Eodnhoj7 wrote:
The current scientific paradigm has a deep rooted and suppressed fear of metaphysics
Given that metaphysics is beyond the remit of science then any such fear is without justification
As whatever metaphysics has to say about the nature of reality is philosophical and not scientific
And also once a discussion about the nature of reality leaves the domain of physics or science it becomes indistinguishable from fantasy and illusion.
Considering physics is currently investigating a holographic universe theory along with the the fact that it is a science that deals fundamentally with statistics to approximate the nature of reality...is that really a rational thing to say?
The question of "word games" is legitimate, but word games are merely acts of definition that represent a mere paradox or contradiction that leads to further confusion...is using a strict quantitative definition of reality, that of mere mathematics, differ in any degree at all to this?
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Wed May 23, 2018 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Skip wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 9:30 pm
Did I forget to mention repetitious?
I agree, continually repeating theory as scientific fact is repetitious. Science has lost its place as a foundation of reason and has become a religion based upon materialism.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
The current scientific paradigm has a deep rooted and suppressed fear of metaphysics
Given that metaphysics is beyond the remit of science then any such fear is without justification
As whatever metaphysics has to say about the nature of reality is philosophical and not scientific
The scientific method was created from a system of metaphysics with the difference being its inability to prove its own origins.
Then you should know that science isn't an entity with its own opinions.
Newton's laws were formulated by Newton - a flesh-and-blood man. What he described is what he saw, with mortal human eyes and what he thought, he thought with a mushy pink human brain. Science didn't say a word: it was nothing more than a container into which men put their ideas. Even as an accumulation of ideas, science itself remains wordless and emotionless.
Skip wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2018 4:21 pm
Then you should know that science isn't an entity with its own opinions.
Newton's laws were formulated by Newton - a flesh-and-blood man. What he described is what he saw, with mortal human eyes and what he thought, he thought with a mushy pink human brain. Science didn't say a word: it was nothing more than for a container men to put their ideas into.
The chair you are sitting on is designed in a way to sustain you. We can calculate certain things. The computer you are using is also designed to function properly. We need to know how things function in order to design a thing.
Last edited by bahman on Wed May 23, 2018 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Skip wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2018 4:21 pm
Then you should know that science isn't an entity with its own opinions.
Newton's laws were formulated by Newton - a flesh-and-blood man. What he described is what he saw, with mortal human eyes and what he thought, he thought with a mushy pink human brain. Science didn't say a word: it was nothing more than for a container men to put their ideas into.
The chair you are sitting on is designed in a way to sustain you. We can calculate certain things. The computer you are using is also designed to function properly. We need to know how a thing function in order to design it.
But the act of designing changes the function of the natural world. Take for example recent experiments in cooling particles to several billionths of a degree above zero...this does not occur within any observable facet of nature or the experiment would not need to occur, hence the experiment is changing a degree of nature by localizing a phenomenon in a framework that does not necessary exist within the preceding natural environment.
Skip wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2018 4:21 pm
Then you should know that science isn't an entity with its own opinions.
Newton's laws were formulated by Newton - a flesh-and-blood man. What he described is what he saw, with mortal human eyes and what he thought, he thought with a mushy pink human brain. Science didn't say a word: it was nothing more than for a container men to put their ideas into.
The chair you are sitting on is designed in a way to sustain you. We can calculate certain things. The computer you are using is also designed to function properly. We need to know how a thing function in order to design it.
But the act of designing changes the function of the natural world. Take for example recent experiments in cooling particles to several billionths of a degree above zero...this does not occur within any observable facet of nature or the experiment would not need to occur, hence the experiment is changing a degree of nature by localizing a phenomenon in a framework that does not necessary exist within the preceding natural environment.
No, the act of design of a thing just allows us to use the potentiality which we discovered in natural world.
The chair you are sitting on is designed in a way to sustain you. We can calculate certain things. The computer you are using is also designed to function properly. We need to know how a thing function in order to design it.
But the act of designing changes the function of the natural world. Take for example recent experiments in cooling particles to several billionths of a degree above zero...this does not occur within any observable facet of nature or the experiment would not need to occur, hence the experiment is changing a degree of nature by localizing a phenomenon in a framework that does not necessary exist within the preceding natural environment.
No, the act of design of a thing just allows us to use the potentiality which we discovered in natural world.
That would imply that nature uses consciousness as a means to localize realities or create new dimensions. To simplify this point, if "x" particles exist as "y" in "z" space, and we take "x" particles and repeat their relations as "y" in space "a" then nature creates its own boundaries through the consciousness that exists as an extension of it.
It blurs the line between the definition of artificial and natural as the laws of the natural exist within certain frameworks that consciousness overrides (using the particle cooling experiment again as an example).
bahman wrote:
We can also create thoughts and transfer thoughts to others
Thoughts cannot be transferred they can only be communicated
Communication is transferrence through a median of moving symbols (words, sounds, etc.). In simpler terms communication is movement through symbols which act as a unifying median.
But the act of designing changes the function of the natural world. Take for example recent experiments in cooling particles to several billionths of a degree above zero...this does not occur within any observable facet of nature or the experiment would not need to occur, hence the experiment is changing a degree of nature by localizing a phenomenon in a framework that does not necessary exist within the preceding natural environment.
No, the act of design of a thing just allows us to use the potentiality which we discovered in natural world.
That would imply that nature uses consciousness as a means to localize realities or create new dimensions. To simplify this point, if "x" particles exist as "y" in "z" space, and we take "x" particles and repeat their relations as "y" in space "a" then nature creates its own boundaries through the consciousness that exists as an extension of it.
It blurs the line between the definition of artificial and natural as the laws of the natural exist within certain frameworks that consciousness overrides (using the particle cooling experiment again as an example).
I think there are minds, conscious entities, which dictate how natural world should function. How it could cause anything otherwise?
bahman wrote:
We can also create thoughts and transfer thoughts to others
Thoughts cannot be transferred they can only be communicated
Communication is transferrence through a median of moving symbols (words, sounds, etc.). In simpler terms communication is movement through symbols which act as a unifying median.
No, the act of design of a thing just allows us to use the potentiality which we discovered in natural world.
That would imply that nature uses consciousness as a means to localize realities or create new dimensions. To simplify this point, if "x" particles exist as "y" in "z" space, and we take "x" particles and repeat their relations as "y" in space "a" then nature creates its own boundaries through the consciousness that exists as an extension of it.
It blurs the line between the definition of artificial and natural as the laws of the natural exist within certain frameworks that consciousness overrides (using the particle cooling experiment again as an example).
I think there are minds, conscious entities, which dictate how natural world should function. How it could cause anything otherwise?
The problem is that this consciousness, mind, etc. are extensions of this very same natural world so what we understand of consciousness at minimum requires a self-referential looping phenomenon that progressively expands definition through a mirror like replication where any variation of this repetition occur under randomness acting as a negative limit which forms the variations in these phenomenon...if any of this makes sense.
