Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ghosts, ghouls, and gods too

The difference is that the instruments can detect the other ones.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ghosts, ghouls, and gods too

We do not know if those actually exist. We do have clear evidence for the for the physical objects mentioned.

 

[Zwing]

Having money does not convey authority.

Naive.

 

[Zwing]

Yeah, that is a first person evaluation of what matters. I asked for evidence. Not what matters to you.

That is a great response. Fair enough; it does matter to me, though.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Naive.

That is also as it stands as feeling and not evidence. You have to learn the difference between evidence and feelings.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is a great response. Fair enough; it does matter to me, though.

Yeah, but it doesn't matter to me.

 

[Zwing]

That is also as it stands as feeling and not evidence. You have to learn the difference between evidence and feelings.

True, that is my feeling, but not caring to convince, I will not bother with evidence. Just stating my opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

True, that is my feeling, but not caring to convince, I will not bother with evidence. Just stating my opinion.

Yes, okay. But if you have evidence, I might learn something new. That matters to me.

 

[We Never Know]

The difference is that the instruments can detect the other ones.

We can measure time. We can observe the effects of time. But what instruments detect time?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We can measure time. We can observe the effects of time. But what instruments detect time?

Ask @Polymath257

 

[Zwing]

A great deal of philosophy is bunk.

It strikes me that an actual polymath wouldn’t make this unilateral statement, as he would appreciate the value rendered by all academic disciplines. The same as you have stated can also be said of any discipline, including every scientific field of study: Einstein’s theory of the static universe, Fleischmann Pons fusion, material decay in nuclear reactions, etc. have been disproven. Perhaps you should change your username to simply “smart fellow”, which you genuinely appear to be.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It strikes me that an actual polymath wouldn’t make this unilateral statement, as he would appreciate the value rendered by all academic disciplines. The same as you have stated can also be said of any discipline, including every scientific field of study: Einstein’s theory of the static universe, Fleischmann Pons fusion, material decay in nuclear reactions, etc. have been disproven. Perhaps you should change your username to simply “smart fellow”, which you seem to be.

Well, there is a difference. Science has a self-correcting method. Philosophy is actually a lot of bunk and a few valid insights and yet you can learn from that too, but a lot of people run wild in it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't find any reason to accept atheist views about spirituality as anything more than simple emotional expression.

Spiritual experiences are a particular affective response comprising a warm and often thrilling sense of connection and belonging in the world, and a sense of gratitude, awe and mystery.

Your atheist beliefs are limited

That's a feature of critical thought, not a bug. The aim is to limit belief to justified belief.

I take that as evidence that you've never had a spiritual experience

I question whether people whose attention has been redirected from nature to imagined spirits living outside of nature telling them what to do can have a spiritual experience as I described it above, which is characterized by a sense of connection to this world.

The mortal 'I' can not be present in a spiritual experience

You're doing it wrong.

Almost everything to say, you mistake the maya of this world for reality.

What makes you think you know anything useful about reality not apparent to all? Surely these rare, valuable insights must have transformed your life into something much better than average to imply so. Perhaps you can share how this special way of knowing has made your life better than those you are counseling. I think it's empty talk. Convince the thread that there is actually substance in this nondualism, belief vs realization (don't know what you mean there) woo by demonstrating the dividend for you if any. How is your life better since you cracked open these mysteries that confound lesser minds?

 

[ratiocinator]

The same as you have stated can also be said of any discipline, including every scientific field of study: Einstein’s theory of the static universe, Fleischmann Pons fusion, material decay in nuclear reactions, etc. have been disproven.

Yes, disproven using evidence. The problem with philosophy is that, unless there is an obvious logical error, then its conclusions often can't be disproven because they stand as nothing but speculations based on nothing but what some individual thinks is credible or reasonable.

You are demonstrating this nicely here, with your insistence on the unreality of time, despite all the evidence we have for time and space being part of the same manifold. That's exactly why some philosophy is bunk. It's more like religious faith than testable science.

 

[gnostic]

As regards the concept within Physics of “space time”, I would note that Physics is merely the branch of mathematics that deals with real objects and their interactions. As with all maths, the postulates of Physics are held to be valid by physicists so long as they are mathematically valid and theoretically congruent. This does not make them true…”actually valid”.

