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 01-26-2015, 05:24 AM
 
3,637 posts, read 2,700,916 times
Reputation: 4300

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
But it was always driven by the reality of my experience and subsequent efforts within the meditative state.
More accurately your exercise in confirmation bias was not driven by the experience - an experience you can not evidence to us ever happened by the way - but by your arbitrarily chosen idea of what that experience was - which you worked backwards from there.

There is nothing unique about your experience - I have heard you describe nothing about it that I - and many others - have not also had. And you have described nothing within it that is not well known to neuroscience - and are experiences we can also have through drugs - manipulation of the brain - stress - and much more.

It appears to be a decision - and nothing more - upon which to draw conclusions and hypotheses from your experience which are simply baseless. The scientific and rational approach to such an experience would be to say "I have had an experience - now let us explore the explanations for it" and work forwards from there - but you do not start there - you start from the conclusion that you encountered some god-head - and are working backwards - not forwards - from your conclusion. So whatever else you do from that point onwards - you can not pretend it is science or scientific what you are engaged in. Your "knowingness" is no less real to anyone else who just "knows" any other ridiculous and baseless idea that has succoured to them. From the people who believe a US president was an alien lizard in disguise - to the people who were abducted by UFO. They just "know" they are right too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
But I refuse to think I am mentally ill or deluded
Is that not true of people who are deluded by definition? I have yet to meet anyone who is deluded - who did anything but refuse to believe they were deluded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-26-2015, 11:06 AM
 
93 posts, read 66,381 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophronius View Post
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.
I "refused to accept the analogy" because Mystic was not simply making an analogy. He was attempting to support his hypothesis by underlying it with science, without understanding science.

Physical theories are instructions on what we observe. They tell us about the frequency of observables and their relations. Quantum mechanics, for example, tells us observables do not always commute, and provides us with a new set of tools for understanding how non-commuting observables behave.

Physical theories are not metaphysical procedures or ontological foundations for establishing mysticism or personal experiences as real.

Sometimes, people will try to use physical theories to support mysticism. They do this for two reasons:

1) Some physical theories appear mysterious after a first pass, and people want to support mysticism with mysterious and exotic things.

2) Physical theories are reputable. By dropping physical terms into their mysticism, people hope that their mysticism will become reputable.

Not only is this a misapplication of physics, but the person doing so often has no understanding of the physics they are referencing. MysticPhD is a classic case.

Last edited by Morbert; 01-26-2015 at 11:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2015, 11:13 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,011,166 times
Reputation: 1368
rational approach works with rational people. period. A red flag goes up when people claim they have the real truth and that other group doesn't. mystic When I have to force my opinion on people as "rational" that is telling me something. usually I look around for police assistance. And I'll be no-god darned if it depends on belief in a no-god when I need them.

mystic look at what you are saying. personal experience and meditation? while good start it has to be cross checked. preferably with people that don't think like you. When we say "we understand your base facts as "true" but we don't care" you will know you have something that may be valid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2015, 02:34 PM
 
40,109 posts, read 26,772,494 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert View Post
I "refused to accept the analogy" because Mystic was not simply making an analogy. He was attempting to support his hypothesis by underlying it with science, without understanding science.
You refused to accept it because you did not understand its use philosophically as a communication device to a lay audience. We have had extensive dialogue during which I have more than demonstrated my knowledge and understanding of science. You OTOH have simply blustered that my attempts to support what you see as merely mysticism were not justified. You deal with the physics as physics and the equations as formulations of physical events . . . NOT as philosophical indicators of the underlying structure of reality and the measurable vibratory field manifestations that comprise it. You use science . . . I philosophically interpret what it says about our reality. I tire of your denigration of my knowledge of the science just because I interpret its implications differently from you.
Quote:
Physical theories are instructions on what we observe. They tell us about the frequency of observables and their relations. Quantum mechanics, for example, tells us observables do not always commute, and provides us with a new set of tools for understanding how non-commuting observables behave.
Physical theories are not metaphysical procedures or ontological foundations for establishing mysticism or personal experiences as real.
Everything we measure provides information about the structure and composition of our reality. You refuse to look for that information and pretend it does not exist in the formulations we produce . . . but I do not.
Quote:
Sometimes, people will try to use physical theories to support mysticism. They do this for two reasons:

1) Some physical theories appear mysterious after a first pass, and people want to support mysticism with mysterious and exotic things.

2) Physical theories are reputable. By dropping physical terms into their mysticism, people hope that their mysticism will become reputable.

Not only is this a misapplication of physics, but the person doing so often has no understanding of the physics they are referencing. MysticPhD is a classic case.
Your attempt to infer motives is puerile and bigoted against mysticism. What you call misapplication is metaphysics. Ignoring that this reference to me is a vicious libel . . . you have had many opportunities to show me where my understanding of the science was in error and failed to do so. You do not like my philosophical inferences or my analogies . . . but you have at no time shown my knowledge of the science to be faulty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2015, 06:27 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,094,403 times
Reputation: 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Your attempt to infer motives is puerile and bigoted against mysticism. What you call misapplication is metaphysics. Ignoring that this reference to me is a vicious libel . . . you have had many opportunities to show me where my understanding of the science was in error and failed to do so. You do not like my philosophical inferences or my analogies . . . but you have at no time shown my knowledge of the science to be faulty.
Just to be clear, you're replying to Morbert (82 previous postings) not Mordant. At least it seems like Morbert is new enough around here not to have had "ample opportunity" to appreciate the greatness of your synthesis ;-) or to justify such ire directed at him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2015, 06:39 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,252,936 times
Reputation: 1317
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Just to be clear, you're replying to Morbert (82 previous postings) not Mordant. At least it seems like Morbert is new enough around here not to have had "ample opportunity" to appreciate the greatness of your synthesis ;-) or to justify such ire directed at him.
Morbert is a critic who goes a couple years back, and who, if I recall correctly, has an order of magnitude greater understanding of physics than pretty much all of the rest of us put together. I cannot recall if he is a "Pro" or just a well versed amature. Mystic took umbrage at having his synthesis dismantled, and that was the first time I heard the defense, "It is all analogies, not intended to be real physics."

At least that is how I recall it...

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2015, 07:29 PM
 
93 posts, read 66,381 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You refused to accept it because you did not understand its use philosophically as a communication device to a lay audience. We have had extensive dialogue during which I have more than demonstrated my knowledge and understanding of science. You OTOH have simply blustered that my attempts to support what you see as merely mysticism were not justified. You deal with the physics as physics and the equations as formulations of physical events . . . NOT as philosophical indicators of the underlying structure of reality and the measurable vibratory field manifestations that comprise it. You use science . . . I philosophically interpret what it says about our reality. I tire of your denigration of my knowledge of the science just because I interpret its implications differently from you.
But you don't interpret science philosophically. There is plenty of discourse in the fields of philosophy of physics and philosophy of mathematics. These people have an impeccable understanding of physics. Papers matching '' - PhilPapers

You, on the other hand, reference physics in the exact same way this girl references physics:


No rigour. No consideration for the terms you crowbar into your mysticism. No claims that could be explained away as "analogies".

Quote:
Everything we measure provides information about the structure and composition of our reality.
Yep. Physics tells us how nature behaves. But physical theories are not metaphysical procedures or ontological foundations for establishing mysticism or personal experiences as real. If you want your ontology to be motivated by physics go right ahead, but you can't retroactively use it to varnish your mysticism.

Quote:
you have had many opportunities to show me where my understanding of the science was in error and failed to do so.
But I repeatedly showed you mistakes. You, for example, claimed energy was mass accelerated to the speed of light squared. You claimed energy was all that exists. You misunderstood the quantum eraser experiment as somehow evidencing the necessity of consciousness in quantum theory. The list goes on.

Let's take one example: Energy being "mass accelerated to the speed of light squared". Not only did you make this statement, but you also said it "is just Eintein's equation in words . . . E=MC^2". When I called you out on this, you attempted to contrive a "it was just an analogy" excuse. This is all nonsense.



The bottom line is, by salting your mysticism with physics terms, and by trying to pass yourself off as a non-layman, your only ultimate achievement is to obfuscate the field of physics for anyone unfortunate enough to stumble across your posts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2015, 07:42 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,094,403 times
Reputation: 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
Morbert is a critic who goes a couple years back, and who, if I recall correctly, has an order of magnitude greater understanding of physics than pretty much all of the rest of us put together. I cannot recall if he is a "Pro" or just a well versed amature. Mystic took umbrage at having his synthesis dismantled, and that was the first time I heard the defense, "It is all analogies, not intended to be real physics."

At least that is how I recall it...

