• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why science must eventually reform

As an aside which i am sure you can turn aside with That Powerhouse of Intellect, the Brain that Doesn't Exist but is used by Lifegazer,

the fact that there is a subjective observation of the Universe, that may or may not exist, does that preclude an objective universe.

Does that mean that an objective universe can not exist?

Why or why not?

Please demolish my Simple Question, oh Being that is Not a Being but is a mere Reflection of What or What Might Not Be.
 
Dancing David said:
the fact that there is a subjective observation of the Universe, that may or may not exist, does that preclude an objective universe.
Click to expand...
A lot of different philosophers will have a lot of different answers to that question. However, science really doesn't care. It builds reliable, useful models of the Universe, as best it can, with no interest on whether it is dabbling in a subjective or objective Universe.

If you want such a distinction to become part of science, the first thing you will need is empirical evidence that such a distinction can be distinguished. Purely ontological arguments will not be accepted. Good luck with that!

Dancing David said:
Does that mean that an objective universe can not exist?

Why or why not?
Click to expand...

It is my humble opinion that the entire Universe is, in fact, a figment of my own deranged imagination. I can't prove that scientifically, of course, but it gives me comfort believing that all people who ask stupid questions do not really live in an objective Universe. ;)

Dancing David said:
Please demolish my Simple Question, oh Being that is Not a Being but is a mere Reflection of What or What Might Not Be.
Click to expand...
Consider it demolished when I say this: While you Beings Whom Might Not Be sit around complaining that you can't tell what's real or not, scientists are making progress helping everyone live longer, happier, and healthier lives. Who is the one really wasting mental resources here?


ETA: Oops, I forgot these were questions posed to Lifegazer. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Reality is a crutch for those who can't handle science fiction.
Cogito ergo sum.
Pineapple upside down cake or German chocolate?
 
Lifegazer is a crutch for those who can't handle rightside up cake.
 
So, if I understand you correctly your objection seems to be that science only deals with subjective reality, and not objective reality, which is absurd, of course, because the entire function of science is to understand objective reality. Yes, experience is colored by the agent doing the observing, but this is why we have things like double blinding and replication. If my view of reality and your view of reality don't mesh then we throw it all out. Science deals with the places where our experience overlaps: the sun is yellow, water refracts light, and so on.

Yes, my experiences of you experiencing the same phenomenon can be similarly clouded, as can our collective experience be clouded by our collective shortcomings. This is why science does not claim to know “The Truth” so to speak; it simply gains degrees of certainty. And rejecting all experience as a whole is an intellectual dead end. Something almost all philosophies can agree on.

And as mentioned by others, science has no stance on religion, and most of your other objections are equally juvinile, "Science supports athiesm and athiesm is wrong because it is selfish!"
 
CaptainManacles said:
And rejecting all experience as a whole is an intellectual dead end. Something almost all philosophies can agree on.
Click to expand...

The true philosophers (read a couple of PhDs actually currently publishing) that I have had the distinct pleasure of going for beers with, or discussing topics outside of class with, would probably agree (although I shouldn't speak for them). They weren't the types to sit around navel gazing, wondering whether their glass of beer really existed. They seemed concerned with genuine contemporary problems (for example, environmental ethics).

In fact, even in the classroom in a 'Nature of Material Reality' class no less, another philosophy prof taught from the position that we were actually discussing 'something.' It was never specified whether that something was a true objective reality, or an agreed upon set of common subjective experiences, but that distinction didn't seem to matter. What mattered was that we were studying 'something.'

- Science requires that we are studying 'something.'
- Good philosophers seem to accept that we are studying 'something,' and move on to actually study it
- the Bible (for goodness sake) established a 'something' for Christians!

Why can't people get it through their thick skulls that statements like,

Immediately render all theories which seek to explain the experienced being with 'something' that one can experience, as obsolete
Click to expand...

are intellectual garbage, accepted by very few (now I'll get in trouble with all the academics who actually do accept this :D )?

Wowbagger said:
Some of us can't help acting like jerks when someone seems to be rambling nonsense
Click to expand...

