Scientific Method and God

[Atla]

That is my point, a woman can be both young and old at the same time but not in the same perspective and senses.

In terms of the same chronology and age, a young woman [20 years old] cannot be an old woman [80 years old].

Actually through picture and "memory" (as memory is composed of sensory knowledge) they can be.

Time is relative and a woman is never really x years old exactly when one continually breaks down the exact moment of time.

So to compare one exact moment in time to another is effectively futile in pin pointing an exact moment. The reason I say this is because time is a localization of movement and while the nanosecond exists as as many relative to the second, the nanosecond exists as 1 relative to a smaller scale of measurement.

In these respect time is localization and all phenomena that exist through time exist as localities relative to other localities. In these respects the woman can be multiple ages relative to other parts.





In this case you are introducing different senses or perspective thus LNC applies.

Get it?

Do you?

You are beating around the bush again
and introducing new perspective and contexts from the one I am asking from.

I would say your deflection to other context is a very stupid idea.

Say, you are 20 years old.
There is a gate with a sign "For Old People Only" [conventionally understood as above 65] to queue and avoid the long queue for example food stamps, rations, etc..
You will join the queue of older people because, to you are are also 'old' by your twisting thinking of defining yourself as 'old' and at the same time young.
You will expect other younger people to join you because they are also 'old.'

Imo the Johndoe seems to be in some kind of psychosis, probably a self-inflicted drug-induced psychosis. So his mind really automatically mixes together content from different contexts/perspectives, makes all kind of nonsensical connections between them, and he doesn't realize this at all, maybe he can't realize it. He can no longer understand contexts/perspectives like we do.

[-1-]

Imo the Johndoe seems to be in some kind of psychosis, probably a self-inflicted drug-induced psychosis. So his mind really automatically mixes together content from different contexts/perspectives, makes all kind of nonsensical connections between them, and he doesn't realize this at all, maybe he can't realize it. He can no longer understand contexts/perspectives like we do.

I share this. JD has a superb mind, and a high IQ, but he can't use either in our world. Your description is precise and to the point, Atla, better than how I could have worded it.

I have respect, very high respect for JD, but I put him on my Iggie list because he patently makes no sense for the precise reasons you described, Atla.

[Atla]

Imo the Johndoe seems to be in some kind of psychosis, probably a self-inflicted drug-induced psychosis. So his mind really automatically mixes together content from different contexts/perspectives, makes all kind of nonsensical connections between them, and he doesn't realize this at all, maybe he can't realize it. He can no longer understand contexts/perspectives like we do.

I share this. JD has a superb mind, and a high IQ, but he can't use either in our world. Your description is precise and to the point, Atla, better than how I could have worded it.

I have respect, very high respect for JD, but I put him on my Iggie list because he patently makes no sense for the precise reasons you described, Atla.

Yeah it's unfortunate, not only is he basically screwed for life if he doesn't get out of psychosis, but maybe under the right circumstances he might be able to say something interesting about existence too. In some ways he does seem to have realized the inherent circularities of existence (but he is misprocessing them heavily), which I consider to be the entrance level to "deep philophy". No offense but most people on philosophy forums aren't there yet.

[Walker]

And what is the scientific method

I Observation
2 Experimentation
3 Testable Hypotheses
4 Replication
5 Peer Review

That wasn't Einstein's method.

Was he a scientist?

[Walker]

Consider that:

A circle is an elemental shape.
A square is an elemental shape.
The name square-circle suggests a compound of the two elements, like water is a compound of two elements.

Because compounds need not resemble their constituent elements, folks may be looking at square-circles all the time and have not yet labeled them as such.

However, because not all things are known (which is supported by all the new things being discovered), recognizable aspects of the constituent elements may be evident in the square-circle compound, once currently unknown conditions make its discovery possible, and repeatable. For instance, we can tell by observation that a square has some points of maximum separation on its boundary (two points from each other), while a circle has many more points of maximum separation, even though a point is dimensionless.

[TimeSeeker]

Can anybody provide a definition for "God" that does not recurse into a Null-pointer [1]? A signifier without a signified.

e.g God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. All three of those adjectives are null-pointers unless you can provide an example of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_pointer

[Eodnhoj7]

That is my point, a woman can be both young and old at the same time but not in the same perspective and senses.

In terms of the same chronology and age, a young woman [20 years old] cannot be an old woman [80 years old].