Maths are useful tools (eg equations), used in science, but only as to aid the explanatory component and the predictive component of the models within a hypothesis or scientific theory.

For theoretical physicists, they provide solutions to any given problem, by applying mathematical to the natural or physical phenomena and by solving the equations, which can be achieved in me more of the following steps:

• breaking down complex equation into more simplified form,
• breaking down one large equation into two or more smaller equations,
• combining two or more small equations and form single unified equation,
• finding exact solution by adding a constant or metric to existing equation,
• and so on.

This solving the equation(s) is what called in theoretical physics as “proving” & “disproving”. Whatever the final outcome of finding the solution(s) in mathematical form is called a “proof”.

Proof is essentially a mathematical equation, or the component of equation, eg a number, a constant or a variable.

Whatever the proof(s) or equation(s) are, are part of the falsifiable model’s explanation and/or prediction, or both.

The explanations & predictions in a model, along with equations, are never true or false by-default, until the model is sufficiently or rigorously tested, through observations, eg observations such as experiments or empirical evidence, and data obtained from the evidence or experiments.

It is these tests and observations that determine if the explanations-predictions-equations are true or false, probable or improbable, verified or refuted.

It is the evidence, not the maths (or the proofs) that determine if the hypothesis or theory is true or not.

 

[Zwing]

You are demonstrating this nicely here…

I’ll renegade on this topic over the weekend, but must back off now. I’ve felt myself getting “chippy”, like a hockey player whose side is down by four. I don’t wanna spend time in the penalty box.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, that posted wrong. I said that last sentence, not you. I said, I hope you are able to explain certain things I would need to understand before I accept what you or "science" says. Thank you.

My request remains make your questions specific concerning things like evolution, Quantum Mechanics,, Physics and cosmology, and than we can talk. Previously your requests were too general, therefore I gave a general reference providing references to the needed background knowledge that would answer your questions. on your own

 

[Polymath257]

It strikes me that an actual polymath wouldn’t make this unilateral statement, as he would appreciate the value rendered by all academic disciplines.

I didn't say *all* of philosophy is bunk. Just a great deal. Philosophy has a great deal of value in helping us to clarify our ideas. it is especially poor for determining truth, though.

The same as you have stated can also be said of any discipline, including every scientific field of study: Einstein’s theory of the static universe, Fleischmann Pons fusion, material decay in nuclear reactions, etc. have been disproven. Perhaps you should change your username to simply “smart fellow”, which you genuinely appear to be.

Unlike philosophy, physics is able to find errors and change in response to more data.

Most of philosophy can be labeled as 'in my opinion' with little change in meaning.

 

[Polymath257]

Ask @Polymath257

I would ask what instruments detect space. We *measure* space with rulers, and such. But then, we *measure* time with clocks and such. We *measure* charge with a variety of means, but don't don't see charge directly.

So, this is a general problem in almost all physical variables.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Spiritual experiences are a particular affective response comprising a warm and often thrilling sense of connection and belonging in the world, and a sense of gratitude, awe and mystery.

That's a feature of critical thought, not a bug. The aim is to limit belief to justified belief.

I question whether people whose attention has been redirected from nature to imagined spirits living outside of nature telling them what to do can have a spiritual experience as I described it above, which is characterized by a sense of connection to this world.

You're doing it wrong.

What makes you think you know anything useful about reality not apparent to all? Surely these rare, valuable insights must have transformed your life into something much better than average to imply so. Perhaps you can share how this special way of knowing has made your life better than those you are counseling. I think it's empty talk. Convince the thread that there is actually substance in this nondualism, belief vs realization (don't know what you mean there) woo by demonstrating the dividend for you if any. How is your life better since you cracked open these mysteries that confound lesser minds?

The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness does not understand it.

The light is the one cosmic consciousness, the forest. The darkness is the reflection of the cosmic illuminating light in the material world, the tree, the ego self, the thinker, the world.

The light is the source of you, its reflection in you is your personal mind. In reality there is only one light, duality/maya arises when the reflection/ego mind thinks it is independent of any source light. Non-duality/enlightenment arises when the reflected light/ego mind apprehends its continuity with the source light, the apparent two are in fact one, the Father and the son are one.

That is Enlightenment, that is Nirvana, that is Christ consciousness, that is the Tao.