Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [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 07-22-2021, 04:57 PM
 
63,942 posts, read 40,218,720 times
Reputation: 7888

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter600 View Post
Ok fair enough.

About the 5%, if I understand correctly, you are using the fact that less than 5% of the indirectly calculated mass of the universe is visible matter (baryonic matter). Fine, that is a hypothesis that may be testable in the future, though it isn't with today's technology. If one day we are able to directly measure what dark matter and dark energy are composed of, then we will be able to tell whether that hypothesis is correct or wrong.
Since it SEEMS to exist in the quantum realm, that may prove to be problematic for our macrolevel methodology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-22-2021, 05:09 PM
 
884 posts, read 358,631 times
Reputation: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Since it SEEMS to exist in the quantum realm, that may prove to be problematic for our macrolevel methodology.
The main problem is it seems not to interact with the EM field. And most of our observations are using the EM field. Maybe one day we will be able to detect gravitational waves with enough sensitivity to directly measure it. Or some other way. Or maybe not. Time will tell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2021, 05:15 PM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,616,892 times
Reputation: 2070
I do know that the atheist ten commandments are based on human psyche. that and the cement theory and the creed are not as simple as just using observation.

Human psyche is just unreliable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2021, 05:37 PM
 
63,942 posts, read 40,218,720 times
Reputation: 7888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter600 View Post
The main problem is it seems not to interact with the EM field. And most of our observations are using the EM field. Maybe one day we will be able to detect gravitational waves with enough sensitivity to directly measure it. Or some other way. Or maybe not. Time will tell.
I suspect the lack of interaction with the EM field is because the EM field is differentiated whereas I think the spacetime field (quantum foam) is undifferentiated (aka, "Oneness," BEC, etc.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2021, 08:55 AM
 
1,402 posts, read 479,361 times
Reputation: 845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter600 View Post
First of all where do you get 5% from? As opposed to 10% or 15% or 20%, etc?

Secondly let me clarify, by senses I mean perception in every way. Not nessasaraly that which we can materially measure. I used the word senses once in my post, and perceptions 7 times. I have now replaced that 1 use of senses with perceptions as well.

So what I wrote is still valid for that which we can perceive (in any way - materially, non-materially, however).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
When it comes to what we can directly measure, it comprises less than 5% of the observable universe. The remaining 95+% is not directly measurable though we can indirectly measure its effects. We currently label it dark energy and dark matter because we do not know what it is. Okay. I thought you were limiting Reality to what our science can validate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter600 View Post
Ok fair enough.

About the 5%, if I understand correctly, you are using the fact that less than 5% of the indirectly calculated mass of the universe is visible matter (baryonic matter). Fine, that is a hypothesis that may be testable in the future, though it isn't with today's technology. If one day we are able to directly measure what dark matter and dark energy are composed of, then we will be able to tell whether that hypothesis is correct or wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Since it SEEMS to exist in the quantum realm, that may prove to be problematic for our macrolevel methodology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter600 View Post
The main problem is it seems not to interact with the EM field. And most of our observations are using the EM field. Maybe one day we will be able to detect gravitational waves with enough sensitivity to directly measure it. Or some other way. Or maybe not. Time will tell.
I have nothing to contribute to this discussion (zippo, not even 5%).

Merely wanted to say what a pleasure it is to witness an actual dialogue unfold... sharing ideas and hypotheses, attempting to describe mechanisms, acknowledging uncertainty and gaps in our understanding... and all without name-calling or evasive action. Pity this has become so rare to be worthy of comment, but nice when it happens.

Carry on!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2021, 09:53 AM
 
9,345 posts, read 4,339,457 times
Reputation: 3023
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
When it comes to what we can directly measure, it comprises less than 5% of the observable universe. The remaining 95+% is not directly measurable though we can indirectly measure its effects. We currently label it dark energy and dark matter because we do not know what it is. Okay. I thought you were limiting Reality to what our science can validate.
Are you not assuming that each particle of matter makes up equal amounts of our reality?

If we do not know what dark matter really is how canyou know that it makes up 95% of our reality rather than 40% or 98%. Are you just assuming that anything that makex up 1% of the universe is equal in our realitty to something that makss up an equal amount of matter in the Universe.

I am not arguing of what percent of the Universe is dark matter.

As an example of what im trying to understand lets use the Oceans for example is it the voume or t he surface that affects our reality? And how is which one it is determined? And is the affects on reality of the Ocean different for me living 1000 km from it by aftected by the prevailing winds the same as for on e living near the ocean or 1000 km but away fron the prevailing winds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2021, 11:25 AM
 
29,556 posts, read 9,768,374 times
Reputation: 3474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter600 View Post
Since the OP mentioned this thread to me I thought I will take a look. I haven't read all 52 pages, just the first and last one.

Overall I think your points are pretty valid ones.

Your first point, which I agree with, reminded me of a question I have often thought about - how do we discover the true nature of reality? Let me write an explicit answer to that question from my point of view. I am going to asininely adhere to explicit detail and avoid assumptions as much as possible.

I start with the fact that everything I experience comes from my perceptions. Sure I could measure the height of a chair with a ruler, but then I need to read off the ruler and process it in my brain before I can make a claim about the height of a chair. So any claim I make about the true external reality must necessarily pass through my own perceptions.

We perceive things that are external to ourselves - for example the height of a chair. Now there are two possibilities here:

a) That external reality objectively exists, and our perceptions are an interpretation (often imperfect) of that objective external reality.
b) That external reality does not objectively exist, and our perceptions create our own reality.

Lets explore the first option - external reality objectively exists, but we view it through our perception. In this case how do we know that our perception is an accurate reflection of that external reality? How do we know we are not delusional? Here are some of my suggestions:

-Repeatable observations. If I measure the chair in the morning, and then again in the evening and get the same measurement, that gives
-Repeatable observations from others. If I can measure the height of the chair as 100cm, and someone else independently also measures it and confirm it is 100cm, then that increases the likelihood that my measurement was accurate.
-The scientific method
-Any other suggestion?

Now lets explore the second option - that external reality does not objectively exist, and our perceptions create it. In this case we cannot make any claims of the world around us, we can only make claims about what we perceive. We can't say "the chair is 100cm tall," we can only say "the chair seems 100cm tall to me." Going further, we can't even tell whether anyone else is even conscious. I inhibit my consciousness, but I do not inhibit other people's consciousness. How do I know they are even conscious like me? Maybe I imagine them, and I am the only consciousness in the universe? Maybe they are all fake beings that outwardly exhibit consciousness, but are not internally conscious. After all I am the only consciousness that I directly experience.

I take the first option. This requires an assumption on my part - that there exists a reality outside my perceptions, and I am not merely imagining it. I have no problem with those who take the second option as long as all their beliefs are consistent with the second option - i.e they don't make claims about the true objective nature of reality outside their mind.

I do have a problem with the people who take the second option, but then make objective claims as if they took the first option. That to me is intellectually dishonest.
I agree with you up to the point of calling it "intellectually dishonest." I've come to conclude after discussing this with countless people over many years that people who express faith in what can't be confirmed per your approach #1 are being altogether honest as best I can tell. The vast majority anyway.

There is obviously something else going on when people can have such faith in what I believe is their emotions about such things. A matter of how we assess, evaluate and conclude what these emotions are really all about. Their source.

Something like love I suppose. Someone might be in love with someone or some thing that no one else can understand. Still, they're being honest and they are experiencing that emotion as strongly as any other. The emotion is true and honest, though again not verifiable by way of your approach #1. That sort of emotion can cause people to create their own reality separate from anyone else's.

To me this is where the issue can be distilled to the point of understanding what can seem dishonest to some while totally honest to others. Emotions. Also needless to say, evaluating and understanding emotions is quite different from determining the truth about the height of a chair. I don't think I could have described your approach #1 any better in this regard. This is essentially the difference between my thinking, my approach, versus what leads to alternative reality for others.

