Yes or No?

[drsatish]

[FONT=&quot]Yes or No?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Precise, sharp, clear, logical, analytical thinking - looks for Yes or No answers. You could say such thinking is Digital!...which can contain only 2 values in its containers - 0 or 1. But 'Reality' is Analogue! (mostly I think; what could be digital in Nature? Even sub-atomic particles are Not discrete entities!)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]'Fuzziness' seems to be at the Core of the Reality of Modern Physics.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. Is light a wave? [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Yes or No?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Is light [/FONT][FONT=&quot]a particle? Yes or No?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] ..don't say its dual-wave-particle...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] ..how can it be both at the same time?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The casual reader might get the impression that either Heisenberg was uncertain or physicists are not certain now, but will become certain LATER![/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]It is NOT SO! UNCERTAINTY....is the CERTAIN STUFF....which lies at the very bottom of things![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3. Quantum Entanglement.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Quantum entanglement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] EPR paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] "since Einstein's death experiments analogous to that of the EPR paradox were carried out, starting in 1976 by French scientists at the Saclay Nuclear Research Centre, which appeared to show that the measurement of one does indeed affect the other and that a local realistic view of the world is false."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] ....A LOCAL REALISTIC VIEW OF THE WORLD IS FALSE![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"In the common Copenhagen interpretation, quantum mechanics is neither "real" (since measurements do not state, but instead prepare properties of the system) nor "local" (since the state vector |\psi\rangle comprises the simultaneous probability amplitudes for all positions, e..." [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]....Does Quantum Mechanics exist?? ...Probably![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Coming to everyday thinking, "broadmindedness"...is truly that! It is becoming broad! (no pun intended)...it is the opposite of "narrow-mindedness", preciseness -> yes or no answers. Are you wearing the Green Robe? If yes, you are one of us and you are on the right path! Else!!!! ....[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]'Love' as taught by the Greatest who walked the Earth, is this Continuous State of Broadmindedness...or rather Broadheartedness...or rather BroadBeingNess.....[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]All Morality, Ethics, Laws etc ARISE FROM THIS .....do not kill, do not lie, do not deceive, do not injure.... [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There is ONLY ONE THING that EXISTS......it IS THAT WHICH EXISTS![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Does it have parts?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]...well, that depends on the 'Observer', the 'assumptions' of the Observer, the perception-to-thought-conversion methodology / mental circuits of the Observer....or ...rather.......Questioner![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Does the ONE Exist? Yes...it is the Whole. No...it is ONLY the PARTS that EXIST![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Yes ...No ....maybe....probably......fuzzily...."broadmindedly".....lovingly....glossing over smaller details..[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] ..seeing the bigger picture....still mega picture....[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Will you marry me?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Satish[/FONT]

 

[Father Heathen]

The third eye looks through it's own reflection...
Third = 3 = trinity, and the eye is "I"...
And through the reflection the truth is inverted...
the father, son and holy spirit are used to triangulate the center of truth...

Inversion of truth is non truth, but there can be no truth without non truth!
The equilibrium of our reality swings upon a pendulum. To be or not 2 B
The sun is merely an atom's nucleus and the orbiting planets are electrons in an even bigger universe that itself but an electron of an atom in the speck in our 3rd eye.

Am I doing it right?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

You're sort of all over the place here. Is there a question? Are you expecting an answer? Is there a point? I'm a bit confused.

 

[drsatish]

The third eye looks through it's own reflection...
Third = 3 = trinity, and the eye is "I"...
And through the reflection the truth is inverted...
the father, son and holy spirit are used to triangulate the center of truth...

Inversion of truth is non truth, but there can be no truth without non truth!
The equilibrium of our reality swings upon a pendulum. To be or not 2 B
The sun is merely an atom's nucleus and the orbiting planets are electrons in an even bigger universe that itself but an electron of an atom in the speck in our 3rd eye.

Am I doing it right?

"the father, son and holy spirit are used to triangulate the center of truth..."
Yep..I 'think' so....

Can you explain what you mean exactly by "inversion of truth"?

