Science, religion and the truth

[blü 2]

Not exactly. I said it was a THEORY.

So what validates a theory? Or falsifies it?

In other words, what test shows a theory is busted?

 

[Native]

Nope. Forces have a magnitude and a direction. They are NOT simply positive or negative.

Try to convince a magnetic field of this disconnected statement.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So what validates a theory? Or falsifies it?

In other words, what test shows a theory is busted?

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.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Native]

So what validates a theory? Or falsifies it?
In other words, what test shows a theory is busted?

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.

You COULD try to falsify it by pondering seriously over the standard cosmic distance measuring method and it´s "candle light constants" in certain stars. A method which lead to the very idea of an expanding Universe and Big Bang theory. And to "dark energy" when this method "showed" an increasing velocity of the assumed expansion.

To me "Big Bang" is a result of a false cosmic perception of light itself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

You COULD try to falsify it by pondering seriously over the standard cosmic distance measuring method and it´s "candle light constants" in certain stars. A method which lead to the very idea of an expanding Universe and Big Bang theory. And to "dark energy" when this method "showed" an increasing velocity of the assumed expansion.

To me "Big Bang" is a result of a false cosmic perception of light itself.

To me it means that human understanding is limited and the belief in reason and logic has limits. Some, notice some, scientists in the end want the universe to be reasonable and logical, as it must fit into the brains of these scientists, as how they want to make sense of the universe. But is not certain, that the universe is reasonable and logical, just because these scientists believe, it is.
I am a skeptic.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Native]

E.g. "elephant" is about an elephant, but the meaning of words are in brains. You know this because humans can get brain damage and lose the ability to use language.

Well, the elephant would still be an elephant whether you´re able or not to express this vocally. And who knows? Just because you have lost your wording, you possibly still could SEE the elephant. That is: "Meaning" and perception can be in "the eyes of the beholder" so to speak.

 

[Native]

To me it means that human understanding is limited and the belief in reason and logic has limits. Some, notice some, scientists in the end want the universe to be reasonable and logical, as it must fit into the brains of these scientists, as how they want to make sense of the universe. But is not certain, that the universe is reasonable and logical, just because these scientists believe, it is.
I am a skeptic.

Agreed. And some scientists even invent all kinds of unseen matters and forces if their former cosmological theory is contradicted. All in order to conserve their initial original thoughts and dogmas which is proven insufficient.

If the Universe doesn´t fit the theories, we just invent matters and calculations which fits our initial idea.

 

[Polymath257]

Try to convince a magnetic field of this disconnected statement.

No problem. The magnetic field is a vector field which produces a vector force on a moving charge that is perpendicular to both the magnetic field and the direction of movement.

 

[Native]

No problem. The magnetic field is a vector field which produces a vector force on a moving charge that is perpendicular to both the magnetic field and the direction of movement.

You don´t have to explain the obvious to me. The question was about positive and negative forces and energies. And about if these could be illustrated by male (expansive) and female (attractive) qualities - which possibly is far beyond your imagination.

 

[Mock Turtle]

If you were living in close contact with nature watching the day- and night scenario on and above the Earth, would you then take it all as guesswork? Do you think numerous generations all over the world would? Of course not.

When speaking of creation stories and "the extend of the Universe", most cultural religions didn´t speak of a creation of the entire Universe as interpreted by modern scholars and taken for granted by most people today, but "just" of the creation of the Milky Way.

They describe even the pre-conditions of this Milky Way creation from a floating chaos to forms and if you for instants read the Egyptian story of creation, the Ogdoad, they also have some principles of creation, even eternal cosmological principles of creation such as the "Primordial Waters".

In about 3.200 BC the Egyptians had a "Mother Goddess" Hathor who resembles the Milky Way on the southern hemisphere. This goddess is closely connected with Amun-Ra, a "fiery light" which was the initial result of the "primordial waters" coming together in the coming Milky Way. If taking this female looking image seriously, her womb is located in the center area of the Milky Way, thus describing very logically via a natural symbolism the formation and creation of everything in the Milky Way. More Milky Way illustrations here.

I admit it can be hard for modern humans to grasp the ancient knowledge and the extent of this. I mostly "blame" this because of lack of natural connections and observations and on an education system where human spiritual skills are suppressed for centuries.

Yes, modern cosmological science can observe far out in space via all kinds of telescopes and taking images of everything. But when it comes to understanding these images, I´m afraid there is a long way to the ancient understanding of life and creation in our cosmos.

BTW: Does even modern cosmological science know the final extent of the Universe? I don´t think so.

Believe what you will, and you can interpret early writings how you want, but unless you believe in some kind of divine inspiration then all they could see without the advantages of telescopes is points of light. It wasn't 'ancient knowledge' it was supposition, and I'm sure we could all do this day in and day out. The fact that many versions of such seem to coincide might just be the evolution of such ideas - that the more plausible (to them) seem to survive over the less plausible ones.

Let's face it, before we had such advanced technology we didn't even realise that planets were so common (this is only decades old), such that surely if the ancients had known this then they might have put a different spin on things - like our planet perhaps not being that unique, or us.

