Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About cladking

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I believe this "problem" disappears when the existence of reality is axiomatic.
  2. While the peers have not even seen the data it is apparent that the powers that be are investigating the void discovered 160' south of the NE corner of the Great Pyramid. In the center right of this picture (click twice on the picture and scroll to center) can be seen what is most probably an endoscope guide they used to discover the void they never publicly admitted was causing the heat anomaly and which led to the proposal to insert a drone balloon. One of the Egyptologists even announced there was a natural fissure in live rock behind here yet no such observation can be made exterior to the pyramid. So there is a stalemate where even peers aren't allowed the data. I suppose next we'll have loyalty oaths and non-disclosure agreements. Peerhood will be stripped from those who dare to cite facts and evidence. These are dangerous times largely because of the perpetuation of "scientific" beliefs that date to the 19th century. The only way to fix "peer review" is to eliminate it. If anyone wants to know whether some scientist is real in the eyes of his peers then he can just google it. Or the same conferences and meeting can be used to rate the peers instead of their studies or experiments. Obviously experts in every field are the individuals we need to seek for opinions about interpretation of experiment, experiment quality, and the meaning of experiment. I would propose that peer review be scrapped and a new step added; "Metaphysical Implications".
  3. The problems with "peer review" are even more obvious in current day Egyptology. They claim to be science despite their lack of systematic application of modern knowledge and science to the study of pyramids. They normally just refuse testing and have even chided scientists in the last couple of years for proposing testing (one offered to fly a balloon drone into the pyramid to see what lay beyond). Across the board there is testing and measurements they refuse to gather. Believe it or not strategraphic archaeology nor forensic testing has ever been performed in any pyramid! But now there is a far worse problem that shows the utter failure of peer review and this applies to every discipline. Infrared data was finally gathered starting in October of 2015 and this information has NEVER been supplied to peers. They are withholding from the public because it apparently does not agree with what Egyptologists believe (the powers that be have said no data that disagree with the paradigm will ever be released). There is no mechanism for distributing it to peers so their review of the data is impossible. If they did distribute the data to all the Egyptologists whom they could identify, the information would almost immediately hit the internet. "Peer review" is an irrelevancy. Reality is seen principally in experiment and the opinion of fools and scholars alike has no effect on experiment and no causation of reality. This is likely the cause of the failure in education and the cause of soup of the day science which is training the general public to ignore sound and flaky science as well. We are rushing headlong into a dangerous future where the roadsigns are determined not by the road ahead but by peers describing the road behind. We are in serious trouble but it is not well seen.
  4. Probably. But I don't have a clue to what other method might word to provide an answer consistent with reality (or laws of nature if you prefer).
  5. I believe the philosophical question is how you can ask such a question. I believe the answer to the question is that you can't prove it any more than you can prove there is, was, always has been, or will be a conscious Creator of all things. I believe there are only two options for answering the question; first you can establish definitions and protocols to define a logical means to study your environment which factors out beliefs and perspectives. Or second you can take your existence and the existence of all things that are apparent as being axiomatic pending establishment through theory derived from observation and logic. I believe the first option is what we call "science" and the second is the way animals thrive, live, and progress.
  6. We don't even know what consciousness is and the simplest brains are orders of magnitude more complex than a computer or the internet. Nevermind we can't really even define intelligence either, how are we going to create AI? It would be about akin to teaching a stone to fly. If we ever have machine intelligence there will be nothing "artificial" about it.
  7. ...And it would have been more restrictive to have said "no" to a first cookie and a second cookie.
  8. Well, ya' could start inventing a cardinal mathematics where the first of six oranges and the second of six oranges ... and the 6th of 6 oranges plus the first of six apples ... and the sixth of six apples equals(?) 12 servings of fruit. The world is complex but mathematics only needs to be logical so long as we remember while we apply it to the real world. "Proper" mathematics can be as complex as the real world.
