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.
... every measurement event captures the essence of our reality and reveals glimpses into its underlying structure and function.
Every measurement event captures whatever data it captures and then the idea is to discern patterns in it. The problem is that confirmation bias and agency inference tend to lead us astray, as we have such a need to see patterns that at times we can see them where they don't exist. So we have a scientific method, an imposed rigor that guards against that and hopefully allows us to see only actual patterns that lead us to underlying structure and function.
That is not to say that speculation is useless. To the extent that speculation leads to testable hypotheses, it's fine. Do you have a testable hypothesis?
I take offense at the repeated use of "made up" that characterizes my critics' posts simply because they do not understand my philosophical use of the math formulas as analogous measured indices of our underlying reality. In truth most mathematicians have little to no appreciation for the philosophical implications of their extremely useful and revealing formulations. Let's cut to the chase, Cruithne . . . you seem not to engage in philosophical speculation of any kind. But whether or not anyone likes it . . . ANY discussion of God is speculative philosophy . . . otherwise there would be no need for discussion. You and your cohort of critics of my views keep attacking them AS IF they were presented as proven. In fact my most annoying critic keeps asking for that proof despite repeated attempts to clarify it for him. That indicates deliberate baiting, IMO.
None of you unbelievers in God seem willing to engage in the philosophical reasoning of the SCIENCE that underlies my HYPOTHESES . . . with the exception of Gaylen. If you did we could find out why you disagree with my understanding of it. You attack my analogies AS IF they were literal and make no attempt to see them from a philosophical perspective as indices of the underlying structure and nature of our reality. My HYPOTHESES derived from the SCIENCE and my personal experiences . . . form the basis for my FAITH/BELIEFS. You and my other critics insist on asking for proof or evidence for my faith/beliefs . . . NOT for the derivation of my hypotheses or any errors in my understanding of the science you might think exists. IF you only see the physics as physics . . . and what it represents or can be used for . . . you are not open to any philosophical speculation about what its measured formulations actually reveal about the underlying structure of our reality. That is very sad because every measurement event captures the essence of our reality and reveals glimpses into its underlying structure and function.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Every measurement event captures whatever data it captures and then the idea is to discern patterns in it. The problem is that confirmation bias and agency inference tend to lead us astray, as we have such a need to see patterns that at times we can see them where they don't exist. So we have a scientific method, an imposed rigor that guards against that and hopefully allows us to see only actual patterns that lead us to underlying structure and function.
But that IS my point. When we manipulate the measurement events in our mathematical rubric the resulting formulations of the aspect being measured is revealed in the symbols used. When energy is symbolized as MC^2 or hf . . . those symbols have characteristics in the math that suggest the characteristics the measured entity possess in our reality. In this case . . . energy EXISTS in a vibratory state (hf) . . . one that we could characterize as analogous to "molecular." That vibratory state can be characterized as the square of speed of light with each cycle (back and forth travel) of the vibration represented symbolically as the square of the underlying "speed of propagation" of all EM radiation (C). I realize this is not the typical kind of thinking about what the mathematics represents . . . but it works for me.
Quote:
That is not to say that speculation is useless. To the extent that speculation leads to testable hypotheses, it's fine. Do you have a testable hypothesis?
I have hypotheses, mordant . . . as you well know. But testability is and will remain the main hurdle that faces me. It is also the thing that Gaylen's efforts to establish a measurement regimen would resolve. It is also why my critics keep asking for any evidence for my CONCLUSIONS . . . knowing full well that there currently is none because my hypotheses are not yet testable. The fact that they are not yet testable in no way invalidates the science and the rationale from which they are derived . . . a point that is routinely ignored by my critics. They pretend that the science and supporting rationale for my hypotheses does not exist . . .without explaining why they think so. They simply repeat their signature mantra " there is no reason to believe and not one shred of evidence," etc. If they actually addressed the science and the rationale and exposed any faulty thinking or reasoning . . . that would be one thing. But to ignore the science and the rationale as non-existent without ever addressing them and then to dismiss my conclusions outright is just "dirty pool."
any particular person would have to pursue his meditation practice for potentially years to arrive at similar conclusions.
The fun part of that - is that those of us who actually have done so - and have shared the kinds of experience he talks of - do not leap to the conclusions in the same way - because there is no reason to.
Nor do we tout our supposed previous atheism as a validator to lend credibility to our transformation. Many people do this - as if their being an atheist before confers some validity to their conversion now. Someone giving nonsense - is giving nonsense - regardless of their having previously been a skeptic or atheist with regard the nonsense they are now offering.
Meditation - in many of it's forms - is a path way to many things. Including sensation and experience that is not available the common joe on the street - assuming the absence of drugs - injury - or medical manipulation.
I myself have experienced many - if not all - of the experiences I have ever seen Mystic discuss on these forums. And some he has never mentioned too. The experience of being outside oneself - the experience of a universal connection between all things - the experience of a universal relevance to all things - the experience of another consciousness outside oneself that many people myself included experience as being somehow "behind" us over one shoulder or the other observing - the experience of a separation or disconnect between conscious thought and awareness and the ego - a feeling of love for all things - especially living things - and much much more.
And these experiences are powerful and transforming to those who have them in many ways - the modify at their very foundation much of our ethical intuitions for example. But at no point have I - nor should anyone - leap to fantastical conclusions without evidence off the back of these experiences - such as thinking that this consciousness you feel is present and you have encountered is actually a consciousness external or separate to yourself. By all means explore that possibility - it is a valid hypothesis on the face of it - but do not make the mistake we see here of assuming a conclusion and then confirmation bias confirming that conclusion to yourself - in a campaign that lasts decades of self confirmation bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
they do not understand my philosophical use of the math formulas as analogous measured indices of our underlying reality.
Actually I fear the issue is that they infact understand it perfectly and see through it. And what is seen through it is a tactic of - when the science does not support a given claim - replace it instead with a scientific analogy that is quite meaningless and failed - and then proceed on wards as if a scientific argument has been made.
In other words - where the science does not conform to the conclusions you want - you use analogy not in order to highlight a fact or point - but in order to bridge the gap where science has simply failed to conform to your desire of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
In fact my most annoying critic keeps asking for that proof despite repeated attempts to clarify it for him. That indicates deliberate baiting, IMO.
I think the baiting is seen in a situation - like we have seen on this thread - where people like myself have directly asked you for what you think supports your claims - you have failed to answer that question and dodged it - and then you proceed to accuse those people of failing to consider (or have the intellectual faculties to consider) the support for your claims.
In post #137 for example I specifically presented 4 of your claims and have clearly and concisely done nothing with them except ask what support you have for them. Note how you have not replied to this - but have skipped over offering the requested clarification - and have instead here made claims that I do nothing but ask for it.
It is true - until such time as you give the clarification - I will keep requesting it. Alas you maintain this tactic of refusing to give it - so you can keep up the illusion that we refuse to consider or engage it. Because as long as you maintain the reality that you have never given your evidence - you can maintain the therefore correct illusion that we have never engaged with that evidence. For we can not engage with what you have simply not offered us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
None of you unbelievers in God seem willing to engage in the philosophical reasoning of the SCIENCE that underlies my HYPOTHESES
Which as I just said is an illusion you maintain by not actually giving the reasoning and science that underlies it. I just asked for the reasoning and science behind 4 specific hypotheses you hold - and you have flat refused to reply as anyone can see by starting at post #137 and simply reading forwards from there.
But that IS my point. When we manipulate the measurement events in our mathematical rubric the resulting formulations of the aspect being measured is revealed in the symbols used. When energy is symbolized as MC^2 or hf . . . those symbols have characteristics in the math that suggest the characteristics the measured entity possess in our reality. In this case . . . energy EXISTS in a vibratory state (hf) . . . one that we could characterize as analogous to "molecular." That vibratory state can be characterized as the square of speed of light with each cycle (back and forth travel) of the vibration represented symbolically as the square of the underlying "speed of propagation" of all EM radiation (C). I realize this is not the typical kind of thinking about what the mathematics represents . . . but it works for me.I have hypotheses, mordant . . . as you well know. But testability is and will remain the main hurdle that faces me. It is also the thing that Gaylen's efforts to establish a measurement regimen would resolve. It is also why my critics keep asking for any evidence for my CONCLUSIONS . . . knowing full well that there currently is none because my hypotheses are not yet testable. The fact that they are not yet testable in no way invalidates the science and the rationale from which they are derived . . . a point that is routinely ignored by my critics. They pretend that the science and supporting rationale for my hypotheses does not exist . . .without explaining why they think so. They simply repeat their signature mantra " there is no reason to believe and not one shred of evidence," etc. If they actually addressed the science and the rationale and exposed any faulty thinking or reasoning . . . that would be one thing. But to ignore the science and the rationale as non-existent without ever addressing them and then to dismiss my conclusions outright is just "dirty pool."
