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.
You're wrong. I am truly trying to understand your hypothesis. I am skeptical of it because I acknowledge that you have not done any objective testing of it; But this is a separate acknowledgment from being interested in it nonetheless.
And to the red highlighted above, you are wrong. All hypotheses are speculation until tested. And you have not tested your hypothesis scientifically.
Neither have the string theorists, nor the loop quantum gravity theorists, nor . . . whatever.
Quote:
All I have done is acknowledged that everything you add to what is currently known by the scientific community is subjective speculation, originating solely from guesswork that you have 'affirmed' using a priori assumptions of your meditation experiences. This doesn't mean I'm not interested in knowing the details of how you tie it into extant science. And despite your inaccurate assessment of my agenda, I have not dismissed everything you say as impossible.
Moderator cut: deleted as inappropriate I have spent decades putting this together . . . NOT from guesswork . . . but from disciplined scientific scrutiny in the relevant disciplines. YES . . . I had the benefit of "knowing" (NOT assuming) the truth before I started . . . but it still had to fit what we DO know . . . not just conveniently explain what we DON'T!!
Quote:
Arequipa and I are not the only readers of this thread, so even if you feel we are a waste of time, maybe you would like to lay out your details in a way that doesn't just bring in more problems and begged questions that you can only answer with "analogy only!" I'm sure you have all the details written out and refined already, right?
[b]ALL THE DETAILS??? Moderator cut: deleted ... it involves the forbidden subject of God. You expect that I have the resources to explore all the details on my own? I am CONTENT . . . and I am only trying to explain it sufficiently for anyone to credit the existence of God as SCIENTIFICALLY PLAUSIBLE . . . every bit as plausible as multiple universes or strings or . . . whatever . . . Moderator cut: deleted as offensive Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear . . . The BELIEFS I have researched in the "spiritual fossil record" and appended to my God synthesis are adequately sound to inform my acceptance of Christ as the proximate source for the consciousness I encounter in meditation.
Neither have the string theorists, nor the loop quantum gravity theorists, nor . . . whatever.
As I showed you in another thread, these theories ARE being put to the test. Attempts to disprove them ARE being done.
You feel like you are different and don't have to test yours, because you have your a priori assumption that you are right without any scientific verification at all.
Quote:
Moderator cut: orphaned I have spent decades putting this together . . . NOT from guesswork . . . but from disciplined scientific scrutiny in the relevant disciplines.
It's a hypothesis = guess until tested. Your certainty is dangerous.
If you have spent decades putting it together, you must by now have a concise dissertation on it, right? If so, laying out the details should be cake.
Quote:
YES . . . I had the benefit of "knowing" (NOT assuming) the truth before I started . . . but it still had to fit what we DO know . . . not just conveniently explain what we DON'T!!
This is a dangerous direction to go. Begin with a priori assumptions, and try to fit them into extant science. Yes, you are assuming that you can be objective in a hyper-subjective meditation state. And you refuse to attempt to disprove your hypothesis (or your a priori assumption, which can be tested for sure). This is not a recipe for scientifically discerning the truth about our world.
Quote:
ALL THE DETAILS???
So you haven't written down all the details that you have synthesized about this idea?
Quote:
Moderator cut: orphaned . . . it involves the forbidden subject of God.
Maybe you should stop using the tainted word "God" to describe something completely different than most people think the word "God" means, if as you say this is what is causing your hypothesis to be dismissed. Although, it seems more to me like it's the fact that you refuse to do anything scientific about it and choose to keep it at speculation status instead, and you won't even describe it without using broken analogies which can be used to shield your details from any scrutiny. It's an analogy so therefore what you said is not what you really mean, right?
Quote:
You expect that I have the resources to explore all the details on my own? I am CONTENT . . . and I am only trying to explain it sufficiently for anyone to credit the existence of God as SCIENTIFICALLY PLAUSIBLE . . .every bit as plausible as multiple universes or strings or . . . whatever . . .
There are many speculations that are 'scientifically plausible'. It doesn't take much to earn that title, all it takes is that it cannot be scientifically disproved.
