Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
RabidMongoose

The Science Delusion

41 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

XenoFish

Hey aquila did you every create and fire the spirit sigil? I'm curious if you tested it out in real time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
PsiSeeker
3 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

No, I think in the coming centuries maths based physics will get thrown out.

What is annoying in the meantime is all the claims that science can explain away the existence of everything and how everything works without the need for a God. No it cant. Maths does not describe reality, it is a perfect mental construct being applied to an imperfect external reality. The inconsistences arent talked about (they were about 150 years back before modern liberal culture took over and started promoting its garbage view of the world).

Science is empirical.  My thinking is that the reality we measure isn't the totality of what can exist.

I do believe that mathematics is the key describing existence fully.

I do think that, objectively speaking, existence is perfect.  Reality being a subcomponent of existence as I think of it.

I do believe that God is needed however how precisely is a matter that still escapes me.  Even if what we understand as God completely changes.

At the very least I find it an incredibly useful mental construct to aid in coming to wrap my mind around certain ideas regarding omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence. 

Anyway, because we don't know the state of all of existence whatever we say of reality, even though it exists perfectly as a subcomponent of existence, will be missing out on many aspects of existence that isn't readily apparent within the state of reality at present.

I have faith that a more rationalist approach for determining and learning about and of the stage of existence will eventually overtake the emperecist approach.  There's only so much measurement we can do.  Unfortunately we'd need to go through some monstrous intellectual developments before a rationalist approach would be very effective I'd say.  Perhaps A.I assistance is needed.  Exciting times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

The full of the fool and the true of the untrue ...
 

Quote

 

~
TED’s scientific advisors have questioned whether his list is a fair description of scientific assumptions — indeed, several of the dogmas are actually active areas of science inquiry (including whether physical ‘constants’ are really unchanging) — and believe there is little evidence for some of Sheldrake’s more radical claims, such as his theory of morphic resonance, and claim that the speed of light has been changing. They recommended that the talk be should not be distributed without being framed with caution. Accordingly, we have reposted his talk here, with the above cautionary introduction. We invite scientists, skeptics, knowledge-seekers and supporters — and Sheldrake himself, if he’s willing — to view and discuss the talk.

~

 

~

The dogmatic of the dog eared dogmas ...
 

Quote

 

~

Sheldrake's morphic resonance conjecture posits that "memory is inherent in nature"[3][7] and that "natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind".[7] Sheldrake proposes that it is also responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms".[8] His advocacy of the idea encompasses paranormal subjects such as precognition, telepathy and the psychic staring effect[9][10] as well as unconventional explanations of standard subjects in biology such as development, inheritance, and memory.[11]

Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a measurable phenomenon and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been characterised as pseudoscience. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and an inconsistency between the idea and data from genetics and embryology. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science.[a]

~

 

~

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
12 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Wikipedia is now a skeptic dominated organization Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

The Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is a an atheist and has given this group his complicit support.

When I read Wikipedia, Skeptics Dictionary, etc.. I know what I am getting; a slanted one side of the story. If that is all you want to hear then fine, but without hearing both sides you really don't understand the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Wikipedia is now a skeptic dominated organization Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

The Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is a an atheist and has given this group his complicit support.

When I read Wikipedia, Skeptics Dictionary, etc.. I know what I am getting; a slanted one side of the story. If that is all you want to hear then fine, but without hearing both sides you really don't understand the issue.

Its a cynically skeptical world papa-G ... and it s a two way street ...

~

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Just now, third_eye said:

Its a cynically skeptical world papa-G ... and it s a two way street ...

~

^^ Not sure what that means.

I am one who likes to consider what all sides have to say and then form my own opinion. What a concept.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, papageorge1 said:

^^ Not sure what that means.

I am one who likes to consider what all sides have to say and then form my own opinion. What a concept.

As do I ... as we all must ... hate to say it but the chicken always crosses the road not knowing what a 'road' actually means ...

~

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
15 hours ago, PsiSeeker said:

Science is empirical.  My thinking is that the reality we measure isn't the totality of what can exist.

This is proveable:

"I am lying."  If this is true, then I am not telling the truth, and so, am not lying.  That makes the statement false, so I must be telling the truth...  If you'd like a big headache, keep working on the problem.

There is no way to resolve the issue, thus its solution lies outside what is accessible to math/reason.

Doug

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Let's invite Enrico to the party ...
 

Quote

 

The Fermi paradox or Fermi's paradox, named after physicist Enrico Fermi, is the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence and high probability estimates[1] for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations.[2] The basic points of the argument, made by physicists Enrico Fermi (1901–1954) and Michael H. Hart (born 1932), are:

  • There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are similar to the Sun,[3][4], and many of these stars are billions of years older then the Solar system.[5][6]
  • With high probability, some of these stars will have Earth-like planets,[7][8] and if the Earth is typical, some might develop intelligent life.
  • Some of these civilizations might develop interstellar travel, a step the Earth is investigating now.
  • Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years.[9]

According to this line of reasoning, the Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial aliens. In an informal conversation, Fermi noted no convincing evidence of this, leading him to ask, "Where is everybody?"[10][11] There have been many attempts to explain the Fermi paradox,[12][13] primarily either suggesting that intelligent extraterrestrial life is extremely rare or proposing reasons that such civilizations have not contacted or visited Earth.

~

 

Quote
The Fermi paradox or Fermi's paradox, named after physicist Enrico Fermi, is the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence and high probability estimates for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations.

~

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8

Science isn't the problem in my mind, how the dissoveries are used outside of the scientific community can be and the onus of how it it used is not the responsibility of science. There are a lot of people that are not scientists who see relationships in things and modify or adapt them with no research.

jmccr8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
51 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

This is proveable:

"I am lying."  If this is true, then I am not telling the truth, and so, am not lying.  That makes the statement false, so I must be telling the truth...  If you'd like a big headache, keep working on the problem.

There is no way to resolve the issue, thus its solution lies outside what is accessible to math/reason.

I'm not so sure about that last 'thus', that assumes there is a 'solution'.  It definitely demonstrates our ability to construct circular contradictions, but I would argue that our ability to recognize contradictions at all requires reason and logic, so I'm not sure I'd phrase it as not accessible to them.  I'm not clear how this proves that the reality we measure isn't the totality of what can exist.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8

Science isn't the problem in my mind, how the discoveries are used outside of the scientific community can be and the onus of how it it used is not the responsibility of science. There are a lot of people that are not scientists who see relationships in things and modify or adapt them with no research.

jmccr8

Edited by jmccr8
Fat fingers
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8

Reality is quite subjective for each individual and potential cannot be excluded. Given some of the long running debates in the treads of this forum is ample proof of that.:lol:

Truth is again one of those subjective/objective debates where the personal experience vs the verifiable proofs cause friction. If each individual did the math that was relevent to their unique reality would they come to the same conclussion, likely not, but would the conclussion validate their reality?

 jmccr8

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
On 12/18/2017 at 0:01 PM, RabidMongoose said:

As a very famous modern philosopher pointed out - there are no perfect mathematical forms in nature.

Yet 99% of our society think mathematic formula describe reality. Nature does not mirror the mind.

 

Man's math currently is only an approximation of nature.  We just haven't found the right formula yet.  We'll need to delve into the math of imperfection.  As we discover higher forms of math, we'll begin to be able to measure the soul, understand the balance between predestination and free will, and transcendence.  Eventually, science and faith will merge again (full circle) as it was with Adam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
12 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Man's math currently is only an approximation of nature.  We just haven't found the right formula yet.  We'll need to delve into the math of imperfection.  As we discover higher forms of math, we'll begin to be able to measure the soul, understand the balance between predestination and free will, and transcendence.  Eventually, science and faith will merge again (full circle) as it was with Adam.

Measure soul? Do you really think that soul is observable or quantifiable? We can use logic to measure a spoken or written thought but can you measure the unspoken/written thought as it exists in the mind? One might be able to measure brain activity during the process of thinking the thought but the thought itself is beyond measure and I would liken this to the existance of the soul as well.

Is there a conflict between science or faith outside of the Christian belief system? I don't have a problem with it, we have intelligence and science is a tool of the intellect. We are all god because we are that something other that gives life meaning.

jmccr8

Edited by jmccr8
Fat fingers
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
23 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Measure soul? Do you really think that soul is observable or quantifiable? We can use logic to measure a spoken or written thought but can you measure the unspoken/written thought as it exists in the mind? One might be able to measure brain activity during the process of thinking the thought but the thought itself is beyond measure and I would liken this to the existance of the soul as well.

Is there a conflict between science or faith outside of the Christian belief system? I don't have a problem with it, we have intelligence and science is a tool of the intellect. We are all god because we are that something other that gives life meaning.

jmccr8

I believe that in time, Man’s knowledge will reach a point in that thought and the soul will be measurable.  It is beyond our ability right now.  We will discover that faith and science are just two sides of the same coin.  But when it does happen, will the awesomeness of the universe lose its luster?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.