LeThaX

About the non-sequitur, i merely shared some of the ideas of the first post on this thread by abolute1....about "democratising" some areas of scientific movements... I have merely produced speculations which may or maynot have anything to do with your science. I think that the hardcore belief in cartesian, aristotelian, euclidean thinking has a far more adverse effect when it comes to the "completeness of science" which scientists are (also) trying to understand... I am sorry swansont for i believe your inability to understand this brings you a false sense of comprehension... My speculation holds no sure shot solutions though... I believe that completeness in understanding maybe possible. But to share it, communicate it through language will always suffer from incompleteness.

Klaynos Science bases itself on axioms/dogmas, which on a fundamental level become quite hard to imagine...For example fundamental concepts such as mass, charge, etc are concepts we cannot claim to have a solid understanding of. In mathematics, we make use of the concept of the infinite and the infinitesimal to describe many other concepts... It seems to work...it is something inconcievable but it works, and that's that. My opinion about the quantum world, which someone stated works like magic, is similar, since after all, everything is described using abstract mathematical language. How can one claim to have understood quantum mechanics to any level, if the language used to describe it works inconceivably. This is also one of the contradictions we live with, and some of us accept it to be part of human limitation... I also belive that there are a multitude of things which language cannot even begin to describe, since it does not give rise to an idea of unquestionable "evidence". Any one who has had experiences with strong psychedelics would agree with me. the path of Science is controlled by man,And the idea of science has its history placed in the advancement of man and material way back to the invention of written language especially in the western world. Material evidence is another dogma. This is another contradiction we live with, and some of us accept to be part of human limitation. The fact that we use language to communicate ideas and "evidence", knowing that it is limited in its ability to describe the world around us,and that we are programmed to believe many things without experiencing the "evidence" is somewhat of a contradiction. And this leads to massive abuse of language, causing the many attempts of describing "transcendental" experiences to sound corny and uninteresting. Many ancient writings sound corny and naive, which i believe is the result of the observer abusing the attempt of the language to describe something it cannot very well, and failing to find meaning is partly the fault of the observer for not being aware of this limitation and having strong faith in the ability of language. Many more contradictions can be arrived at. Contradictions which reflect our basic individual nature on our collective behaviour. Society is full of contradictions. Anyone who has travelled to foreign lands will be aware of this reflection more easily than a person in his/her native place...i don't think anyone would want me to list out social contradictions. These are my opinions.

In many ways it is observably true... The social ethics and taboos that we all have, are in a collective way, the same principle. We are sometimes able to "sense" a world beyond it and that is why we interpret more... Who knows what we can't "sense"... and what are the repercutions on our current actions/ideas, that could have been different, had we interpreted with more "senses".

I believe that all of our scientific grounding is standing on air. As much as i would like to praise the scientific community for their firm belief in the conquest of the ultimate truth(s) and the hard work being done to improve the materialist world , i believe that the very nature of our scientific movement, i.e, the firm belief in the validity of the rational and material, combined with a decision to ignore the irrational, validates my first statement. We believe in a lot of dogmas that have as much reason for being "true" as would flying saucers, the hindu scriptures, etc...I believe reason and logic are incomplete...the latter was proved by goedel and made worse by turing if i am correct... The existence of a void in rational thinking cannot be digested by naive scientists who would rather push it aside and advance in materialistic exploration since it has huge demand by society...A rapidly evolving human nature... I just wonder...how long can this go on? How many contradictions can we be aware of and live with at the same time? Any ideas/comments?