unifying theory of life?

[Brian W]

Hi all in a previous discussion a definition of life was given and it is undoubtedly a reasonable definition. However is it not possible that it only applies to life on a certain scale.

Consider the -protein- concept. It appears that the universe does not do the protein thing so it cannot be alive. But much in the universe does fit the definition and all of the creatures that fit the protein definition are part of the universe in perhaps the same way as our cells are part of us.

Perhaps what is needed is a definition of life that applies to the really really big just as in physics there is the need of a way of looking at things that works for the really really tiny?
Brian

[CraigS]

Hi Brian;
Ok . .this is the second time 'round for this concept of yours, so its got me thinking a little beyond what intuitively feels like major incongruity.

Perhaps I can interpret beyond the detail, and meet you somewhere on the aspect of scale.

Try this one:
If the universe we see, appears to us, as resembling self-similar repeating patterns (eg: many galaxies are spiral, or elliptical), and we see this repeated over and over again, then why wouldn't the patterns and processes exhibiting the same self-similar characteristics formed and used by life at the other end of the scale, (ie: such as chromosomes, genes, mitosis, meisos, etc), also be evident at some larger scale ?

If we're on the same playin' field here, then the next question would be how big is the pattern, and at what point can we expect the repetition to show up ?

If we are, by some strange co-incidence, on the same playing field, (in terms of thought), then maybe there is hope of mapping your thoughts into scientific legitimacy. (Mind you, I'm not sure why you wouldn't just jump directly into scientific legitimacy in the first place ;) .. its kind of a warm and cozy place to be for those out in the cold, mate :P :) )

(I'm getting a little cheeky .. and punchy .. I've been at this too long today).
:)
Feel free to comment.
:)
Cheers

[Brian W]

Craig I haven't been out in the cold since I left Canada many years ago. As for 'scientific legitimacy' I'm willing to try anything that ain't illegal, immoral, too unhealthy, or tooooooo fattening!

Regrettably we are on the same playing field but I think we are going in opposite directions. My point is that if the traditional laws of physics break down when pushed to extremes of size why not the traditional laws that govern life?

As a Buddhist I have no belief in the G-d that is found in the Judeo - Christian - Muslim beliefs. But I have also had simply too many unexplainable, by main stream western thought, things occur in my life to believe that there is not a sentient life force that can be tapped into.

Many many years ago I was called to a native community in Canada to be trained to be a village pastor. Eventually things began to happen that have no scientific explanation. Two examples;

(1) If someone in the village was approaching death Raven would come and warn me. This warning came in the form of a flock of Ravens approaching me in flight with one particular Raven that stood out.

(2) One of the elders was in hospital. The old women of the village and the young doctors of the hospital were all in agreement he was going to die. To help the family prepare emotionally I went with my communion kit and we held a small service for a final communion with a most loved elder.

He was unconscious so I dipped the bread in the grape juice and held it to his lips.

There was a sudden shock like what one gets when touching a frayed cord... he opened his eyes... smiled at me... went to sleep and a few days later returned home and lived for quite a few more years.

I do not write these things to claim credit or impress people with powers I most certainly do not possess. However there is a long list of such occurrences and their weight has led me to believe that there is a life force out there that science or indeed myself really do not understand.

So I just thought that I would see if science could consider the possibility that the universe is alive and sentient

On a similar line if one chooses to believe in Darwin et al is it not a logical outcome to see a sentient being come into existence that has no body which would certainly make it hard for its enemies to kill it.

Brian

[avandonk]

If you try to define 'life' at the fundamental level it is most probably self organising information or data set carried by matter that is capable of replication by copying information to another data set as is the case with simple viuses or bacteria. Sexual reproduction is just two lots of information that can be mixed to produce the new data set. Evolution is just random errors or additions or deletions to the data.

Complex molecules in a nice solvent say water will always interact in much the same way. If you think about life on earth the most important chemical bond is the Hydrogen bond and this can only occur in an aqueous environment. It gets very tricky in the vacuum of interstellar space as ionization states are not always defined. Hydrogen bonds do not exist as there is no bound water shell on any molecules.

The only production of precusors to life that exists across all space is nucleosythesis in stars and super novae. This produces the nuclei of heavier atoms so they can then go on to randomly interact according to the laws of Physics and Chemistry in some nice aqueous environment on some bit of rock where water is a liquid.

For life to exist at huge dimensions you would have to show a mechanism that allows self organization and replication. Just because something looks similar ie galaxies does not mean it was a copy of anything.

I can suggest a mechanism where all matter is for ever 'linked' and that is quantum entanglement. How quantum entanglement can effect the behaviour af ravens I have no idea. Coincidence is far more likely.

The Universe is alive and sentient. It is all of us on this tiny bit of rock called Spaceship Earth. The 'mind' of the Universe does not need to be everywhere just like your mind does not reside in your hair or fingernails as they are made of dead cells.
If the Universe is teeming with life then it is everywhere.

My puny mind is only giving ideas for questions. I do not have all the answers. If anyone says they do they are delusional or lying.

Bert

[CraigS]

Hi Brian;

Well, I'm afraid to say that his is a journey you may have to solo on …
:)

'Why not ?', in this instance, is a fair enough question.

Expecting your observations to be viewed and subsequently interpreted the same way by others, is where science distinguishes itself. A flock of Ravens may fly by with one Raven standing out, where there is no correlated incident of death observed. The hypothesis, (or theory), is disproven. Reformulate another one, and try again.

2) The human body is a survival machine. (We have millions of years of evolution, and abundant evidence of this). Observer's anticipations of what they think will happen, is disproven all the time. An observer can influence the outcome, (eg: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). The placebo effect is real, and has been demonstrated in controlled trials, when it comes to matters concerning human ailments.


Brian, you can believe whatever you like … just keep the observations separate from that belief, and you'll see nature in a different light.


Darwinian Evolution is a Theory which gives a consistent, plausible explanation, which closely aligns with abundant observations.

Belief has nothing to do with it.
Belief is what humans do with thoughts and perceptions, and lots of other 'stuff'.

I don't have to believe in Darwinian Evolution. Neither does anyone else.
If there there is no need to believe it, then the second part of your above statement, whilst logical, dissolves in its purpose.

Cheers

[Brian W]

[QUOTE=CraigS;705998]Hi Brian;

Well, I'm afraid to say that his is a journey you may have to solo on …
:)

'Why not ?', in this instance, is a fair enough question.

Well at least I have a fair question.

Expecting your observations to be viewed and subsequently interpreted the same way by others, is where science distinguishes itself. A flock of Ravens may fly by with one Raven standing out, where there is no correlated incident of death observed. The hypothesis, (or theory), is disproven. Reformulate another one, and try again.

My point is that in this case that is exactly what has happened. In the culture that I was immersed this occurrence was observed and verified many times over many centuries.

2) The human body is a survival machine. (We have millions of years of evolution, and abundant evidence of this). Observer's anticipations of what they think will happen, is disproven all the time. An observer can influence the outcome, (eg: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). The placebo effect is real, and has been demonstrated in controlled trials, when it comes to matters concerning human ailments.

Agree that all of the above, except the placebo effect (he was comatose) are possible explanations

Brian, you can believe whatever you like … just keep the observations separate from that belief, and you'll see nature in a different light.

but the observations are what created the belief.


Darwinian Evolution is a Theory which gives a consistent, plausible explanation, which closely aligns with abundant observations.

and so does the native, and my belief

Brian

[Brian W]

Hi Bert
-For life to exist at huge dimensions you would have to show a mechanism that allows self organization and replication. Just because something looks similar ie galaxies does not mean it was a copy of anything.

I am not suggesting that it is a copy but that it is perhaps another stage in the evolutionary system. Perhaps more akin to a butterfly from a caterpillar.

-I can suggest a mechanism where all matter is for ever 'linked' and that is quantum entanglement. How quantum entanglement can effect the behaviour af ravens I have no idea. Coincidence is far more likely.