I apologize for acting like a jerk, but I had fun making arguments like:

2) agtrh;ilvn 5l3uivgn pvajpa8;nb n.;e5uy890ujh[bb mql2 ;4l3894uyhjnb; n

which is about as meaningful for starting a serious discussion about the current state of the universe as the statement I quoted above.
 
AH!! The oft-spoken of LifeGazer. Finally, I get to see what the hype was all about!!

lifegazer said:
Scientists are human too. They observe the universe through sense-based experience. They cannot escape their own experience of the universe.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you've missed the very important scientific principle of REPLICABILITY which seeks to ELIMINATE the subjective, personnal experience-based bias.
 
lifegazer said:
(1) Acknowledge that what is observed is the experienced-world of ordered sensations that yield the appearance of a world... as opposed to assuming that what is observed is a real world full of real energy/objects in real space-time, external to whatever it is that you are.
(2) Acknowledge that the ultimate cause of experience is whatever it is that you are (read what I said about basic philosophy differentiating between real-world & experienced-world.
(3) Acknowledge that, given the above, it is ludicrous to do advanced physics with the idea that the cause of specific phenomena should be "out there" amongst the experience that one is observing.
(4) Immediately render all theories which seek to explain the experienced being with 'something' that one can experience, as obsolete.
For example, the experience of the thing which we label "the brain" should not be researched as a potential source of experiences such as sensations; thoughts; feelings. Ultimately, no thing within experience causes any of that experience.
Similarly, all theories related to the cause of the experienced-world should revolve around whatever it is that you are. Hence, theories such as the big-bang theory are claptrap.
(5) Associate known physical laws such as Relativity and QM with The Self and the experienced-world, rather than with a real world. That way, confusions and incompatabilities fade away.
(6) Re-direction changes strategy. For example, less time (in fact, zero time)
and research and $$$ are wasted on useless research regarding a real world that we cannot even observe.
(7) Redirection gets science out of a cul-de-sac that it has been in for about 80 years. Relativity is understood within the context of the absolute-Self and experience being relative to it. QM makes sense once one relates the Self as the ultimate source of quantum energy.
(8) Atheism - which promotes selfishness since it promotes futility and purposelessness - dies amongst the intellectual since it no longer has science to use as a crutch.
(9) A SERIOUS metaphysical enquiry into the nature of whatever it is that you are ensues, since no-longer are people who talk about the Self as the ultimate source of all [experienced] creation, thought of as idiots.
(10) Truth quickly follows. Mankind reaches his zenith.
Click to expand...

This is just awesome, man. None of our OTHER trolls ever gave us so much nonsense per carriage return.

I tell you this - scientific-reform is required before mankind can move on - and I'm not talking about technological leaps. There is more here at-stake than you witch-hunters can even begin to understand.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. PLEASE tell me you can explain to me what that is!!
 
lifegazer said:
The fact is that we do not experience an absolute world. This in itself speaks volumes, for if we do not observe Newton's order then we cannot attribute that which we observe to anything other than that which we are.
Click to expand...

S'that a fact ?

Newton is at-odds with Einstein because they both speak of different worlds - the former a real-world and the latter a Self-generated world where every 'thing' moves relatively to the absolute Self. For heavens sake - 'light' is a sensation - a Self-generated experience. Is it any wonder that the relationship between 'light' and the Self is ~constant~?
Click to expand...

You... don't understand anything about relativity, do you ?

lifegazer said:
Science should be objective. To be objective - in this instance - initially requires acknowledging that what is observed is experienced.
Click to expand...

Those are one and the same!

As much as this hurts - it's just basic philosophy which will identify your world as an experience generated by sensations; thoughts; feelings. None of those three 'things' constitute, in themselves, real objects.
Click to expand...

Most of the universe is just inanimate matter. Why do you philosophers constantly try to give the human mind a special place ? There's like six billion of us on this tiny planet.

Science is supposed to be a serious and objective search regarding causality and order inherent within this experience.
Click to expand...

What did you say ? Bananas are supposed to be a sweet and tasty fruit regarding monkeys and food fights inherent within comedy movies ? Sounds just about as coherent to me.

This is difficult enough for the proud individual - such as yourself - and hence you can see the mountain which stands before science as an establishment of such proud and clever individuals.
Click to expand...

Typical creationist drivel. Pride. What does that have to do with anything ?

