• 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

uruk said:
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?
Click to expand...

You think it has it ever occurred to lifegazer that he is talking to his persception of us and not the reality? Does he realize it doesn't make any difference?
 
I think lifegazer grossly misunderstands Einstein if s/he thinks that relativity says that one's own personal viewpoint is the absolute determiner of physics. I'm pretty sure Einstein said that no viewpoint is absolute, that the math all works the same no matter what viewpoint you pick and that "viewpoint" doesn't have to be a concious entity at all. It's just a referrent to work the math off of. It's just weird, hardly inconsistant.

Wait until lifegazer reads some stuff about quantum mechanics though...
 
Belz... said:
This is just awesome, man. None of our OTHER trolls ever gave us so much nonsense per carriage return.
Click to expand...

Did you miss out on Franko? He could fill R&P with his topics in a matter of hours.
 
So...

are they called trolls because they're trolling for responses...

... or because they are dumb and resilient to attack? :D
 
Or maybe because when the big billy goat gruff comes along, they learn from experience and remain hidden under the bridge...

Hmm I was hoping that would be more of an apt metaphor...
 
Dark Jaguar said:
I think lifegazer grossly misunderstands Einstein if s/he thinks that relativity says that one's own personal viewpoint is the absolute determiner of physics. I'm pretty sure Einstein said that no viewpoint is absolute, that the math all works the same no matter what viewpoint you pick and that "viewpoint" doesn't have to be a concious entity at all. It's just a referrent to work the math off of. It's just weird, hardly inconsistant.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of what Einstein says... I'm aware of the physicists' viewpoint (the scientific viewpoint).
... This is the point I have been trying to make throughout this thread - that scientific theories are moulded around the idea that the universe is real. Let me try to explain:-

Einstein moulded his theory around the idea that only the speed-of-light is absolute. Space & time (or spacetime, if you like) are relative to the observer, so that any two individuals do have unique perspectives of the space; time; or spacetime, of this singular universe. In fact, it's practically impossible for any two observers to have absolutely-identical experiences of the space & time existing in this universe. However, because differences-of-experience upon the Earth regarding spacetime values are almost immeasurable, Relativity is practically irrelevant to humanity as a whole regarding common-experience. It's only when we experience extreme velocities or gravitational-pulls much different to the norm, that Einstein's thoughts become significant with regards experience differential.

... But the point is, that with a "real world" in mind and also the relative experience of space-time between each individual, Einstein (physics... science) had no choice other than to attribute a special property to 'light', since there was nothing else "out there" that he/they could attribute this weirdness to. Hence, 'light' was deemed special and attributed with 'absoluteness'.
... Mathematically, nothing was wrong with this proclamation. After all, all humans would experience light travelling through any particular medium with a velocity consistent to all.
... However, rationally (philosophically/logically), Einstein (physics/science) had screwed-up the conclusions to the observations (experience) and the math. Why? Because...

... Because light has no substance within experience. Neither does space; time; (or 'spacetime'). As I said earlier in the thread, reality and experience are distinct & separate. This includes the experience of 'light'.
We experience light amongst our experience of space and amongst our experience of time.
...Therefore, if the experience of space and the experience of time (or, the experience of spacetime) is relative (and therefore 'unique' to each individual with comparison to all others), then the only conclusion one can come to is that it is GIVEN!! to the individual to EXPERIENCE the velocity of light at a specific value ('c'), regardless of his/her individual experience of space & time (spacetime).

Read that last paragraph very clearly please. It takes away all special properties one attributes to light when comprehending Einstein's theories with regards to a real world, and re-attributes any ~specialness~ to the giver of the experience of light. Yet, the math remain the same.

... In a nutshell, Einstein discovered relativity and provided the correct math, but attributed ~specialness~ to something that did not deserve it:- in this case, the experience of light.
He did this because he thought he was observing real light... but he wasn't... and he never could.

Hence, Einstein's theory of Relativity is a classic example of how assuming that the world is real can (and has done), screw-up science.

Science needs to abandon pre-conceived ideas of reality because such conceptions are corrupting the conclusions!!!
The same thing has happened with quantum-mechanics.
 
Last edited:
You've not seen the big picture.

... If the world is an individual experience and all experiences are relative (i.e. 'different') to other experiences, then your math pertaining to the order of your experience may be correct, but your conclusions cannot be if you relate those math to a real (absolute) world.
Einstein's relativity theories were such a clear window to the fact that this world is an EXPERIENCE (as opposed to 'reality'), yet [ignorant] bias corrupted the conclusions to his math to such an extent that he (and science as a whole) gave special properties to the experience of 'light'.

I tell you know, that the experience of light has no specialness. Only the ~Giver~ of the experience of light can justifiably receive such accolade.
 
lifegazer said:
... In a nutshell, (ed. an appropriate receptical) Einstein discovered relativity and provided the correct math, but attributed ~specialness~ to something that did not deserve it:- in this case, the experience of light.
He did this because he thought he was observing real light... but he wasn't... and he never could.
Click to expand...
So you therefore use Einstein to support your views when it seems convenient (even though your interpretation of his works would probably make him vomit) but as soon as you can't find a way to twist his words to fit your woorldview (misspelling intended), you decide he had it wrong.

You are one arrogant son-of-a-B, lifegazer.
 
Tricky said:
So you therefore use Einstein to support your views when it seems convenient
Click to expand...
There's only one thing wrong with Einstein's theory - and that's the ultimate accolade he attributes to the experience of light - being some sort of 'absolute' substance in itself.
(even though your interpretation of his works would probably make him vomit)
Click to expand...
He was wrong about one thing. The rest of his work was brilliant. Yet he was a scientist and not a philosopher - he never knew that his observations/math related to experience alone. How could he, given the time that he lived? I mean, most of you are still caught in a trap that he was in a hundred years ago, yet he - unlike you - did not have it all explained to him.
You are one arrogant son-of-a-B, lifegazer.
Click to expand...
That's what many people called Einstein, for having the audacity to challenge Newtonian ideas.
An arrogant man is a man who thinks that 'he' is important. What you don't understand about my philosophy, is that it reduces lifegazer's importance to absolutely nothing.
I want nothing from any man, least of all recognition for a truth that is God's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom