Science, religion and the truth

[Mock Turtle]

Well, the singularity as part of the Big Bang is in effect a myth. It can't be observed and thus not tested as for verification or falsification. It functions in the same ways as other myths. It fills out the gaps of human understanding.

Regards
Mikkel

No argument from me. I have as little knowledge of such as most and even the 'experts', which is why I leave the creation of our universe open a little. So there is no myth involved in my case since I admit I just don't know.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If I was absent from the world tomorrow the world and existence would continue without batting an eyelid, and that goes for most of us. That is my meaning.

Yes, that is your meaning. That is the point! You can't eliminate subjectivity from these debates of what the world really is and what matters.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Native]

Again, forces are *vectors*. They have a direction and a magnitude. They are NOT positive or negative. A negative sign on a force just means a positive force pointing the opposite direction.

You´re - of course as usual in your disconnected perception - jumping over the very question of magnetic fields of motion via it´s attractive and repulsive polarities and there are NO "opposite directions" in a magnetic field. It´s ll about a complementary and circuital field of motions.

 

[blü 2]

That depends on your idea of how to test.

Some tests are in effect how to understand different kinds of subjectivism. In effect the world is apparently a combination of subjective and objective.
We always end in limited cognitive relativism for which science is one form, but there are others.

The context of the question is science ─ whether there can be a busted theory or hypothesis without an underlying concept of 'truth' in science.

Certainly the idea of 'current best opinion' in science doesn't escape a subjective aspect, as you say. Or take the case of the test the Higgs boson passed in order to make the statement 'the Higgs boson is real' true as distinct from hypothetical ─ namely that the powers that be were satisfied that the odds of coincidence were greater than a million to one against.

 

[blü 2]

We were speaking of "Big Bang", right? How can you make repeatable experiments with this theory? And if you can´t, you cant falsify it neither. It will foreven remain a sort of "scientific" THEORY and nothing else.

IF you don't have a concept of what truth is, you can' falsify anything, can you?

 

[Native]

IF you don't have a concept of what truth is, you can' falsify anything, can you?

The "truth" is in this case is that the scientific method demands repeatable experiments and as such, the very Big Bang fantasy isn´t even a scientific theory.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

I create a lower pressure and the higher atmospheric pressure pushes the liquid through the straw.

If the air around the drink was at half the usual atmospheric pressure, then simply sucking at 3/4 atmospheric pressure would not draw liquid into the straw. To the contrary, it would push air through the straw the other way.



Not if the straw is too long, it can't. In fact, that was how atmospheric pressure was first demonstrated by Torricelli (the word torr for pressure is from his name).

If you take a column of water that is enclosed at the top, opens at the bottom into a source of water, and is over 34 feet tall, the water will NOT stay at the top. It will drop and create a vacuum at the top of the tube. The level of the water will drop to be about 34 feet. No amount of suction can make it go higher.

That height of water represents the weight of the atmosphere pushing down at the water at the bottom and making the water level rise.

By the way, the reason we use mercury for barometers is that it is much more dense than water and so is not pushed up nearly as high. You could make a water barometer (Torricelli did) but it would be 34 feet tall.



You might want to learn a bit about atmospheric pressure.

Evangelista Torricelli - Wikipedia
Barometer - Wikipedia

Never mind, I can see you can't see the forest for the trees,
so I'm just wasting my time.

It's sort of like how scientist depend on their consciousness to "know" things,
and have absolutely no clue as to what their own "consciousness" is.

 

[blü 2]

The "truth" is in this case is that the scientific method demands repeatable experiments and as such, the very Big Bang fantasy isn´t even a scientific theory.

So you're satisfied with the implicit scientific idea of 'truth', which is correspondence with reality, the world external to the self, then?

 

[Native]

So you're satisfied with the implicit scientific idea of 'truth', which is correspondence with reality, the world external to the self, then?

Not necessarily In this case of "Big Bang" I just demand the same methodical principle as when I´m postulating alternative cosmological ideas and meet this claim from "standard cosmologists".

