Why Scientific Realism might be false?

Recommended Posts

Actually, this is getting quite stupid, immortal. The consistent inablility of concentrative logical anaysis is tripping you at every single turn, it seems. All the talk about quantum studies, research results (which I read up on too, of course, though much less than other areas), and theories providing us with extremely way-out-there concoctions about there being some factual element of nature at large which no one can know anything about at all, is just stupid. This carries no weight at all. Of course quantum mechanics is an external reality of nature at large. It always has been. Did you think it was created in the nineteenth century? And, was there any major, noticable change in classical physics, for any major degree, when quantum theory began to be worked with? The folks whom you wish to appeal to on this, are wrong on this; period!

It is one major additionaly error that some have made in trying to assert that quantum machanics is what is directly responsible for consciousness, that is worthlessly incorrect. And yes, you have been talking about the condition of having a state of consciousness without even knowing that you were. This demonstrates the incoherency in your whole hodge-podge of an attempt to espouse falsehood. And that very well takes us back to the points I had highlighted earlier in my #128.

There is not any possible way to demonstrate any said, or putative, factuality of nature at large, when that same said item is simulataneously declared to be unknowable to the human mind (the condition of having a state of consciousness). It has been sustantially enough demonstrated over a large enough sample space, and length of time and testing, that claims made in the past by a good number of people (especially those who adhered to, or were part of, the various theist-involved religious belief systems) about the brain, and brain and mind, were incorrect. What is wrong--not a fact of external, natural reality at large when asserted to be so--is wrong, and no amount of quoting and pleaing will alter that fact. Just as you, and all, and every single poster on this forum, is not in the condition of having a state of consciousness in slow wave sleep (although plasticity still occurs to some extent), we will not be in that condition when all the neuronal and glia cells which make up the tissue of brain, die. This is not the stuff of some human dreamed up god of a model (for no external factuality of nature at large exists), this is the stuff of earthly material. It's real. It's inclusive of the external elements of the facts of nature.

It has come to my full attention now as to just what degree of irrelevant, and unrelated to the heart-of-the-content-provided responses you can make. At almost every single turn, you are resonding in a quite totally irrelevant tangent. Scientific method at large, is THE ONLY way to know of anything (in the common parlance usage of that term). That, immortal IS the bottom line from which we work upwards towards increments in understanding of any and every problem. There is not a single normal range human being on the planet who does not exercise scientific method from infancy onwards, and none who never did. The writers, leaders, and mainstays within all the world's past and present theist-involved religious belief systems used broad imaginative schemes and stories, steeped in ignorance-driven superstition overkill. The accumulation of empirical knowledge which we have access to today, through the exercise of scientific method, has proven parts of the imaginative narratives, dogma, and doctrine and ritual, to be falsehood. You obviously understand working procedures in the field, but you are twisting, spinning, and mishandling logical analysis. Steel couldn't be forged without the knowledge of how to make charcoal, charcoal could not be made with the knowledge of how to make the instruments and materials needed for the circumstance of making charcoal... and on back.

It is exactly in light of the above, that it is not the case at all that a practicing member of any theist-involved religious belief system has a different process through which knowledge is accumulated mentally so as to be active in the condition of having a state of consciousness (mind). The claim that the information sources (written documents which remain from the past, the doctrine they hold in that time-locked format) had been written and accumulate because the human individuals and groups which composed them had a way of knowing things that any person living today does not have, is a false claim--little more than childish story telling. No, immortal what you are saying is false. The external reality, taken in full pragmatic concern (as that is the most efficient and applical mode of taking understandings and sound knowledge) does not amount to something which is not the only factuality of external reality that we have to deal with. It has been so hard to get any quantum things going at room temperature because it is something that has to be kind of forced to be able to get any sound knowledge about it at all. Sure external reality has an element which, as far as we can understand and describe it, amounts to a connectivity of wholeness. Big deal; the world we humans have evolved in, and are experiencing consistently over thousands of years, has no bearing with which we can tool anything, or effect causes through, or with. In other words, its totally useless pragmatically--and pragmatism is what saves lives, works towards eleminating in/out-group contrasts, can be applied to better lifestyles, improve quality of life concerns for some, and help work towards bring internationa society together as one. Talking about some particular god, or reading off some text of some ancient work, will simply not cut the mustard.

• Replies 309
• Created

Popular Days

That doesn't change the fact that there are scientists with in the scientific community who disagree with you as I have shown in this very thread.

This answer is completely unrelated to the facts reported in my message. You have ignored the facts once again.

Moreover your remark about "who disagree" is useless. We knew Penrose and D'Espagnat work much before you cited them here. We knew that they are completely wrong.

That's what the main tenet of the paper was that science doesn't know what the world is made up of and it should be emphasized that when you quote from the CERN scientists website that its true only from their own perspective and not that its the final word.

This is all wrong. First, the paper does not address that. Evidently the paper does not provide a single experiment that contradicts what we know about matter.

Second, I have given to you more references than the CERN site. Third, the CERN website does not reflect the perspective of CERN scientists, but the perspective of modern science. Any solid state physict, nuclear chemist, molecular biologist,... agrees on that everything known in nature is found to be made of particles such as quarks and electrons.

Of course, scientists are open to add more particles to the Standard Model (several hypothetical particles have been proposed) and are also open to consider that particles are not final (e.g. some physicist study if particles are, at some fundamental scale, strings). Evidently these studies are made by scientists following the scientific method. Religion is useless.

All along I am questioning the assumptions of science and its foundations and therefore your assumption that I see scientists as gods is not true and don't need their quotes to justify my beliefs because I am not making a God of the gaps argument here, I am making an argument which fills a gap in our knowledge and showing that even science can learn from religion and on that particular quote Einstein is indeed supporting my views as you yourself have quoted here.

You have shown us that your questioning of science is without any serious basis. The second part of your message contradicts your hundred of posts here, which consist on repeating quotations and more quotations.

None of the quotes by Einstein says that science can learn from religion. He does not say so, because that is nonsense.

This is turning out to be true because science and religion are indeed converging at a common point and there is no conflict between science and religion.

History shows the contrary: science diverges more and more from religion. I already explained to you what is the difference between religion and science.

That doesn't mean I have to agree with all the other things Einstein said and I definitely don't agree with Einstein's views which is in bold and that's one of the reasons why there is still no common consensus as yet emerged from scientific community from the time of Einstein up to now on the interpretation of the results on Bell Experiments which has important consequences for a Theory of Everything. Its because scientists have ignored a God hypothesis which explains the origin of the cosmos.

There is overwhelm consensus on Bell Experiments. Some few people does not understand the experiments or quantum mechanics, but there is excellent resources that correct their typical mistakes. Those resources were cited here.

Scientists have ignored a "God hypothesis", because they know science and the scientific method, and can differentiate between a reliable scientific hypothesis from nonsense or useless hypothesis.

The truth of the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution was this.

"Gods are real.

And these gods are everywhere, in all aspects of

existence, all aspects of human life."

-James Hillman

The "Truth" is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real and your Gods are false.

As far as I know Weinberg said "neither Bohr nor Einstein knew what the real problem was". That's what he said.

I cited the full quote:

All this familiar story is true, but it leaves out an irony. Bohr's version of quantum mechanics was deeply flawed, but not for the reason Einstein thought. The Copenhagen interpretation describes what happens when an observer makes a measurement, but the observer and the act of measurement are themselves treated classically. This is surely wrong: Physicists and their apparatus must be governed by the same quantum mechanical rules that govern everything else in the universe. But these rules are expressed in terms of a wave function (or, more precisely, a state vector) that evolves in a perfectly deterministic way. So where do the probabilistic rules of the Copenhagen interpretation come from? Considerable progress has been made in recent years toward the resolution of the problem, which I cannot go into here. It is enough to say that neither Bohr nor Einstein had focused on the real problem with quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen rules clearly work, so they have to be accepted. But this leaves the task of explaining them by applying the deterministic equation for the evolution of the wave function, the Schrödinger equation, to observers and their apparatus.

You believed that you (mis)understanding of quantum mechanics supported your religious ideas, but as shown here your ideas about quantum mechanics are incorrect and your religious ideas useless. Sorry.

The goal of religion was never that. But let us concede you, for a moment, that this is its goal. The conclusion here is that religion is a poor method to develop that goal because everything said by religion about nature is either not provable (which means it is useless) or has been proven to be plain wrong.

During last 1000 years you cannot find a single basic fact about nature that had been predicted/derived/provided by religion. Not a single gadget/device/material/plane/car/treatment... works thanks to knowledge provided by religion. Those are the facts and they are persistent.

The wisdom hidden in the wisdom traditions were showed in this very thread and they didn't made up these ideas on their own, they got that wisdom and knowledge because the methodology of religion works.

And another answer completely unrelated to the facts reported in my message. You have ignored the facts once again.

Of course, I am not the only one who has detected this characteristic of you, as another poster wrote above:

At almost every single turn, you are responding in a quite totally irrelevant tangent.

