Science, religion and the truth

[Native]

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

If using such a "circular argument", it at least take a human brain to comprehend the circle of formation everywhere

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If using such a "circular argument", it at least take a human brain to comprehend the circle of formation everywhere

Well, it is an old one in western philosophy. Goes back to Agrippa the Skeptic. No strong justification is apparently possible, because we hit this:

1. Dissent – The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general.
2. Progress ad infinitum – All proof rests on matters themselves in need of proof, and so on to infinity, i.e, the regress argument.
3. Relation – All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as we look upon them from different points of view.
4. Assumption – The truth asserted is based on an unsupported assumption.
5. Circularity – The truth asserted involves a circularity of proofs.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

I see no descriptions of the other three fundamental EM forces in this process.

One much-studied hypothesis for the Big Bang has it as a singularity, or immeasurably close to it, containing only a superplasma in which the weak and strong forces were overridden. Thus from Time Zero on comes the expansion and cooling and the formation of the particle zoo from the emergence (or re-emergence of those forces). The third force to mention is the EM force, present in any discussion of light, radiation, and so on.

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".

What on earth are you talking about?They did no such thing. They discovered the problem and its solution is still a work in progress. For goodness sake, how do you think science works?

Regarding this special problem, they should have tested if electromagnetic forces and motions could provide a better answer of the rotational pattern in galaxies.

You could only make that statement if you knew specifically what they did and why they did it (and are doing it). Pinpoint a moment in that scientific process when they should have known the EM force was relevant and failed to take it into consideration. Otherwise I'll think your comment lacking reasonable foundation.

Everything here speaks of a wrong distance measuring method in general.

There you go again, demanding absolutes, ignoring the fact that research is a process, a devising and testing of hypotheses, the ruling in or out of possibilities. The only people who've discovered the problems that are out there are the scientists themselves, and the only thing you know about that is what they've told you.

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.

Dark energy is derived from redshift? Wow, make your case and get a Nobel do hang in your den!

I´m saying that the cosmic redshift measuring method is unreliable.

Unreliable in any way of which scientists aren't aware and you are?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One much-studied hypothesis for the Big Bang has it as a singularity, or immeasurably close to it, containing only a superplasma in which the weak and strong forces were overridden. Thus from Time Zero on comes the expansion and cooling and the formation of the particle zoo from the emergence (or re-emergence of those forces). The third force to mention is the EM force, present in any discussion of light, radiation, and so on.
What on earth are you talking about?They did no such thing. They discovered the problem and its solution is still a work in progress. For goodness sake, how do you think science works?
... ignoring the fact that research is a process, a devising and testing of hypotheses, the ruling in or out of possibilities. ...

So how you propose we observe that as a testing? How do we test Time Zero?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

So observing an atom is the deepest meaning. How do I see that? I see an atom? How is an atom the deepest meaning?

How you see as meaning as what actually exists? I can't see actually! Actually is in the mind. You are playing with words as far as I can tell. Same for existence! You can't see existence. Existence is a nominal idea in the mind.

 

[PureX]

If using such a "circular argument", it at least take a human brain to comprehend the circle of formation everywhere

Knowing the definition of truth does not mean we know it's content. Thus, we can know that the truth exists, but cannot comprehend it's actual existence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Knowing the definition of truth does not mean we know it's content. Thus, we can know that the truth exists, but cannot comprehend it's actual existence.

Yeah, just like "das Ding an sich". It must be there, but it is unknowable for anything that it must be there.

 

[blü 2]

So how you propose we observe that as a testing? How do we test Time Zero?

I'd be inclined to ask someone who'd done the serious homework on the question.

Maybe ask Brian Green or Neil deGrasse Tyson who looks the best bet.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'd be inclined to ask someone who'd done the serious homework on the question.

Maybe ask Brian Green or Neil deGrasse Tyson who looks the best bet.

Okay, so a functional non-answer. If you claim that is how it is done, but don't know how it is done, then how do you know?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Native]

One much-studied hypothesis for the Big Bang has it as a singularity, or immeasurably close to it, containing only a superplasma in which the weak and strong forces were overridden. Thus from Time Zero on comes the expansion and cooling and the formation of the particle zoo from the emergence (or re-emergence of those forces). The third force to mention is the EM force, present in any discussion of light, radiation, and so on.