Thanks! Been awhile since anyone offered anything new to this thread. Let alone worth considering.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2021, 11:32 AM
 
29,556 posts, read 9,768,374 times
Reputation: 3474
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander View Post
Are you not assuming that each particle of matter makes up equal amounts of our reality?

If we do not know what dark matter really is how canyou know that it makes up 95% of our reality rather than 40% or 98%. Are you just assuming that anything that makex up 1% of the universe is equal in our realitty to something that makss up an equal amount of matter in the Universe.

I am not arguing of what percent of the Universe is dark matter.

As an example of what im trying to understand lets use the Oceans for example is it the voume or t he surface that affects our reality? And how is which one it is determined? And is the affects on reality of the Ocean different for me living 1000 km from it by aftected by the prevailing winds the same as for on e living near the ocean or 1000 km but away fron the prevailing winds.
I got to thinking something along the same lines as I continued to read the additional comments added to this thread...

Where on Earth (pun intended) do these numbers come from? How can we possibly suggest we can observe 5% of what there is to observe in the universe when for all practical purposes we can barely observe a small fraction of a fraction of all there is to observe? Add how limited we are in terms of how we can observe what we do, understand what we do, and it's quite a bit of hubris (typical of us humans) to suggest we know more than we do.

Again I think it gets back to our "approach" toward establishing what we know, what we can know, and still what we don't know. Also how we can separate those two realities I touch upon in my first truth. If one cannot fully appreciate the difference between those two realities and recognize how the two relate to one another and/or differ from one another, a necessary understanding about this unique human dynamic becomes all but impossible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2021, 11:37 AM
 
29,556 posts, read 9,768,374 times
Reputation: 3474
I started a thread in the P&OC forum. (A forum I gave up on quite awhile ago in large part because of what I call my Cement Theory). I also invite anyone interested to comment in that thread too, because confirmation bias is another significant obstacle when it comes to distilling the truth from all manner of different opinion that pervades all these forums.

I was tempted to start that thread in this forum too, but when it comes to how America could use a little help these days, that forum won over this one all considered. On the other hand, I suppose America could use a little help overcoming the problem of confirmation bias when it comes to this subject too...

How to Help America?
https://www.city-data.com/forum/poli...p-america.html

Whaddya think?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2021, 11:40 AM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,616,892 times
Reputation: 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander View Post
Are you not assuming that each particle of matter makes up equal amounts of our reality?

If we do not know what dark matter really is how canyou know that it makes up 95% of our reality rather than 40% or 98%. Are you just assuming that anything that makex up 1% of the universe is equal in our realitty to something that makss up an equal amount of matter in the Universe.

I am not arguing of what percent of the Universe is dark matter.

As an example of what im trying to understand lets use the Oceans for example is it the voume or t he surface that affects our reality? And how is which one it is determined? And is the affects on reality of the Ocean different for me living 1000 km from it by aftected by the prevailing winds the same as for on e living near the ocean or 1000 km but away fron the prevailing winds.
that's what the astrophysics say.

Based on things like rotating galaxies, lensing, how far they see type one super nova. To explain the difference between what they see and what the understand they think most of the universe is missing. They know the standard model is incomplete. They just use what we know to describe what we don't and adjust as we learn more.

He is not assuming anything, He using what we know to describe what we know. The one who is actually making a bigger assumption is you. You are incorrectly assuming what you know is enough to tell him he is wrong.

Lets use the ocean. Change you analogy to not knowing anything about the ocean than where you are. You have no other information than where you are. You make as many measurements you can.

Its also a great analogy in that "we may not be able to get down there, but there clearly looks like something more is going on that may originate from that part we can't see. We know its different, because we are measuring, we just can't get all we need.".

I love you guys ... this is another great real time example what we mean.
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top