Quote:
Moderator cut: Orphaned
The degree of a priori certainty is in the same category. I have as much certainty in multiple universes and strings as I do in your hypothesis, which is to say I am not certain, and I would hope those scientists feel the same. Although their willingness to subject their hypotheses to tests makes me just a little more receptive to them (at least in those areas that can be tested).
Quote:
Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear . . . The BELIEFS I have researched in the "spiritual fossil record" and appended to my God synthesis are adequately sound to inform my acceptance of Christ as the proximate source for the consciousness I encounter in meditation.
And did you "verify" this by asking this phenomenon you experience as well?
As I showed you in another thread, these theories ARE being put to the test. Attempts to disprove them ARE being done.
Any test of my synthesis will require a mathematcal breakthrough in representing the wave function . . . (to resolve the wave/particle duality) . . . similar to that achieved by Leibnitz and Newton with the calculus or fluxions. Bohm and the Maldacena Conjecture provide some clues about how that might be done. But I am too old to do it. Too bad there aren't any young mathematicians exploring it instead of resting on their "probability a$$es" thinking the universe is actually dualistic, probabilistic and uncertain.
Quote:
You feel like you are different and don't have to test yours, because you have your a priori assumption that you are right without any scientific verification at all.
True . . . but it is NOT an assumption . . . I KNOW it.
Quote:
There are many speculations that are 'scientifically plausible'. It doesn't take much to earn that title, all it takes is that it cannot be scientifically disproved. The degree of a priori certainty is in the same category. I have as much certainty in multiple universes and strings as I do in your hypothesis, which is to say I am not certain, and I would hope those scientists feel the same. Although their willingness to subject their hypotheses to tests makes me just a little more receptive to them (at least in those areas that can be tested).
Wrong. There are all sorts of things that cannot be scientifically disproved that have no basis whatsoever in reality. The hypothesis has to have been logically built up from KNOWN scientific principles and phenomena (it cannot be imaginary or wishful thinking or pure guesswork) . . . a distinction you biased a$$wipes cannot seem to get through your thick heads.
Quote:
And did you "verify" this by asking this phenomenon you experience as well?
You know I did.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 07-19-2010 at 06:40 PM..
Any test of my synthesis will require a mathematcal breakthrough in representing the wave function . . . (to resolve the wave/particle duality) . . . similar to that achieved by Leibnitz and Newton with the calculus or fluxions. Bohm and the Maldacena Conjecture provide some clues about how that might be done.
Why do I have a problem with believing that someone who has made such strides in the realm of physics would be spending so much time arguing their findings on such an unscientific website? One would expect that one who has achieved what has been advertise would be sitting across from the the likes of Hawkings and David Gross.
Why do I have a problem with believing that someone who has made such strides in the realm of physics would be spending so much time arguing their findings on such an unscientific website? One would expect that one who has achieved what has been advertise would be sitting across from the the likes of Hawkings and David Gross.
I made none of the strides . . . I merely connected the dots of those who did and found the underlying synthesis (aided by a certainty about what it MUST be . . . gained from my meditation experiences.)
Any test of my synthesis will require a mathematcal breakthrough in representing the wave function . . . (to resolve the wave/particle duality) . . . similar to that achieved by Leibnitz and Newton with the calculus or fluxions. Bohm and the Maldacena Conjecture provide some clues about how that might be done. But I am too old to do it. Too bad there aren't any young mathematicians exploring it instead of resting on their "probability a$$es" thinking the universe is actually dualistic, probabilistic and uncertain.
"If you want something done right, you've got to do it yourself."
But what does duality have to do with a bias for unconscious probability, anyway? Not all of your speculative synthesis has to do with a god consciousness specifically.
Hmm, I believe I remember you mentioning that your god doesn't control everything - wouldn't that mean some things are not consciously controlled, and subject to unconscious probability anyway?
Quote:
True . . . but it is NOT an assumption . . . I KNOW it.
Again, you are assuming a priori that you can be objective in a hyper-subjective state. Then, you refuse to test your assumption. And you know it's testable.
