Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About PrimalMinister

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Occupation
    Professor Of Martial Arts

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I will leave this for prosperity, from: If you don't agree with someone, don't attack them. Tell them politely why you think they're wrong, and give them evidence. Insulting people won't get you anywhere but suspended. Now the word hypocrital is defined as: "behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case." That perfectly describes the admins on here.
  2. There is evidence as I have tried to dicuss before, the main evidence being the fact it self evidently explains itself, that it does not need supporting evidence, even though there is supporting evidence for it, the whole of reality is evidence of it. My complaint is that you are critising it before you even understand it making your critisms pretty pointless because they seem to miss the point I am making. I am a self critical person and always question myself and in the post I refered to in the beginning I didnt particulary make things clear, but I thought you would somehow want to unde
  3. Ok, as I understand it the letter of the law (the rules I am violating) come from the spirit of the law. If one follows the spirit of the law the letter becomes pointless, its only for people who are not following the spirit. The title of the post is 'The Spirit of Science Forums', so please tell me what the spirit of these forums are?
  4. Look admins, why do you think I come here? In my thread titled the spirit of science someone suggested going through previous posts and pointing things out to make my case. I have read through this one : Everybodies approach is the same, to jump in and start critising things before actually understanding them. There are small comments aimed at me like implying I am just making things up. This is prejudice, you are making judgements without first considering my case, I am expecting you to ask questions about it and understand it before you start critising it, otherwise your crit
  5. Maybe you feel that way, I do think people are judging me and not the ideas I am putting forward. Do you want to dicuss this privately so we can we use this thread to talk about science?
  6. I have had some very interesting interactions on this site and I dont believe they are in the spirit of science. I have a framework for a theory of everything however discussion of this is not allowed. The reason it is not allowed is because the admins are too busy judging me and not what I am presenting. For example, no one has ever said 'oh yes, that explains why reality is mathematical' or 'actually, that doesnt explain why reality is mathematical'. There is no discussion about what I am presenting it is rather dismissed because an admin simply doesnt believe there is a theory of every
  7. Ok, well the implications of the my theory is that is the universe has a remarkably simple, highly sophisticated, incredibly beautiful design that is not only a marvel of engineering but is also a profound, sublime work of art. And as 'good' as the big bang theory is it does not explain 'why' reality is mathematical, it just takes it for granted. It is understood that there are laws but the origin and ubiquity of them is a complete mystery, again something taken for granted. If the universe is indeed composed entirely of units of polymorphic spacetime then that would explain 'why' re
  8. Well scientists give me the impression from their philosophy that the universe, incredible as it is, is just a meaningless cosmic accident and any appearance of design is just a delusion of our primitive human mind. Now I have tried to discuss how the universe and reality (the universe and reality are not the same thing, they are two distinct entities) can be reduced to a unit of polymorphic spacetime but instead of creating a warm and inviting enviroment in which to nuture a serious discussion you have basically attacked me. I will be honest with you, the big bang just doesnt make an sen
  9. Ok, but its not wrong to say that intelligence has always existed as potential at least.
  10. So the pile of bricks that has the potential to become a house only has two possible outcomes, they become a house or they dont, they manfest as a house or they dont, regardless of what actually happens the potential is still there whether it is realised or not. Its like being at a cross roads, you have the potential to go down any path, the potential exists there in front of you.
  11. In this video, Richard Dawkins, a leading light in biology says one should remain humble and open minded. However, actions speak louder than words and despite preaching humilty and openess he is in fact arrogant and close minded. This is a serious problem amongst scientists, it hubris. Some of the people on this forum are suffering from the same thing. Please explain to me how potential does not exist prior to manfesting is some form or another. Something cannot come into being if it does not have the potential to do so, leaving the only other option, that something must exist as potential
  12. Ok, I am not understanding this critical point. You seem to be saying to me, or this is what I am hearing, that things that dont have the potential to come into being CAN come into being? How does that work? From the dictionary, the authority on the meaning of words and the basis of my understanding, we could define potential as: latent qualities Latent is defined as: existing but not yet manifest So if potential is latent it exists prior to its existance.
  13. I am not resistance to reasoning, its just that yours is unclear to me so I am trying to clarify it. For instance, the statement: Nothing exists as potential. Is ambigious and can be interpreted in two ways: 1. Nothing (can posssibly) exist as potential. 2. Nothing (does in fact) exist as potential. So before we start arguing about stuff, lets start with what we agree on.
  14. I wasnt arguing with you, I was trying to understand your perspective, so the idea that I was throwing up a strawman is a nonsense result of your zealotry. Again, I am not trying to argue with you. If you think this is an argument it is not, its really funny how the western mind breaks things downs into different things and argue about them. The western mind seems to be oblivious to the more subtle side of reality, the sublime side, is because it is too subliminal?
  15. The dictionary definitions we could use to describe pure is: without any extraneous and unnecessary elements. or maybe involving or containing nothing else but
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.