Regarding the 'orbital' similarities between the sub-atomic and the planetary world, I don't know if it can be carried ad-infinitum. Today's Science does not have such a concept of a "mirror image within a mirror image - ad infinitum", though there are concepts of parallel universes, and finite/infinite number of finite/infinite universes - where 'any' potential probability for 'any single thing' has a 'potential' or 'real' execution! - Avenue for expression of Every Quantum Probability!

The 3rd eye is....Required!

Satish

 

[drsatish]

You're sort of all over the place here. Is there a question? Are you expecting an answer? Is there a point? I'm a bit confused.

Sometimes we "don't" get the answer or the 'right' answer, because we ask the 'wrong' questions!

Reality <-> Observer <-> Questioner
are closely intertwined.

To understand "Reality",
the 'Observer' has to differentiate, compare/contrast
the 'questioner' from the 'observer' in himself, first!

Can he 'observe' with 'no questioner'?

Does 'questioning' cause distortion/aberration.
.a veil ..a cloudy filter panel so to speak.
..in Direct Observation?
..in my direct pure, non-hindered participatory-seeing of that?
..a sudden living moment of that...?
with no clouding questions or memory baggage?...to distort the view?

Am I asking the 'wrong' questions in life?
Am I having the 'wrong' views in life...on life?..
...'wrong' angles on life...?

Reality is the Same.

It is the observer, the questioner, the questions, the answers, the views, the direct experience..

.....that is in question!

Satish

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Sometimes we "don't" get the answer or the 'right' answer, because we ask the 'wrong' questions!

Reality <-> Observer <-> Questioner
are closely intertwined.

To understand "Reality",
the 'Observer' has to differentiate, compare/contrast
the 'questioner' from the 'observer' in himself, first!

Can he 'observe' with 'no questioner'?

Does 'questioning' cause distortion/aberration.
.a veil ..a cloudy filter panel so to speak.
..in Direct Observation?
..in my direct pure, non-hindered participatory-seeing of that?
..a sudden living moment of that...?
with no clouding questions or memory baggage?...to distort the view?

Am I asking the 'wrong' questions in life?
Am I having the 'wrong' views in life...on life?..
...'wrong' angles on life...?

Reality is the Same.

It is the observer, the questioner, the questions, the answers, the views, the direct experience..

.....that is in question!

Satish

I'm a Buddhist, and I'm quite fond of Zen stories...is that something like where you're going with this?

 

[McBell]

Sometimes we "don't" get the answer or the 'right' answer, because we ask the 'wrong' questions!

Sometimes people get the right answer and toss it out the window because it is not what they wanted to hear or expected to hear.

Reality <-> Observer <-> Questioner
are closely intertwined.

To understand "Reality",
the 'Observer' has to differentiate, compare/contrast
the 'questioner' from the 'observer' in himself, first!

Can he 'observe' with 'no questioner'?

Does 'questioning' cause distortion/aberration.
.a veil ..a cloudy filter panel so to speak.
..in Direct Observation?
..in my direct pure, non-hindered participatory-seeing of that?
..a sudden living moment of that...?
with no clouding questions or memory baggage?...to distort the view?

Am I asking the 'wrong' questions in life?
Am I having the 'wrong' views in life...on life?..
...'wrong' angles on life...?

Reality is the Same.

It is the observer, the questioner, the questions, the answers, the views, the direct experience..

.....that is in question!

Satish

You are going to have to go with something that at least resembles coherent thought.
If you are trying to sound all mystical and mysterious, you failed.

 

[drsatish]

I'm a Buddhist, and I'm quite fond of Zen stories...is that something like where you're going with this?

Buddha was quite right in 'seeing' that 'Nothing' in the Universe has an 'Independent Existence' by itself, of itself. Each 'thing' exists only because of a 'relationship' to a whole lot of other things. Take away all the 'other' things - this thing 'DISAPPEARS' by ITSELF!

Take you and me for example. We are 'humans' because of our 'continuing Physical Relationship to the Evolutionary Processes of matter, molecules whatever...that happened in the past. Take away this 'Relationship' - we DISAPPEAR! ...as the atoms in our body won't know how to 'assemble' in a particular fashion to ......become well coordinated ambidextrous fingers typing this… ....the fingers won't exist!....I won't exist....you won't exist reading this....

"I" am just a "node" ...a cross...'existing' at the crossing of fibers in the fabric of what Exists!

Does the 'node' exist by itself..of itself...?

No Fabric -> No Node.
No Nodes -> No Fabric.

Buddha's "Vipasana" is about seeing "clearly" without mental corruptions!

Satish

 

[freethinker44]

Not trying to ruin your whole foundation for your theory there, but yes and no is a false dichotomy. It should be yes and not yes. No is not yes, but not yes is not necessarily no.

 

[drsatish]

Sometimes people get the right answer and toss it out the window because it is not what they wanted to hear or expected to hear.



You are going to have to go with something that at least resembles coherent thought.
If you are trying to sound all mystical and mysterious, you failed.

"mystical and mysterious"

There are lots of 'mysterious' things in the Universe...unknown things....from 'that' particular observer's point of view. From the human 'excitement/interesting' point of view, it is that which makes the Universe a not so dull a place! ...it is the 'spicy' voyage of 'Discovery'!

Mystical..?
I don't think anything 'imaginary'
(if that is what you mean by 'mystical')
can exist in 'Reality'.

Here is a poser for you:
A. Is a 'Materialistic View of the World.. Mystical?
B. Is a 'Non-Materialistic View of the World.. Mystical?

Satish

 

[drsatish]

Not trying to ruin your whole foundation for your theory there, but yes and no is a false dichotomy. It should be yes and not yes. No is not yes, but not yes is not necessarily no.

Ruin?
when it looks like both of us 'agree'?

'yes and no is a false dichotomy'

vs

'Yes ...No ....maybe....probably......fuzzily...."broadminded ly".....lovingly....glossing over smaller details..
..seeing the bigger picture....still mega picture....'

Satish

 

[PolyHedral]

Sometimes we "don't" get the answer or the 'right' answer, because we ask the 'wrong' questions!

Satish

:clap
Which is precisely where you are going wrong: you're very first question in your OP was flawed.

[FONT=&quot]1. Is light a wave? [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Yes or No?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Is light [/FONT][FONT=&quot]a particle? Yes or No?[/FONT]

Light is not a wave. Light is not a particle. It is a strange, quantum thing that behaves like either a wave or a particle under specific circumstances, but it is neither. The answer to "Is light a quantum packet?" is yes.

[FONT=&quot]....Does Quantum Mechanics exist?? ...Probably![/FONT]

No, Quantum Mechanics does exist, irrefutably so. Bell proved that there is no theory that matches up with evidence without producing the uncertainties QM produces.

Here is a poser for you:
A. Is a 'Materialistic View of the World.. Mystical?
B. Is a 'Non-Materialistic View of the World.. Mystical?

Every view other than quantum gravity is either a simplification, or unfounded mysticism.

Also, watch out, because yes/no is a perfectly valid dichotomy for the majority of possible questions.

 

[drsatish]

:clap
Which is precisely where you are going wrong: you're very first question in your OP was flawed.
Light is not a wave. Light is not a particle. It is a strange, quantum thing that behaves like either a wave or a particle under specific circumstances, but it is neither. The answer to "Is light a quantum packet?" is yes.

No, Quantum Mechanics does exist, irrefutably so. Bell proved that there is no theory that matches up with evidence without producing the uncertainties QM produces.

Every view other than quantum gravity is either a simplification, or unfounded mysticism.

Also, watch out, because yes/no is a perfectly valid dichotomy for the majority of possible questions.

[FONT=&quot]1. "The answer to "Is light a quantum packet?" is yes. "[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Wrong Question! Some answer.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Right Question: Is 'packet' an aspect of Human Thinking?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] ..of How human brain makes / fits things to 'explain' what is out there...?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] ..or do 'packets' ...REALLY...exist...in ...REALITY?[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]2. ....Does Quantum Mechanics exist?? ...Probably![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (That was 'pun'...to drive home the matter...or would you say Quantum?)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3. .."Every view other than quantum gravity is either a simplification, or unfounded mysticism.....[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Are 2 words 'quantum gravity' ....THAT COMPLICATED ENOUGH - to MERIT - Reality Status?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] What is "Quantum Gravity"....anyway....?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Is it a "Human Mental Construct"....at something...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] or[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Is it Real?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Can I feel it?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] I feel 'Plain Gravity'....[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Can you tell me how to feel ..'Quantum Gravity'...?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Every 'scientific' decade....makes 'permanent, dogmatic' statements about.....Reality...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 'Quantum Gravity' is the Statement of the 1st Century of the 3rd Millenium......[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Quantum gravity (QG) is the field of theoretical physics attempting to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity in a self-consistent manner, or more precisely, to formulate a self-consistent theory which reduces to ordinary quantum mechanics in the limit of weak gravity (potentials much less than c2) and which reduces to Einsteinian general relativity in the limit of large actions (action much larger than reduced Planck's constant)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quantum gravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You say QG explains Everything. But WHO formulated this theory? A Subject or an Object? Is there a mention of a ‘Subject’ in the above ‘definition’? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Is it possible that ‘Another Civilization’ with ‘tentacles’ which perceive ‘neutrinos’ and ‘dark energy’ with a ‘correlating apparatus’ of a ‘different fundamental construct….can come up with a “Zontine” theory…that Realistically ‘explains’ to them..the inputs they received through their ‘neutrino’ and ‘dark energy’ sense organs …by THEIR ‘correlating apparatus’…TO…THEIR. ….’correlating apparatus’?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Will QG & Z ….be the SAME EQUATIONS?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Reality is the Same,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Satish[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[PolyHedral]

[FONT=&quot]1. "The answer to "Is light a quantum packet?" is yes. "[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Wrong Question! Some answer.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Right Question: Is 'packet' an aspect of Human Thinking?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] ..of How human brain makes / fits things to 'explain' what is out there...?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] ..or do 'packets' ...REALLY...exist...in ...REALITY?[/FONT]

Define "reality." Your mind plays a lot of tricks on you.

[FONT=&quot;]3. .."Every view other than quantum gravity is either a simplification, or unfounded mysticism.....[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot;] Are 2 words 'quantum gravity' ....THAT COMPLICATED ENOUGH - to MERIT - Reality Status?[/FONT]

You have obviously never seen the equations involved. And complex has nothing to do with it. After all, the movement of the planets are governed by three equations, none of which require mathematics more complicated than basic calculus.

[FONT=&quot;] What is "Quantum Gravity"....anyway....?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot;] Is it a "Human Mental Construct"....at something...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot;] or[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot;] Is it Real?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot;] Can I feel it?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot;] I feel 'Plain Gravity'....[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot;] Can you tell me how to feel ..'Quantum Gravity'...?[/FONT]

It is a complete, unambiguous description of the entire universe. It is "reality", in so much as "reality" is objective.

[FONT=&quot;] Every 'scientific' decade....makes 'permanent, dogmatic' statements about.....Reality...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot;] 'Quantum Gravity' is the Statement of the 1st Century of the 3rd Millenium......[/FONT]

There is no dogma involved. All scientific statements can be demonstrated, even if only under very esoteric circumstances.

[FONT=&quot;]You say QG explains Everything. But WHO formulated this theory? A Subject or an Object? Is there a mention of a ‘Subject’ in the above ‘definition’? [/FONT]

Who formulated it is irrelevant. Similarly, subjects and objects are parts of English, not mathematics.

[FONT=&quot]

Is it possible that ‘Another Civilization’ with ‘tentacles’ which perceive ‘neutrinos’ and ‘dark energy’ with a ‘correlating apparatus’ of a ‘different fundamental construct….can come up with a “Zontine” theory…that Realistically ‘explains’ to them..the inputs they received through their ‘neutrino’ and ‘dark energy’ sense organs …by THEIR ‘correlating apparatus’…TO…THEIR. ….’correlating apparatus’?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Will QG & Z ….be the SAME EQUATIONS?[/FONT]

They will describe the same thing, assuming that both of them are actually theories of everything.

 

[drsatish]

Define "reality." Your mind plays a lot of tricks on you.
You have obviously never seen the equations involved. And complex has nothing to do with it. After all, the movement of the planets are governed by three equations, none of which require mathematics more complicated than basic calculus.