Quote:
Wrong. There are all sorts of things that cannot be scientifically disproved that have no basis whatsoever in reality. The hypothesis has to have been logically built up from KNOWN scientific principles and phenomena (it cannot be imaginary or wishful thinking or pure guesswork) . . . a distinction you biased a$$wipes cannot seem to get through your thick heads.You know I did.
I'm not biased against your hypothesis, I'm biased against your "method" of discerning it.
With all your hype about a synthesis you took decades to develop, I feel like I could fit all the actual details you've given about your 'synthesis', minus the broken analogies that even you discredit, on a single page. You spend 99% of your posts telling people that they don't get it and are blind, and you're just a victim of bias, rather than laying actual details so we can judge them on their own merit. It really doesn't give your arguments much credit.
So I guess that's a "no" on the question of whether you even have a dissertation written on this synthesis. Why shouldn't we be skeptical of an argument with such little substance?
I made none of the strides . . . I merely connected the dots of those who did and found the underlying synthesis (aided by a certainty about what it MUST be . . . gained from my meditation experiences.)
Hell, I can connect the dots and find the underlying(sic) synthesis to anything if - a priori - when I know what the outcome "must" be.
"If you want something done right, you've got to do it yourself."
But what does duality have to do with a bias for unconscious probability, anyway? Not all of your speculative synthesis has to do with a god consciousness specifically.
The wave/particle duality is a fiction . . . there are no "particles" . . . only wave events based on interference and dissonance/resonance.
Quote:
Hmm, I believe I remember you mentioning that your god doesn't control everything - wouldn't that mean some things are not consciously controlled, and subject to unconscious probability anyway?
You remember correctly . . . god is directly concerned ONLY with the state of our consciousness (Spirit) . . . the design and process parameters take care of the production facility or the physical world. Your assumption that the "unconscious probability" is a real aspect of reality. . . is wrong. We are simply ignorant of all the design factors involved in the causal chains, period.
Quote:
Again, you are assuming a priori that you can be objective in a hyper-subjective state. Then, you refuse to test your assumption. And you know it's testable.
Consider for a minute that I am absolutely certain that God is real . . . something you cannot probably fully empathize with. Why would I abrogate the apparent need for lack of certainty that is built-in to the process of belief in God and the mental processes for producing the kind of consciousness God desires. Do I feel fortunate to have been given this certainty and the motivation to develop my synthesis . . . absolutely. But that's it. The path I took to that certainty requires the development of right brain skills that either were lost as our left brains became more and more dominant or are simply essential to truly know God. Either way . . . it is available to anyone who wishes to follow in my footsteps and achieve the same certainty for themselves . . . no short-cuts.
Quote:
I'm not biased against your hypothesis, I'm biased against your "method" of discerning it.
With all your hype about a synthesis you took decades to develop, I feel like I could fit all the actual details you've given about your 'synthesis', minus the broken analogies that even you discredit, on a single page. You spend 99% of your posts telling people that they don't get it and are blind, and you're just a victim of bias, rather than laying actual details so we can judge them on their own merit. It really doesn't give your arguments much credit.
No need to misrepresent or lie, Logic. Download all my posts and sort through them . . the ones responding to the incessant attacks and ridicule will fit your description . . .but not the substantive ones.
Quote:
So I guess that's a "no" on the question of whether you even have a dissertation written on this synthesis. Why shouldn't we be skeptical of an argument with such little substance?
I have promised Gldnrule a written summary. Given the amount of high school knowledge I have had to provide here . . . it is not going to be easy to target the intellectual level of the science explanations . . . the spiritual ones will be much easier.
The biggest and the greatest evidence of the existence of God???
The notion of a god does exist, this does not necessarily entail the actual existence of this god. i.e. the notion of cyclops also exist, the actual existence of cyclops is highly doubtful. Just because the human brain is capable of inventing such a thing does not necessarily entail it's actual existence, except as a dream or a notion to play with, not something to automatically be taken seriously.
Hell, I can connect the dots and find the underlying(sic) synthesis to anything if - a priori - when I know what the outcome "must" be.
You have a problem with the present participle of the verb underlie?? If you can connect the dots scientifically explaining the existence of God . . . I suggest you do so.
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.
If you can connect the dots scientifically explaining the existence of God . . . I suggest you do so.
