On ‎7‎-‎7‎-‎2017 at 7:34 PM, Phi for All said:

 

!

Moderator Note

Due to the "let's be scientific/here's what I think/I'm right about this" nature of the OP, I'm moving this to Speculations. Let's be scientific indeed.

 

More evidence for assertions needed.

 

I'm sorry I react on this but I don't get an answer via IGM...

Why is this in speculation? I ask what is consciousness and give my opinion.

I put (pure scientific) because I'm interested in the science, not things like 'universal consciousness'.

22 hours ago, Itoero said:

Why is this in speculation? I ask what is consciousness and give my opinion.

That's why. Because you gave your view, and you have not shown that this is mainstream science. It's speculation on your part.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

That's why. Because you gave your view, and you have not shown that this is mainstream science. It's speculation on your part.

That's why I put it in 'general philosophy'...

18 hours ago, Itoero said:

That's why I put it in 'general philosophy'...

But you asked for a scientific discussion. 

On ‎23‎-‎7‎-‎2017 at 7:40 PM, swansont said:

But you asked for a scientific discussion. 

Is that not possible in the Philosophy section? You can consider Science to be a sub-field of Philosophy...depending on the definitions you use....

And non mainstream science topics are opened all the time in the hard sciences. Is the OP of Mordred (What is space made of) mainstream science?

14 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Is that not possible in the Philosophy section? You can consider Science to be a sub-field of Philosophy...depending on the definitions you use....

And non mainstream science topics are opened all the time in the hard sciences. Is the OP of Mordred (What is space made of) mainstream science?

No, it's why we have science sections in this science discussion board. Philosophy is for discussing things philosophical that are not science.

The basic breakdown here is that if you limit yourself to asking questions, it goes in a mainstream forum. But the minute you offer up your own conjecture, not backed up by mainstream science, it goes in speculations.

 

(BTW, "whatabout-ism" is one of the least persuasive arguments you can present to the staff)

4 hours ago, Itoero said:

Is that not possible in the Philosophy section? You can consider Science to be a sub-field of Philosophy...depending on the definitions you use....

And non mainstream science topics are opened all the time in the hard sciences. Is the OP of Mordred (What is space made of) mainstream science?

The moderator staff has its physics experts who I trust are capable of recognizing non mainstream threads in physics. This includes the thread you mentioned.  If you study the math in the thread, and recall that the thread states space is just volume that include the standard model of particles. 

You would see it is mainstream including every formula posted in that thread.

However if there is something in that thread you don't think is mainstream feel free to start a topic as the why and I will be happy to discuss it with you.

If your argument is strong enough I will happily unpin the thread and move it to speculations myself. I don't see speculations forum as a punishment as if properly done.A speculation can advance science. (Though I can only recall one thread in physics where a Speculation thread has the potential currently on SFN Speculations) that is being consistently properly done.

Edited July 25, 20178 yr by Mordred

48 minutes ago, Mordred said:

The moderator staff has its physics experts who I trust are capable of recognizing non mainstream threads in physics. This includes the thread you mentioned.  If you study the math in the thread, and recall that the thread states space is just volume that include the standard model of particles. 

You would see it is mainstream including every formula posted in that thread.

However if there is something in that thread you don't think is mainstream feel free to start a topic as the why and I will be happy to discuss it with you.

If your argument is strong enough I will happily unpin the thread and move it to speculations myself. I don't see speculations forum as a punishment as if properly done.A speculation can advance science. (Though I can only recall one thread in physics where a Speculation thread has the potential currently on SFN Speculations) that is being consistently properly done.

The purpose of your thread is to clarify the conventional view in neophytic terms. I can't see how it can be construed as speculative in itself.

All heuristic and neophytic descriptives are in essence interptetations. I'm actually happy when experts in the field have read he thread and supply corrections. One such I was happy to see comment being Marcus Hanke. He obviously had a very strong understanding of advanced GR

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

All heuristic and neophytic descriptives are in essence interptetations. I'm actually happy when experts in the field have read he thread and supply corrections. One such I was happy to see comment being Marcus Hanke. He obviously had a very strong understanding of advanced GR

Yes, I remember he once gave a very good example of the map not being the territory. He seems to know his physics.

Very aporopriate example, in regards to the "What is space made of thread". We are both in essence stating the same thing.

Anyways that thread isn't the topic of the OP enough said about it

Edited July 25, 20178 yr by Mordred