  9. Philosophy Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom")[1][2][3][4] is the study of general and fundamental concerns such as existence, knowledge, matter, values, reason, mind, and language.[5][6] We model the real world in abstractions and call it "philosophy" or "epistemology" but it's still the real world. If philosophy were not representative of reality it would have no value. Additionally, philosophy underpins our beliefs and understanding of reality. Whether we see 4 + 8 = 6 + 6 as true or not is fundamental to both the questions posed here and philosophy.
  10. "I glad to see that some have now caught my drift that just because 6+6 has the same sum as 8+4 it does not mean that 6+6 is the same as 8+4. Unfortunately some are offering this type of reasoning as a valid argument." People here almost invariably miss my point so much that they believe I'm not even on topic! What you're getting toward here is an entirely different way to see math and its reality. Of course 4 + 8 are never really equivalent to 6 + 6 in the real world. There are many many different types, sizes, and compositions of bolts and nuts that have been made in the history of man and they are not always interchangeable with each other and nut and bolts themselves are never interchangeable. There are an infinite possible types of either nuts or bolts possible with our definitions. Numbers are necessarily abstractions and as such 4 + 8 = 6 + 6. But this isn't magic or the nature of reality it's because of definitions. Rather it is because reality itself is logical and so long as operations on its quantification are logical than these abstractions are numerically logical. In the real world though we must add 4 apples and 8 apples or 6 apples and 6 apples and we'll always get 12 apples. But in the real world every set of four ,six, eight, or twelve apples is different. Every apple in the real world is different so there's no such thing as "two apples". It is an abstraction. You can't really put "a" nut on 'a" bolt and must put the nut on the bolt. In the real world it's not that uncommon for a nut to not fit a bolt but to fit the next "identical" bolt. There are probably "work arounds" for everything including math that doesn't always fit.
  11. "It is always necessary to define terms in Mathematics. Sadly I fear the rest of your posting entirely misses the OP which is about Philosophy, not Mathematics." I wasn't referring to defining mathematical terms so much as units. Math is so restrictive largely because we are trying to impose abstractions (numbers and their operations) on concrete reality. The nature of math has always been considered a philosophical issue but, like with most things, I tend to disagree.
  12. What people think is irrelevant. People are looking more at technology than at theory and these are very different. Good theory often gives rise to new technology but technology also springs from many forces that have little to do with new knowledge or new understanding of nature. They value science because they conflate it with technology which provides us wealth and new creature comforts. Meanwhile we see most social things degrading and disintegrating so we tend to discount the value of new "theory" in the social sciences. We live in a time that most of our fundamental beliefs are probably wrong but they still derive from fields that are believed to be "science" and are often founded on assumptions that have never been subjected to any sort of science, much less rigorous testing. This especially applies to linguistics. In many cases this testing is impossible with the current state of human knowledge. If we can ever unjump the shark then people will begin accepting soft sciences as being true science but it still won't necessarily be true.
  13. Real science has a very specific metaphysics. Scientific knowledge must derive from observation and experiment. While there may be some latitude on how you define "experiment" it certainly does not encompass the assumptions necessary to linguistics. Indeed, most of the soft sciences where statistics are not firmly rooted in definitions and void of assumptions are likely not to even return results reflective of reality. Much of what is considered "science" is not and probably not real. "Linguistics" has attributes of real science but there are far too many assumptions to make some of the results of any value at all.
  14. I do not want to get bogged down in semantics here. "Ontology" is philosophical anyway and I'm talking about science. The first definition of "metaphysics" is "the basis of science" and this is the concept to which I am referring. The "ability to have more off spring" is a concept that refers principally to non-human animal. Having more off-spring has not been shown to change species. Rather it results in stronger, faster, and smarter individuals (usually). The weak and sick die out anyway without changing the species, either. Breeding works only by the artificial imposition of artificial bottlenecks and it is these bottlenecks that change species in the lab and in nature.
  • 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.