Why science must eventually reform

[UndercoverElephant]

Something has to actually have being before it even has the potential to die.

Experiences end... they don't die.

I said YOU are going to die, Darren.

 

[Wowbagger]

Something has to actually have being before it even has the potential to die.

Experiences end... they don't die.

Only Wowbagger never dies! Everyone else gets insulted.

 

[Wudang]

I thought you were going to show us all with your big thing you had planned to prove you are god?

Here, I'll quote you if your absolute memory is off, mr. absolute god:



source.


Now you told us:



source.


Which seems to suggest you would only return here if it is of important to us here.

What's so important that you're back now?

Or are you just trolling again?

Well this is the 7th time so I guess we can assume
1 - that lifegazers great experiment failed
2 - he's trying to pretend it never happened
which leads to 3 - he still is incapable of learning anything new.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I don't believe you. Consider me skeptical.

Therefore, many years ago, I might have been tempted to strip my clothes off and stand in the fast lane of I-395.

The problem is that I see skepticism for what it is.

Therefore, not only did I not stand naked before the eventual semi, I avoided all such.

Lets see if you report this post.

Sorry for the 2nd post but this is just driving me nuts. Dude, who exactly don't you believe? Lifegazer or Belz?...

I don't believe either of them.

Do you?

...If you don't believe Belz (who you are in fact replying to) then your post is incohrent because you are, IIUC, making his argument.

ETA: Oops, not Belz, fuelair.

You choose.

Who do you believe?

 

[lifegazer]

I said YOU are going to die, Darren.

Well unless you've changed your philosophy since last summer, you don't believe in the actual existence of anything, since - if I remember correctly - you believe that the essential essence and origin of everything, is Nothing. Correct? If so, then nothing dies because nothing lives.

Regardless, my philosophy is that One lives and never dies. Experiences such as the experience of Lg, can and do end, but as I said, the end of experience is not the end of Being.

Only those that believe in the actual existence of their experience can believe in the actuality of death. From what I gather, that includes neither of us, so your comment has no philosophical merit.

 

[Mojo]

Experiences such as the experience of Lg, can and do end, but as I said, the end of experience is not the end of Being.

Hang on. Wasn't your OP claiming that science must acknowledge that nothing exists other than as experience?

 

[wollery]

Oh man, I go away for two and a half weeks and miss all the good stuff.

Welcome back lifegazer, I've really missed the belly laughs that your inane ramblings provide. It's good to see that some things never change!

 

[lifegazer]

Hang on. Wasn't your OP claiming that science must acknowledge that nothing exists other than as experience?

Nope. My opening post deals with the fact that all things observed (through sensation), do not exist... except as an experience.

You cannot observe the observer.
Nowhere do I define that observer as 'nothing'.

In fact, this thread was primarily concerned with science, remember, so that I haven't even discussed the nature of the observer.

Let's call 'B' that world which is experienced and 'C' that world which we assume to be real in itself.

Science incorrectly treats the world as 'C'. Therefore, it's theories seek to find C's as the causal agents of other C's (C's are individual objects within reality and 'C' is that reality as a whole).

THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG, since what we observe is 'B' - as dinstinct from 'C'... and ultimately there can be ZERO B's that are the cause of ANY-THING observed within B as a whole.

This is the essential reason why science needs to reform.

 

[Belz...]

I don't believe either of them.

To be fair, you can ALWAYS believe Belz...


Not that he always knows what he's talking about.

 

[Wowbagger]

Well unless you've changed your philosophy since last summer, you don't believe in the actual existence of anything, since - if I remember correctly - you believe that the essential essence and origin of everything, is Nothing. Correct? If so, then nothing dies because nothing lives.

For what it's worth: Science does NOT believe the "essence and origin" of everything is nothing. The origin of everything we know starts with the Initial Condition (IC). Although the IC has yet to be measured usefully, it is NOT EQUAL TO NOTHING.

Nope. My opening post deals with the fact that all things observed (through sensation), do not exist... except as an experience.

You cannot observe the observer.
Nowhere do I define that observer as 'nothing'.

In fact, this thread was primarily concerned with science, remember, so that I haven't even discussed the nature of the observer.

Let's call 'B' that world which is experienced and 'C' that world which we assume to be real in itself.

Science incorrectly treats the world as 'C'. Therefore, it's theories seek to find C's as the causal agents of other C's (C's are individual objects within reality and 'C' is that reality as a whole).

THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG, since what we observe is 'B' - as dinstinct from 'C'... and ultimately there can be ZERO B's that are the cause of ANY-THING observed within B as a whole.

This is the essential reason why science needs to reform.

I commend you for your effort in keeping your arguments concise! Unless you are a coward, you should read why your call for reform is still wrong:

You INCORRECTLY assume science treats the world as 'C' (that which is real in itself). In actuality, science treats its theories as provisional models, based on cumulative experience. In other words, it ALREADY TREATS THE WORLD AS 'B' (that which is experienced)!! No sane scientist is going to believe they are on a path to Ultimate Reality or Ultimate Truth, or whatever you want to call it. Thus, no reform is necessary.