It is a complete, unambiguous description of the entire universe. It is "reality", in so much as "reality" is objective.


There is no dogma involved. All scientific statements can be demonstrated, even if only under very esoteric circumstances.


Who formulated it is irrelevant. Similarly, subjects and objects are parts of English, not mathematics.

[font=&quot]
They will describe the same thing, assuming that both of them are actually theories of everything.

1. Define "reality." Your mind plays a lot of tricks on you.

Define Reality...? Can it be 'DEFINED' by One Species?
Does it become REAL....if it can be DEFINED?.......especially by One Species?

Reality! Oh My Reality! Reality only Knows!
(a pun on God! Oh My God! God only Knows!)

2. "You have obviously never seen the equations involved. And complex has nothing to do with it."
So neither complexity nor simplicity has any 'direct correlation' with a certain 'model' of reality...

3. "It is a complete, unambiguous description of the entire universe."
That is what Newton Thought!

You really think QG is the Last and Final Theory....?
...that humans in 32104 A.D will be STILL using the QG Theory..?

4. There is no dogma involved. All scientific statements can be demonstrated, even if only under very esoteric circumstances.

Webster definition of 'Dogma'.
dog·ma (dôgÆmÃ, dogÆ-), n., pl. -mas, -ma·ta (-mà tÃ).
1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

Suppose in the above definition, we replace the word church with science....
dog·ma (dôgÆmÃ, dogÆ-), n., pl. -mas, -ma·ta (-mà tÃ).
1. a system of principles or tenets, as of science.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by science: the dogma of scientific thinking.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma. (politicalized science ->Technology -> 'Ultimate Military Weapons'
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.


"Who formulated it is irrelevant. Similarly, subjects and objects are parts of English, not mathematics. "

Is 'Subject' an 'esoteric principle' in Science...
or that which is 'outside' the 'totality' considered by 'science'...
or that Science deals with Reality DEVOID of SUBJECTS..
or that Reality has NO SUBJECTS...?

"They will describe the same thing, assuming that both of them are actually theories of everything."
..there are 'plenty' of 'theories of everything' ..within one species.....do they all describe the 'same thing'...?
If we are not sure about that, what are the chances of 'understanding' / 'communicating' / 'verifying' ...SAMENESS...
..with Alien vastly different civilizations..?

Is REALITY MATHEMATICS?
or
Is mathematics a Tool?

Satish

 

[PolyHedral]

1. Define "reality." Your mind plays a lot of tricks on you.

Define Reality...? Can it be 'DEFINED' by One Species?
Does it become REAL....if it can be DEFINED?.......especially by One Species?

Reality! Oh My Reality! Reality only Knows!
(a pun on God! Oh My God! God only Knows!)

I'm asking you, because you're asking whether or not things count as reality.

3. "It is a complete, unambiguous description of the entire universe."
That is what Newton Thought!

You really think QG is the Last and Final Theory....?
...that humans in 32104 A.D will be STILL using the QG Theory..?

Yes, until it doesn't match up with an experiment. Eventually, we will find a theory that matches everything.

4. There is no dogma involved. All scientific statements can be demonstrated, even if only under very esoteric circumstances.

Webster definition of 'Dogma'.
dog·ma (dôgÆmÃ, dogÆ-), n., pl. -mas, -ma·ta (-mà tÃ).
1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

Suppose in the above definition, we replace the word church with science....
dog·ma (dôgÆmÃ, dogÆ-), n., pl. -mas, -ma·ta (-mà tÃ).
1. a system of principles or tenets, as of science.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by science: the dogma of scientific thinking.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma. (politicalized science ->Technology -> 'Ultimate Military Weapons'
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

But science is not a set of principles, tenets, doctrines, or opinions. It is a set of descriptions.

"Who formulated it is irrelevant. Similarly, subjects and objects are parts of English, not mathematics. "

Is 'Subject' an 'esoteric principle' in Science...
or that which is 'outside' the 'totality' considered by 'science'...
or that Science deals with Reality DEVOID of SUBJECTS..
or that Reality has NO SUBJECTS...?