 

[Polymath257]

You don´t have to explain the obvious to me. The question was about positive and negative forces and energies. And about if these could be illustrated by male (expansive) and female (attractive) qualities - which possibly is far beyond your imagination.

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.

Now, that is different than attractive and repulsive. Technically, magnetism isn't either since it is dependent on velocity, not position.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Believe what you will, and you can interpret early writings how you want, but unless you believe in some kind of divine inspiration then all they could see without the advantages of telescopes is points of light. It wasn't 'ancient knowledge' it was supposition, and I'm sure we could all do this day in and day out. The fact that many versions of such seem to coincide might just be the evolution of such ideas - that the more plausible (to them) seem to survive over the less plausible ones.

Let's face it, before we had such advanced technology we didn't even realise that planets were so common (this is only decades old), such that surely if the ancients had known this then they might have put a different spin on things - like our planet perhaps not being that unique, or us.

Unique is a feeling apparently only relevant to how you feel.
I am not unique, yet I am, because I try to be the best and most unique version of me as me. Positive self-imagine doesn't have to involve being better or more unique than others. You can do it by being your own best and most unique.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Mock Turtle]

Unique is a feeling apparently only relevant to how you feel.
I am not unique, yet I am, because I try to be the best and most unique version of me as me. Positive self-imagine doesn't have to involve being better or more unique than others. You can do it by being your own best and most unique.

Regards
Mikkel

Not a lot to do with stars and their planets though is it, which, knowledge of, might have produced a different outcome than what we have. That is, perhaps humans aren't the centre of the universe or the object of some divine individual's concerns.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not a lot to do with stars and their planets though is it, which, knowledge of, might have produced a different outcome than what we have. That is, perhaps humans aren't the centre of the universe or the object of some divine individual's concerns.

But you are the center of your understanding of the world. There is you and the rest of the world. That is your center of meaning. It is in you and nowhere else. Now in practice it help to include the rest of world, but it is always you and the rest of world.
What matters to you is always what matters to you.

Regards and love
Mikkel

 

[Native]

Believe what you will, and you can interpret early writings how you want, but unless you believe in some kind of divine inspiration then all they could see without the advantages of telescopes is points of light. It wasn't 'ancient knowledge' it was supposition, and I'm sure we could all do this day in and day out. The fact that many versions of such seem to coincide might just be the evolution of such ideas - that the more plausible (to them) seem to survive over the less plausible ones.

If you take "intuitive inspirations" to be "divine" in character, I´ll happily go along with that definition.

So, the several thousand of years old "many versions" of much similar cultural stories of creation from all over the world on different continents, should be pure incidents? Whats the odds of that? And HOW should this have happen long long before the invention of modern transport?

Read my profile signature

 

[Mock Turtle]

But you are the center of your understanding of the world. There is you and the rest of the world. That is your center of meaning. It is in you and nowhere else. Now in practice it help to include the rest of world, but it is always you and the rest of world.
What matters to you is always what matters to you.

Regards and love
Mikkel

What matters to me is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. All I'm saying is that religious beliefs seem to have come from lack of true knowledge and no doubt would have been different if such knowledge was different. But of course this is unlikely, since technology hardly predates our apparent need to know, such that best guesses seem to take over.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What matters to me is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. All I'm saying is that religious beliefs seem to have come from lack of true knowledge and no doubt would have been different if such knowledge was different. But of course this is unlikely, since technology hardly predates our apparent need to know, such that best guesses seem to take over.

It is only irrelevant because it is irrelevant to you. There is no objective relevance nor irrelevance with reason, logic, proof, truth, evidence and what not. The universe as such is neither relevant not irrelevant and there is no larger scheme of things. That is an idea in you. "Scheme of things" is a human cognitive construct.

Your world view is your view, that is the only larger scheme of things, there is. There is no scheme out there. It is in you.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Mock Turtle]

If you take "intuitive inspirations" to be "devine" in character, I´ll happily go along with that definition.

So, the several thousand of years old "many versions" of much similar cultural stories of creation from all over the world on different continents, should be pure incidents? Whats the odds of that? And HOW should this have happen long long before the invention of modern transport?

Read my profile signature

You must know that it is a fallacy to accept numbers of people believing whatever as being any sort of evidence. As I said, the most plausible story often wins over others and unfortunately all these creation stories didn't lead to some obvious religious beliefs otherwise we wouldn't have the spectrum of religious/spiritual beliefs that we actually have.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You must know that it is a fallacy to accept numbers of people believing whatever as being any sort of evidence. As I said, the most plausible story often wins over others and unfortunately all these creation stories didn't lead to some obvious religious beliefs otherwise we wouldn't have the spectrum of religious/spiritual beliefs that we actually have.

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

 

[Mock Turtle]

It is only irrelevant because it is irrelevant to you. There is no objective relevance nor irrelevance with reason, logic, proof, truth, evidence and what not. The universe as such is neither relevant not irrelevant and there is no larger scheme of things. That is an idea in you. "Scheme of things" is a human cognitive construct.

Your world view is your view, that is the only larger scheme of things, there is. There is no scheme out there. It is in you.

Regards
Mikkel

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.