Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 13981 - 14000 of total 22729 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
WBraun

climber
Mar 29, 2013 - 09:23am PT
Jan -- "If we were really exploring the unknown here, wouldn't we want to look at the less familiar?"

The less that is familiar the more these so called "scientist" would freak out and claim bullsh!t.

They're very rigid in their consciousness and their experience.

They're fixed up and rigidly connected to their machines.

You have to be very simple with them other wise they become easily offended due to standing on such rigid ground.

Their rigid foundations are continually cracking.

A foundation has to be solid and still flexible to compensate for changes.

Scientism is very strong and very inflexible and heavily rooted in this day age due to so many cheaters.

Thus they feel safe in gross materialism.

But when one actually observes the foundation of gross materialism they are very insecure ......
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 29, 2013 - 09:25am PT
We have to keep working on this. We can call it the Hartouni if you like. I dont need to see all the holds to see which way the line goes.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Mar 29, 2013 - 09:46am PT
Ed

When I found the article some years ago, Big Bang started to make sense to me in all it’s complexity . The article was written in a quite easy to understand popular-scientific way that I was able to get. And I liked the scientific attitude at the ending: "The great obstacle to discovering the shape of the Earth, the continents and the oceans was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments and contradictory witnesses." Acceptance of the current myth, if myth it is, could likewise hold up progress in cosmology for generations to come."

When I posted the article, it was because I did not know better. I did not know where observation and experiments/scientific discoveries had taken us the last 10 years. I appreciate hearing that many of the former problems has disappeared as scientific progress has taken place.

My question to you: Which problems within Big Bang theory are not yet solved and supported by evidence from experiments or observations. Please try to answer my question in a short and popular-scientific way that even I, if not WBraun, can understand.
WBraun

climber
Mar 29, 2013 - 10:21am PT
I understand completely your big bang theory.

It's missing vital information and is not completely correct along with evolution.

Both are only partially correct.

But you can have faith and believe for yourself that what you are observing and what you have acquired with your limited material senses is all there is.

There is far more than just the inferior external material energy that you have just discovered that has been known since day one .......

BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 29, 2013 - 10:27am PT
go-B, WOW INDEED!

Tremendous job! That is deffinetly your best and most important post ever!

i understand and believe ever word you've written to-B THE TRUTH.

i wish i could measure the Comfort and Peace those words brought to my Spirit,
while i was sitting here anxiously trying to make heads or tails of my bills.

Peace to you on this Good Friday! and i hope that you and your family have a Joyful Easter!!



Edit: I'd like to pray for my catholic friends that they would find understanding in the torn curtain..
MH2

climber
Mar 29, 2013 - 10:31am PT
It is good when a person answers their own question.



JL was asking about cause and effect:

if probable conclusions could be drawn from antecedent factors


And followed up with an example:

Anytime I'm active on this thread it's because work is boring me or is real hard and I need constant breaks.



;>)




As for Jan's mention that we have ignored her descriptions of experiences had during meditation, or jogill's dream visions, or Tom Cochrane, or Tripl7, or other such strange accounts, I don't think that is the case. I know I've made references to them and to accounts of similar experiences, but I prefer to just respectfully accept descriptions of unusual events. What kind of further discussion would be helpful?
rrider

climber
Mckinleyville, Ca
Mar 29, 2013 - 10:43am PT
I know everyone is just having fun thinking here (smiles). This is a cool place for people who have the luxury or the discipline (the “art”?). Here’s a “blue collar” perspective; inclined towards empirical-based, applied problem-solving and whining; no esoteric words here. Implied facts and no proofs.

If you think that we are not accelerating our world into an universal auto-immune dystopia, then pardon me. I just see that there is a lot of work to do, and nobody can agree on what the problem is, or what to do about it.

This thread is an analogy of our problem of how to unite humankind enough to where we all work on the same team and believe in a common destiny. We want to evolve; we’re close, but the clock is running out on this present game in our story. All our technology and philosophy reminds me of Mickey Mouse as the Sorcerer’s Apprentice. We’re damn smart, but our good magic is relatively weak or short-lived; and the most powerful applications are too easily turned against us, or escape our control.

Is wisdom actually an illusion? Why is it that we desire wisdom, and try to cultivate it in our virtual garden, but it constantly gets trampled, overgrown by weeds, and chronically neglected. (?) What we see as “wisdom” might only be tiny components of an unknowably huge fractal chaos.

Who thinks (or believes, if you will) that humans will be able to consciously affect and control our growth on this planet so that our species can be sustained in its present form as a (somewhat-) freedom-oriented society?

Will we forever be trying to develop a perfect democracy, only to keep having it morphed into some new form of rule by a small selfish group?

All of our human skills / abilities / disciplines are cross-training like mad, as never before. Most heavy-achieving power groups (politics, military, churches, corporations) employ scientific method and incredible computerized augmentation, all the latest scientific research and technology; in order to remain successful controlling engines, responsible to none but themselves.

Will we continue to seek knowledge yet never be able to use it towards becoming a cohesive, efficient, self-controlled, and self-governing global society of “natural people”?

There’s no answer of course. Only mystery. Now go out and have a nice day.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 29, 2013 - 11:26am PT
Welcome to the freak show, RR.

Good post.
go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
Mar 29, 2013 - 12:17pm PT
Jesus told the parable of the sower in Mark 4, which tells us how our seed grows is what we become!

He said “My kingdom is not of this world. in John 18

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1

Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.” John 6

Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work. John 4

But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4

And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. Philippians 1

...where the shoe smear's the edge!
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 29, 2013 - 12:21pm PT
General Presumido,

I have read every one of your posts. It isn't that I don't understand them any less than the rest of us. I decided to refuse to enter your framed debate a while back. That is why you are no longer getting through to me. I still read them, just in case.

You have trolled us from the beginning.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 29, 2013 - 01:25pm PT
what causes the collision between the rock and my head?



Come on, Ed, you've dodged the question by asking another question.

I stated earlier that all of my prying about causation does not reflect my understanding, but is merely an inquiry. A true "cause" might never by nailed by as real or even possible in a zero-balance universe. Nevertheless, any experiment or scientific inquiry will involve a physical subject or thing that is undergoing a process or transformation, or maybe you are simply waiting around for something to decay. But there is a change somewhere, a before and after, and whether there be an exchange of info or a rock impacting Marlow's head, there also is an identifiable sequential progression. Ice thaws. A rock falls. A rock whistles through the air. A rock hit's Marlow's Norwegian bean.

Here, in this simple sequence in space and time, we will never see a progression where the rock is falling before the ice holding it in place has melted, or that the rock hits Marlow's bean before it whistled through the air and caught some speed. Such ideas are preposterous. Ther is a linear sequential connection between the rock whistling through the air and hitting Marlow's head.

In other cases, like the Kreb cycle, between Oxaloacetate acid and Ketoglyceric acid there is a loss of 2 carbon atoms (if I remember correctly, and I might not). This does not happen between Succinate and Fumarate, so there is a sequence. That doesn't imply a cause, only a connectedness in time and space between two acids in the Kreb cycle.

Now if there are instances where things happen in such a process, in any sequence, that are not connected to prior events or things, what does that tell us? A random or chaotic element entering the game is simply something that entered the stream from side, and if studied, it would itself be connected to prior states of informational vectors in it's own stream.

If there is an exception to this connectivity, if in any physical process or thing or force or eventuality, something arises out of nothing at all,
disconnected to any prior thing or event, what does that tell us about reality?

Lastly, back to the question never yet answered, when Ed uses the term "determined," what dose he mean? What is determined, and by what? What, exactly, is the relationship between the connectivity just mentioned, and what is determined, and by what means?

Unless these questions get answered honestly, with no slithering, we can't plow forward to the next stuff.

JL
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 29, 2013 - 01:25pm PT
Scientism is very strong and very inflexible and heavily rooted in this day age due to so many cheaters.

This is a very unfortunate perception. As for cheaters, science absolutely relishes exposing them. If you fake your results in an experiment, then it won't be repeatable, then questions start getting asked. In the earlier days, it was more common for this type of skullduggery to happen. These days, with so much study in every conceivable topic, it usually gets shot down. To this day, fancy experiments fail to give expected results, and a person may spend years getting funding to test a hypothesis that works "on paper."

Thou shalt not fake lab results or cherry picking data are the first and second commandments of the critical method. It works with all kinds of arguments, even this one.

All new revolutionary science has to be examined carefully and be revised and tossed if it isn't sound. Werner, one of my paleontology professors did nothing but tear bad papers to shreds. Nothing new. He just tore bad science to shreds. So yes, bad science does happen, but its lifespan is usually not very long.

And time marches on with El Presumido locked in Plato's cave.
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 29, 2013 - 01:42pm PT
OK suit yourself. I won't call it the hartouni particle then.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 29, 2013 - 01:48pm PT
Determined means "caused by."

You can examine that rock which is going to fall. That is not luck.

If you stretch determinism to its nth degree, it will fail in most non linear processes. It becomes probabilities that are statistically sound. You can't predict the path of every water molecule in turbulent flow, but you can use statistics to help you narrow down the path.

You can also misuse the term and imply that everything is physically pre-determined out to infinity, but systems with many variables, such as turbulent flow (which I have studied) or weather (which I am a good armchair enthusiast), you can see that these systems are chaotic and can't be projected forward or backwards other than in a statistical sense. You can't take today's weather, run it backwards in a supercomputer, and get an accurate result.