This is going more and more ironic immortal. You pretend that you know the ultimate Truth and the secrets of universe, still you cannot answer simple questions that any undergrad student of science can.

Edited by juanrga
Share on other sites

Science is not all there is and the scientific method is not the only method that is out there for gaining valid means of knowledge. Science cannot get beyond mere appearances of phenomena.

cience can stand on its own feet and does not need any help from rationalists, secular humanists, Marxists and similar religious movements; and ... non-scientific cultures, procedures and assumptions can also stand on their own feet and should be allowed to do so ... Science must be protected from ideologies; and societies, especially democratic societies, must be protected from science... In a democracy scientific institutions, research programmes, and suggestions must therefore be subjected to public control, there must be a separation of state and science just as there is a separation between state and religious institutions, and science should be taught as one view among many and not as the one and only road to truth and reality.

— Feyerabend, Against Method, p.viii

Paul Feyerabend argued that no description of scientific method could possibly be broad enough to encompass all the approaches and methods used by scientists. Feyerabend objected to prescriptive scientific method on the grounds that any such method would stifle and cramp scientific progress. Feyerabend claimed, "the only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."[

I am not going to make the same mistake of applying western scientific methodology which is solely based on basic observation for investigating religious traditions.

If anyone wants to know the truth about religion then one should adopt the methodologies of Esotericism. The arguments of Penrose and Bernard have not been falsified and they can be falsified with in science and testified by methodologies in Esotericism. I and Bernard firmly believe that Esotericism can know the noumenon.

@LimbicLoser desparately tried to falsify these ideas and he failed terribly

LimbicLoser, on 27 September 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

Thank you for getting back, immortal, and spending the time to put forth your arguments. I see a major problem at the root, nevertheless, and wish to look that over some--investigate it, attempt to falsify it, and see it there is actually anything pragmatic worth keeping and propagating. I would greatly appreciate your care and concern--and level-headed reasonableness and fairness--in doing so.

and now he is resorting into censorship of ancient wisdom with his misunderstanding as it always happens that the scientific method is the only way to know the truth without being aware of the fact that there are methodologies in esotericism which takes a top-down approach of reality and tries to access knowledge hidden already in nature, we don't invent anything, we just discover it.

Extra Credit Assignment: The Nature of Things

No wonder why I have respect for physicists who adopt the positivistic philosophy of science than those who are dogmatic that scientific models are the only way of understanding and describing nature.

"If it can get someone to look at the problem from a different angle and it leads to a different description of nature, that’s great."

The next breakthrough is going to come from Esotericism and it is going to redefine and reshape both the orthodox religions as well as Science. The empirical world isn't out there independent of the human mind as Anton Zeilinger clearly casts doubts and explicitly says that we create reality rather than passively observing it.

Everything what I am saying is logically connected and very relevant.

Share on other sites

Science is not all there is and the scientific method is not the only method that is out there for gaining valid means of knowledge.

I am pretty sure I have essentially and substantially enough pointed out, that I am not talking about this 'science' some folks can never outgrow. The usage is so misleading that it's pathetic. As for scientific method, in the broadest sense, why of course it is the only way to know of anything at all. In that I have amply enough provided an example of what the required action to subtantiate and demonstrate the claims of immortal would be, the fact that no one of the face of the earth has to date been able to execute that consistently over large sample space and length of time, fully demonstrates that the claim is false. In that it has been shown to have been false (and I have not provided all the data and results which do so, on this thread, of course), it has been falsified. That some will never wish to come to terms with the cold-world realities of nature, is, in an almost paradoxical way, a natural event. Edited by LimbicLoser
Share on other sites

Science is not all there is and the scientific method is not the only method that is out there for gaining valid means of knowledge. Science cannot get beyond mere appearances of phenomena.

It is well-known that science is one of many disciplines. In my European country any 15-year-old student is taught the differences between science, religion, history, philosophy... their respective goals and their respective methods.

Anyone would know that scientific knowledge provides an objective description of reality, whereas religion and philosophy do not. All our technology/medicine... is based in science although you continue ignoring such facts despite being mentioned very often.

I am not going to make the same mistake of applying western scientific methodology which is solely based on basic observation for investigating religious traditions.

You cite Feyerabend! His attack on science was answered in many places, e.g. in the paper "Where Science Has Gone Wrong" (Nature 1987, 329, 595-598). The authors of the Nature paper criticize Feyerabend attacks and to other philosophers such as Lakatos or Popper.

In shorth, Feyerabend "never understood science".

If anyone wants to know the truth about religion then one should adopt the methodologies of Esotericism. The arguments of Penrose and Bernard have not been falsified and they can be falsified with in science and testified by methodologies in Esotericism. I and Bernard firmly believe that Esotericism can know the noumenon.

We already know the "Truth" about religion. We already know that Penrose and Bernard are plain wrong.

Edited by juanrga
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure I have essentially and substantially enough pointed out, that I am not talking about this 'science' some folks can never outgrow. The usage is so misleading that it's pathetic. As for scientific method, in the broadest sense, why of course it is the only way to know of anything at all. In that I have amply enough provided an example of what the required action to subtantiate and demonstrate the claims of immortal would be, the fact that no one of the face of the earth has to date been able to execute that consistently over large sample space and length of time, fully demonstrates that the claim is false. In that it has been shown to have been false (and I have not provided all the data and results which do so, on this thread, of course), it has been falsified. That some will never wish to come to terms with the cold-world realities of nature, is, in an almost paradoxical way, a natural event.

Its funny how you move goal posts and delude yourself of falsifying Bernard and Penrose arguments and also the ideas of ancient wisdom.

The truth is that facts established from experiments have led to a sound idealism in the philosophy of science.

"There are many signs that a sound idealism is surely replacing, as a basis for natural philosophy, the crude materialism of the older physicists."

My argument is quite simple and it logically follows like this, Bernard's life time work in the philosophy of science has led him to conclude that "What we call reality is only a state of mind".

Someone in the guardian asked this question and it was a very good question.

Gramlin23 March 2009 12:20PM

If what we call 'reality' is just a state of mind, what is mind?

This is where Esotericism comes in and explains what Mind is and what Intellect is. This is the reason for the need of a god hypothesis. Science will never be able to know what Mind is and hence the reason to adopt non-positivistic methods of our ancients.

Actually much of the information is kept confidential and hardly a few people are genuinely interested in these kinds of esoteric knowledge. So I am not sure your time length and your life span is enough to conclude that the ancient wisdom traditions are false.

Tibetan Buddhism: Esotericism

Esotericism

In Vajrayāna particularly, Tibetan Buddhists subscribe to a voluntary code of self-censorship, whereby the uninitiated do not seek and are not provided with information about it. This self-censorship may be applied more or less strictly depending on circumstances such as the material involved. A depiction of a mandala may be less public than that of a deity. That of a higher tantric deity may be less public than that of a lower. The degree to which information on Vajrayāna is now public in western languages is controversial among Tibetan Buddhists.

Buddhism has always had a taste for esotericism since its earliest period in India.[25] Tibetans today maintain greater or lesser degrees of confidentiality also with information on the vinaya and emptiness specifically. In Buddhist teachings generally, too, there is caution about revealing information to people who may be unready for it. Esoteric values in Buddhism have made it at odds with the values of Christian missionary activity, for example in contemporary Mongolia.

The correct methodology to study our ancients is based on mandala of the east or the pleroma of the west. Mandala or Pleroma have a local existence, they exist in its own realm.

Mandala

According to the psychologist David Fontana, its symbolic nature can help one "to access progressively deeper levels of the unconscious, ultimately assisting the meditator to experience a mystical sense of oneness with the ultimate unity from which the cosmos in all its manifold forms arises."

Even you need to come to terms on understanding what reality really is.

It is well-known that science is one of many disciplines. In my European country any 15-year-old student is taught the differences between science, religion, history, philosophy... their respective goals and their respective methods.

Anyone would know that scientific knowledge provides an objective description of reality, whereas religion and philosophy do not. All our technology/medicine... is based in science although you continue ignoring such facts despite being mentioned very often.

In my country, philosophers are masters of nature and not its slaves and they deal with the real physical world as it exists out there and they enter and exit a dead person's body(not the empirical body) on their own will. Welcome to the real world.

After debating for over fifteen days, with Maṇḍana Miśra's wife Ubhaya Bhāratī acting as referee, Maṇḍana Miśra accepted defeat.[21] Ubhaya Bhāratīthen challenged Adi Shankara to have a debate with her in order to 'complete' the victory. She asked him questions related to sexual congress between man and woman - a subject in which Shankaracharya had no knowledge, since he was a true celibate and sannyasi. Sri Shankracharya asked for a "recess" of 15 days. As per legend, he used the art of "para-kaya pravesa" (the spirit leaving one's own body and entering another's) and exited his own body, which he asked his disciples to look after, and psychically entered the dead body of a king. The story goes that from the King's two wives, he acquired all knowledge of "art of love". The queens, thrilled at the keen intellect and robust love-making of the "revived" King, deduced that he was not their husband, as of old. The story continues that they sent their factotums to "look for the lifeless body of a young sadhu and to cremate it immediately" so that their "king" (Shankracharya in the king's body) would continue to live with them. Just as the retainers piled Shankracharaya's lifeless corpse upon a pyre and were about to set fire to it, Shankara entered his own body and regained consciousness. Finally, he answered all questions put to him byUbhaya Bhāratī; and she allowed Maṇḍana Miśra to accept sannyasa with the monastic name Sureśvarācārya, as per the agreed-upon rules of the debate.