Explaining the entire Universe as an expansion from an approximate singularity is on the very brink of meta-physics IMO. It is very unlikely that the fundamental forces appears from a "Time Zero" as it logically would take all fundamental forces to create an Universe.
When discussing a Big Bang, you forget to include and consider the very unreliable DISTANCE MEASURING SYSTEM which in first place lead to the assumption of Big Bang and an expanding Universe.

Native said: ↑
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".

What on earth are you talking about?They did no such thing. They discovered the problem and its solution is still a work in progress. For goodness sake, how do you think science works?

I think science works by revising the laws in a hypothesis and change it if contradicted and eventually completely discards the hypothesis/theories.

In the case above they just inserted an unseen amount of matter in galaxies in order to conserve their assumed and false ideas of celestial motions and its acquainted calculations. I know this "dark work" is still in progress as in the latest many decades and that can go on forever in eternity because it is just an intellectual and mental addition in cosmos.

You could only make that statement if you knew specifically what they did and why they did it (and are doing it). Pinpoint a moment in that scientific process when they should have known the EM force was relevant and failed to take it into consideration. Otherwise I'll think your comment lacking reasonable foundation.

Well, just by looking on an image of a barred galaxy they should have known that gravity could not be the cause of the rotational patterns in galaxies. There is NO Way a gravitational force can produce the abrupt 90 degree turn in the galactic arms and into the galactic bars. I´t´s the other way around with barred galaxies: inside-out formation of stars.

Very correctly, scientists thought all stars to "fly away from the galaxies" with the observed rotational velocity. hence they inserted "dark matter" to hold the stars in the galaxies. In fact they should have hold onto their "fly away" discovery and used other fundamental forces to explain this repulsive motion, which leaves only the three EM fundamental force to explain both the formation of stars and the rotational motion.

Native said: ↑
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.

Dark energy is derived from redshift? Wow, make your case and get a Nobel do hang in your den!

NO not DIRECTLY from redshift but INDIRECTLY from the false measuring method which lead to the idea of "dark energy" because they couldn´t explain how the Universe could expand fast and with an increasing velocity.

Native said: ↑
I´m saying that the cosmic redshift measuring method is unreliable.

Unreliable in any way of which scientists aren't aware and you are?

I think we already been there above.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@Native

Found this:
... Here are some sliding definitions for what scientists have thought science to be: deduction of general laws from observed phenomena, finding out the ultimate constituents of Nature, accounting for regularities in empirical observations, finding provisional conceptual schemes for making sense of the world. ...
Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics

So what is science? Well, it seems to depend on what you take for granted.
So we are in sense playing the correct definition of science, but there is no one correct definition apparently.

So here it is apparently for biology, but it seems to run deeper:
"Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]"

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Native]

mikkel_the_dane said: ↑
So how you propose we observe that as a testing? How do we test Time Zero?

'd be inclined to ask someone who'd done the serious homework on the question.
Maybe ask Brian Green or Neil deGrasse Tyson who looks the best bet.

Are you satirically or serious here?

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are playing with words as far as I can tell.

That is what exists, not you or me. And if we go deeper than that, then atoms also do not exist. Just the vibrations in the force fields.

Albert Einstein: "Everything in life is vibration"
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Everything-in-life-is-Vibration.pdf (page2)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is what exists, not you or me. And if we go deeper than that, that also does not exist. Just the vibrations in the force fields.

So you mention me as a form of non-existence and yet you write an answer to me. Well, you can believe as you do and I accept that. I though will continue to believe as I do, because to me you are in effect playing with words or doing philosophy, not science.
You are describing your in part subjective world view, it would seem.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Native]

@Native

Found this:
... Here are some sliding definitions for what scientists have thought science to be: deduction of general laws from observed phenomena, finding out the ultimate constituents of Nature, accounting for regularities in empirical observations, finding provisional conceptual schemes for making sense of the world. ...
Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics

Thank a lot Personally I really find all needed informations from ancient Stories of Creation and go on from there into the "world perceptions of modern science" which mostly is somewhat disappointing.

So what is science? Well, it seems to depend on what you take for granted.
So we are in sense playing the correct definition of science, but there is no one correct definition apparently.