Besides all this, there is no possible "cosmological truth" before cosmological scientists can agree in ONE theory for everything.

 

[Polymath257]

Never mind, I can see you can't see the forest for the trees,
so I'm just wasting my time.

Perhaps in the work you do, because it is inside of the Earth's atmosphere, it is good to use 1 atm as a reference point.

But, for pretty much all of science, the reference point for pressure is a total vacuum. This is the pressure that enters into many very useful formulas, like PV=nRT.

It's sort of like how scientist depend on their consciousness to "know" things,
and have absolutely no clue as to what their own "consciousness" is.

How relevant is the nature of consciousness for their study? Not much.

 

[Polymath257]

You´re - of course as usual in your disconnected perception - jumping over the very question of magnetic fields of motion via it´s attractive and repulsive polarities and there are NO "opposite directions" in a magnetic field. It´s ll about a complementary and circuital field of motions.

The phrase 'magnetic fields of motion' is nonsense. So, for that matter, is the rest of that sentence.

At this point, you aren't doing science. You are doing some sort of mysticism. If that makes you happy, go for it.

 

[Native]

The phrase 'magnetic fields of motion' is nonsense. So, for that matter, is the rest of that sentence.
At this point, you aren't doing science. You are doing some sort of mysticism. If that makes you happy, go for it.

This is the usual pathetic approach from you when you are seriously questioned. Playing ignorant and personally ridiculing a fellow debater.

It really shouldn´t be necessary to link you forward to the concept of "Magnetic Field" but here you have it. Try to overcome your automatically biased resistance of EM and accept facts.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Perhaps in the work you do, because it is inside of the Earth's atmosphere, it is good to use 1 atm as a reference point.

But, for pretty much all of science, the reference point for pressure is a total vacuum. This is the pressure that enters into many very useful formulas, like PV=nRT.



How relevant is the nature of consciousness for their study? Not much.

Well, lets see.....everything has to pass through the "consciousness"
if one wants to know anything.
So it seems to me that the first place to start in gaining any kind of real "knowledge"
Is to know what said "consciousness" is first.

Now, maybe it's just me, but i don't like to waste a lot of time "studying" things that don't matter.
You have "knowledge" of how things work based upon your limited skills of physical observation.
I have knowledge of why things work based upon my intuitive nature which is eternal spirit.

The "how" is always changing because you are always "discovering" something you did not "know" before.
The "why" never changes, and is the foundation and support that underlies the "how" of everything.
In short, you still cannot see the forest for the trees.

 

[Polymath257]

This is the usual pathetic approach from you when you are seriously questioned. Playing ignorant and personally ridiculing a fellow debater.

It really shouldn´t be necessary to link you forward to the concept of "Magnetic Field" but here you have it. Try to overcome your automatically biased resistance of EM and accept facts.

Please don't be condescending. I have taken the PhD qualifying exams for Electromagnetism and passed them the first time easily. Nothing in that link says anything I haven't known for decades in much more detail.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, lets see.....everything has to pass through the "consciousness"
if one wants to know anything.
So it seems to me that the first place to start in gaining any kind of real "knowledge"
Is to know what said "consciousness" is first.

Well, it is clear we can know quite a lot without knowing the details of consciousness. If that was not the case, you wouldn't be able to use a computer to communicate around the world.

So your first place is actually quite far from being a first step.

In fact, from what I can see, the only way to figure out about consciousness is to first develop quite a few areas so we can properly scan the brain.

Now, maybe it's just me, but i don't like to waste a lot of time "studying" things that don't matter.
You have "knowledge" of how things work based upon your limited skills of physical observation.
I have knowledge of why things work based upon my intuitive nature which is eternal spirit.

Intuition is a particularly poor way to get knowledge.

 

[cladking]

Well, lets see.....everything has to pass through the "consciousness"
if one wants to know anything.
So it seems to me that the first place to start in gaining any kind of real "knowledge"
Is to know what said "consciousness" is first.