We already know the "Truth" about religion. We already know that Penrose and Bernard are plain wrong.

Oh really? say it again. People know now who is intellectually honest and who isn't.

Share on other sites

In my country, philosophers are masters of nature and not its slaves and they deal with the real physical world as it exists out there and they enter and exit a dead person's body(not the empirical body) on their own will. Welcome to the real world.

What "real world"? Those "masters of nature" who "enter and exit a dead person's body" are so real as the "Meigas" in my country.

Oh really? say it again.

No problem: both D'Espagnat and Penrose are wrong as is well-known.

Edited by juanrga
Share on other sites

I'm probably going to make a cake after this topic is closed (if that ever happens)... just waiting for the day... impatiently...

Share on other sites

Its funny how you move goal posts ...
Oh my, you silly little girl. It's not funny at all, how you keep casting your line in a different spot each time. No, no goal posts have been moved at all. Look over all my recent posts that have anything to do the fundimentals of the argument and position you are coming from (even on another thread about 'If Science Could One day...'). I have never been using any loose, overly collective term like 'science' as far too many folks, on both sides of the table, even, far too often tend to do. That word will never be able to function so precisely as its users wish it to because a collective, non-count noun will never function in such a manner. No, immortal, you silly little girl, from post one I have been talking about external and internal reality via the only way to know of anything about it at all, and that method, or processes of thinking, is called 'SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Its the method you use to know whether it's too cold outside to wear a T-shirt and be comfortable. It's the same you use to know whether your tea is too hot to drink in gulps without burning your tongue. It's exactly the scientific method in its broadest sense (which is how I always use it unless other specified) that allows us to know that the earth has a core, is quite solid, revolves around a star (our sun), is ever so slowly slowing down; to know that concrete and steel have very, very similar expansion rates, that sugar poured into very hot coffee with milk in it causes a spillover, that the described and prescribed deity of the Tanakh is a figment of the authorship of the documents of that library, and so forth and so on, and on...

In continuation, and referencing back to so as to build on, the general outline of scientific method as found in the post quoted here (linking is possible I believe through the time stamp):

It is not '
science
,' not '
religion
.' It is
scientific method
,..
(and notice that I had said that there too,
immortal
)
.

II. The science in scientific method--relations among pragmatic experience, sound knowledge, and sound beliefs.

There is an exact and accurate reason for the classifications stone age, bronze age, and iron age. There is plenty of secure enough evidence to realize that at a period of time in the long course of the Homo genus, the process of forging hard metals out of rock types, had not been discovered, whereas softer metal works (bronze, copper, possibly lead) had been. That exactly means that the materials, heating requirements, and processes had come about through a slow trial and error method. It is the same process that is strongly inferred from the evidences of stone tooling. While this all is far, far before the entry of the more specific SM in its more narrow definition range within the academic and professional fields in our more recent point in time, it reflects, nevertheless, scientific method in its broader range. All the evidence and information I have come across clearly demonstrates (so far) that we cannot find the instrument used by any Homo species which has not gone through this very process; either directly, or indirectly. (if any may request reference material citation, I can do it, but it is troublesome, and time consuming, to pull all that out again. I ask for trust in my honest, and fair reporting here, and my memory content accuracy.)

There were many events in early human history which scientific method (SM) (keep in mind that unless otherwise pointed out, I use this in the broadest definition range sense) most certainly had direct, or nearly direct involvement, and participation in things such as finally understanding the wheel, controlling fire, agricultural techniques, fermentation control, social in-group building techniques, or astronomical knowledge building . In the same breath, however, I fully agree (as it too, is most rational and realistic) there were those which it did not, such as migration patterns, inter-breeding patterns, and in-group ritual development. We can yet conclude, however, that there is every reason to understand that SM involvement had had an indirect influence on those to varying degrees, while not participating in them. (Also for example, in boat building, in large game hunting tactics, in searches for natural resource materials, in tool development for artistic expression, and so on)

A. Science in the broadest sense, as a minimum, pertains to knowing of a matter (I.A. & I.B.).

1.
When giving consideration of what the
science
in SM might mean, we could first check the aggregate average of the more comprehensive dictionaries, to find the primary definition/prescription for the non-count noun
science
. We will find that generally given as follows:

1.
orig., the state or fact of knowing; knowledge
2.
systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied
3.
a branch of knowledge or study, esp. one concerned with establishing and systematizing facts, principles, and methods, as by experiements and hypotheses [the
science
of mathematics].

While we all know that the etymology of a word will more often than not, have very little bearing on the senses that it is used in at the moment, we may still benefit in some way by understanding where the concept came from. I will suggest that the single occurrence of the noun '
science
' be held to be number 3, above; unless context makes it more clearly understood to be number 2. I would, at the same time, suggest that number 2 be that of SM in the more specific, most narrowly defined sense.
At any rate
, I reason that it is reasonably clear enough, that the base intersecting point between the most narrow definition range of SM, and that of the broadest, as they relate to the word
science
in general, is the matter of knowing (I.A. & I.B.)

2. There is the case of the soundness of knowledge, and there are items of sound knowledge which are not due to SM.

a. As it specifically relates to
science
and
SM
, to be '
sound
,' is to state that an item which is known in a sound manner, is that which has gone through (1.A. & 1.B.) over a large enough sample space and time space, to conclude it as being sound. That a certain mushroom will cause extreme illness, or, beyond a certain volume of intake, will absolutely result in death, is an example of an item of sound knowledge. That physical bodies amount to the substrates for relative degrees of the attractive force called gravity, is an item of sound knowledge. That all normal brains '
fill in
' the gap of actual visual input due to the optic nerve's exit from the back of the retina, is an item of sound knowledge.

b. There are items of sound knowledge which are not due to, or related to,
science
and
SM
. The item of knowledge that the capital of the USA is Washington D.C. is sound knowledge, but is not derived from SM; rather it is pure definition. The item of knowledge that the earliest Christian movement arose within, and as an extension of, Judaism, is sound, but is not a matter of
SM
, nor related to
science
. It is, instead, rather specifically by mere definition and accurate and sound historical record, an item of sound knowledge.

B. Knowledge and pragmatic experience, as they relate to SM, are strongly related over a continuum of relativeness and scale of inquiry.

1. I reason that it would be more accurate to take pragmatic experience into account first. I always hold (unless other wise mentioned) pragmatic to consists of the matters of efficiency, first-hand practicality, logically correct relative to a closeness of cause and effect concerns as they relate to the circumstance of maintaining a relatively normal range of lifestyle, and that which can be worked on, and with, through knowledge of them.

a. the foremost basic essential of pragmatic circumstances, or affairs, is that of the ability to have sensation from sensory input. Being able to feel pain is a good example of a pragmatic matter, as is that of being able to see, hear, smell, taste, and feel or physically sense so as to know of a circumstance, situation, process, or state of affairs (1.A.). It is most easily and reasonably enough understood, for example, that if vision were not a sensed effect of visual sensory input by all human beings (as a basic body/brain build), then it would by no means be a pragmatic concern to any human being under such 'normal' conditions. It is for this reason, therefore, that the absence of vision's pragmatic value is made up for by an increase in the pragmatic value of another sensory input sensing.

b. having a knowledge of certain plants and substances which have been demonstrated (1.A. & 1.B.) to have effects on health, is pragmatic knowledge. Likewise, the same can be said about knowing that heating certain wood items under a certain condition of heat, pressure, and time, will produce a product of wood which can then burn at a higher heat (collectively per volume), and for a longer period of time, than raw wood itself, that through a certain cut and shaped piece of glass, concentrated light can ignite organic substances in given situations, or that knowing certain head movements can relieve certain disturbances of the vestibular system.

c. the pragmatic concerns and relative relationship for knowing what is needed to insure robust agricultural output, is one point on the continuum of pragmatic application range, knowing how much of what materials to smelt together to produce a stronger steel, is another one, and knowing what equipment and operating processes would most likely be needed to observe a 'Higgs' particle, another.