Sure, in modern times we all find our individual approaches according to our education and cultural heritage and so on.

So here it is apparently for biology, but it seems to run deeper:

Agreed in the deeper depth I´ve always thought that modern science of biology and chemistry could learn modern cosmologist to understand much more of cosmos as such. Maybe even to such degree that they all would feel the scientific cosmological carpet to be swept away below their scientific feets.

In this sense it´s "all above as below".

 

[Native]

That is what exists, not you or me. And if we go deeper than that, then atoms also do not exist. Just the vibrations in the force fields.

For your information your body consists of lots of atoms - unless you´re a wandering ghost. Then you´re just possible vibrations.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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

Well one truth that seems inescapable to me is that religions/spirituality are/have been divergent over the course of history (hence the spectrum of such beliefs), whilst science aims to be convergent with regards any truths sought, that is, they are whittled down until the best fit survives. Is the same going to happen with religions, after all, one would expect there only to be the one truth if it were actually true?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well one truth that seems inescapable to me is that religions/spirituality are/have been divergent over the course of history (hence the spectrum of such beliefs), whilst science aims to be convergent with regards any truths sought, that is, they are whittled down until the best fit survives. Is the same going to happen with religions, after all, one would expect there only to be the one truth if it were actually true?

Well, the closed we might get in practice is a sort of secular acceptance of that all religions hold no truth over other religions. Since to me religions are subjective, I doubt we can get closer than that.
Science is easy, it relies on the objective part of reality aka methodological naturalism. World views including not just religions are hard, because they are in part subjective.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

No, if observations of the universe don't conform to what a hypothesis predicts, we revise the hypothesis to fit observation. You seem to consider this a weakness, but it is one of the great strengths of science, others being its rational skepticism and empiricism. The evidence that the method is valid is its fruit.

The question was about positive and negative forces and energies. And about if these could be illustrated by male (expansive) and female (attractive) qualities -

There is no need to inject poetry into science. Retraction and expansion, repulsion and attraction are sufficient. Why not also add dark and light qualities, or divine and profane qualities, or other ideas which add nothing to understanding.

which possibly is far beyond your imagination.

Imagination is all well and good, but you need to evaluate your imaginings and not believe those that are unevidenced. Failure to do that - simply believing what you imagine without sufficient evidentiary support, is a logical error called faith-based thought. Nothing useful comes from that kind of thinking.

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.

I presume that you are implying that if we can't repeat and observe the Big Bang, that we can't have a scientific theory of the evolution of the material universe. That is not what science is. Time travel is not a requirement for determining the much of the past. Do you think that we need to go back in time to see your birth to know that you were born one day and took a first breath? No, the evidence in the present allows us to know that.

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.

What we say is that your unevidenced claims are not valuable. Reason properly applied to evidence is the only valid path to useful information (knowledge). Idle metaphysical speculations - no, pronouncements - simply can't be used for anything.

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.

You don't understand the theory. Gravity wasn't present until it split off from the other three forces, the other three forces splitting from one another subsequently. The expansion did not involve gravity. The collapse of nebula, which didn't occur until the universe aged and evolved, did

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.

Understanding what consciousness is would just be more knowledge. If we had a good scientific theory of consiousness, it would just be ore knowledge. If that riddle is never solved, it won't diminish the knowledge we have.

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.

So you claim, and I have no reason to believe you even if you are correct.

you still cannot see the forest for the trees.

What I'm seeing on this thread are people that can't see the trees. We know that a forest is there by seeing the trees.

You talk to your SELF, every second of every day, and your SELF never goes away, even after death. You can deny this if you like, but it does not change anything.

And you can assert it all you like, but that changes nothing, either. There is no sound reason to believe in an afterlife.

I'm implying that one day you will DIE, no, I guarantee it.

Finally, a claim with supporting evidence. Now that I believe. This is all you need to do to change the mind of a critical thinker - make claims supported by evidence.

 

[blü 2]

Okay, so a functional non-answer. If you claim that is how it is done, but don't know how it is done, then how do you know?

I claim to know the best way to do it, not how it's done. The same principle directs me, when needs be, to my doctor and not to a herbalist, naturopath or faith healer. The principle is based, among other things, on past results.