In those cases you are better served by probability which comes from statistics. It gets cold in the winter in N Dakota is an easy one.

Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 29, 2013 - 02:04pm PT
To get back onto a little firmer ground, I need to ask you a question John.

When you and individual X are exposed to the same stimuli how do you quantify and show that the two of you had exactly the same experience?


Lunch break. I'll take a shot at this.

I approach this a little different because my training is based on a few fundamental/universal truths, one of which concerns the utter impermanence of all things, states, feelings, thoughts, experiences, and so forth. They all just come and go, like clouds through the sky.

So the content or qualia or experiences within the subjective bubble, whether they be objectifications and numerical evaluations served up to me by my discursive mind, or feelings, or memories, or aromas, or fill in the blank - these are all ephemera, and therefore can never be the focus of subjective inquiry because like us, thy all are born in time and die the same way.

That means that a kind of mechanical evaluation based on the idea that my experience is the result of either internal or external stimulai, is not essential to understanding mind, and is in fact a distraction. That is why the focus or non-focus (open focus) of eyes open meditation is to move neither towards or away from the flow of experiences, and to merely watch them arise and fall away. If you are interested in seeing how virtually all of your ideas are sourced by stimulai - at the ground level by body sensations - you go the route of Vapassana or "insight" meditation, and see it for yourself. Some never see it. Others see it rather quickly.

But returning to the question, because one's experience is so colored by our conditioning, it seems unlikely that two people's experience or thoughts will ever be selfsame even with the exact same stimulai. That's a virtual certainty. Ask any cop who debriefs witnesses of crimes. People who saw the very same event will provide vastly different versions, all certain they are correct.

The mistake here is that given all of this, the impermanence and volibility, a shallow view will consider the subjective realm as unreliable. This is a mistake because you have not yet accepted that different approaches are required for subjective and objective adventures. Objective observations are all about quantifying the physical content of our senses, believing that the content of our senses is "reality" owing to our numbers and predictions. This never works as advertised in the subjective realm. Rather than spin on content, or discrete things within mind, you settle into the unborn vastness in which experience arises. All the other stuff just comes and goes, and in many traditions is considered, metaphorically, as so many dreams, and entirely unreal.

JL
jstan

climber
Mar 29, 2013 - 03:03pm PT
Objective observations are all about quantifying the physical content of our senses, believing that the content of our senses is "reality" owing to our numbers and predictions. This never works as advertised in the subjective realm.

Good.
This says what I have expressed many times. Something goes on in the environment around us and perhaps we happen to have an "experience". Humans act as a "black box". Were we to be stimulated by an external event the black box does not permit the experience that is undergone to be predicted based upon the properties of the event.

Indeed this black box also allows "experiences" when there has been no event external to the organism. And in those cases where the organism undertakes actions entirely unlike those undertaken by peers, we say the organism is "mad".

So I now have to ask. Do you think there is an environment/places/things that exist outside of 'experience'? Or is "experience" the only thing?
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Mar 29, 2013 - 06:47pm PT
I approach this a little different because my training is based on a few fundamental/universal truths, one of which concerns the utter impermanence of all things, states, feelings, thoughts, experiences, and so forth. They all just come and go, like clouds through the sky.
All things?
How about memories?
If memories are transient, your loved ones will be strangers in any afterlife.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 29, 2013 - 06:49pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 29, 2013 - 07:02pm PT
we define the collision when these four conditions are met:

xR(tR)=xE(tE)
yR(tR)=yE(tE)
zR(tR)=zE(tE)
tR=tE
-


Question, Ed. In what manner are the above conditions related to one another in space and time? Or are you saying there is no relationship there, no connectedness, influence or exchange between things and events as the rocks speeds towards Marlow's brainpan.

What's more, this from my friend, if your four conditions are met, how does the term "determined" apply to the (sequence of) conditions as they are met through time?

I'm not fishing around for a "cause," Ed. I never have been. Remember, I'm the one who is always preaching about the "unborn," or the uncaused. I think you're dodging the questions believing I'm going to smuggle in a "God" cause somewhere. Not so - just so you know.

JL
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 29, 2013 - 07:09pm PT
Malamute wrote: How about memories? If memories are transient, your loved ones will be strangers in any afterlife.


Does this alarm you?

Some would say that a slipstream lingers, like perfume on a pillow.

In my tradition they'd tell you that the idea of any of us having a
permanent "I" was itself an illusion. "We" never existed in anything but a mutable form.

But there is the "unborn" which is our true nature. Aka, emptiness. Proceed at your own risk.

JL
Messages 13981 - 14000 of total 22729 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews