What is science and what constitutes it?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mikkel, you seems to disagree a lot

What is really your philosophical and scientific "World Picture"?

I am a general skeptic so for objective reality I don't know. I only believe.

 

[Native]

I am a general skeptic

So am I but I still can find lots of solid grounds both inside and outside my 77 year old being - in this life, it is

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So am I but I still can find lots of solid grounds both inside and outside my 77 year old being - in this life, it is

Well, if you are a general skeptic, you wouldn't do positive metaphysics. Then you are another kind of skeptic. So in the end we understand philosophy differently and that makes us different kinds of skeptics.

 

[Native]

Well, if you are a general skeptic, you wouldn't do positive metaphysics. Then you are another kind of skeptic. So in the end we understand philosophy differently and that makes us different kinds of skeptics.

OK I was a bit shot answered there. My skepticism mostly deal with consensus dogmatic claims whether it is religious or scientific dogmas which either isn´t logically explained or not explained at all.

Otherwise, I go all in for both physical and spiritual experiences and informations.

"Visible Light" is just one of the frequencies of everything. The rest is metaphysics for humans who haven´t experienced the spiritual realms.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK I was a bit shot answered there. My skepticism mostly deal with consensus dogmatic claims whether it is religious or scientific dogmas.

Otherwise, I go all in for both physical and spiritual experiences and informations.

"Visible Light" is just one of the frequencies of everything. The rest is metaphysics for humans who haven´t experienced the spiritual realms.

Yeah, that is the point where I as non-spiritual person differ. I don't do positive metaphysics in any sense including ontology.

 

[cladking]

This work has basically really been done by our ancestors and it only need a modern interpretation of "deities", meaning "natural forces and objects".

Yes. I agree. Ancient science has a body of work that is a unified whole and is "symbolized" by an extensive legacy of myths and legends.

But I am suggesting two things which are both critically important to the human species today.

First is that we need to reinvent this science for the purpose of unraveling and properly understanding this body of work.

But also this science can still be employed to further human knowledge and progress. The only immediate benefit would be an understanding of consciousness but this could have profound and far reaching implications in all areas of life. The process itself (ancient science) failed because there is no such thing as "intelligence" and this process became to complex for every single individual. Adding our science to it is wholly impossible for humans but machines are "natural" to manipulate such complexity. They are even binary using a representative language just like ancient science. Machine language also breaks Zipf's Law and is "fully" compatible with Ancient Language. They use the same formatting!

I believe that modern science operated by humans and aided by machines can be used in tandem with ancient science used by machines alone.

This will sound like science fiction to most people but the little I do understand of ancient science is a thing of beauty. Where our consciousness driven by modern language forces metaphysics to look at all things from infinite perspective natural consciousness sees all things from the inside but can be moved about without loss of frame of reference. This is because the ancient brain modeled reality itself and was a model of the human understanding of reality itself. We merely model what we believe is reality as determined by experiment. And we must do this from a single perspective AND a prevailing paradigm.

Reality is infinitely complex but we don't see this and we don't see our own consciousness. Termites do. Homo sapiens did, but their language became so complex that it failed spectacularly. We can't undo the tower of babel but now it's within our reach to understand it and to regain all that was lost.

And since we're already omniscient ourselves, surely God will overlook any possible transgression into heaven while trying to understand reality.

 

[MikeF]

What´s wrong with "metaphysics"? Modern science has discovered lots of things beyond and under the more physical realms.

IMO

I guess I'm not familiar with what you mean by "things beyond and under the more physical realms."
Also, it is my understanding that there is only one realm and it is physical.

BTW: When Newton launched his "gravity", ...

What a curious turn of phrase. I assume here you are referring to his book in which he presents his formulas for the laws of motion and universal gravitation.

this also was pure meta-physics as he couldn't explain the factual physics behind his assumed force. Newtons scientific temporary fellows even accused Newton for inserting an "occult agency", talking of meta

I would disagree with your characterization. Newton is describing an observed phenomena and within the limits of the then prevailing understanding and the tools available, is able to create a predictive model that describes the force of gravity within non-relativistic parameters.
Not sure how that is purely metaphysical. It seems classically scientific to me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

IMO

I guess I'm not familiar with what you mean by "things beyond and under the more physical realms."
Also, it is my understanding that there is only one realm and it is physical.

...

That is philosophy. And no, there is more than just physical versus God when it comes to metaphysics and ontology.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I was talking about inflation theory.

And what do you imagine inflationary theory "predicts"? What is its "empirical" foundation? It "predicts" nothing in the manner that one typically would understand this term outside of certain areas within physics, because the models are constructed based upon known physics and observations and then unknown physics (e.g., and in particular, "inflatons") are introduced in a manner that allows us to produce a wide-variety of models that can yield any predictions we like. Its "success" is primarily in the ability to produce such models.
So, in short, inflationary models are constructed by taking what we know from observations and known physics and the resulting cosmology, and then introducing physics that we not only have no evidence for, but that we also don't actually understand beyond the features that we select (e.g., scalar-valued quantum fields that we demand to cause certain results to produce inflation in the manner we would like).
We can then look at the variety of models that can "predict" what we already know, and see what other features seem to be demanded alongside. It is at this stage, for the most part, that certain multiversal claims are supposedly substantiated by the sorts of models that yield the observed imbalances, inhomogeneities, flatness, etc., and that do so in a manner that many prefer to e.g., the anthropic principle or simply just accepting that what we see is what we get rather than demanding an explanation for what appears to be an otherwise unnatural and/or finely-tuned set of small parameters necessary to explain the universe find ourselves in.

So, these are "well-supported" only if one accepts a fundamental premise for which inflationary cosmology was introduced in the first place: that the universe appears to be highly improbable, unnatural, and finely-tuned in a manner that should be explained by some sort of physical "mechanism" that we lack any evidence or support for. That inflationary models tend to suggest multiverse cosmologies ought to be understood as a weakness of our basic lack of any understanding of the physics that we are proposing to have taken place in order to cause the inflation that is itself supported by the desire to produce the observed universe in a manner that does not rely on fine-tuning or shrugging off the nearly impossible probabilities that the observed universe is as we find it by chance.
This, again, is quite similar to the kind of "argument from design" used by creationists and the like. Sure, it has more mathematics and unlike arguments from design we can examine the different scenarios that result from altering the distributions of various parameters that one cannot by asserting "God did it", but this sort of speculation remains exactly this until either one accepts that 1) a seemingly unnaturally finely-tuned universe requires some kind of explanation or 2) we find some sort of actual empirical support for inflation, such as a plausible physical theory that can be tested rather than introducing yet another dreamt up quantum field we've never encountered and don't understand but, like the "drainons" of the string theoretic swampland, are supported by yielding results in models that we like (in the case of "drainons", it is the draining of the swampland approach to string landscapes; in the case of "inflatons", it is inflation)..

 

[Native]

Yeah, that is the point where I as non-spiritual person differ.

If counting on cognitive skills, of course you´re a spiritual person too

 

[Native]

I guess I'm not familiar with what you mean by "things beyond and under the more physical realms."
Also, it is my understanding that there is only one realm and it is physical.

The human physical realm is sensed by physical skills and by what the human physical eye can observe, but LIGHT is just one of several electromagnetic frequencies which make up the entire cognitive area, which we can determine as being "spiritual".

Native said: ↑
BTW: When Newton launched his "gravity", ...

What a curious turn of phrase. I assume here you are referring to his book in which he presents his formulas for the laws of motion and universal gravitation.

I just meant his gravity ideas in general.

Native said: ↑
this also was pure meta-physics as he couldn't explain the factual physics behind his assumed force. Newtons scientific temporary fellows even accused Newton for inserting an "occult agency", talking of meta

I would disagree with your characterization. Newton is describing an observed phenomena and within the limits of the then prevailing understanding and the tools available, is able to create a predictive model that describes the force of gravity within non-relativistic parameters.
Not sure how that is purely metaphysical. It seems classically scientific to me.

Newton couldn´t observe his assumed gravitational force directly, so he assumed a hidden force = an occult agency = a metaphysic agency. Yes, it was in the intellectual limit of his present time and today he could have thought of other forces too.

Newtons "predictive model" of planetary celestial motions was in its basics already known by our ancestors thousands of years ago, Newton just put it on mathematical equations without knowing of the forces in question, and this basic idea of "motion around a gravitational center" was later contradicted by the discovery of the galactic rotation curve.

 

[Native]

The process itself (ancient science) failed because there is no such thing as "intelligence" and this process became to complex for every single individual.

I have to disagree in this. "Ancient science" has not failed. It is build up through thousands of years of empirical physical and spiritual observations and delivered orally and by symbols in several cultures in a numerous mythical description of everything.

What HAS failed in this sense, is the historic and the modern human loss of intuitive direct sensing.

"Intelligence" is a fairly modern concept which is connected to artificial phenomena and regarding the modern concept of cosmology, this is connected to lots of pure speculations and inconsistent assumptions.

I believe that modern science operated by humans and aided by machines can be used in tandem with ancient science used by machines alone.

IMO the ancient world picture is cyclical and circuital in nature and I doubt that "machines" can describe cyclical and circuital patterns.

Take for instants observations of galaxies and its swirling and cyclical formative motion. Or take the human mathematical equations,which breaks down when trying to describe what is goin on in galactic centers.

This will sound like science fiction to most people but the little I do understand of ancient science is a thing of beauty. Where our consciousness driven by modern language forces metaphysics to look at all things from infinite perspective natural consciousness sees all things from the inside but can be moved about without loss of frame of reference. This is because the ancient brain modeled reality itself and was a model of the human understanding of reality itself. We merely model what we believe is reality as determined by experiment. And we must do this from a single perspective AND a prevailing paradigm.

Reality is infinitely complex but we don't see this and we don't see our own consciousness. Termites do. Homo sapiens did, but their language became so complex that it failed spectacularly. We can't undo the tower of babel but now it's within our reach to understand it and to regain all that was lost.

Yes, be frequently a termite and regain natural sanity

And since we're already omniscient ourselves, surely God will overlook any possible transgression into heaven while trying to understand reality.

I don´t know of "what Mr. God overlooks" - but we certainly overlooks our own transgression into our inner core which corresponds and communicates with the bigger outer one.

 

[Native]

So, these are "well-supported" only if one accepts a fundamental premise for which inflationary cosmology was introduced in the first place: that the universe appears to be highly improbable, unnatural, and finely-tuned in a manner that should be explained by some sort of physical "mechanism" that we lack any evidence or support for.

That inflationary models tend to suggest multiverse cosmologies ought to be understood as a weakness of our basic lack of any understanding of the physics that we are proposing to have taken place in order to cause the inflation that is itself supported by the desire to produce the observed universe in a manner that does not rely on fine-tuning or shrugging off the nearly impossible probabilities that the observed universe is as we find it by chance.

The linear inflation model is IMO based on false distance measuring methods which "constants" even has changed a couple of times. Taking "starry standard candles" to count for universal distances is non sense - also because light disperses through space and give false distance results. This has IMO led to the false idea of an expanding Universe and subsequently to a Big Bang idea.

The presumption of "stars which increase in velocity the longer their distances" is unscientific too, and of course this needs an artificial inventive patching of "dark energy".

Compared to this modern and linear very speculative cosmic model, our ancestors had/have a cyclical model of everything. A model of an eternal and infinite Universe in where everything underwent an eternal cyclical process of formation> dissolution and >re-formation. A simple system which can be observe all over in nature as well.

The modern linear Big Bang inflation model cannot even obey the laws of energy conservation, but this request fits nicely to the ancient and intuitive model of the ancestral world picture.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If counting on cognitive skills, of course you´re a spiritual person too

Yeah, but I am not any version of a positive metaphysics/ontology. You apparently are.

 

[Native]

Yeah, but I am not any version of a positive ontology | metaphysics You apparently are.

Well, if you include Native Spiritualism and Shamanism into your classification, I surely am.

BTW: The definition of "ontology/metaphysics" almost covers everything - ontology | metaphysics

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, if you include Native Spiritualism and Shamanism into your classification, I surely am.

BTW: The definition of "ontology/metaphysics" almost covers everything - ontology | metaphysics

Well, if you read your link you will notice Hume and Kant. I am off that tradition. Some people are born into/learn positive ontology without doubting it. I learned positive ontology also and then I learned to do without it.

 

[Native]

Some people are born into/learn positive ontology without doubting it.

Personally I didn´t knew of this before I, in my 34th year of age, got some direct and spontaneous out-of-body experiences from the dream stage and out in space. Of course this seriously changed my religious traditional "childish" heritage to a new perception an a new way of gaining cosmological knowledge.

 

[cladking]

I have to disagree in this. "Ancient science" has not failed.

I phrased that poorly. "Human" ancient science is no longer being practiced and its metaphysics (Ancient Language) has failed.

But ancient science still exists and is still as valid as ever and its metaphysics is still chiseled into stone.

 

[Native]

I phrased that poorly. "Human" ancient science is no longer being practiced and its metaphysics (Ancient Language) has failed.
But ancient science still exists and is still as valid as ever and its metaphysics is still chiseled into stone.

OK, that happens frequently to me trying to express my Danish thoughts and sentences in English .
The ancient knowledge is CERTAINLY chiseled in stones - This is in fact my favorite subject of all as illustrated here too.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Shouldn´t that be "speculative"?

No.

This is not much different from the idea of a Big Bang.

Except that big-bang theory is about the expansion of the universe and not its origins.

But hey, strawman away