Actually through picture and "memory" (as memory is composed of sensory knowledge) they can be.

Time is relative and a woman is never really x years old exactly when one continually breaks down the exact moment of time.

So to compare one exact moment in time to another is effectively futile in pin pointing an exact moment. The reason I say this is because time is a localization of movement and while the nanosecond exists as as many relative to the second, the nanosecond exists as 1 relative to a smaller scale of measurement.

In these respect time is localization and all phenomena that exist through time exist as localities relative to other localities. In these respects the woman can be multiple ages relative to other parts.





In this case you are introducing different senses or perspective thus LNC applies.

Get it?

Do you?

You are beating around the bush again
and introducing new perspective and contexts from the one I am asking from.

And one perspective or context does not branch into another? If your argument is correct under one perspective or context, but is proven wrong by another....is it still correct?



I would say your deflection to other context is a very stupid idea.

One context exists relative to another. Take for example a culture. It may exist as one specific framework of coexistence between people, but it invariably leads to other cultures which branch off from it and effectively subroute it over time. Rome and it's relation to the barbarians is another example of this. Once a barbarian culture itself, it became civilized and in turn formed other barbarian cultures (Gaul, Celts, Germanics) which effectively over-threw Rome eventually.



Say, you are 20 years old.
There is a gate with a sign "For Old People Only" [conventionally understood as above 65] to queue and avoid the long queue for example food stamps, rations, etc..
You will join the queue of older people because, to you are are also 'old' by your twisting thinking of defining yourself as 'old' and at the same time young.
You will expect other younger people to join you because they are also 'old.'

That is the issue, is it not..."convention"...a "framework"?

Actually me joining or not joining is conducive to the circumstances.

If I do not need food and the old people need food...why would I join? If I joined it would be immoral.

However if I do need food and the old people need food...and there is plenty of food for both old and young, then the framework itself is corrupt.

Now these are questions of morality, so to speak with morality effectively being premised on the nature of proportion. Is one morally qualified to over-route a system, which in itself, is unjust in these respects.

Considering the foundation of "Old" and "Young" is the measuring limit of these systems, in these respects, these foundations provide the foundation to the moral structures themselves and thereby are viewed accordingly.

[-1-]

And what is the scientific method

I Observation
2 Experimentation
3 Testable Hypotheses
4 Replication
5 Peer Review

That wasn't Einstein's method.

Was he a scientist?

Einstein was not a scientist but a philosopher whose toy idea proved to be true by observation.

[-1-]

Consider that:

A circle is an elemental shape.
A square is an elemental shape.
The name square-circle suggests a compound of the two elements, like water is a compound of two elements.

Because compounds need not resemble their constituent elements, folks may be looking at square-circles all the time and have not yet labeled them as such.

However, because not all things are known (which is supported by all the new things being discovered), recognizable aspects of the constituent elements may be evident in the square-circle compound, once currently unknown conditions make its discovery possible, and repeatable. For instance, we can tell by observation that a square has some points of maximum separation on its boundary (two points from each other), while a circle has many more points of maximum separation, even though a point is dimensionless.

Equivocation. Plus "elemental shape" is poetic, nothing to do with science or philosophy. With art, maybe.

[Eodnhoj7]

Consider that:

A circle is an elemental shape.
A square is an elemental shape.
The name square-circle suggests a compound of the two elements, like water is a compound of two elements.

Because compounds need not resemble their constituent elements, folks may be looking at square-circles all the time and have not yet labeled them as such.

However, because not all things are known (which is supported by all the new things being discovered), recognizable aspects of the constituent elements may be evident in the square-circle compound, once currently unknown conditions make its discovery possible, and repeatable. For instance, we can tell by observation that a square has some points of maximum separation on its boundary (two points from each other), while a circle has many more points of maximum separation, even though a point is dimensionless.

Equivocation. Plus "elemental shape" is poetic, nothing to do with science or philosophy. With art, maybe.

The scientific method is subject to the same fallacy of equivocation.

[TimeSeeker]

Einstein was not a scientist but a philosopher whose toy idea proved to be true by observation.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Can anybody provide a definition for "God" that does not recurse into a Null-pointer [1]? A signifier without a signified.

e.g God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. All three of those adjectives are null-pointers unless you can provide an example of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_pointer

From a meta-perspective, the Null-pointer itself is an object, i.e.
the "signifier without a signified" is signified by a signifier.

