Are scientists really smart? New LHC.

[Audie]

1. God is holy by the definition of holiness.
2. Jesus Christ is God.
Thus, it was a terrible crime to murder Him.

What is wrong with carrying out god's plan, essential to the salvstion of mankind?

 

[cladking]

I haven't had the chance to watch all the videos yet but in the first one Penrose calls math "abstract". This is the assumption that leads to his conclusions. I don't believe that math is "abstract" per se but rather that it is a representation of the underlying reality. He is very insightful though and I can recommend the video.

About me you'd be right, but this belief of mine was not taught to me in my science courses. I do think reality is Mathematical, but I'm not a scientist. I'm just guessing about reality. Science appears to be agnostic about it.

I'm only "guessing" as well but I have a unique perspective. I believe that it's impossible to invent any kind of science which doesn't involve extensive invention of premises and assumptions. This certainly seems intuitive to most people. Since I believe I understand the basis of animal science it's far easier for me than most people to see the premises of our science. Metaphysics and the nature of science and how it works has always been of paramount interest to me in my quest to understand "consciousness" or what we call "thought".

We mistake math for reality because they both work so well for so many things and science shows that experimental reality reflects math and can be predicted by math. I believe this is much more the nature of our premises than reality itself and that reality and math simply reflect the exact same logic. Math is logic quantified and reality is logic manifest. If a science is based on logic rather than experiment it proceeds in a different way. Hence we have beehives and pyramids. Science based on logic has few premises and includes no abstractions. All logic is deductive in such a science.

Science is "agnostic" principally because until "God" is defined or found there is no means to devise an experiment.

I agree. Logic comes from the fact that we consider some things to be unthinkable, so emotions can influence what we think is logical. Its utility comes from the general agreement among people. We tend to agree that A cannot also be B, so this creates a basis for a philosophy of logic, a common way to reach common conclusions. It has its limits.

For all practical purposes "logic" can not exist in the way we think using language. Consider that even if we discover something perfectly logical when we say it to other people each individual will interpret it differently. Some of these interpreters will hear illogic. While the individual can come up with "logic" he has the exact same problem in that definitions are fluid. To say it another way our language is not logical and can't be rendered mathematically. Even if they get AI to be mistaken for human it STILL will be no more logical than anyone else. It will just be a means of quantifying language not "intelligence" or "consciousness".

We experience only what we expect. We see only what we believe. Emotions sometimes play an important role but beliefs and preconceptions rule.

A is B if A is dogs and B is all mammals that are not not dogs. Perfectly "logical" statements can be butchered with semantics. "This statement is false".

Perspective is everything.

We can model logic and many do but we can not relay it to others. Reality is far too complex to use such an ephemeral and imprecise medium as language. And since we think in language logic becomes difficult.

I think our reality including space and time exists in a subset of Mathematical relations, but that is just me thinking out loud. I've go no way to test that idea, nor is there any reason to make a scientific hypothesis out of it. Its only a pretty idea in my head that for me lets me put to rest questions about existence. I do still reconsider those questions, but I don't feel that I have zero answers for them. There could be no answers. We may not be able to even formulate the right questions.

I believe such questions are too complex to even formulate at this time.

I tend to take reality as being axiomatic which is how I've ended up where I am. We all always and necessarily end up right where we began. I always tell children to be careful what they choose to believe because they will become those beliefs.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I haven't had the chance to watch all the videos yet but in the first one Penrose calls math "abstract". This is the assumption that leads to his conclusions. I don't believe that math is "abstract" per se but rather that it is a representation of the underlying reality. He is very insightful though and I can recommend the video.

Wolfram makes a clear 'No' in his reply. He says Math is an invention.

I'm only "guessing" as well but I have a unique perspective. I believe that it's impossible to invent any kind of science which doesn't involve extensive invention of premises and assumptions. This certainly seems intuitive to most people. Since I believe I understand the basis of animal science it's far easier for me than most people to see the premises of our science. Metaphysics and the nature of science and how it works has always been of paramount interest to me in my quest to understand "consciousness" or what we call "thought".

We mistake math for reality because they both work so well for so many things and science shows that experimental reality reflects math and can be predicted by math. I believe this is much more the nature of our premises than reality itself and that reality and math simply reflect the exact same logic. Math is logic quantified and reality is logic manifest. If a science is based on logic rather than experiment it proceeds in a different way. Hence we have beehives and pyramids. Science based on logic has few premises and includes no abstractions. All logic is deductive in such a science.

Science is "agnostic" principally because until "God" is defined or found there is no means to devise an experiment.

I think any time we try to figure out consciousness we have to include thermodynamics as something that discourages thinking or encourages minimal thinking. People have biases which allow us to think less hard, saving us mental effort. Any expenditure of energy is punished whether physical or mental. I think that is why mental biases are so strong -- simply thermodynamics and the brain trying to save itself a few extra calories.

I believe such questions are too complex to even formulate at this time.

I tend to take reality as being axiomatic which is how I've ended up where I am. We all always and necessarily end up right where we began. I always tell children to be careful what they choose to believe because they will become those beliefs.

Several (maybe most) cultures question reality or go further and teach that it is not real. I think its because even if its seems mathematical it doesn't seem to make any sense that we are here. A lot of things in the world seem very random. They seem disjointed and ironic and beyond that they seem completely out of our control.