"Subject" is not a term used in physics. It simply doesn't mean anything.

"They will describe the same thing, assuming that both of them are actually theories of everything."
..there are 'plenty' of 'theories of everything' ..within one species.....do they all describe the 'same thing'...?
If we are not sure about that, what are the chances of 'understanding' / 'communicating' / 'verifying' ...SAMENESS...
..with Alien vastly different civilizations..?

There is only one universe to describe, so any two things that perfectly describe the universe must describe the same thing.

Is REALITY MATHEMATICS?
or
Is mathematics a Tool?

I don't know. I don't even know whether either of those questions make sense.

 

[drsatish]

I'm asking you, because you're asking whether or not things count as reality.


Yes, until it doesn't match up with an experiment. Eventually, we will find a theory that matches everything.


But science is not a set of principles, tenets, doctrines, or opinions. It is a set of descriptions.


"Subject" is not a term used in physics. It simply doesn't mean anything.


There is only one universe to describe, so any two things that perfectly describe the universe must describe the same thing.


I don't know. I don't even know whether either of those questions make sense.

Yes, until it doesn't match up with an experiment. Eventually, we will find a theory that matches everything.
So you agree, QG is a “Temporary Mental Construct”!
“Eventually” – What is the Time Scale involved here…5 years to 5 Billion years….to a time near infinity….or infinity itself…?
‘matches everything’
How can ‘something’ ….match….with ….everything…..at the same time?
Is this ‘something’ an ‘image’ of the ‘everything’
Or
Is ‘everything’ an ‘image’ of this ‘something’?
What ‘happens’ WHEN ‘Everything’ is ‘Perfectly Described?’
- Will it Affect Everything in any way?
- Will there be any Pre-Everything / Post-Everything demarcation/jump in Everything?
- Or Will Everything be the Same Old Everything, though it has been Changing All this Time… till..your…’Eventually’ & ‘After’…?
-
“But science is not a set of principles, tenets, doctrines, or opinions. It is a set of descriptions.”
Are DESCRIPTIONS….Reality?

"Subject" is not a term used in physics. It simply doesn't mean anything.
Are you implying that ‘physics’ …DESCRIBES….ENTIRETY?.....that Physics is the Only Science…among the Other Fields of Science?
..that if Subject is not a term used in physics, and it does not mean anything in physics, it DOES NOT EXIST?

“There is only one universe to describe, so any two things that perfectly describe the universe must describe the same thing.”
..How can there be 2 Perfect Descriptions of the Same Thing?
[FONT=&quot]Is REALITY MATHEMATICS?
or
Is mathematics a Tool? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I don't know. I don't even know whether either of those questions make sense.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Now you are honest. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I don't even know whether either of those questions make sense – to whom? …a mind of 1 species ….an anthropocentric mind?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]How much of anthropocentrism is there in “Scientific Sense” …which makes Sense to …anthropes…?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Satish[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]__________________[/FONT]

 

[Muffled]

[FONT=&quot]Yes or No?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Will you marry me?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Satish[/FONT]

No. But that is a qualitative no based on temporality. Presently I am male and married and follow judeao-christian beliefs about such things. However in the next life we could be the opposite sex and marry. Of course marriage itself is quite often a blurred enterprise. There are open ended marriages, marriages of convenience, arranged marriages, and contract marriages (agreeing to be married in some ways but not in others).

 

[RaimThunder]

It makes no sence to not use the bible when talking about God because how else are you gonna get the understanding? You can't. You must use the word because if you have two different opinions the only way to come to the same opinion is to read the word. You can't debate what is actually written in the bible. You can only discuss the understanding of what is written.

John 8:32

 

[drsatish]

No. But that is a qualitative no based on temporality. Presently I am male and married and follow judeao-christian beliefs about such things. However in the next life we could be the opposite sex and marry. Of course marriage itself is quite often a blurred enterprise. There are open ended marriages, marriages of convenience, arranged marriages, and contract marriages (agreeing to be married in some ways but not in others).

Well, you got it! ..the point I was trying to make...that even a straight forward question, like 'will you marry me', which expects a simple yes or no answer, can have multiple answers.

Satish