2. The accumulation of pragmatic experience results in a bank of knowledge which, relative to the entire definition range of SM reciprocally, mostly amounts to sound knowledge (
giving room here for (I.B.2) theories which are yet to be placed in the 'sound' grouping
).

a. knowing that certain locations on the open seas will result in very little sailing movement is an example. The knowledge that smoking or storage in salt would better preserve meat is another. The knowledge accumulated that resulted in human built and operated airships being sent beyond the confines of earth's atmosphere, is another.

b. soundness in this regards is the same as (II.A.2.) above.

c. there is a soundness of pragmatic knowledge which does not depend so nearly directly on SM, nor which (for any material [i.e. relevant and participating] degree ) SM does not participate in. For example, that Monday follows Sunday is a matter of pragmatic knowledge based on experience, but that is mere definition; for the far most part. The same is true for the pragmatic experience of time, as well;
we know that it never has 'flowed,' as we can only know of it in any practical sense (see above), in an opposing manner
.

3. There is the case of the soundness of a belief, and it is possible to consider that there may be the item of sound belief which is not due to SM.

a. the sound belief as it relates to SM will be that of (I.B.2.b., c.). A sound belief can be applied in both directions in some cases--
that is down-stream in some cases (I.B.2.b.), and up-stream in some
. An example of an up-stream case, is that of the prediction that in most cases, certain exercises of functional mappings in the brain will lead to plastic strengthening by which many stroke patients can almost fully retake normal lifestyles. An example of an up-stream case, is that there was an interbreeding between the H.
sapiens
and the H.
neanderthalensis
up to some 4%.

b. the possibility of a sound belief which SM does not directly participate in, nor indirectly have involvement with, is a matter to consider, but must be tested against pragmatic experience, sound knowledge, and sound belief. In other words, statements or propositions classified as, or claimed as being,
sound beliefs in which SM neither participates in, nor is directly or indirectly involved with
cannot contradict any knowledge or belief founded in (I.- II.B.3.a.). For the purpose at hand, I leave this open due to lack of example.

The previous post, with the above, identifies the key points of relation between
science
(as it is better used in a careful manner), SM,
and
, pragmatic experience, sound knowledge, and sound belief. It identifies my usage of the term '
pragmatic
,' and points out that the understanding of there being a range/continuum of pragmatic experience application, relative to SM, is a better understanding. It argues for a definition of the term
sound
based on the relation of the items listed in (II)over all, and as supported by them in the manner of SM. Furthermore, this post leaves room for examples of possible sound beliefs not due to SM, and in which SM neither participates, nor is directly or indirectly involved in. It stipulates at the same time, nevertheless, that such examples cannot contradict the understandings and better knowledge and experience demonstrated in (I.) through (II.B.2.b.).

... and delude yourself of falsifying Bernard and Penrose arguments and also the ideas of ancient wisdom.
Nope. No deluding is occurring at all--
that which has been demonstrated to be incorrect, is thus incorrect, and the demonstrated results have held
. Again, please, I am only pointing to the portions of statements and claims which have been shown to be incorrect, or which have since been corrected. The proposition of Idealism as expounded on in the silly link you had provided, is incorrect. Again, error upon error, a correct will not make.

sound idealism
' is an incoherent misnomer. The thing which you have been positing from post one,
immortal
is incorrect--
that means it is not factual, is wrong, false,
etc.
. Only the hopless fail to be able to emotionally relinquish that failed notion. There is so extremely little pragmatic value at all in expecting any '
reduced-beyond-all-possible-practical-application-and-use
,' and unexperiencable element of nature in its wholeness, to be made use of, that we might as well go ahead and call it a fact that external actuality of nature at large, in no way at all demands either my brain's being relatively active enough to have the condition of having consciousness, nor yours, nor any other human being who lives on the face of the planet today, or who ever has.

Now, to put it in words which you may be more likely to be able to give any degree of attention so as to comprehend them, what we call reality is nature at large. Nature at large includes the make of of the neuronal and glia cell types which make brain (the tissue). Brain (the tissue) forms into a particular organ (
[the
brain) within a biological system (CNS; brain-as-an-organ housing organism). It is a fact that
THE
prime substrate for the processing which is acknowledged cognition (mind in consciousness condition) is brain. It is a fact that nature at large has elements of, and within, its make up and circumstance which do not require a single brain to be in an alive state. A single brain (organ) which is nothing more than a clump of somatically dead (not processing at all) tissue, is the remains of the substrate in processing which amounted to a mind. Realtiy does not require a functioning brain to be as it is, therefore other actualities of nature at large (reality) do not need a mind (a living human brain) to exist. This is a fact which is without any reasonable, pragmatic, and sound questioning
at all !!
And that,
immortal
, is the final answer--the truth of the matter--
like it or not
.

Now,
Ben Bowen
has a good idea; one well worth following up on. I'm go out and see if I can find a good baking oven. The truth of the matter here has been settled, and perpaps (one may have room to imagine) some who tend to work as though dropping so many lines in various spots, may be better off moving on to other puddles to drop lines into.

(ps I do not have to proof read further, and there may yet be some typos and errors. I apologize. If I do come back to check, I'll fix them if I can then. I'm sorry.)
Edited by LimbicLoser
Share on other sites

I'm probably going to make a cake after this topic is closed (if that ever happens)... just waiting for the day... impatiently...

I believed that this topic was immortal

Share on other sites

Oh my, you silly little girl.

!

Moderator Note

Please curb the urge to make this personal. Attack the idea, not the person with the idea. That's the rule.

Share on other sites

No problem: both D'Espagnat and Penrose are wrong as is well-known.

Thanks for proving your dishonety again. Penrose argument of non-computability of human thought might be wrong from your perspective but not from the perspective of Esoteric religions. I am not talking of his Orch-OR model instead I am talking of his pure mathematical arguments which lead to mathematical Platonism.

Roger Penrose: A Knight on the tiles

“A majority of contemporary mathematicians (a typical, though disputed, estimate is about two-thirds) believe in a kind of heaven – not a heaven of angels and saints, but one inhabited by the perfect and timeless objects they study: n-dimensional spheres, infinite numbers, the square root of -1, and the like. Moreover, they believe that they commune with this realm of timeless entities through a sort of extra-sensory perception.”

“And today’s mathematical Platonists agree. Among the most distinguished of them is Alain Connes, holder of the Chair of Analysis and Geometry at the College de France, who has averred that “there exists, independently of the human mind, a raw and immutable mathematical reality.”… Platomism is understandably seductive to mathematicians. It means that the entities they study are no mere artifacts of the human mind: these entities are discovered, not invented… Many physicists also feel the allure of Plato’s vision.”

So how does mathematical insight or non-computable or non-alogrithmic thinking is possible?

- Devudu Narasimha Shastry, ritualist and a Sanskrit scholar.

Its quite clear how human understanding is very much different than the way a machine works and mathematical intuition is possible for mathematicians because they directly access already hidden truths existing in its own platonic realm.

I repeat again: Come up with a machine capable of strong AI and simulating conscious thought then the whole doctrine of esoteric religions will be falsified. This is one of the main reasons why I believe in Esotericism.

I'm probably going to make a cake after this topic is closed (if that ever happens)... just waiting for the day... impatiently...

Your personal abhorrence towards a topic is not going to make the ideas just die off, after this discussion of topic I am going to continue investigating the pleroma of god as I always have because for the first time in the intellectual history of mankind esoteric religions are going to correct the scientific consensus.

Share on other sites

Your personal abhorrence towards a topic is not going to make the ideas just die off, after this discussion of topic I am going to continue investigating the pleroma of god as I always have because for the first time in the intellectual history of mankind esoteric religions are going to correct the scientific consensus.

The reason I made this remark was exactly my understanding of why the idea will not die out. You can continue investigating, but apparently you aren't. You're becoming an expert at quoting other people's investigations, who are no more capable of analyzing truth in any spectacular way than any mere person. I think this means you're a reasonless fanatic.

We already know the answer: bullshit. Where does this answer come from? Try to answer that. So far, your answer has been: "They're unwilling, closed-minded jerks!" Okay, fine... but why would you suppose? It's human nature? Judging by what you've said specifically, you believe so indeed yourself.

And that's good. Oh hey... wouldn't you say my conclusion corresponds to some other certain special peoples' responses to you?

This is exactly the difference between you and I. You've only had an orgasm. You've discontinued your real investigation, and now you're just massaging the parts you liked most.. So, why is it right for us to call bullshit now? Doesn't that mean a discontinuation of our investigation? No, it's a conclusion. How can I say this, that you have merely discontinued real investigation, and we have concluded it? This topic is 11 pages. 11 pages. Does that number matter? Doesn't it require great effort to share brilliant but very controversial ideas with others? 'Depends. I've already addressed how. You didn't answer.

Prior log:

What do you care about the Gospel of Thomas? Tell me precisely.

...

They are intellectually honest? Okay... and there's amazing available evidence? Um... okay then (haha, no). So how the hell does this amazing available evidence correspond to your arbitrary ideas? Are you sure the amazing evidence is not counter-productively proving the great Flying Spaghetti Monster, rather than your cheese cake?

In a nutshell: Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas?

or in other-words, we're all about honestly understanding, not about having good ideas. It's incredibly easy to get lost in the possibility that an attractive idea you have is so special that it's worth more than the brains of everyone around you. This doesn't mean you're not 'intellectually honest,' it suggests that you're sincerely misguided.