Coincidence is a possible explanation but this has been observed over centuries so it is a thin possibility.

-The Universe is alive and sentient. It is all of us on this tiny bit of rock called Spaceship Earth. The 'mind' of the Universe does not need to be everywhere just like your mind does not reside in your hair or fingernails as they are made of dead cells.
If the Universe is teeming with life then it is everywhere.

Agreed. However the above indicates that you believe you know where the mind is located. I certainly would accept that science knows where the brain is located but this is the first time that I have heard of where the mind has been located.

-My puny mind is only giving ideas for questions. I do not have all the answers. If anyone says they do they are delusional or lying.

Or perhaps they are merely wrong. When my wife was in her early 20's she had all the answers. Now that she is 45 and has earned a doctoral she does not even think she has all the questions. In her early 20's I do not believe she was either delusional or lying but she sure was wrong.

Brian

[Brian W]

This thread hangs upon one of the truths that has directed my life;

SCIENCE, OR PHILOSOPHY, OR RELIGION CAN ONLY GIVE US ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS OUR WORLD VIEW CAN ALLOW.

Which may well be why the belief that travel enhances the person is so well accepted and why exploring the cosmos either in person or by machine is so crucial to humanities advancement.

Brian

[CraigS]

Whilst I agree that humans are experts in giving an observation meaning .. and thus leading to belief, I spend much of my time training myself mentally, to resist falling into this paradigm.

I also rely on others to keep me grounded in the reality which exists outside of my own mind.

From my experience, not making a conscious attempt to do this, represents a massively lost opportunity for advancement of knowledge of the real world.

I know this sounds strange, but the more I think about all this, and through my IIS experiences specifically, I find much strength and solace in approaching as much as I can, from as little belief, as I can muster.

In some areas, I honestly find I have absolutely no beliefs in anything, which is entirely conscious and deliberate. These areas usually end up being where I learn vast amounts. The areas where I have beliefs, I generally learn very little.

Hilarious, isn't it ?
:lol: :)





The difference being of course, I have no need to believe in Evolution.
Where there is no need, (or dependence), there exists freedom to explore other possibilities and an expanded view of the universe.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Which is the reason for my not taking any of them as beliefs !
(See my previous post #9).
Don't believeany of them, and your world view will shift … enormously !


.. another belief, eh ?
What if there's something more fundamental behind the observation, which the conclusion, (driven by belief), rules out ?
Eg: Try on : Human's ultimate survival may be dependent on our innate explorative inquisitiveness. (See your next sentence).


.. not just 'enhancement', there fella.
How about our ultimate survival ?

Cheers

[avandonk]

When braindead people cannot agree that dead cells is not where your mind is. I am wasting my time.
You as an entity are all of you.

If you want to invoke any sort of religion you are welcome to it. I find any sort of religion a pathetic copout for real analysis.

We cannot scientifically investigate mere superstition!

I happen to believe that the Universe started three minutes ago. Prove me wrong! I will bring up absolute idiocy to prove that I am correct!

Bert

[CraigS]

Consider: correlation is not causation.

The causal relationship I assert, is in the mind .. not in the real world.

I know of three different types of reality (some credits to Bert & others):

1. Physical Reality (or, Reality in the Real World): Reality in the Real World is characterised by the following powerful example: ”Jack Russell dogs exist because they can be measured, weighed and characterised, repeatedly, by anyone (not just me) !

2. Individual Reality (in one’s own mind): Example (i): ”I imagined that giant Jack Russell dogs exist then I observed a big mountain that must’ve been caused by a giant Jack Russell. So therefore, giant Jack Russells are real, (but nobody else knows that, except me).
Example (ii) : Feeling hungry - hunger is real, folks but when I’m hungry I’m the only one who knows it !

3. Reality by Consensus: Eg: What politicians practise - eg: ”Giant Jack Russells exist because me, my mate and everyone else agrees that they do - so they are real”.

3.1. Reality by consensus on a common demoninator (yet to be ratified): "Giant Jack Russells exist because me, my mate and everyone else agrees that they do, but none of us agree on exactly what a giant Jack Russell is”. (For this one: Credits to: Bert's Jack Russell, Steven's denomination).

… All a little light-hearted, but there is a point in it all. Mixing the four distinctions invariably results in confusion (and occasionally, delusion).
:)



Brian, if the brain dies, or the head is chopped off, or the organ is anaesthetised, 'mind' is absent.


Why limit this example to your wife ?
How about yourself ?
(It works for me as well. ;) )
:)
Cheers

[Brian W]

Ultimate survival? Craig there is no ultimate survival of anything. There is only change. Interconnected and interdependent but change nevertheless. Humanity is simply another species heading towards extinction.

You said that if I will not believe science, religion or philosophy then my world view will change dramatically. I take it that I have expressed your [I]belief [I] properly? And that you have arrived at this belief after a long and honest process that involved many things not the least of which was the simple question; does it work?

Which strangely enough is also how I arrived where I am.

Stating the belief that by suspending belief I have attained a new and better belief is getting real close to doublethink. Or am I mistaken about your belief?

Brian

[snas]

Bert

A good point you raise. Even smaller than the smallest virus is the prion, one of which causes BSE (Bovine Spongioform Encephalopathy) or mad cow disease. Others include Kreutzfeld Jakob disease in people and also Scrapie in sheep. These "information carrying particles" can hardly be decribed as being alive, and yet they manage to carry information and reproduce themselves. Is this life? or is it not? Some far better biologists than myself are still debating this. :screwy:

Stuart

[Brian W]

[QUOTE=avandonk;706053]When braindead people cannot agree that dead cells is not where your mind is. I am wasting my time.
You as an entity are all of you.

I did not say that the mind was in my dead cells. Neither am I brain dead. I as an entity am connected to all that has gone before. Where did you start Bert? With your parents, with their parents, logic dictates you started at the same time everything else did.

-If you want to invoke any sort of religion you are welcome to it. I find any sort of religion a pathetic copout for real analysis.

I realize Bert you have a problem with religion. But please note that nowhere have I invoked religion as an explanation for two occurrences in my life. I have merely recounted two experiences that I have had and asked for some scientific help in understanding them.

-We cannot scientifically investigate mere superstition!:question:

Of course superstitions can be scientifically investigated. That's why some beliefs are called superstitions... they have been investigated and found to be false and yet people keep on believing them.

-I happen to believe that the Universe started three minutes ago. Prove me wrong! I will bring up absolute idiocy to prove that I am correct!

I would be a fool to doubt your ability to bring up absolute idiocy... but my watch tells me it started 5 minutes ago.:)

Descartes walks into his favourite tavern and the barkeep says 'I take it you will have your regular' Descartes looks at him, ponders for a moment, says 'I think not'... and promptly disappears!:lol:

Brian

[avandonk]

No they are a very strange form of anything. They are molecules that are similar to common molecules in the brain apart from a mutation. The scary thing is they cannot reproduce but induce 'normal' molecules to shift their conformation into the 'rogue' form. They do not replicate. They just infect.

Nearly all so called brain problems such as alzheimers and many more work this way.

They also have the ability to get through the blood brain barrier.

Do not eat the nervous tissue of ANY animal! Brain, spine etc. Especially your dead relatives!

Bert

[bojan]

I cant disagree more.
Science and religion is NOT to be put into the same context, ever.

[Brian W]

Ok Bojan, take religion out of it and I will stand by the fact, belief, statement, hypothesis or whatever other name you care to give it that science can only only give us answers to the questions that our world view will allow.

Brian

[CraigS]

Is there a problem with that ?

Cheers

[Brian W]

I believe there is. A diamond is not much to look at until the facets are cut in. Each and every facet adds to the whole and when done properly enhances and glorifies the stone.

Questions and answers limited to one world view are like a diamond with only one facet cut into it. So much is missing.

[CraigS]

Brian;
I'm not sure I get this.

There is much beauty and wonder which emerges from examining the ways things work in nature. (I'll assume nature is the 'world view' you are alluding to).
As a matter of fact, it is difficult for most of us, to wrap our minds around the way things actually work, as not in our wildest imaginings has anyone conceived of the things emerging from just about any of the Science disciplines.
I'm not sure the diamond analogy is doing it for me.
When you cut a diamond, you are altering its nature and creating an illusion which satisfies some other human craving.

Cheers

[bojan]

I don't get it either..
Brian, you are trying, by use of poetic approach to give "deeper" meaning to something which is simply not there..
Science doesn't work like this and never will - it is not art.
Science is a discipline, with rules and procedures. Imagination has it's important place there, as as way of creating new ideas and concepts, but it is not the reason d'etre.
And your statement "can only only give us answers to the questions that our world view will allow" is totally wrong as well - just one example- our world view simply can't deal with quantum mechanics.. and despite this fact, science methodology and discipline produced it. It is one of most successful theorises human mind came up with.
So, really, before you start making comments on the subject like this, I strongly encourage you to put some more effort into proper understanding of those things.. you will not regret it, it will significantly enlighten your mind. Possibly in very unexpected direction.. if you keep it open.

[Brian W]

[QUOTE=CraigS;706201]Brian;
I'm not sure I get this.

-There is much beauty and wonder which emerges from examining the ways things work in nature. (I'll assume nature is the 'world view' you are alluding to).

You know what they say about assumptions making an ass out of u and me. My friend has a son who sees the world through math and it is a marvellous world view. My brother sees the world through rules and regulations which is a good thing cause he was an airline pilot. If I was to put a label on myself I would say my world view was rooted in mysticism. your world view, I am beginning to believe is based on 'I don't know', which in and of itself is not a bad place to start from.


-As a matter of fact, it is difficult for most of us, to wrap our minds around the way things actually work, as not in our wildest imaginings has anyone conceived of the things emerging from just about any of the Science disciplines.

True enough.

-I'm not sure the diamond analogy is doing it for me.
When you cut a diamond, you are altering its nature and creating an illusion which satisfies some other human craving.

Absolutely true the diamond is being altered (but that is part of being human... we alter things) But are you creating an illusion or a different reality with its own beauty.

However this is exactly my point you have your world view which shows me a diamond as a thing of beauty in its original state and my world view showing the diamond as different but just as real and to me more beautiful after it has been altered. When we combine both world views we see the diamond in a new reality, a deeper and more complex reality, a reality that allows us to explorer so much more.

Try this one on for size... a symphony for only one instrument and with only one note and compare it to anything Bach created.

[Brian W]

[QUOTE=CraigS;706201]Brian;
I'm not sure I get this.

-There is much beauty and wonder which emerges from examining the ways things work in nature. (I'll assume nature is the 'world view' you are alluding to).

You know what they say about assumptions making an ass out of u and me. My friend has a son who sees the world through math and it is a marvellous world view. My brother sees the world through rules and regulations which is a good thing cause he was an airline pilot. If I was to put a label on myself I would say my world view was rooted in mysticism. your world view, I am beginning to believe is based on 'I don't know', which in and of itself is not a bad place to start from.


-As a matter of fact, it is difficult for most of us, to wrap our minds around the way things actually work, as not in our wildest imaginings has anyone conceived of the things emerging from just about any of the Science disciplines.

True enough.

-I'm not sure the diamond analogy is doing it for me.
When you cut a diamond, you are altering its nature and creating an illusion which satisfies some other human craving.

Absolutely true the diamond is being altered (but that is part of being human... we alter things) But are you creating an illusion or a different reality with its own beauty.

However this is exactly my point you have your world view which shows me a diamond as a thing of beauty in its original state and my world view showing the diamond as different but just as real and to me more beautiful after it has been altered. When we combine both world views we see the diamond in a new reality, a deeper and more complex reality, a reality that allows us to explorer so much more.

Try this one on for size... a symphony for only one instrument and with only one note and compare it to anything Bach created.