There is no way a thing-by-itself or object-by-itself can exists as real -Kant.
The ultimate thing-by-itself is claimed to be God.
Therefore there is no real God as a thing-by-itself or thing-in-itself.

God is a signified-idea which emerged from a very desperate psychological drive within humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are beating around the bush again
and introducing new perspective and contexts from the one I am asking from.

And one perspective or context does not branch into another? If your argument is correct under one perspective or context, but is proven wrong by another....is it still correct?



I would say your deflection to other context is a very stupid idea.

One context exists relative to another. Take for example a culture. It may exist as one specific framework of coexistence between people, but it invariably leads to other cultures which branch off from it and effectively subroute it over time. Rome and it's relation to the barbarians is another example of this. Once a barbarian culture itself, it became civilized and in turn formed other barbarian cultures (Gaul, Celts, Germanics) which effectively over-threw Rome eventually.



Say, you are 20 years old.
There is a gate with a sign "For Old People Only" [conventionally understood as above 65] to queue and avoid the long queue for example food stamps, rations, etc..
You will join the queue of older people because, to you are are also 'old' by your twisting thinking of defining yourself as 'old' and at the same time young.
You will expect other younger people to join you because they are also 'old.'

That is the issue, is it not..."convention"...a "framework"?

Actually me joining or not joining is conducive to the circumstances.

If I do not need food and the old people need food...why would I join? If I joined it would be immoral.

However if I do need food and the old people need food...and there is plenty of food for both old and young, then the framework itself is corrupt.

Now these are questions of morality, so to speak with morality effectively being premised on the nature of proportion. Is one morally qualified to over-route a system, which in itself, is unjust in these respects.

Considering the foundation of "Old" and "Young" is the measuring limit of these systems, in these respects, these foundations provide the foundation to the moral structures themselves and thereby are viewed accordingly.

There you go again.
Note the comments by others on your views.
I am not continuing till I read something that make sense to the intended point.

[TimeSeeker]

Can anybody provide a definition for "God" that does not recurse into a Null-pointer [1]? A signifier without a signified.

e.g God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. All three of those adjectives are null-pointers unless you can provide an example of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_pointer

From a meta-perspective, the Null-pointer itself is an object, i.e.
the "signifier without a signified" is signified by a signifier.

There is no way a thing-by-itself or object-by-itself can exists as real -Kant.
The ultimate thing-by-itself is claimed to be God.
Therefore there is no real God as a thing-by-itself or thing-in-itself.

God is a signified-idea which emerged from a very desperate psychological drive within humans.

Yes but the word “ultimate” is also a null-pointer. It is stored in a brain so it is as ‘real’ as a neuron. It takes up memory.

In software referencing a null-pointer results in an exception. It is a cul-de-sac!

Don’t care much about Kant’s perspective (or notions such as ‘real’ or ‘exists’). He didn’t have the tools/framework to tackle the ontology of metaphysics.

We do. Information theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

[SpheresOfBalance]

Of course. But what is the alternative? Either creation is the lawful involution of forces taking place within the ONE or creation is the chance evolution of nothing.
I wouldn't quite call the universe nothing. The universe is a marvelous thing, and I love being star dust. If in fact the universe created us, it's quite astounding that from the inanimate, can spring the animate. As far as we know, we are the pinnacle of it's physics, so far.

If people want to believe this modern explanation I've got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn they simply can't pass up.

Of course the universe now is something but without a creator it must have arose from nothing. It cannot always have been if the universe will end through entropy. How an orderly universal cycle can arise from nothing is clearly impossible. A conscious source is necessity. How can a kalpa be explained without a conscious source for these cycles?
Sure I can see people believing such things, based upon our current level of knowledge. But ignorance is not a solid foundation to finalize any line of thinking. People always seem to believe that our current level of knowledge is close to the end of that journey. But it's quite the opposite. That we have only been to the moon relative to the size of the universe is representative of our actual position along the quest for knowledge. We are infants my friend. It's far too soon to count your chicks.

Originally, a kalpa was considered to be 4,320,000 years. Buddhist scholars expanded it with a metaphor: rub a one-mile cube of rock once every hundred years with a piece of silk, until the rock is worn away — and a kalpa still hasn’t passed! During a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists, is destroyed, and a period of emptiness ensues. Then it all starts again.