...

Where we left off:

I'm very happy with this response, because it's a lot more rigid than anything you've said before; however, I remain in disagreement. I still see a critical lack of connection between all of your discrete beliefs expressed there.

1. "the mind is something different from the human brain and that the empirical reality which includes also the brain and that the attributes of particles doesn't exist independent of the mind"

2. mind alone exists out there in the physical world then what's behind the human mind is the "Intellect"

3. what's behind the Intellect is the "Pleroma of God" representing the totality of divine powers

Even if these were appropriately demonstrated to be strongly associated, by the collective manner they do not form a very robust belief. We can conclude the basis of just one of these components to be severely incorrect -- an event which has already occurred -- implying your total belief was weakly designated and nothing more. If these ideas don't logically correspond one-to-one, there's a great likelihood they were merely designated to unnaturally support a select core ideology: that means it's arbitrary.

And at the god fucking damn core of it all, we've repeatedly shown you why the "evidence" you assert is completely wrong, and your responses have only been inadequate counters!

Edited by Ben Bowen
Share on other sites

Penrose argument of non-computability of human thought might be wrong from your perspective but not from the perspective of Esoteric religions. I am not talking of his Orch-OR model instead I am talking of his pure mathematical arguments which lead to mathematical Platonism.

But in any case, Penrose's platonism has been criticized by physicists such as Deutsch and Hawking. Deutsch dismisses Penrose's interpretation of quantum mechanics as "based more on aesthetics than science".

Try again

Share on other sites

The reason I made this remark was exactly my understanding of why the idea will not die out. You can continue investigating, but apparently you aren't. You're becoming an expert at quoting other people's investigations, who are no more capable of analyzing truth in any spectacular way than any mere person.

Its my job to cite evidence for my claims and I just don't quote scientists and philosophers, I also understand their reasonable arguments and if you got some problem with my ideas then try to refute it by citing sources I'll be more than happy to address them, if not accept that you were wrong, don't tell me that it has shown to be wrong already, show some intellectual honesty for god sake.

I think this means you're a reasonless fanatic.

Its not my beliefs which have been shattered, actually its the beliefs of atheistic scientists which has been shattered. All this live and let live philosophy is not going to go on for too long, the time has come to show intolerance towards atheism and atheistic scientists who say that there is no need for a God hypothesis and who hold on to their fanatical position when all evidence are against their false preconceived notions.

We already know the answer: bullshit. Where does this answer come from? Try to answer that. So far, your answer has been: "They're unwilling, closed-minded jerks!" Okay, fine... but why would you suppose? It's human nature? Judging by what you've said specifically, you believe so indeed yourself.

And that's good. Oh hey... wouldn't you say my conclusion corresponds to some other certain special peoples' responses to you?

Actually there is no excuse for still holding on to the belief that the empirical reality exists out there independent of the human mind and its an experimental scientific fact and its not going to change what some special people say what. I go by facts not by group thinking.

This is exactly the difference between you and I. You've only had an orgasm. You've discontinued your real investigation, and now you're just massaging the parts you liked most.. So, why is it right for us to call bullshit now? Doesn't that mean a discontinuation of our investigation? No, it's a conclusion. How can I say this, that you have merely discontinued real investigation, and we have concluded it?

Actually Depth psychology is also a real investigation.

Depth Psychology

Summary of primary elements

• Depth psychology states that psyche is a process that is partly conscious and partly unconscious and partly semi-conscious. The unconscious in turn contains repressed experiences and other personal-level issues in its "upper" layers and "transpersonal" (e.g. collective, non-I, archetypal) forces in its depths. The semi-conscious contains or is, an aware pattern of personality, including everything in a spectrum from individual vanity to the personality of the workplace.
• The psyche spontaneously generates mythico-religious symbolism or themes, and is therefore spiritual or metaphysical, as well as instinctive, in nature. An implication of this is that the choice of whether to be a spiritual person may be beyond the individual, whether and how we apply it, including to nonspiritual aspirations.
• All minds, all lives, are ultimately embedded in some sort of myth-making in the form of themes or patterns. Mythology is therefore not a series of old explanations for natural events, but rather the richness and wonder of humanity played out in a symbolical, thematic, and patterned storytelling.

If you want to know how relevant Carl Jung's ideas are for our present age and time in which we are living and how much the notion of scientific realism is discussed and criticized then you should read these works.

Recasting Reality: Wolfgang Pauli’s Philosophical Ideas and Contemporary Science, Dr. Harald Atmanspacher

What most people don't know is that the Carl Jung's idea of the archetypes leads only to one thing: to Abraxas, the Holy Father of the Gnostics which is the pleroma of God and most people actually don't know about this. Isn't it fair to give the credit to the right person? i.e. to God, I am accused for speaking the truth or stating the facts, Carl Jung's ideas ultimately leads to the pleroma of God and I am just being way ahead of everyone and stating the truth. I am going to investigate the pleroma of God like I always have and perhaps you are going to do laundry like you always have.

This topic is 11 pages. 11 pages. Does that number matter? Doesn't it require great effort to share brilliant but very controversial ideas with others? 'Depends. I've already addressed how. You didn't answer.

This topic is in the current events and its not surprising that this topic has been rigorously discussed here at great depth. If you happen to notice some of the papers which I have cited are from 2009-2012 and the beauty of discussing it in an open forum is that it helps one to question their preconceived misconceptions and start to see things from a different perspective. If some scholars, scientists and amateurs had not misrepresented pagan ideas and beliefs then there was no point in starting this thread in the first place, I hope as a member of this forum I can start a thread without hijacking other threads.

If I am not allowed to discuss this topic in this sub-forum which is the "Forum for the discussion and examination of rational foundations of religion" as defined by this forum then where should I discuss this. Yes, some of these ideas have been ignored or been pushed under the carpet or seriously misunderstood and it takes much effort to change that attitude among people and make people aware as to what the evidence is actually saying.

Prior log:

...

...

Where we left off:

I think by now you should have understood how the Gnostic idea of the pleroma of God is turning out to be right and in the future more and more scientists and philosophers are going to investigate the pleroma of god, its just that not many have realized what the recent findings have been saying.

And at the god fucking damn core of it all, we've repeatedly shown you why the "evidence" you assert is completely wrong, and your responses have only been inadequate counters!

Actually the evidences which I have asserted all lead to the conclusion that the empirical reality is only a state of mind and there by directly leads to the existence of the pleroma of God. Whatever it is, one thing is for sure there is no element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity and scientific realism is dead. The quantum state doesn't represent anything physical out there in the physical world and its just a mathematical tool to predict the outcomes of a system or the experiences of the physicist.

Share on other sites

Its not my beliefs which have been shattered

Of course not.

Actually Depth psychology is also a real investigation.

Compile a list of real investigations and it will affect your argument by nothing. This is my point, again. It's not a game about how much you can cite or how much investigation there is into a certain aspect of your belief, such as "psychology." This is my point: it's called fanaticism.

Its my job to cite evidence for my claims and I just don't quote scientists and philosophers, I also understand their reasonable arguments and if you got some problem with my ideas then try to refute it by citing sources I'll be more than happy to address them, if not accept that you were wrong, don't tell me that it has shown to be wrong already, show some intellectual honesty for god sake.

Citation is not considered evidence at all... You obviously misunderstand the purpose of citation: "then try to refute it by citing." That's crazy. You may use citation to affirm refutation, but things don't work by throwing various sources against each other.

I think by now you should have understood how the Gnostic idea of the pleroma of God is turning out to be right and in the future more and more scientists and philosophers are going to investigate the pleroma of god, its just that not many have realized what the recent findings have been saying.

Obviously... and that's the problem.

directly leads to the existence of the pleroma of God

You can say that as much as you would like, but it's extremely far from being absolutely evident.

Edited by Ben Bowen
Share on other sites

the time has come to show intolerance towards atheism and atheistic scientists who say that there is no need for a God hypothesis

Intolerance plus ignorance is a dangerous cocktail.

Share on other sites

Intolerance plus ignorance is a dangerous cocktail.

I've been begging him to try! Don't ruin it.

Share on other sites

I see that some of them still have not grasped my arguments and I will try to explain my arguments once again.

The same Anton Zeilinger and Caslav Brukner et al team have made recent experiments known as 'Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping'. This is an very important paper for physics.

Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping

Please kindly try to understand this paper because it is very essential to understand the current problem in physics and in further understanding my solution to it.

In this experiment two pairs of photons 1, 2 and 3, 4 are entangled and the photons 2 and 3 are given to Victor for him to measure and the photons 1 and 4 are given to Alice and Bob respectively.

First Alice and Bob makes respective measurements on their photons but they cannot know whether the correlations observed are either of entangled photons or of well separated photons.

Now at some later time say 485ns after Alice and Bob's measurement, Victor makes a choice as to which type of measurement to make i.e a separable-state measurement (SSM) or a Bell-state measurement (BSM).

"According to Victor's choice of measurement (that is, entangled or separable state) and his results, Alice and Bob can sort their already recorded data into 4 subsets. They can now verify that when Victor projected his photons onto an entangled state, each of their joint subsets behaves as if it consisted of entangled pairs of distant photons. When Victor projected his photons onto a separable state, Alice's and Bob's joint subsets behave as if they consisted of separable pairs of photons. In neither case Alice's and Bob's photons have communicated or interacted in the past. This indicates that quantum mechanical predictions are completely indifferent to the temporal order of Victor's choice and measurement with respect to Alice's and Bob's measurements. Whether Alice's and Bob's earlier measurement outcomes indicate entanglement of photons 1 and 4 strictly depends on which measurements Victor performs at a later time on photons 2 and 3."

This is highly unacceptable because it seems as if Victor's choice was pre-determined or fixed or that the future is affecting the past. Its highly unacceptable because it directly clashes with General theory of Relativity which says that future cannot affect the past.

Therefore if one chooses to believe that the polarisation of a photon exists out there in the physical world prior to measurements or the idea of hidden variables(counterfactual definiteness or realism) then it leads to a serious paradox and its highly unacceptable and hence any realistic interpretation of QM which argue for hidden variables which correspond to elements of reality is in direct conflict with General Relativity.

"If one viewed the quantum state as a real physical object, one could get the paradoxical situation that future actions seem to have an influence on past and already irrevocably recorded events. However, there is never a paradox if the quantum state is viewed as no more than a catalogue of our knowledge'2. Then the state is a probability list for all possible measurement outcomes, the relative temporal order of the three observers' events is irrelevant and no physical interactions whatsoever between these events, especially into the past, are necessary to explain the delayed-choice entanglement swapping."

One indeed need to give up or renounce the notion of scientific realism in order to avoid a serious paradox and giving up realism is not enough what we actually need is a sound idealism because as Michael Brooks says, "To track down a theory of everything, we might have to accept that the universe only exists when we're looking at it" . I am no sure how physicists can sleep without figuring out this first. As Anton Zeilinger says relativity has been there for 100 years and quantum physics has been there for 100 years and we need a new breakthrough.

Everyone knows that poor Schroedinger spent forty years of his life arguing that the writers of the Upanishads knew the truth but the scientific community never took him seriously. We all know how his book What is Life? was the building stone for the discovery of the genetic code and the DNA which revolutionized the field of biology and in the same way his other books, 'Mind and Matter' and 'My view of the World' is going to revolutionize the way we see the world around us.

Erwin Schroedinger: Wiki quote

Idealism in Ancient philosophy

The oldest reference to Idealism in Hindu texts is in Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda. This sukta espouses panentheism by presenting cosmic being Purusha as both pervading all universe and yet being transcendent to it.[1] Absolute idealism can be seen in Chāndogya Upaniṣad, where things of the objective world like the five elements and the subjective world such as will, hope, memory etc. are seen to be emanations from the Self.

That's the the world existing independently of the human mind not the empirical reality.

Now some might ask what this has got to do with Carl Jung and the Gnostics and the answer is even their doctrine was identical. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads which Schroedinger was arguing and its going to correct the scientific consensus, that's for sure.

Edited by immortal
Share on other sites

Of course not.

Compile a list of real investigations and it will affect your argument by nothing. This is my point, again. It's not a game about how much you can cite or how much investigation there is into a certain aspect of your belief, such as "psychology." This is my point: it's called fanaticism.

Citation is not considered evidence at all... You obviously misunderstand the purpose of citation: "then try to refute it by citing." That's crazy. You may use citation to affirm refutation, but things don't work by throwing various sources against each other.

These scientific papers are not simple Citations but facts established from experiments. What? facts established from experiments. This is the way Nature is and what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind and this is a scientific fact. Do I have to go your way and say "get that through your head", I hope not.

Obviously... and that's the problem.

That's the reason why we have philosophers in science and religion to understand what the implications of the experiments are and that's exactly what I have cited in my OP.

You can say that as much as you would like, but it's extremely far from being absolutely evident.

You can't run away from the truth. Its quite self evident.

Oh my, you silly little girl. It's not funny at all, how you keep casting your line in a different spot each time. No, no goal posts have been moved at all. Look over all my recent posts that have anything to do the fundimentals of the argument and position you are coming from (even on another thread about 'If Science Could One day...'). I have never been using any loose, overly collective term like 'science' as far too many folks, on both sides of the table, even, far too often tend to do. That word will never be able to function so precisely as its users wish it to because a collective, non-count noun will never function in such a manner. No, immortal, you silly little girl, from post one I have been talking about external and internal reality via the only way to know of anything about it at all, and that method, or processes of thinking, is called 'SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Its the method you use to know whether it's too cold outside to wear a T-shirt and be comfortable. It's the same you use to know whether your tea is too hot to drink in gulps without burning your tongue. It's exactly the scientific method in its broadest sense (which is how I always use it unless other specified) that allows us to know that the earth has a core, is quite solid, revolves around a star (our sun), is ever so slowly slowing down; to know that concrete and steel have very, very similar expansion rates, that sugar poured into very hot coffee with milk in it causes a spillover, that the described and prescribed deity of the Tanakh is a figment of the authorship of the documents of that library, and so forth and so on, and on...

In continuation, and referencing back to so as to build on, the general outline of scientific method as found in the post quoted here (linking is possible I believe through the time stamp):

II. The science in scientific method--relations among pragmatic experience, sound knowledge, and sound beliefs.

There is an exact and accurate reason for the classifications stone age, bronze age, and iron age. There is plenty of secure enough evidence to realize that at a period of time in the long course of the Homo genus, the process of forging hard metals out of rock types, had not been discovered, whereas softer metal works (bronze, copper, possibly lead) had been. That exactly means that the materials, heating requirements, and processes had come about through a slow trial and error method. It is the same process that is strongly inferred from the evidences of stone tooling. While this all is far, far before the entry of the more specific SM in its more narrow definition range within the academic and professional fields in our more recent point in time, it reflects, nevertheless, scientific method in its broader range. All the evidence and information I have come across clearly demonstrates (so far) that we cannot find the instrument used by any Homo species which has not gone through this very process; either directly, or indirectly. (if any may request reference material citation, I can do it, but it is troublesome, and time consuming, to pull all that out again. I ask for trust in my honest, and fair reporting here, and my memory content accuracy.)

There were many events in early human history which scientific method (SM) (keep in mind that unless otherwise pointed out, I use this in the broadest definition range sense) most certainly had direct, or nearly direct involvement, and participation in things such as finally understanding the wheel, controlling fire, agricultural techniques, fermentation control, social in-group building techniques, or astronomical knowledge building . In the same breath, however, I fully agree (as it too, is most rational and realistic) there were those which it did not, such as migration patterns, inter-breeding patterns, and in-group ritual development. We can yet conclude, however, that there is every reason to understand that SM involvement had had an indirect influence on those to varying degrees, while not participating in them. (Also for example, in boat building, in large game hunting tactics, in searches for natural resource materials, in tool development for artistic expression, and so on)

A. Science in the broadest sense, as a minimum, pertains to knowing of a matter (I.A. & I.B.).

1.
When giving consideration of what the
science
in SM might mean, we could first check the aggregate average of the more comprehensive dictionaries, to find the primary definition/prescription for the non-count noun
science
. We will find that generally given as follows:

1.
orig., the state or fact of knowing; knowledge
2.
systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied
3.
a branch of knowledge or study, esp. one concerned with establishing and systematizing facts, principles, and methods, as by experiements and hypotheses [the
science
of mathematics].

While we all know that the etymology of a word will more often than not, have very little bearing on the senses that it is used in at the moment, we may still benefit in some way by understanding where the concept came from. I will suggest that the single occurrence of the noun '
science
' be held to be number 3, above; unless context makes it more clearly understood to be number 2. I would, at the same time, suggest that number 2 be that of SM in the more specific, most narrowly defined sense.
At any rate
, I reason that it is reasonably clear enough, that the base intersecting point between the most narrow definition range of SM, and that of the broadest, as they relate to the word
science
in general, is the matter of knowing (I.A. & I.B.)

2. There is the case of the soundness of knowledge, and there are items of sound knowledge which are not due to SM.

a. As it specifically relates to
science
and
SM
, to be '
sound
,' is to state that an item which is known in a sound manner, is that which has gone through (1.A. & 1.B.) over a large enough sample space and time space, to conclude it as being sound. That a certain mushroom will cause extreme illness, or, beyond a certain volume of intake, will absolutely result in death, is an example of an item of sound knowledge. That physical bodies amount to the substrates for relative degrees of the attractive force called gravity, is an item of sound knowledge. That all normal brains '
fill in
' the gap of actual visual input due to the optic nerve's exit from the back of the retina, is an item of sound knowledge.

b. There are items of sound knowledge which are not due to, or related to,
science
and
SM
. The item of knowledge that the capital of the USA is Washington D.C. is sound knowledge, but is not derived from SM; rather it is pure definition. The item of knowledge that the earliest Christian movement arose within, and as an extension of, Judaism, is sound, but is not a matter of
SM
, nor related to
science
. It is, instead, rather specifically by mere definition and accurate and sound historical record, an item of sound knowledge.

B. Knowledge and pragmatic experience, as they relate to SM, are strongly related over a continuum of relativeness and scale of inquiry.

1. I reason that it would be more accurate to take pragmatic experience into account first. I always hold (unless other wise mentioned) pragmatic to consists of the matters of efficiency, first-hand practicality, logically correct relative to a closeness of cause and effect concerns as they relate to the circumstance of maintaining a relatively normal range of lifestyle, and that which can be worked on, and with, through knowledge of them.

a. the foremost basic essential of pragmatic circumstances, or affairs, is that of the ability to have sensation from sensory input. Being able to feel pain is a good example of a pragmatic matter, as is that of being able to see, hear, smell, taste, and feel or physically sense so as to know of a circumstance, situation, process, or state of affairs (1.A.). It is most easily and reasonably enough understood, for example, that if vision were not a sensed effect of visual sensory input by all human beings (as a basic body/brain build), then it would by no means be a pragmatic concern to any human being under such 'normal' conditions. It is for this reason, therefore, that the absence of vision's pragmatic value is made up for by an increase in the pragmatic value of another sensory input sensing.

b. having a knowledge of certain plants and substances which have been demonstrated (1.A. & 1.B.) to have effects on health, is pragmatic knowledge. Likewise, the same can be said about knowing that heating certain wood items under a certain condition of heat, pressure, and time, will produce a product of wood which can then burn at a higher heat (collectively per volume), and for a longer period of time, than raw wood itself, that through a certain cut and shaped piece of glass, concentrated light can ignite organic substances in given situations, or that knowing certain head movements can relieve certain disturbances of the vestibular system.

c. the pragmatic concerns and relative relationship for knowing what is needed to insure robust agricultural output, is one point on the continuum of pragmatic application range, knowing how much of what materials to smelt together to produce a stronger steel, is another one, and knowing what equipment and operating processes would most likely be needed to observe a 'Higgs' particle, another.

2. The accumulation of pragmatic experience results in a bank of knowledge which, relative to the entire definition range of SM reciprocally, mostly amounts to sound knowledge (
giving room here for (I.B.2) theories which are yet to be placed in the 'sound' grouping
).

a. knowing that certain locations on the open seas will result in very little sailing movement is an example. The knowledge that smoking or storage in salt would better preserve meat is another. The knowledge accumulated that resulted in human built and operated airships being sent beyond the confines of earth's atmosphere, is another.

b. soundness in this regards is the same as (II.A.2.) above.

c. there is a soundness of pragmatic knowledge which does not depend so nearly directly on SM, nor which (for any material [i.e. relevant and participating] degree ) SM does not participate in. For example, that Monday follows Sunday is a matter of pragmatic knowledge based on experience, but that is mere definition; for the far most part. The same is true for the pragmatic experience of time, as well;
we know that it never has 'flowed,' as we can only know of it in any practical sense (see above), in an opposing manner
.

3. There is the case of the soundness of a belief, and it is possible to consider that there may be the item of sound belief which is not due to SM.

a. the sound belief as it relates to SM will be that of (I.B.2.b., c.). A sound belief can be applied in both directions in some cases--
that is down-stream in some cases (I.B.2.b.), and up-stream in some
. An example of an up-stream case, is that of the prediction that in most cases, certain exercises of functional mappings in the brain will lead to plastic strengthening by which many stroke patients can almost fully retake normal lifestyles. An example of an up-stream case, is that there was an interbreeding between the H.
sapiens
and the H.
neanderthalensis
up to some 4%.

b. the possibility of a sound belief which SM does not directly participate in, nor indirectly have involvement with, is a matter to consider, but must be tested against pragmatic experience, sound knowledge, and sound belief. In other words, statements or propositions classified as, or claimed as being,
sound beliefs in which SM neither participates in, nor is directly or indirectly involved with
cannot contradict any knowledge or belief founded in (I.- II.B.3.a.). For the purpose at hand, I leave this open due to lack of example.

The previous post, with the above, identifies the key points of relation between
science
(as it is better used in a careful manner), SM,
and
, pragmatic experience, sound knowledge, and sound belief. It identifies my usage of the term '
pragmatic
,' and points out that the understanding of there being a range/continuum of pragmatic experience application, relative to SM, is a better understanding. It argues for a definition of the term
sound
based on the relation of the items listed in (II)over all, and as supported by them in the manner of SM. Furthermore, this post leaves room for examples of possible sound beliefs not due to SM, and in which SM neither participates, nor is directly or indirectly involved in. It stipulates at the same time, nevertheless, that such examples cannot contradict the understandings and better knowledge and experience demonstrated in (I.) through (II.B.2.b.).

Nope. No deluding is occurring at all--
that which has been demonstrated to be incorrect, is thus incorrect, and the demonstrated results have held
. Again, please, I am only pointing to the portions of statements and claims which have been shown to be incorrect, or which have since been corrected. The proposition of Idealism as expounded on in the silly link you had provided, is incorrect. Again, error upon error, a correct will not make.

sound idealism
' is an incoherent misnomer. The thing which you have been positing from post one,
immortal
is incorrect--
that means it is not factual, is wrong, false,
etc.
. Only the hopless fail to be able to emotionally relinquish that failed notion. There is so extremely little pragmatic value at all in expecting any '
reduced-beyond-all-possible-practical-application-and-use
,' and unexperiencable element of nature in its wholeness, to be made use of, that we might as well go ahead and call it a fact that external actuality of nature at large, in no way at all demands either my brain's being relatively active enough to have the condition of having consciousness, nor yours, nor any other human being who lives on the face of the planet today, or who ever has.

Now, to put it in words which you may be more likely to be able to give any degree of attention so as to comprehend them, what we call reality is nature at large. Nature at large includes the make of of the neuronal and glia cell types which make brain (the tissue). Brain (the tissue) forms into a particular organ (
[the
brain) within a biological system (CNS; brain-as-an-organ housing organism). It is a fact that
THE
prime substrate for the processing which is acknowledged cognition (mind in consciousness condition) is brain. It is a fact that nature at large has elements of, and within, its make up and circumstance which do not require a single brain to be in an alive state. A single brain (organ) which is nothing more than a clump of somatically dead (not processing at all) tissue, is the remains of the substrate in processing which amounted to a mind. Realtiy does not require a functioning brain to be as it is, therefore other actualities of nature at large (reality) do not need a mind (a living human brain) to exist. This is a fact which is without any reasonable, pragmatic, and sound questioning
at all !!
And that,
immortal
, is the final answer--the truth of the matter--
like it or not
.

Now,
Ben Bowen
has a good idea; one well worth following up on. I'm go out and see if I can find a good baking oven. The truth of the matter here has been settled, and perpaps (one may have room to imagine) some who tend to work as though dropping so many lines in various spots, may be better off moving on to other puddles to drop lines into.

(ps I do not have to proof read further, and there may yet be some typos and errors. I apologize. If I do come back to check, I'll fix them if I can then. I'm sorry.)

The simple truth of the matter is that the so called scientific method itself is saying that scientific realism is false and the stupidity is not on my part but actually its on your part for not understanding what is being discussed here and what interesting is that the methodologies in esotericism have also been saying the same thing about our nature for all these years that what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind. You are deluding yourself again and again by ignoring facts established from experiments and that's what ought to be corrected. Did you understand? I am not attacking the scientific method instead I am attacking the scientific consensus.

The truth of the matter is that both religion and science are converging and there is no conflict between religion and science. Like it or not.
Share on other sites

I see that some of them still have not grasped my arguments and I will try to explain my arguments once again.

The same Anton Zeilinger and Caslav Brukner et al team have made recent experiments known as 'Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping'. This is an very important paper for physics.

Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping

Please kindly try to understand this paper because it is very essential to understand the current problem in physics and in further understanding my solution to it.

In this experiment two pairs of photons 1, 2 and 3, 4 are entangled and the photons 2 and 3 are given to Victor for him to measure and the photons 1 and 4 are given to Alice and Bob respectively.

First Alice and Bob makes respective measurements on their photons but they cannot know whether the correlations observed are either of entangled photons or of well separated photons.

Now at some later time say 485ns after Alice and Bob's measurement, Victor makes a choice as to which type of measurement to make i.e a separable-state measurement (SSM) or a Bell-state measurement (BSM).

"According to Victor's choice of measurement (that is, entangled or separable state) and his results, Alice and Bob can sort their already recorded data into 4 subsets. They can now verify that when Victor projected his photons onto an entangled state, each of their joint subsets behaves as if it consisted of entangled pairs of distant photons. When Victor projected his photons onto a separable state, Alice's and Bob's joint subsets behave as if they consisted of separable pairs of photons. In neither case Alice's and Bob's photons have communicated or interacted in the past. This indicates that quantum mechanical predictions are completely indifferent to the temporal order of Victor's choice and measurement with respect to Alice's and Bob's measurements. Whether Alice's and Bob's earlier measurement outcomes indicate entanglement of photons 1 and 4 strictly depends on which measurements Victor performs at a later time on photons 2 and 3."