-NoCapo
That was Morbert? Wow. I saw his post count and figured he was probably new. Apparently when Morbert has something to say, he makes it count ;-)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2015, 11:04 PM
 
40,109 posts, read 26,772,494 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You refused to accept it because you did not understand its use philosophically as a communication device to a lay audience. We have had extensive dialogue during which I have more than demonstrated my knowledge and understanding of science. You OTOH have simply blustered that my attempts to support what you see as merely mysticism were not justified. You deal with the physics as physics and the equations as formulations of physical events . . . NOT as philosophical indicators of the underlying structure of reality and the measurable vibratory field manifestations that comprise it. You use science . . . I philosophically interpret what it says about our reality. I tire of your denigration of my knowledge of the science just because I interpret its implications differently from you.Everything we measure provides information about the structure and composition of our reality. You refuse to look for that information and pretend it does not exist in the formulations we produce . . . but I do not. Your attempt to infer motives is puerile and bigoted against mysticism. What you call misapplication is metaphysics. Ignoring that this reference to me is a vicious libel . . . you have had many opportunities to show me where my understanding of the science was in error and failed to do so. You do not like my philosophical inferences or my analogies . . . but you have at no time shown my knowledge of the science to be faulty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert View Post
But you don't interpret science philosophically. There is plenty of discourse in the fields of philosophy of physics and philosophy of mathematics. These people have an impeccable understanding of physics. No rigour. No consideration for the terms you crowbar into your mysticism. No claims that could be explained away as "analogies".
Yep. Physics tells us how nature behaves. But physical theories are not metaphysical procedures or ontological foundations for establishing mysticism or personal experiences as real. If you want your ontology to be motivated by physics go right ahead, but you can't retroactively use it to varnish your mysticism.
But I repeatedly showed you mistakes. You, for example, claimed energy was mass accelerated to the speed of light squared. You claimed energy was all that exists. You misunderstood the quantum eraser experiment as somehow evidencing the necessity of consciousness in quantum theory. The list goes on.
Let's take one example: Energy being "mass accelerated to the speed of light squared". Not only did you make this statement, but you also said it "is just Eintein's equation in words . . . E=MC^2". When I called you out on this, you attempted to contrive a "it was just an analogy" excuse. This is all nonsense.
All your criticism has been about my conclusions from the inferences and implications I draw from the science. You could find or expose NO errors in my knowledge or understanding of the science because there is none. To pretend otherwise is dishonesty and hubris. You still keep failing to comprehend what I use the equations for . . . pretending I think mass is actually accelerated to the square of the speed of light. Your preposterous pretense to believe that I literally believe that IS part of your bigotry against mystics . . . and Yes . . . your abject failure to comprehend the use of analogy.

What we call energy is a field manifestation that we measure in various ways. What we measure is a phenomenon that actually exists and has characteristics that define its structure in our reality. The formulations we use in mathematics reveal those characteristics. E=MC^2 and E= hf reveal different features of the field manifesting as energy. That it is vibratory is revealed by E=hf. One complete cycle (back and forth) is represented using the propagation of EM radiation at the square of that propagation, i.e. E=MC^2. They are representing the SAME reality . . . a vibratory phenomenon existing at high frequency. How would you communicate the idea of aggregate vibratory phenomena existing at low standing wave frequencies being transformed into high frequency phenomena???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2015, 05:33 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,011,166 times
Reputation: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
All your criticism has been about my conclusions from the inferences and implications I draw from the science. You could find or expose NO errors in my knowledge or understanding of the science because there is none. To pretend otherwise is dishonesty and hubris. You still keep failing to comprehend what I use the equations for . . . pretending I think mass is actually accelerated to the square of the speed of light. Your preposterous pretense to believe that I literally believe that IS part of your bigotry against mystics . . . and Yes . . . your abject failure to comprehend the use of analogy.

What we call energy is a field manifestation that we measure in various ways. What we measure is a phenomenon that actually exists and has characteristics that define its structure in our reality. The formulations we use in mathematics reveal those characteristics. E=MC^2 and E= hf reveal different features of the field manifesting as energy. That it is vibratory is revealed by E=hf. One complete cycle (back and forth) is represented using the propagation of EM radiation at the square of that propagation, i.e. E=MC^2. They are representing the SAME reality . . . a vibratory phenomenon existing at high frequency. How would you communicate the idea of aggregate vibratory phenomena existing at low standing wave frequencies being transformed into high frequency phenomena???
yes, some of the anti-religion types don't care about data they care about logical fallacies witch is a special case in philosophy. It has very limited use in the real word. That is not who you are talking too. yes, matter is frozen energy. we get that. And yes again, The physics of the very big and the very small have not been unified yet but they are working in the same volume of space.

so now what? I say start with what we know. Lets address the standing wave.

something changed it. So let's use what we do know. The big bang was not a neat and tidy event. there are reverberations all over the place. In fact, different areas of the same field can change other areas of that field. It makes it look like it "magically changed". not until we move "up" and "down" in scale do we understand what happened.
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