.Ok so you are saying that there is some "cyclic" property being expressed. And that the limits of our measurements are telling us something. I am ok with that. I think your use of time is wrong. I say I am ok with that notion because "field' have to be able to change position so a "fixed" base will not work. I think!!!!I don't know. I think you should "build up". when we look "down" things disappear to most people.
The dirty pool is when you start with the name calling. You did it to me.
I have hypotheses, mordant . . . as you well know. But testability is and will remain the main hurdle that faces me.
In which case get back to me when it is testable or you come up with an alternative hypothesis that IS testable. Otherwise you cannot provide the support needed to allow your claims to be considered. This is precisely why I haven't so much rejected the Abrahamic, personal type of god as I don't consider it relevant or able to be considered; such a god is inherently not provable. Since the god you are proposing with your admittedly also untestable hypothesis is really just a version of the Abrahamic god. And, since I HAVE to the extent I'm willing (an extent that goes further than what most people in my experience bother with) pursued the avenue of personal subjective experience which might provide proof at least adequate for me personally, and that has not worked out either ... I (and I'm sure most others like me) view life as far too short for me to spend one more second of time on pondering random possibilities. I need someone to show me testable hypotheses before I will seriously look at it again. I want my efforts focused by something actually promising.
95% of my time here is spent demonstrating to theists the lack of substantiation for their claims, in hopes that some of them, when the time is right for them personally, will find their way out of the thicket and fog of theist ideation, as I have, and have benefitted greatly from. Without the substantiation part, you're on a fool's errand in forums of unbelievers, to convince anyone of anything. You will find a far more receptive audience among people who are actively already convinced of some form of theism or other; they may be more vulnerable to alternative ways of thinking about what they've already bought into.
Alas, I fear you are then going to run into different brick walls, ones designed to protect orthodoxy and doctrinal purity. Your best bet are new age types and extremely liberal Christians for whom curiosity and experimentation with random ideas given the already accepted premise, are not taboo.
The above is not to make you feel unwelcome in any way; you often have useful and interesting things to say. I'm just saying, metaphorically: "Saul, Saul, it is hard for you to kick against the ox-goads." So until you have the prerequisites to sell this particular idea, I would not waste time and energy selling it here.
I take offense at the repeated use of "made up" that characterizes my critics' posts simply because they do not understand my philosophical use of the math formulas as analogous measured indices of our underlying reality.
Nice use of irony here. Fabricate a made-up reason for why people don't agree with you in your objection to people claiming that you make things up. I'd give you credit for using this literary device, assuming I thought i was anything more than unconscious cognitive dissonance at work.
Quote:
In truth most mathematicians have little to no appreciation for the philosophical implications of their extremely useful and revealing formulations.
The fact that experts in the field dismiss your method of gaining further knowledge from their work should be a big flashing neon sign, at least to anyone with a bit of perspective on their level of knowledge and experience compared to those experts. But then again, I don't have an [internet] PhD, so what do I know?
... I (and I'm sure most others like me) view life as far too short for me to spend one more second of time on pondering random possibilities. .
This is what I alluded to....or said outright...sometime earlier.
I also don't bother with " What if...........?" threads. Even if the premise is possible, it's usually also remote.
Early on, I actually did spend , as it turned, out too much time reading and giving consideration to Mystic's ideas.
Exactly. I told Mystic and Gaylen on the 'consciousness in a robot' thread that I was a practical man. "What ifs" are diverting sometimes, and in philosophy can even raise questions where science never steps. But, if science cannot provide the answers, faith and speculative guesswork never can.
That is why I have spent so much time on Mystic's hypothesis and its spin -off arguments like the rationale of atheism, the reliability of divine revelation and of course the 'Hard Question'.
It has never turned up anything but (at best) unknowns, speculation and faith -claims. My original take on the "Synthesis" when I first read it hasn't changed bur has been reinforced the more I have seen the protracted debates. It is a nice little theory but is entirely speculative and with no basis other than personal faith.
that's fine. as long as we know the difference between random and not. Most do not. And also that just because you don't want to doesn't mean others don't or can't. Then applying those two notions bluntly dismiss a real and valid possibility because you don't want to, or understand, how valid the prediction is.
And the absolute worst is not listening because we are afraid of the answer. I see that everyare and no god forbid they had parts of it correct. I mean my ego would be crushed.
Maybe there’s an explanation beyond religion and atheist theory.
Tell me more about this "atheist theory" you speak of.
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.
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.
