Science, religion and the truth

[mikkel_the_dane]

All you seem to be saying is that life cannot exist by chance, is caused, and hence there must be a God. Not new, and you are welcome to such. But if life has arisen by accident then how is subjectivity involved, when really it just belongs in the human domain. As I said, everything just rolls on regardless of us, and no doubt will if we vanished from existence.

You are going to have to find others to play games with.

Could you leave God out of it for a moment?
Now reread as with methodological naturalism.

Hi Mock Turtle. This is also for Polymath257
That is a case of dualism. Some of you do that a lot. You operate with a duality as a dichotomy of the universe versus subjectivity. So for now forget science as you are used to it. We now go wide as *ell.
Now I will use a very simple version of cause and effect. Everything now is caused by everything in past.
So here we go. Big Bang -> arrow of time -> time passes and we have several generations of stars -> our solar systems forms out of parts of former stars and original hydrogen and helium -> assume the development of life -> us and our subjectivity.
So as matter the universe is in us and we are in the universe. So if we are subjective, the universe is in part subjective or and now I go reductio ad absurdum. If subjectivity is not natural as a part of the universe, then subjectivity is non-natural and thus supernatural as not part of the natural.
Now choose; either you are functionally naturalists or you are supernaturalists, because the universe is not involved subjectively and thus subjectivity is in effect supernatural as not part of the natural.

Yeah, I know how to do this. I have been doing this for 25+ years now and it is one of the first things I learned to spot in some modern western humans. The duality of subjectivity versus the real objective and true universe.
Now I will explain to you what always happens: Someone subjectively to the effect of the bold above says this: I subjectively think that the objective is the really real. The joke is that the sentence is only subjectively real. It strictly speaking doesn't really exist objectively. That is another version of this kind of fun, because "It strictly speaking doesn't really exist objectively" is subjective. It is only real in the mind, because you can't show it with objective empirical evidence.

That is the game, when dealing with you as a group. Not you two, but you as a group. It has nothing to do with atheism or non-religion. It has to do with that you believe subjectively in a weird form of dualism, where it subjectively to you is really real that the subjective is not real really, because it has nothing to do with the universe.
I am a skeptic and I know how to do reductio ad absurdum. The joke is that absurdum is subjective and it always ends with you guys about what makes sense to you subjectively.
Now own that and learn that apparently that is with truth how the universe in part works.

Regards and love
Mikkel

You can be a naturalist all you want. I accept that, just stop doing this weird dualism that you are so fond of. I.e. that the objective is more real than the subjective or what ever version you phrase it in. Apparently it is not true, because then you can't explain how the universe works, because subjectivity becomes in effect non-natural; that is the absurd part:
You are in one form or another a functional naturalist, now own that and treat the universe in part as subjective.
This has nothing to do with God.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Mock Turtle]

Could you leave God out of it for a moment?
Now reread as with methodological naturalism.

Hi Mock Turtle. This is also for Polymath257
That is a case of dualism. Some of you do that a lot. You operate with a duality as a dichotomy of the universe versus subjectivity. So for now forget science as you are used to it. We now go wide as *ell.
Now I will use a very simple version of cause and effect. Everything now is caused by everything in past.
So here we go. Big Bang -> arrow of time -> time passes and we have several generations of stars -> our solar systems forms out of parts of former stars and original hydrogen and helium -> assume the development of life -> us and our subjectivity.
So as matter the universe is in us and we are in the universe. So if we are subjective, the universe is in part subjective or and now I go reductio ad absurdum. If subjectivity is not natural as a part of the universe, then subjectivity is non-natural and thus supernatural as not part of the natural.
Now choose; either you are functionally naturalists or you are supernaturalists, because the universe is not involved subjectively and thus subjectivity is in effect supernatural as not part of the natural.

Yeah, I know how to do this. I have been doing this for 25+ years now and it is one of the first things I learned to spot in some modern western humans. The duality of subjectivity versus the real objective and true universe.
Now I will explain to you what always happens: Someone subjectively to the effect of the bold above says this: I subjectively think that the objective is the really real. The joke is that the sentence is only subjectively real. It strictly speaking doesn't really exist objectively. That is another version of this kind of fun, because "It strictly speaking doesn't really exist objectively" is subjective. It is only real in the mind, because you can't show it with objective empirical evidence.

That is the game, when dealing with you as a group. Not you two, but you as a group. It has nothing to do with atheism or non-religion. It has to do with that you believe subjectively in a weird form of dualism, where it subjectively to you is really real that the subjective is not real really, because it has nothing to do with the universe.
I am a skeptic and I know how to do reductio ad absurdum. The joke is that absurdum is subjective and it always ends with you guys about what makes sense to you subjectively.
Now own that and learn that apparently that is with truth how the universe in part works.

Regards and love
Mikkel

You can be a naturalist all you want. I accept that, just stop doing this weird dualism that you are so fond of. I.e. that the objective is more real than the subjective or what ever version you phrase it in. Apparently it is not true, because then you can't explain how the universe works, because subjectivity becomes in effect non-natural; that is the absurd part:
You are in one form or another a functional naturalist, now own that and treat the universe in part as subjective.
This has nothing to do with God.

Regards
Mikkel

Sorry. I've given up on this. You keep hammering something I'm not going to be bothered with.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry. I've given up on this. You keep hammering something I'm not going to be bothered with.

How subjective of you. Now your text moved through the natural Internet into my natural brain and I can spot that you are subjective, so the universe is involved in this. The universe is involved in subjectivity.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Mock Turtle]

How subjective of you. Now your text moved through the natural Internet into my natural brain and I can spot that you are subjective, so the universe is involved in this. The universe is involved in subjectivity.

Regards
Mikkel

If you don't get what I am saying then it is pointless me going on. Remove humans from existence. Where is the subjectivity? It comes with us, so why relate it to anything else?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you don't get what I am saying then it is pointless me going on. Remove humans from existence. Where is the subjectivity? It comes with us, so why relate it to anything else?

Remember this is methodological naturalism, not religion.
Where do humans come from? The universe, right? We are made up in part of old dead stars. The universe is in us. Subjectivity is natural. Or it is non-natural? Pick now!
You can't have that we are in effect an effect of the universe, yet we are in effect not an effect of the universe. That is an contradiction.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[cladking]

It really should not be that difficult, should it? What about this definition:

"Consciousness is the ability to receive everything via both physical and spiritual senses and act naturally upon the informations"?

No. I believe this is putting the cart before the horse. It is really a restatement of "I think therefore I am". We can't "think" or use abstractions until we learn language.

But obviously even babies and animals "think". They respond to stimuli and always choose the best course of action within their knowledge and abilities. They are certainly "conscious".

I believe all life is conscious to some degree and this is the means used to keep the individual alive. No doubt there are other characteristics of consciousness that can be defined beyond response to stimuli and what keeps you alive. I believe a better axiom would be "I am, therefore i think" and since we think only in language and abstraction it becomes "I use language thereby I think". The individual "thinks" only to the degree he uses language but animals still respond to stimuli based on their knowledge without any "thought" at all. Of course animals "think" to a very limited degree because they have a rudimentary language.

The discussion about intuition is interesting since I believe it bears a striking resemblance to the way animals or ancient man "think". Intuition is simply based on mental shortcuts which is similar to the multidimensional thought processes of animals. Much of the "spiritual" arises from the framework of the brain and "understanding" of experience and input on other levels of "consciousness". These "other levels" are not really consciousness per se but rather arise in consciousness because of formatting of the brain and an eerie relationship between language and a lost and mostly forgotten ancient science. It is at these levels that myth, religion, and many other things had their origin. There is far more that connects us and connects us to our distant past than there is that separates us. But these connections exist largely as a function of the human brain. They originated from and are propagated by the natural (non language) operation of the brain/ body.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well then the wrong ones wasn´t intuitive enough to be right

Right, but you agree that there are two kinds of them.

