bang theory, as it later be testified with evidence, was born.

(2)The second pillar: Finding the expansion of the universe (1920s)

The American astronomer, Vesto Slipher provided "observational evidence".By measuring the lengthening or compressing of light waves from distant glaxies, Slipher was able to determine that waves of light from a star moving toward Earth are compressed, shortening the wavelength and making the light bluer (blue shift).On the other hand, light waves from an object moving away from us are stretched, making the wavelength longer and the light redder (red shift).

Hubble, another American astronomer discovered a relation between the distance to galaxies and their velocities of moving away from us.The velocity of a moving-away-from-us galaxy was directly proportional to its distance from us. In other words,a galaxy twice as far away as another was moving twice as fast.This means each galaxy is gaining more and more acceleration when they are getting more and more further from us, everybody leaving our deserted universe in the empty void ultimately.

(3)The third pillar: Discovery of the faint glow of the cosmic microwave background (1965)

This faint glow was detected by Bell labs physicists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who later were awarded Nobel Prizes for their discovery. This is the most important finding for the proof of the fireball in the beginning of universe, affirming many earlier assumptions of Big Bang theory of the universe.

(4)The fourth pillar: Big bang nucleosynthesis theory

Our today universe is composed of Hydrogen 70% (1 amu in atomic mass), Helium 28% (2 amu), and the rest 2% is composed of elements heavier than Helium.When big bangs occurred, the temperature of the universe was one billion to ten billion kelvins. At that temperature lighter nuclei fused into heavier nuclei.This process is known as big bang nucleosynthesis. However, this process can occur for only a few minutes as the universe expands and cools, so fusion was limited to the lightest elements
Most of the helium in the universe was produced in this way. The measured abundances of helium and deuterium(as shown in the beginning of this paragraph)match the occurrence of the big bang.

My remark: The big bang theory is proved to be true with empirical reason and evidence.This is not an assumption any more.In accordance with this theory, all the living creatures on earth will finally not be able to survive as all the energy sources (the stars) are getting away from us.As Ko Burmakin said, in Buddhism, our universe will also be recycled at last (will face the doom day).However,in Abi Dharma cosmology, the recycling is not in this way; the suns (stars) get closer to us on our final day and the earth will then be burnt to ultimate annihilation. Imagine how ridiculous this kind of fact is (I mean just a wrong fact, not all Abi Dharma doctrine) when science has reached the understanding of the universe with such subtle and deep level.Eventually we all mankind will die by freezing but such fantasy in Abi Dharma is still foolishly arguing that the earth will be roasted like a duck on its D day.

Anonymous said...

Just one correction- the atomic mass of Helium should be 4 amu.

Also one suggestion: the usage "foolishly" is pejorative. For polity, consider words like "groundlessly".

Lashio_tar said...

Well research and read Ko Free-Thinker .

-First of all, are you saying that the universe will be keep on expanding ( the possibility of a Finite and yet Unbounded Universe ) or at some point , it will start to contract? [ The most surest thing Einstein can predict whether Universe is Finite or Infinite base on his General Relativity Theory is : "we can only answer it with moderate degree of certainty" ]Einstein himself say all his Theories break down at Singularity point i.e at the Big Bang itself.

-OR the Universe will keep on expanding like Friedmann 2nd model? [ How sure are we about the rate of Expansion , distances to the galaxies , average density of the Universe { even if you include dark matter , even neutrino OR even dark energy} ? ]

-OR the Universe is keep on expanding with INCREASING RATE [ How sure are we about the cosmological constant and it's antigravity effects ]?

And , why one-quarter of the mass of the universe is in the form of Helium?

Even the quantum theory of gravity can permit that "there would be no singularities at which the law of science broke down " [ i.e the boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary , the universe is self-contained not affected by anything outside itself ], the most optimist answer Hawking can give is " Events cannot be predicted with complete accuracy: there is always a degree of uncertainty". We can predict events only up to the limit set by the uncertainty principle.

-Even we observe ( or I personally believe ) large-scale uniformity of universe and smaller-scale departures from homogeneity:
-> God still v freedom to choose the laws that the universe obeyed if he doesn't choose the initial stage of the Universe .
-> But if there is singularity point at the start of Big Bang , God still v freedom to choose initial state of the Universe and may be the law the universe will follow after big bang.

-Even if there is only ONE Unified Theory ( which I really doubt so , why not more ? Stone-age guys counted start from 1, 2, 3 ... and we are here up to Quantum Physics. Even we still don't use circle and ellipse , we still can v different mathematics )can we answer why the Universe obey current law ? why are we here ?

-Afterall, Wittgenstein may be wrong. Philosopher will have to rescue Scientists from Black and Worm holes :)

Lashio_tar said...

Btw , I"m a devoted Buddhist. I'm what people think I'm . I do not want to be in identity crisis stage :) At least, knowing who am I first is the first step to answer who are we and why are we here .
If we drop for a minute what we know OR what we all thik we know better about Space, Universe than ancient way of seeing universe ( turtles all the way down), do we really know better ? Why should we think we know better ? Are we really so sure that the Universe will keep on expanding OR it start to contract till two super black holes annihilate each other and big bang start over again ?
Well , science is based on "common sense" and we should not loose it . Otherwise , what so different between science and religion? The most optimist answer science can give now is : we believe we are progressing on the right way to understand about the universe. What we know , we know . But don't talk about start and end of the universe, nothing is conclusive yet!
Well , for those guys who want to re-define the Buddhism :
-> What is the definition of Religion ? Does Religion need to be rational ? What is the X-factor of Religion ?
-> Can a religion is rational yet still can possess the beauty of Religion ?

burmesegoldbull said...

can we answer why the Universe obey current law? interesting...