Now, maybe it's just me, but i don't like to waste a lot of time "studying" things that don't matter.
You have "knowledge" of how things work based upon your limited skills of physical observation.
I have knowledge of why things work based upon my intuitive nature which is eternal spirit.

The "how" is always changing because you are always "discovering" something you did not "know" before.
The "why" never changes, and is the foundation and support that underlies the "how" of everything.
In short, you still cannot see the forest for the trees.

It's funny how "consciousness" is ignored by modern science. In reality consciousness is fundamental but we don't even have a working definition for it. There are two reasons for this. One is that science is virtually founded on the concept "I think therefore I am, and for another it is exceedingly difficult to study consciousness or to even see it clearly with a brain programmed to use modern language. Modern language confuses every effort to look at itself. This is caused by a multitude of factors like the ephemeral nature of "definition" and by the individual's proclivity to see the effects of language rather than the cause.

There are workarounds and I believe there is an actual solution but people won't hear of it. Until "truth" is defined (experiment in its perspective) it is impossible to even begin the process of defining "consciousness". Until we understand consciousness we will have a very weak grasp of things like truth and even experiment. I believe we can unwind consciousness pretty quickly once we have a working definition but this could be far in the future.

Most practical and experimental science tends to look at "STP" (standard temperature and pressure) and much theoretical physics uses absolute scales for most things.

 

[cladking]

Intuition is a particularly poor way to get knowledge.

I believe even the most logical mind requires "intuition" to invent hypotheses and design experiment. Some people operate almost only on logic and some almost only on intuition. I'm among the latter. As a child I was the former but I wasn't extremely good at it so switched.

The advantage of intuition is that it's far faster but the disadvantages are apparent to all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The context of the question is science ─ whether there can be a busted theory or hypothesis without an underlying concept of 'truth' in science.

Certainly the idea of 'current best opinion' in science doesn't escape a subjective aspect, as you say. Or take the case of the test the Higgs boson passed in order to make the statement 'the Higgs boson is real' true as distinct from hypothetical ─ namely that the powers that be were satisfied that the odds of coincidence were greater than a million to one against.

So does science have an element of subjectivity, which can't be tested for using science?

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

It's funny how "consciousness" is ignored by modern science. In reality consciousness is fundamental but we don't even have a working definition for it. There are two reasons for this. One is that science is virtually founded on the concept "I think therefore I am, and for another it is exceedingly difficult to study consciousness or to even see it clearly with a brain programmed to use modern language. Modern language confuses every effort to look at itself. This is caused by a multitude of factors like the ephemeral nature of "definition" and by the individual's proclivity to see the effects of language rather than the cause.

There are workarounds and I believe there is an actual solution but people won't hear of it. Until "truth" is defined (experiment in its perspective) it is impossible to even begin the process of defining "consciousness". Until we understand consciousness we will have a very weak grasp of things like truth and even experiment. I believe we can unwind consciousness pretty quickly once we have a working definition but this could be far in the future.

Most practical and experimental science tends to look at "STP" (standard temperature and pressure) and much theoretical physics uses absolute scales for most things.

Yes, this is my exact point. Scientist are like little children playing in the dirt.
They are forever seeking and looking in all the wrong places out of "ignorance",
which is "ignoring" the basic fundamental aspect of their own being....."consciousness".

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Well, it is clear we can know quite a lot without knowing the details of consciousness. If that was not the case, you wouldn't be able to use a computer to communicate around the world.

So your first place is actually quite far from being a first step.

In fact, from what I can see, the only way to figure out about consciousness is to first develop quite a few areas so we can properly scan the brain.



Intuition is a particularly poor way to get knowledge.

This is what you don't ( or can't ) understand. Consciousness is NOT in the brain.
It's not in any physical organ of the physical body. It is NOT physical.
You will never "see" it or grasp it in ANY way that is objective.

In short, "consciousness" IS "God".