I am a skeptic and I know how to do reductio ad absurdum. The joke is that absurdum is subjective and it always ends with you guys about what makes sense to you subjectively.

That is why arm-chair philosophy is not enough. One needs to check ideas with science. If science also validates the arm-chair philosophy, then we are most probably going in the right direction.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Right, but you agree that there are two kinds of them.

Aren't we all one?

 

[Aupmanyav]

We are made up in part of old dead stars. The universe is in us. Subjectivity is natural. Or it is non-natural? Pick now!
You can't have that we are in effect an effect of the universe, yet we are in effect not an effect of the universe. That is an contradiction.

Yeah, we are the universe, we are star-dust, we are eternal. Sure, subjectivity is quite normal (that is what is known as illusion in Indian religions). It is difficult to over-grow the illusion, but it has been done and can be done. The ancients did not even had the advantage of science.
I could not understand your second paragraph.

Aren't we all one?

We are, at the absolute level, not at the pragmatic level. Two levels of truth. First, 'Paramarthika' (Deepest meaning), second 'Vyavaharika' (day-to-day world). At the 'Vyavahrika' level, many differences exist.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Remember this is methodological naturalism, not religion.
Where do humans come from? The universe, right? We are made up in part of old dead stars. The universe is in us. Subjectivity is natural. Or it is non-natural? Pick now!
You can't have that we are in effect an effect of the universe, yet we are in effect not an effect of the universe. That is an contradiction.

Regards
Mikkel

Physically we are part of the universe and no doubt one could claim we always have been. But our consciousness, and language, from which the concept and meaning of the word subjectivity came from could well be an emergent property just as many think consciousness itself is. Hence if this is so then subjectivity arrives with us as something new, and not an intrinsic part of the universe in itself. Presuming of course that all other life has never done so.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, we are the universe, we are star-dust, we are eternal. Sure, subjectivity is quite normal (that is what is known as illusion in Indian religions). It is difficult to over-grow the illusion, but it has been done and can be done. The ancients did not even had the advantage of science.
I could not understand your second paragraph.We are, at the absolute level, not at the pragmatic level. Two levels of truth. First, 'Paramarthika' (Deepest meaning), second 'Vyavaharika' (day-to-day world). At the 'Vyavahrika' level, many differences exist.

So please with objective empirical evidence, you know science, show as show the 'Paramarthika' (Deepest meaning). I don't want words, I want a test, which rests on objective empirical evidence, you know science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Physically we are part of the universe and no doubt one could claim we always have been. But our consciousness, and language, from which the concept and meaning of the word subjectivity came from could well be an emergent property just as many think consciousness itself is. Hence if this is so then subjectivity arrives with us as something new, and not an intrinsic part of the universe in itself. Presuming of course that all other life has never done so.

So an emergent property, which is not a part of the universe, yet changes e.g. based on the consumption of alcohol related to a brain, which are a part of the universe.
Are you sure, you are not religious?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

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

But there will still be things that are wrong, which is only possible against a concept of correctness / truth and there will still be ideas / hypotheses that may be right or may be wrong and for which evidence pro and con is being sought. That's where predictions are useful: If A then still possibly / probably B, but if not-A then not-B.

I know these theories "makes predictions" - All according to a special theoretical approach mostly based on just ONE of the FOUR fundamental forces and in this sense the discoveries are all interpreted to confirm just this ONE theory.

You seem to think that science makes absolute claims. It neither does nor can. We can never free ourselves of the unknown unknowns out there, but we keep looking. That's why there are no absolute statements in science ─ or as Brian Cox said, A law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't been falsified yet.