I myself have enough faith in the average intelligence of humanity to figure that it aint that hard to explain why sensations, yielding the impression of a world, are completely different to a real world in itself.
Click to expand...

You need to review that. I can't tell them apart, myself.
 
Wowbagger said:
A lot of different philosophers will have a lot of different answers to that question. However, science really doesn't care. It builds reliable, useful models of the Universe, as best it can, with no interest on whether it is dabbling in a subjective or objective Universe.

If you want such a distinction to become part of science, the first thing you will need is empirical evidence that such a distinction can be distinguished. Purely ontological arguments will not be accepted. Good luck with that!



It is my humble opinion that the entire Universe is, in fact, a figment of my own deranged imagination. I can't prove that scientifically, of course, but it gives me comfort believing that all people who ask stupid questions do not really live in an objective Universe. ;)


Consider it demolished when I say this: While you Beings Whom Might Not Be sit around complaining that you can't tell what's real or not, scientists are making progress helping everyone live longer, happier, and healthier lives. Who is the one really wasting mental resources here?


ETA: Oops, I forgot these were questions posed to Lifegazer. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Salright, as just Another Figment of the Grand Deciever's Hallucination, it does not effect me.
;)
 
Upchurch said:
Yeah, he has never really understood Relativity or what its foundations were. What can ya do?
Click to expand...
LG also has not understood that some of the things he is saying right now have already been said by science long, long, ago ...

Thank God we're safe to know science knows its place in the universe!

LG, please answer the following question. When Einstein says that this “truth” is limited, and we shall consider the extent of its limitation, what proposition precisely is he refering to? Your assertions here have us convinced that you don't know what you're talking about.

Relativity: The Special and General Theory
by Albert Einstein

I. Physical Meaning of Geometrical Propositions

The concept “true” does not tally with the assertions of pure geometry, because by the word “true” we are eventually in the habit of designating always the correspondence with a “real” object; geometry, however, is not concerned with the relation of the ideas involved in it to objects of experience, but only with the logical connection of these ideas among themselves.
…
Of course the conviction of the “truth” of geometrical propositions in this sense is founded exclusively on rather incomplete experience. For the present we shall assume the “truth” of the geometrical propositions, then at a later stage (in the general theory of relativity) we shall see that this “truth” is limited, and we shall consider the extent of its limitation.
Click to expand...
 
Belz... said:
This is just awesome, man. None of our OTHER trolls ever gave us so much nonsense per carriage return.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I don't think lifegazer is a troll. Most trolls burn out after about 200 posts. He is well into 4,000. He is more of a bugbear.
 
KingMerv00 said:
To be fair, I don't think lifegazer is a troll. Most trolls burn out after about 200 posts. He is well into 4,000. He is more of a bugbear.
Click to expand...
Well, it has been over two days since he retorted to any of the posts on this thread. If it continues in that direction, it would officially make him a troll.
 
FreeChile said:
Well, it has been over two days since he retorted to any of the posts on this thread. If it continues in that direction, it would officially make him a troll.
Click to expand...

You say that his lack of response makes him a troll. I say that his lack of response is a holy miracle from our Lord Jesus Christ.
 
So what!

LG also mention something about a miracle. I wonder how that's coming along?

I wonder if LG's realization of the "Truth" has improved his life any? Or is he still the unemployed, sans girlfriend, science reforming ubertroll that he was in the past? Or is that just my subjective perception of his subjectively percieved life?

Have you found a way to change your subjective perception of life so that you percieve your life in a better condition, or are you still locked within a subjective perception of a percieved objective universe that you cannot change by will alone but instead have to play by the rules percieved within that observed universe?

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.


It is pointless for science to make the reform because it makes no difference.

So what IF science is studying an internally perceved order? That percieved order "exists" because it is observed to exists and has an effect on you and your perception. It meets all the criteria to be "real" by any standard or perception. (by the way, what is your definition for "real" ?)
The order exists or manifests in perception and experiance whether we wish it to or not. We also all share and agree on those experiances. How can it NOT be real? Also, remember that science is based on what we can observe.

So again what is the difference? What do we gain by cowtowing to your "philosophy"? Does it add anything significant or relevant?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom