U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-23-2015, 09:06 AM
 
39,172 posts, read 10,865,034 times
Reputation: 5092

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne View Post
But you have made it up! Who else uses the word 'timespace'? Provide me with a link to one single peer reviewed scientific journal or abstract anywhere that uses the word in that way.


No most (all) mathematicians don't appreciate your philosophical implications. Why would they?


Oh I absolutely do engage in philosophical discussion.

Eugene Wigner, mathematician and physicist of the 1960's published his paper 'The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences', in which he both explains and speculates why it should be that mathematics is so precisely able to describe the universe, and why mathematical formula and able to be applied far beyond the contexts in which they were developed.
I think about this often. It is a truly remarkable and wonderful thing that we can slowly unlock the secrets of the universe by means of mathematics.
And this is perhaps why I can never take your synthesis seriously because until you start using the mathematics correctly, for me it's always going to be a non starter.


Me and my cohort of critics? (who would they be?)
Attacking? You have this wrong. There is a big difference between attack and defense. ALL I am doing is defending the science. Sorry that's just my nature. Where I see a mistake I can't help but point it out.
Sorry Mystic, but I will do this everytime. I can't help myself.


Okay well you have me there.
Yes you are right. I am a very literal person. I deal in reality so there you have it.

---------------------------------

Mystic there are few things about all this that have me scratching my head:
From what I can work out, the vast majority of people who have taken a look at your synthesis have found that it concludes nothing.
Wouldn't it then be safe to assume then, that you are very probably wrong?
Don't you ever question yourself?

People have brains and are free to draw their own conclusions, so I don't understand why you get so bent out of shape about it. You might instead take it as constructive criticism. This is part of what it takes to get a PhD. You have to be able to take criticism on the chin, think about it, reflect on it and possibly draw a new conclusion yourself. Just a thought.

Whenever I defend the science you instantly lump me in with your 'cohort of critics'. Yet in the past we have seen eye to eye on many issues. We probably agree on more issues than we disagree on. I just don't accept the basis of your synthesis here. Another thing to think about.
Good post. Effectively calling Mystic on his attempt to evade being pinned down on his supposed scientific terms by arguing that he uses them as analogies or philosophically. I won't labour the point, but I might just remark for the sake of Information that Mystic had only two Forum regular followers - that I know of (MissionImpossibru only turns up occasionally). Gldnrule and I believe one of our agnostic theists, not sure which one.

Everyone else who has taken an interest in Mystic's theory has had a lot of trouble trying to penetrate what it was all about and concluded that it is speculation based on nothing concrete. Each and every one.

I remember what a relief it was when the first 'other' person to try to understand Mystic's theory came to the same conclusion as me. You can imagine as a very ordinary bod with a very mediocre intellect and no certificate other than a one day computer class attendance, I wondered whether I really was totally clueless and just not getting it. But ..well, to see all others (without a predisposition to accept Mystic's theory without bothering about trying to understand it too much) coming to the same conclusion...it was quite a weight off my mind.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-23-2015 at 09:51 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-23-2015, 09:14 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,004,197 times
Reputation: 1366
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I am pleased you do see some aspects even though I disagree with you about time. If I ever called you a name I apologize. I don't recall doing so.
It's an accepted take in physics and chemistry so we can't really just disagree with that take on time. You need to modify your theory to include how "time" is used. And how cool would it be if reworking your stance a tad helps?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2015, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Divided Tribes of America
13,720 posts, read 5,529,326 times
Reputation: 5391
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You clearly have no idea what my views are or the rationale for them. Since mine are the only thoroughly documented ones here in the forum and even summarized in a Synthesis . . . I recommend you spend some time educating yourself about them. I realize that the default position for the lazy skeptics here has been to simply carp and complain and make claims of "not one shred of evidence or reason to believe" or whatever . . . so I will not be surprised if you continue to do the same.
Fundamentalist Mike555 told me the same things with regard to his claim of fulfilled the book of Daniel.

It's not just him. It's a pattern of behavior among overzealous spiritual types.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2015, 09:18 AM
 
39,172 posts, read 10,865,034 times
Reputation: 5092
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
...
Many of the most important breakthroughs in science came through speculation and were subsequently validated, Arq. But you are right . . . until testable and validated . . . my views remain "plausible and solid reasons to believe". . . and well beyond "no reason whatsoever to believe."
Subsequently validated by science. Mystic. You know my views that Philosophy for example, can raise questions that science would never think of. But they remain merely questions, speculations or hypotheses until science can find a way of validating them.

I am afraid that while there is no good reason to credit, let alone believe, your synthesis or theory - and I have said why - if I did use the term " no reason whatsoever to believe", while there is a possibility that you have got it right, I cannot accord it plausibility as there is no good or sound basis for it that I can see or that others can see. Therefore Believing it is totally unjustified. So the term seems valid.

I have been sure long since on rational and reasoning grounds that your arguments are not only based on speculation but are illogical. Again, I have said why.

It now seems that another person is finding the factual material used is not correct or not correctly used.

It seems that, like Creation -theory, the more that comes out the less plausible or valid your arguments seem. We don't mind what you personally believe and we understand your reasons for believing, but we (so far as I can see) have a duty to our own bonces to try to sort these claims out and they are monumentally failing to make the credibility cut.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-23-2015 at 10:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2015, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Sitting beside Walden Pond
4,609 posts, read 4,115,930 times
Reputation: 1399
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Everyone else who has taken an interest in Mystic theory has had a lot of trouble trying to penetrate what it was all about and concluded that it is speculation based on nothing concrete. Each and every one.
I agree. I even tried.

Questions for MysticPhd
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2015, 09:25 AM
 
39,172 posts, read 10,865,034 times
Reputation: 5092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
Fundamentalist Mike555 told me the same things with regard to his claim of fulfilled the book of Daniel.

It's not just him. It's a pattern of behavior among overzealous spiritual types.
Don't sweat it Freak. We all get this from Mystic. So far it hasn't intimidated anyone from digging down and finding there wasn't anything substantial there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2015, 09:29 AM
 
39,172 posts, read 10,865,034 times
Reputation: 5092
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45 View Post
I agree. I even tried.

Questions for MysticPhd
Thanks. Perhaps I shall look through that again....

....

I particularly liked around post 140 where pointing out that the Quantum talk as presented did not seem to make sense elicited the response that not everybody has the capacity for 'abstract thought'.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-23-2015 at 09:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2015, 10:06 AM
 
343 posts, read 246,339 times
Reputation: 32
Hiker asked about things to do with prayer and the theory, (the theory with respects to DM in opinion is a suggestion which is a guess accompanied the very interesting theory.

What is interesting is light is a constant ( important to the synthesis)and most here I think understand what that means. What it really means is light is not in a state of motion as we can understand motion and what is referred to as space-time.

Light holds its position and is not relative to other moving things which do not, hold their position, they move in ways which can be measured 'relative to other things in motion'. ( compare to a sphere, there is no middle of a sphere and its not possible to point to the middle. Same with distance, without something relative to measure distance from y a measure is not possible. Speed of light is not relative to anything.



So in theory it would be possible to say in effect there is no motion to light as man understands motion in the universe and it holds its position , not the source of light , the light beam itself. So if I flash a flash-light up at the wall, its the earth and its movement and the solar system and the galaxies which is in motion not the light beam

So in practice it could be hypothesized there is no speed within a beam of light. None, its everything else and the effects and behav of gravity and matter in the universe. I like Mystics idea in a way.

Here are the questions,

OK, so prayers are transmitted via 'dark energy'.
Are they transmitted at the speed of light?

So light has no motion as motion is understood (man understands) To wonder if transmitted at the speed of light wouldn't be the issue, the issue would be the capability of consideration away from things relative to matter which would qualify the transmission. (Formal prayers are not individually designed they are all on behalf of the species, ( our, we etc.( models . In the idea of prayer man is not able to understand fully what it is in realism being reached but feels an association. A supposed intuitive common ground association in timelessness.

Anyway the DM idea is what it is as a suggestion but would be interested to know how mystic thinks it could ever be measured at all because any workable theory as I see it would defy any measurable tool whatsoever. ( plus the comments who havn't even studied the double slit and time don't seem to have anything to say, time, distance , space, motion is a huge problem. Study the double slit and the erase of the detector for a few months, or try a laymens book by a physicist discussing time allowing the scope of these real problems of what is being introduced. Time disappears.

Last edited by Sophronius; 01-23-2015 at 11:35 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2015, 10:30 AM
 
39,172 posts, read 10,865,034 times
Reputation: 5092
Yes. Right away I felt that Mystic was being asked to explain things that (rationally) could only be his guesses.

I will stick my neck out and suggest that he feels that he is getting a revelation from the Cosmic Consciousness, so he knows what happens and has put together a synthesis suggesting how it works - as best he can tell from his perception.

Where the thesis falls down on rational and scientific grounds, we get (I surmise) a reversion to 'abstract/philosophical' thought which is garbledegook for a faith based belief that is attempted to be justified in the more confused areas of philosophical thought.

Mystic - I have never denied this - may simply be trying to explain something he knows through Mystical experience as best he can. I am also convinced that the attempts to explain do not stack up either rationally or evidentially and the fact that this theory is Faith -based makes it difficult for the alternative explanations to be accepted as equally good if not better.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-23-2015 at 11:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2015, 11:11 AM
 
343 posts, read 246,339 times
Reputation: 32
I think though what Mystic is arguing philosophically, would be in some keeping with a form, of things scientifically known, in efforts to the idea, ( his famous analogy is consistent with a 'form' known in the nature of scientific understandings. Some years ago five or so expert Morbert refused to accept the analogy because the analogy included a suggestion which included a possible mystery, but gave no reason why it couldn't be held to be a mystery , wonder.

Last edited by Sophronius; 01-23-2015 at 11:39 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top