Well, that's good for starters. Technically, I will admit that what I just wrote is a tad inaccurate, though. It would be more accurate to say that science makes no distinction between 'B' and 'C', unless there is empirical evidence to support such a distinction. And, there isn't any, yet. Therefore, the whole basis of your issues with science is non-existent.
Science doesn't care what kind of "Universe" it is working with (real, unreal, experienced, alternative). It simply builds theories that work reliably in whatever form of existence we take.

ETA: Such issues of "reality" and "experience" are the domain of philosophy. They can not be the domain of science, because science can only build its models using the scientific method. No way of testing the difference, means no way of reforming science to do so.

If anyone disagrees with this, let me know.

 

[Belz...]

If anyone disagrees with this, let me know.

No, but I wonder HOW we could possibly gather evidence that B and C are non-equivalent...

 

[RandFan]

Who do you believe?

I believe that you are incoherent.

 

[lifegazer]

For what it's worth: Science does NOT believe the "essence and origin" of everything is nothing.

I was talking about Geoff's personal beliefs... although you often hear science-types saying things like "Quanta has the ability to pop into existence from nothing", or they talk about zero-point energy fields... and it's difficult to understand how they equate "zero points" with anything substantial within the physical context.

The origin of everything we know starts with the Initial Condition (IC). Although the IC has yet to be measured usefully, it is NOT EQUAL TO NOTHING.

Science cannot measure the "IC" because it was the beginning of universal time/space/motion/substance. Therefore, science cannot have an objective opinion on the 'matter'.

You INCORRECTLY assume science treats the world as 'C' (that which is real in itself). In actuality, science treats its theories as provisional models, based on cumulative experience. In other words, it ALREADY TREATS THE WORLD AS 'B' (that which is experienced)!! No sane scientist is going to believe they are on a path to Ultimate Reality or Ultimate Truth, or whatever you want to call it. Thus, no reform is necessary.

C'mon... you're living in denial. Science has always looked for causal-agents "out there" (in the real world), because science has never ever understood that the ultimate cause of the experienced world cannot be something that is actually experienced.

There is order within experience, but the origin of that order cannot - by logical default - be found within experience. I.e., experience cannot be the ultimate cause of experience.
So, as yet another example, science spends mucho $$$£££ looking for 'gravitons' "out there" as the causal-agent of the order/force which we label as 'gravity' between experienced objects amongst experienced space & time.

There comes a time when observation of experienced order takes you to the ultimate causality of that order. I think that the 20th century was that time... and I think that most of the theories regarding the origin of concepts such as human-experience (sensations; thoughts; feelings); forces of nature; and of the experienced universe itself, are evidence of the real-world bias exhibited by science... and are also evidence of why science needs to reform it's attitudes and, consequently, it's theories.

Science doesn't care what kind of "Universe" it is working with (real, unreal, experienced, alternative). It simply builds theories that work reliably in whatever form of existence we take.

Well, it's incorrect to say that it doesn't care. You see, the origin of experience has to be whatever it is that imposes experience upon itself, whereas the origin of a real universe has nothing to do with whatever it is that you are.
Clearly, theories regarding the origin of things within experience must be different to theories dealing with the origin of things within a real world.

You won't understand why reform is required until you understand this.

 

[lifegazer]

Oh man, I go away for two and a half weeks and miss all the good stuff.

Welcome back lifegazer, I've really missed the belly laughs that your inane ramblings provide. It's good to see that some things never change!

I hear you're an astronomer squire.
Why don't you explain to this forum why you have failed to understand that everything you observe with your fancy telescopes, resides no further than your own consciousness?

Those stars and galaxies you observe every night, reside within your own mind!
So, why don't you explain to this forum why theories & research regarding the origin of the thing which you are observing - the EXPERIENCED universe - are reflections of the thing that is being observed being thought of as real in itself?

C'mon... time to get serious. Time to stop inhibiting the expansion of true knowledge with BS theories about worlds we know nothing about.

 

[Mojo]

Nope. My opening post deals with the fact that all things observed (through sensation), do not exist... except as an experience.

You cannot observe the observer.

So you're a solipsist?

 

[RandFan]

Nope. My opening post deals with the fact that all things observed (through sensation), do not exist... except as an experience.

You cannot observe the observer.
Nowhere do I define that observer as 'nothing'.

In fact, this thread was primarily concerned with science, remember, so that I haven't even discussed the nature of the observer.

Let's call 'B' that world which is experienced and 'C' that world which we assume to be real in itself.

Science incorrectly treats the world as 'C'. Therefore, it's theories seek to find C's as the causal agents of other C's (C's are individual objects within reality and 'C' is that reality as a whole).

THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG, since what we observe is 'B' - as dinstinct from 'C'... and ultimately there can be ZERO B's that are the cause of ANY-THING observed within B as a whole.

This is the essential reason why science needs to reform.

But, again, this is fatally flawed.

1.) You agree that if you stand in front of a truck there will be an unavoidable cause and effect.
2.) This is all that science seeks to study.

Ergo, no need for reform.

Like it or not, real or not, we can't escape reality so our only choice is to accept it and deal with it. Oh, we can choose not to act as if we don't accept it but that is just a fantasy. We still go to work, we still eat, we still pass gas, we still feel pain, we still use the computer to post to the internet, etc., etc.

When you can post to the Internet without the aid of a computer then you come talk to us. Then you will have something of importance to say. Until then you are arguing against reality without any proof.

Life is that which when you choose to stop believing in it still exists.

There will be no revolution. There will be no reform. Reality, real or not is far greater than your words will ever be.

 

[lifegazer]

So you're a solipsist?

My understanding of that concept derives from a definition that only defines the self as existent.
Unfortunately, my understanding of that definition also seems to identify the self as the being that is experienced. So, for example, if I was a solipsist I would believe that only lifegazer exists.

... But this isn't my belief. 'Lifegazer' is an experience, not the observer of experience.
Therefore, due to my understanding of the definition, I cannot label myself as a solipsist.

 

[lifegazer]

But, again, this is fatally flawed.

1.) You agree that if you stand in front of a truck there will be an unavoidable cause and effect.

That's not what I said. I said that the experience of lifegazer will end via the experienced-truck.
... I was responding to a post that dealt with concept of 'death' as a reality.

2.) This is all that science seeks to study.

Maybe... but the bias of believing in the reality of the world that science studies, forces science to always attribute the order that is studied to some-thing within experience.
That's the point of this thread. The ultimate origin of the forces/order and 'things' that are experienced cannot be attributed to anything within experience.
... Only denial will prevent you from accepting that science seeks to attribute all causality to things observed within experience.

Ergo, no need for reform.

Your own mind needs to reform before you will see the reforms required by science.

Like it or not, real or not, we can't escape reality so our only choice is to accept it and deal with it. Oh, we can choose not to act as if we don't accept it but that is just a fantasy. We still go to work, we still eat, we still pass gas, we still feel pain, we still use the computer to post to the internet, etc., etc.

Irrelevant. The history of humanity mirrors beliefs in the reality of the world and of other beings.

When you can post to the Internet without the aid of a computer then you come talk to us.

You're simply trying to reduce the rationale I have presented of the ordered experienced world to a demand for "a miracle".
Same 'ol same ol'.

 

[RandFan]

That's not what I said. I said that the experience of lifegazer will end via the experienced-truck.
... I was responding to a post that dealt with concept of 'death' as a reality.

But you accept that consequences do not change regardless of belief, right.

Maybe... but the bias of believing in the reality of the world that science studies, forces science to always attribute the order that is studied to some-thing within experience.

So? How would science respond any differently? The cause and effect are still the same. You are still using the computer to post your messages. You still go to work or must rely on some means to survive. You still act as if the world is real.

Question: If you act as if the world is real then why should science not act in the same manner.

That's the point of this thread. The ultimate origin of the forces/order and 'things' that are experienced cannot be attributed to anything within experience.

Again, it doesn't mater. It doesn't change the outcome of our experiences. It doesn't change the way we react with what we perceive is reality whether it is real or not.

... Only denial will prevent you from accepting that science seeks to attribute all causality to things observed within experience.

But acceptance is not really an option. You can pretend that you don't accept reality but you still eat your food. You still continue to use the computer.

Your own mind needs to reform before you will see the reforms required by science.

?

Have you reformed? Are you still using the computer? The car? Do you still eat food? Science can't act differently than you are. It must accept reality because if it doesn't there is nothing for it to do just as if you truly rejected reality there would be little for you to do but waste away. But you don't do that. You continue to act as if the world is real just like the rest of us. I know this because I can read what you write posted on an Internet forum invented by some scientist who believed that reality was just as he perceived it. You confirm his perception every time you use his invention. And you confirm all of the other scientists when you use their inventions. When you go to the doctor, ride in a plane, watch TV, talk on the phone, etc., you confirm reality every day even though you don't believe in it.

Irrelevant. The history of humanity mirrors beliefs in the reality of the world and of other beings.

Wrong, the history of humanity testifies to reality.

You're simply trying to reduce the rationale I have presented of the ordered experienced world to a demand for "a miracle".
Same 'ol same ol'.

No, I'm demonstrating the futility of your philosophy. Since you continue to use the computer you continue to affirm our belief that reality is exactly as it seems. It's that simple. You can talk about miracles all day but when you get tired you will still lay down on a bed and sleep. It might not be real but you act as though it is. That is all I am saying. When YOU stop acting as though it is real then I will believe that you believe that reality isn't real. Until then it is just words.

 

[lifegazer]

The demand for a miracle as a response to my rationale, is a naive & desperate response.
To evade the distinction between experience and reality, is also a naive & desperate response.
To simply mock me without rational consideration of my thoughts, is the worst of all desperate measures.

The time is coming when what you are reading will be understood by all establishments. Why? Because it's the truth: experience & reality are different 'things'.
... Maybe not in your time - who knows - but that will not exonerate your actions. And future generations will squirm when they remember you, as we do when we ponder The Inquisition, for example.
Sobeit.

I wouldn't mind if the world as-it-is-now required no reform. But it does.
But then again, human action can be reduced to what is required for sustaining the existence of the experience that is held dear by the individual - as is experienced.