What you feed into a computer comes out again: Confirmations on the different assumptions in your theory based on just ONE fundamental force - which only works contradictionary to all expansive motions, as assumed in the Big Bang.

As I understand it, cosmology, not least the theories of the very early universe, take the four forces that we know about into account, and use them in the modeling.

What if the standard cosmic measuring method is wrong?

The only people who are going to find out how right or wrong it is are the scientists, no? They're actually designing tests all the time.

You probably know that cosmological science first had one velocity measurement of the assumed expansion and then they thought to have discovered that the Universe expanded with a still increasing velocity? Where on Earth - and Universe - should that increasing energy come from? Oh yes, from an unscientific invention of "dark energy".

You misunderstand. "Dark matter" and "dark energy" are names of problems, not of answers. We know that our present scientific concept of gravity after Einstein can't be reconciled with our observations of the apparent mass of galaxies and their coherence at the speeds they rotate. Is our concept of gravity deficient? Are our observations missing something? Stay tuned.

Everything here speaks of a wrong distance measuring method in general. Measuring cosmic distances via the luminosity of light and local "redshift" of objects is clearly incorrect as it leads to a force which isn´t there in the first place.

What "force" is that?

Cosmic light disperses on its way to the telescopes thus fooling scientists to basically believe on "the smaller sources or frequensies of light = the longer cosmic distances", which is cosmological nonsense coming from an idea of "light constants" which leads to the very idea of an rapidly and still increasing expanding Universe.

Are you saying that redshift doesn't exist?

When thinking of all different luminous sources of stars and planets in cosmos, it is nonsense to pick out a special source and take this as a "cosmological distance measuring standard".

Here, read about Cepheid variable stars and the information that they provide and its use in measuring cosmic distances. I'm interested to know where they got it wrong. And try this one, not least the section on standard candles.

I would go about it all and state the Universe to be eternal and everywhere and claim an eternal change between formation, dissolution and re-formation in the entire Universe. A kind of a Steady State Theory which "rests in itself".

Why? The evidence says nothing of the kind.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I don't want words, I want a test, which rests on objective empirical evidence, you know science.

So an emergent property, which is not a part of the universe, yet changes e.g. based on the consumption of alcohol related to a brain, which are a part of the universe.

Illusion, 'maya', is an intrinsic part of animal life. Evolution has instilled it in us. If it can be said that way - it is the 'original sin'; seeing and accepting it as the truth what our mind tells us and not seeing what actually exists.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So an emergent property, which is not a part of the universe, yet changes e.g. based on the consumption of alcohol related to a brain, which are a part of the universe.
Are you sure, you are not religious?

Regards
Mikkel

No. Anyway, I seem to have gone off on a tangent, so, in relation to the OP ...

How easy is it to separate things into objective or subjective, and especially where many will have components of both but the amount might be disputed?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. Anyway, I seem to have gone off on a tangent, so, in relation to the OP ...

How easy is it to separate things into objective or subjective, and especially where many will have components of both but the amount might be disputed?

The simple test for if there is subjectivity in a context, is to test if you can do it differently than other humans. I.e. not if there are objective elements in it, there always are, but if there in a context is subjectivity involved.
You can't really separate the universe into separate things, because no thing is in itself in practice. It is always intertwined for several aspects in practice.

The strength of science is that it reduce away some aspects to do a "pure" test of a few aspect. The weakness is that it doesn't work in the real world, because of the is-ought problem. Science can do "is", but it is always followed by an ought, for which you can't use science.
The truth of "is" is not the same as for the truth of "ought".

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
It really should not be that difficult, should it? What about this definition:

"Consciousness is the ability to receive everything via both physical and spiritual senses and act naturally upon the informations"?

No. I believe this is putting the cart before the horse. It is really a restatement of "I think therefore I am". We can't "think" or use abstractions until we learn language.

Thanks for your elaborated reply Well, I was really trying to get the horse and cart together in the correct order

I also said:

We can´t se anything physical without the quality of LIGHT and we can´t feel anything if the electric impulses doesn´t work in our hands and brains. And even in our dreams electric impulses produces electric images and sentenses.

As the fundamental range of EM is limitless, our own EM spiritual senses can receive limitless images of cosmos, i.e. get informations of this.

So what is the "horse and cart" in this?

I believe all life is conscious to some degree and this is the means used to keep the individual alive. No doubt there are other characteristics of consciousness that can be defined beyond response to stimuli and what keeps you alive. I believe a better axiom would be "I am, therefore i think" and since we think only in language and abstraction it becomes "I use language thereby I think". The individual "thinks" only to the degree he uses language but animals still respond to stimuli based on their knowledge without any "thought" at all. Of course animals "think" to a very limited degree because they have a rudimentary language.

I think (sic) that an even better axiom would be: "I Am, therefore I sense". And when it comes to "I Am" this have to be spiritual/intuitive connected to everything around this "I Am" in order to have consciousness on a larger scale of I Am, the "Great I Am".

The discussion about intuition is interesting since I believe it bears a striking resemblance to the way animals or ancient man "think". Intuition is simply based on mental shortcuts which is similar to the multidimensional thought processes of animals.

Agreed on that

Much of the "spiritual" arises from the framework of the brain and "understanding" of experience and input on other levels of "consciousness".

I don´t disagree, but I´ll rather say that the "spiritual consciousness" is eternal and the human input depends only on whether individuals are educated to listen to the silent communication of intuition. And of course this communication goes both ways from and into the human brain. (The receiver and sender example) As you describe below too:

. . . because of formatting of the brain and an eerie relationship between language and a lost and mostly forgotten ancient science. It is at these levels that myth, religion, and many other things had their origin.

Precisely so

There is far more that connects us and connects us to our distant past than there is that separates us. But these connections exist largely as a function of the human brain. They originated from and are propagated by the natural (non language) operation of the brain/ body.

Agreed in the first sentense. To the second one, I´ll say the function and connection is an embedded and non language quality of the vibrating life in general. We can call this for "intuition".

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
there is no possible "cosmological truth" before cosmological scientists can agree in ONE theory for everything.

But there will still be things that are wrong, which is only possible against a concept of correctness / truth and there will still be ideas / hypotheses that may be right or may be wrong and for which evidence pro and con is being sought. That's where predictions are useful: If A then still possibly / probably B, but if not-A then not-B.

Yes, on the way to ONE cosmological theory, lots of things would be wrong, even in some standing theories.

You seem to think that science makes absolute claims. It neither does nor can. We can never free ourselves of the unknown unknowns out there, but we keep looking. That's why there are no absolute statements in science ─ or as Brian Cox said, A law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't been falsified yet.

No I don´t think so and my oppositions goes mostly against those in this and other fora who have the mental approach that their science is absolute.

You misunderstand. "Dark matter" and "dark energy" are names of problems, not of answers. We know that our present scientific concept of gravity after Einstein can't be reconciled with our observations of the apparent mass of galaxies and their coherence at the speeds they rotate. Is our concept of gravity deficient? Are our observations missing something? Stay tuned.

I know these dark inventions are problems and not answers. That´s why I keep on questioning these matters in the first place. But some debaters gets very emotional when I do as they apparently take these dark matters as facts and ignore other and alternative explanations.

As I understand it, cosmology, not least the theories of the very early universe, take the four forces that we know about into account, and use them in the modeling.

Do they really? Shortly described: From the viewpoint of the Earth they assume an expanding motion of gas and dust to spread out in the Universe where gases and dust and collapse into all kinds of galaxies, stars and planets via gravity.

I see no descriptions of the other three fundamental EM forces in this process. Only explosion/expansion and gravitational collapse in which, regarding the Solar System, the Sun again forms planets and their moons. Explosions and collapses is all you read about. In such a process "gravity" is thought to overcome itself and turn outwards and as such "make work on itself" which is against all laws of thermodynamics.

The only people who are going to find out how right or wrong it is are the scientists, no? They're actually designing tests all the time.

Hopefully so. But they were gravitationally wrong in the galactic realms and they forgot to test their gravitational laws of celestial motions and just inserted "dark matter". They NEVER thought of if the other fundamental forces was at play. Cosmological scientists can be just as wrong as you and me and a donkey if not thinking of alternatives when a theory is contradicted and questioned. Regarding this special problem, they should have tested if electromagnetic forces and motions could provide a better answer of the rotational pattern in galaxies. Instead they fell into the gravitational "dark mind mode".

Native said: ↑
Everything here speaks of a wrong distance measuring method in general. Measuring cosmic distances via the luminosity of light and local "redshift" of objects is clearly incorrect as it leads to a force which isn´t there in the first place.

What "force" is that?

"Dark energy".

Are you saying that redshift doesn't exist?

Not exactly. I´m saying that the cosmic redshift measuring method is unreliable. It works nicely with the sound effect of a bypassing train where the horn signal is compressed and stretched for a listener on the peron. But cosmological scientist took this sound method to count as a constant signal of distances in space which is why their cosmological redshift method is wrong.

Here, read about Cepheid variable stars and the information that they provide and its use in measuring cosmic distances. I'm interested to know where they got it wrong. And try this one, not least the section on standard candles.

I´m aware of the contents in these links and I´m also aware of the problems here in your second link, quote:

"Two problems exist for any class of standard candle. The principal one is calibration, - - - The second problem lies in recognizing members of the class, and not mistakenly using a standard candle calibration on an object which does not belong to the class. At extreme distances, which is where one most wishes to use a distance indicator, this recognition problem can be quite serious".

Surely it can be and is indeed. Especially when this method is used to count for a Big Bang expansion with a "time distance" of 11.8 bill. years.

No matter how many so called cosmic standard candles they find, they´ll never be correct when generally taking luminosity for one type of stars to count for distances all over in space.

Just as with the example above with the compressed and stretched sound track, electromagnetic waves (here LIGHT) in space are also affected and bend when passing gas and dust in space on it´s way to the telescopes. This even questions the very consensus agreement of a constant speed of light itself.

Native said: ↑
I would go about it all and state the Universe to be eternal and everywhere and claim an eternal change between formation, dissolution and re-formation in the entire Universe. A kind of a Steady State Theory which "rests in itself".

Why? The evidence says nothing of the kind.

Don´t you really mean: "The STANDING evidences says nothing of the kind"? The present assumed evidences doesn´t come from a final Theory of Everything, you know. Besides this, much of the so called "evidences" are just circumstantial assumptions added to former assumptions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Native said: ↑
there is no possible "cosmological truth" before cosmological scientists can agree in ONE theory for everything.
...

That in a sense says it all. It is not an observer independent theory. That is as story, that works if you accept what it takes for granted.

 

[PureX]

Okay, something simple. The grammatical status of the words "the truth". Those words means that there is one version of the truth. So there can't be different versions of the truth. That is simple to test: 2 examples are given now.

Someone: The truth of how the world is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and think differently about the truth than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the truth as only one truth for the world.

Someone: The one true God is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and believe differently about God than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the one true God.

Yeah, it is that simple. In practice both science and religion are limited as it comes to the truth. I know, how to test for it, because I accept for the subjective subjective results as valid evidence. For the objective I accept objective evidence as valid, but I try not to confuse the 2.
That is how I learned to do it and I accept that you can do subjectivity and objectivity differently, but I will still just check if what you do appears to be subjective regardless of you claim science or religion, how ever you do it.

Regards
Mikkel

The truth includes all the relative differences. The truth is 'what is'. It is a singular whole. Something that we humans cannot comprehend.