This is highly unacceptable because it seems as if Victor's choice was pre-determined or fixed or that the future is affecting the past. Its highly unacceptable because it directly clashes with General theory of Relativity which says that future cannot affect the past.

Therefore if one chooses to believe that the polarisation of a photon exists out there in the physical world prior to measurements or the idea of hidden variables(counterfactual definiteness or realism) then it leads to a serious paradox and its highly unacceptable and hence any realistic interpretation of QM which argue for hidden variables which correspond to elements of reality is in direct conflict with General Relativity.

Many resources demystify delayed choice experiments. The textbook cited above devotes an entire chapter to such experiments and explains how people misunderstand such experiments.

Concretely the textbook explains why there is not paradox, violation of causality, or conflict with relativity in such experiments.

As is well-explained in this modern textbook, reality and scientific realism are compatible with this and other experiments.

The evolution of the universe does not depend in any special way of any human choice: in fact, the universe evolved according to the laws of quantum mechanics before the first human was born.

Edited by juanrga
Share on other sites

Concretely the textbook explains why there is not paradox, violation of causality, or conflict with relativity in such experiments.

As is well-explained in this modern textbook, reality and scientific realism are compatible with this and other experiments.

Selectively quoting a particular passage of my post instead of fully quoting it like you always do to prove your intellectual dishonesty and your biased ignorant position on QM shows that hidden variable theories are highly untenable and that holding on to realism leads to some serious troubles and shows that the Copenhagen Interpretation is right like it always been.

"If one viewed the quantum state as a real physical object, one could get the paradoxical situation that future actions seem to have an influence on past and already irrevocably recorded events. However, there is never a paradox if the quantum state is viewed as no more than a catalogue of our knowledge'2. Then the state is a probability list for all possible measurement outcomes, the relative temporal order of the three observers' events is irrelevant and no physical interactions whatsoever between these events, especially into the past, are necessary to explain the delayed-choice entanglement swapping."

- Researchers

Your textbook is outdated perhaps it needs a revision, I guess.

The evolution of the universe does not depend in any special way of any human choice: in fact, the universe evolved according to the laws of quantum mechanics before the first human was born.

That's turning out to be seriously wrong.

It is a fundamental axiom of quantum theory that no elementary phenomena is a phenomena until it is a registered one. People like John Wheeler becomes a sceptic and ponders: "Who has observed the big bang? Who has observed the early universe? How has the past of the universe actualized?"

Share on other sites

Selectively quoting a particular passage of my post instead of fully quoting it like you always do to prove your intellectual dishonesty and your biased ignorant position on QM shows that hidden variable theories are highly untenable and that holding on to realism leads to some serious troubles and shows that the Copenhagen Interpretation is right like it always been.

I did not even mention "hidden variable theories". I only wrote about quantum mechanics...

The Copenhagen Interpretation is well-known to be inconsistent (with Bohr's ideas being plain wrong), as emphasized in the well-known Physics Today article written by Steven Weinberg. Several improvements of the old Copenhagen Interpretation are under active development in modern physics research. Of course, neither nonsensical religious beliefs nor laughable "God hypothesis" play any role in physics research.

It is a fundamental axiom of quantum theory that no elementary phenomena is a phenomena until it is a registered one.

There is no such vague 'axiom' in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is a physical theory with a precise formulation.

P.S: I know that you are going to ignore this advice once again, but I am at least so persistent as you are: No wonder how many times you misunderstand science or insult others in this forum or elsewhere, your mistakes will not disappear, and your pseudo-religious post-modernism will continue being useless for science.

Edited by juanrga
Share on other sites

I did not even mention "hidden variable theories". I only wrote about quantum mechanics...

.... and quantum mechanics doesn't allow counterfactual definiteness, its the premise of realism that is actually wrong.

The Copenhagen Interpretation is well-known to be inconsistent (with Bohr's ideas just plain wrong), as emphasized in the Physics Today article written by Steven Weinberg. Several improvements of the old Copenhagen Interpretation are under active development in modern research. Of course, none of them relies on nonsensical religious beliefs neither invokes laughable God hypothesis.

Perhaps this is the hundredth time that you have quoted Steven Weinberg and still holding on to a biased position against Copenhagen Interpretation but actually the truth of the matter is that majority of the practising quantum physicists are still Copenhagenists and Anton Zeilinger is one of them to name a few. The Copenhagen Interpretation is quite safe and actually turning out to be the right one with slight modifications. The conclusion is that elements of physical reality or hidden variables that requires non-contextuality (i.e independent of measurement arrangement) is false. "There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality," Zeilinger concludes.

Real experiments confirm Kochen-Specker results

Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system - Original paper

The Copenhagen Interpretation is going well along with other interpretations and its very likely that its going to be the right one for the Quantum theoretical framework.

There is no such vague 'axiom' in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is a physical theory with a precise formulation.

Nope, there is such an axiom and it was postulated by Bohr.

P.S: I know that you are going to ignore this advice once again, but I am at least so persistent as you are: No wonder how many times you misunderstand science, or insult others, your mistakes will not disappear, and your pseudo-religious post-modernism will continue being useless for science.

You were the guy who told that there is a well accepted scientific consensus in the scientific community on this topic. Isn't it? Well looking at what all the recent research papers and experimental findings are saying and what several quantum physicists are themselves saying it clearly shows that its the premise realism which should be renounced as we move into the future. So contrary to what you say, there is a philosophical problem in science and it solely falls into the subject of philosophy. Don't say that I am mistaken but instead accept that you were deluded with your pre-conceived notions and beliefs.

Share on other sites

.... and quantum mechanics doesn't allow counterfactual definiteness, its the premise of realism that is actually wrong.

"Counterfactual definiteness" is a rather vague term (it lacks a precise definition) used in some interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Contrary to your immortal misunderstanding, quantum mechanics is perfectly compatible with realism.

Perhaps this is the hundredth time that you have quoted Steven Weinberg and still holding on to a biased position against Copenhagen Interpretation but actually the truth of the matter is that majority of the practising quantum physicists are still Copenhagenists and Anton Zeilinger is one of them to name a few. The Copenhagen Interpretation is quite safe and actually turning out to be the right one with slight modifications.

If you were not repeating the same mistake a hundred of times, surely I would not be quoting Weinberg once again. Unlike you, he is well aware of the limitations and weakness of the old Copenhagen interpretation and of how modern interpretations have surpassed it.

The popularity of the Copenhagen interpretation is related to being the older of all them and that it still work for a large class of quantum systems and also when one does not look into the details. There are situations where the old Copenhagen interpretation fails and has been surpassed by more general and rigorous interpretations, as explained in the modern literature cited hundred of posts ago.

The conclusion is that elements of physical reality or hidden variables that requires non-contextuality (i.e independent of measurement arrangement) is false. "There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality," Zeilinger concludes.

Real experiments confirm Kochen-Specker results

Congrats by linking to the typical sensationalist article from New Scientist with such nonsenses as "single photon that exists in three locations at once", "properties of one particle can immediately affect those of another regardless of the distance between them", and so on.

Your selection reflects again your immortal inability to differentiate a reliable scientific source (as those given to you by several posters) from popular misinterpretations. Why do not link again to the pseudo-journal with the hidden agenda? Why do not cite again that pseudo-religious Prize awarded to nonsense?

As the authors correctly note you cannot find a [classical] joint probability distribution allowing "a quantum system to be classically understood". They add: "We provide the first experimental evidence that even for a single three-state system, a qutrit, no such classical model can exist that correctly describes the results of a simple set of pairwise compatible measurements."

I have already stated, about 200 posts ago, that quantum mechanics describes quantum reality. Universe is not classical, but quantum in essence, and quantum mechanics describes quantum reality.

We know very well that classical reality is only an approximation to a more fundamental quantum reality.

The Copenhagen Interpretation is going well along with other interpretations and its very likely that its going to be the right one for the Quantum theoretical framework.

We already know what are the deficiencies of the Copenhagen Interpretation. This is not a secret known only among an elite of researchers, but can be found even in popular magazines as Physics Today (Weinberg's article cited before). You can ignore the facts, but they will not disappear...

You were the guy who told that there is a well accepted scientific consensus in the scientific community on this topic. Isn't it?

Sure, everyone knows that universe is made of elementary particles such as quarks and electrons, and that those particles existed in the universe before the first human was born. Look for "quark epoch" in some cosmology textbook.

You hold the very laughable opinion that those elementary aspects of modern physics are only beliefs by CERN scientists and that universe is made of your five pseudo-religious 'elements'; but such collection of nonsense only reflects your ignorance of such matters.

Edited by juanrga

Create an account

Register a new account