Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

support marriage equality

If you're like me, and oblivious and naive about a lot of political stuff, you might have assumed (as I did, until recently) that it was completely legal for anyone to get married, gay or straight. I thought there might have been some backwards states with quaint quaker-like laws, but it completely boggled my mind when I learned over the past 6 months or so how opposed some factions of the US are to equal rights in marriage. I strongly suggest signing this petition to show George W. and others who want to treat gays, lesbians, and bisexuals as second class citizens... that many of us are appauled by such a disregard for equal rights:

Million for Marriage Petition


( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
Mar. 27th, 2004 05:16 pm (UTC)
Hello Jeff, I'm Kitty.

I found you through one of your friends on your list, and was glad to find a fellow contact juggler. I hope you don't mind me adding you to my friendslist. You seem like the kind of person I can relate too. Its nice to see someone who can appreciate the finer things; CJing, techno and equality.

See ya

Mar. 29th, 2004 11:32 pm (UTC)
Hi. Don't mind at all.

Although I'm not that great at contact juggling. I should practice more :)
Mar. 30th, 2004 06:24 am (UTC)
It doesnt matter if you're not great at it, I appreciate people for their interests rather than judge their abilities. I should practice more too actually. Looks like you have a nice triple palmspin going in your icon:)

You're a physicist? I would love to have a nice chat with you. I'm just an interested layman. What do you think of the term "the new physics" that has been floating around lately?
Mar. 30th, 2004 08:32 pm (UTC)

You're a physicist? I would love to have a nice chat with you. I'm just an interested layman.

Well, the way I look at it, I won't official "be" one until I finish my PhD. But I'm working on it, slowly but surely.

What do you think of the term "the new physics" that has been floating around lately?

I don't think I've heard of that term. Unless it just means modern physics.
Mar. 31st, 2004 06:45 am (UTC)
I heard the term from several books that approach physics in a way that takes kind of a spiritualist approach. I don't know who coined the phrase, but its mentioned by Gary Zukov in the Dancing Wu Lee Masters and Amit Goswami in the Self-Aware Universe.

Gotswami takes Schrödinger and runs with it. His premise is that the universe itself could be considered a conscious entity because of the way it behaves on the quantum level. I don't know how much I buy into this theory myself. Thats why I wanted to know what a person who studys physics would say. I wondered if it was just new-age pseudoscience.
Mar. 31st, 2004 07:25 pm (UTC)
To be honest, it sounds pretty pseudosciencish to me just based on your description. There is no scientifically accepted precise definition of "consciousness," so if they are speaking of the universe as conscious, then they would have to make up their own personal definition for what that means. That definition would, in my opinion, have to be spiritual rather than scientific. And if it were scientific, it would probably not be all that meaningful spiritually.

But I don't know, you could try looking at Gotswami's technical publications. If he has a number of peer-reviewed publications in real physics journals on the subject, then I'd at least be open to reading what he has to say. There are many new-age spiritualists who try to make up stuff about quantum knowing very little about what they're talking about... which is why it's important to consider the source before putting too much stock in it.
Apr. 5th, 2004 06:33 pm (UTC)
Coincidentally, the book "The Dancing Wu Lee Masters" came up today in a seminar I just got out of. The seminar was on "how to write science books for the general public."

One of the speakers was cosmologist Joel Primack who is currently in the process of writing a book called "The Meaningful Universe," which Stephen Hawking has already agreed to write the forward for. Someone else in the room mentioned that unlike in technical journals, there is no enforced peer review process in general book publications to make sure what an author says is correct: the author is free to say anything he wants with no-one to stop him if it's entirely wrong. Primack replied "I know what you mean. I tried to read a book called "The Dancing Wu Lee Masters" a while ago, and every single page I read was incorrect in one way or another." Another physicist in the room said "Are you serious? You actually read that book? I had to put it down after the first few pages it was so bad." Primack responded "I didn't say I read the whole thing--just that every page I did read (not many) was wrong." He mentioned that other books such as the "Tao of Physics" were merely misleading, but the Wu Lee Masters was just flat out incorrect about its facts.

Might not be what you wanted to hear... but I figured since you had just asked about what physicists thought of it, and I happened to hear all this today by sheer coincidence, I'd pass it on.
Apr. 21st, 2004 11:58 am (UTC)
Thankyou, I've wondered about that for a while now. That book was written by a journalist, so I'm not suprised he made mistakes. I appreciate you taking the time to tell me that story:)
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )


domino plural

Latest Month

May 2017


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lizzy Enger