Star Train said...

Hi Guys,

If you like to define current laws of modern sciences, you will certainly find out that the faithful defense that remains with our human reasoning after the appearance of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is the probability theory.

Let's me ask you guys one question. What is the purpose of science from Euclidean geometry to Hawking's black hole? Fundamentally that is "to predict the future". It will not be wrong if we say all those fuzzy quantum mechanics and quantum field theory scientists have had the same original motivation from the antique Veda astronomers to predict the movement and position of stars and planets.

This was a great shock to Einstein when the iron rule of "determinism" in science was going to be got rid of by the "randomism" of the uncertainty principle. Einstein shrieked painfully, "God doesn't play dice" when all their hard-wiring of sciences was threatened to death by discovery of quantum mechanics. Neir Bohr laughed, "Einstein, don't tell God what to do".Einstein may have been wrong, however,not in the way he was concerned, science is still alive; of course still surviving with the probability theory.

Let's me tell you how the speaking of sciences can't be becoming a bubble as Ko Lashio Tar thought;neither a definite trajectory as Ko Free Thinker imagined. Let's me give you a golden coin.I will tell you to toss it 1000 times, and I say the probability of getting the head is half (1/2, 50%).Let's me set up a dialog with you guys.

KLST & KFT: Hi Ko Star Train,we have got a problem. We did your probability experiment. You know, coin flipping. Check the stuff you told us. It didn't work.

ST: Well, I am glad to hear that you guys are interested. What did you do?

KLST & KFT: We flipped this coin 1,000 times. You taught us we ought to get 500 heads. But it didn't work. We get 513. What's wrong ?

ST: Yeah, but you forgot about the margin of error. If you flip a certain number of times then the margin of error is about the square root of the number of flips. For 1000 flips the margin of error is about 33. So you were within the margin of error.

KLST & KFT: Ah, got it. Every time we flip 1,000 times we will always get something between 467 and 533 heads. Every single time! Wow, now that is the fact we can count on.

ST: No, no! What it means is that you guys will "probably" get between 467 and 533.

KLST & KFT: You mean we could get 200 heads? Or 850 heads? Or even all heads?

ST: Probably not.

KLST & KFT: Maybe the problem is that we didn't make enough flips. Should we ask Than Shwe more golden coins :-) and try it 1,000,000 times. Will it work better?

ST: Probably.

KLST & KFT: Aw come on Ko Star Train. Tell us something we can trust. You keep telling us that what probably means by giving us more probabilities. Tell us what probability means without using the word probably.

ST: Hmmm. Well how about this: it means I would be surprised if the answer were outside the margin of error.

KLST & KFT: My Lord Buddha! You mean all the stuff you told us about statistical mechanics and Quantum mechanics and mathematical probability: all it means is that you'd personally be surprised if it didn't work.

ST: Well, uh...

If you guys were to flip a coin for a million times I 'd be damn sure you were not going to get all heads. I am not a gambler but in this case, I would bet my pretty wife for it:-) (Hope that she doesn't know who Star Train is). I am absolutely certain that the laws of large numbers - probability theory- will work and protect me.
All of science is based on it. Then it will make sense that Einstein said "God doesn't play dice". Just to add a little more, "but he probably does".

Nice to meet you all guys. Let's call it a day, now.

Lashio_tar said...

Hi Ko S.T and Ko F.T,
As far as I can grasp the ideas of science so far , there is one thing in common:

-Pre Newton era : all the science developments are based on the POSTULATE that the earth is in the center of Universe. But somehow/anyhow , from these science principles, we still can get some facts which can be observed and experimentally verified.

-Newton era : All his developments are based on the POSTULATE that time is universal . Somehow, we still can shoot rockets to the moon . What a beauty!

-Einstein era : His POSTULATE -> Principle of Equivalence base on speed of light is constant ( REALLY?? Ether is gone also :P ), time is not universal . Somehow , we can predict pretty good results compare to Newton's prediction of motions.

- Hawking era : POSTULATE -> Uncertainty principle . Somehow or rather , we can get pretty good prediction of sub-atomic level motions .

So guys, base on this trend , I'm pretty damn sure that our man-kind will come out with better theory for better understanding of universe. Afterall, it v been only 200 years since we built sub-ways in NYC :) So don't conclude so fast .
My only worry. We all humans are product of Big Bang ( or whatever that may be ) and we can find way to understand what's all about ? We are finding T.O.E and even we found it , T.O.E itself will tell your future , your behavior and yet we are finding T.O.E , quite wierd rite (i.e T.O.E will tell you to find T.O.E )? Or SHould I believe Hawking-Darwin theory to understand this ? :D

burmesegoldbull said...

hi guys..

wat r we arguing? its good to see u all talking abt science and religion.

But don’t forget we still have many unknown unknowns.
We mankind has just made our very first step in our quest to understand nature and universe if we compare our journy ahead.

So guys… lets stop talking and lets get working.