[Brian W]

Bojan, that's why I am here, I am trying to develop a proper understanding. I ask questions, put forward ideas, get input from people like yourself and try to make sense out of it.

I freely admit that science is not where I have spent most of my mental energies... but I am making the effort now.

Having said all of the above there is however no doubt that I will always be more of a mystic than a physicist.:shrug:

Brian

[joe_smith]

Brian you might like this article from discovermagazine.com

The Biocentric Universe Theory: Life Creates Time, Space, and the Cosmos Itself (http://discovermagazine.com/2009/may/01-the-biocentric-universe-life-creates-time-space-cosmos/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=) - Stem-cell guru Robert Lanza presents a radical new view of the universe and everything in it.

Looks like it would be an interesting book to read :)

[Brian W]

Thanks for the heads up. It certainly sounds interesting. The part on entanglement is fascinating but as it is now midnight... more will have to wait.
Brian

[CraigS]

Brian;
I attempt to seek value, and give some back, in all my endeavours.

In this thread, this goal remains unchanged

I offer the following perspective as a way of turning this thread into something of value for those folk who read it.

You speak of other realities. My post #12 (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showpost.php?p=706059&postcount=12) contains my distinctions for maintaining the separation of the different types of reality in a conversation. I assure you, this is not from some trivial piece of literature. It has been compiled by myself after many years of deep contemplation, living experience, and a lot of research based on different multiple religions and philosophies. It was motivated by the following simple question:

“What is real .. and how do I know it is real ?”

I can see no reason to not use these distinctions as a way of listening to your perspectives. Call it a listening bias .. whatever you like, either way, the message is pretty well undistorted when I listen from these perspectives. I can make use of what 'comes in', by applying them. I cannot value fairly presented information, without maintaining such distinctions.

The alternate “realities” of which you speak, correspond closely with my distinction of “Individual Reality”. The effects are real, within one’s own mind. They may also become real for other people, when conversation about them is met, received and agreed upon, (“Reality by Consensus”).

I don’t believe I have any problems with other folk exploring “Individual Reality” or even “Reality by Consensus”.

The crucial aspect for me, is to never lose sight of the importance of keeping these distinctions 'present' in mind, during a conversation.

This is why I am able to undertake conversations such as this, without losing respect for my partner in conversation. By applying these distinctions, I also do not lose sight of my own goals, which may occasionally reside and shift amongst the three main types of reality, as outlined by these metaphorical distinctions.

You would have to present me with evidence that some aspect of what you’ve said, results in something which does not fall into one or the other of these distinctions, in order for me to pay more serious attention to the way I intend to proceed through my remaining life.

Other than this, I feel quite at ease, with your proceeding to explore what I call, “Individual Reality”.

All I ask is for you to get clear about what you are doing.

And please don’t mix any of it up with exploration of Physical Reality (or, Reality in the Real World).

The true ‘diamond’ in this thread, lies in the message of maintaining clear visibility of the different aspects of ‘reality’ and not getting them confused, either in one's mind, or in conversation.

Cheers

[Brian W]

Hi Craig,

-I can see no reason to not use these distinctions as a way of listening to your perspectives. Call it a listening bias .. whatever you like, either way, the mmetaphorical distinctions.

You would have to present me with evidence that some aspect of what you’ve said, results in something which does not fall into one or the other of these distinctions, in order for me to pay more serious attention to the way I intend to proceed through my remaining life.

Craig with the reasonable exception of changing your mind on a detail or two through respecting debate I have no desire to alter your life style. One of the reasons I left cultic Christianity was the need to convert that was espoused.

-All I ask is for you to get clear about what you are doing.

I AM SIMPLY EXPLORING A NEW (TO ME) WAY OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT I SEE WHEN I LOOK AT THE UNIVERSE

-And please don’t mix any of it up with exploration of Physical Reality (or, Reality in the Real World).

Now in the above we have an honest difference of opinion. To me the physical reality and the mystical(?) reality are impossible to separate.

-The true ‘diamond’ in this thread, lies in the message of maintaining clear visibility of the different aspects of ‘reality’ and not getting them confused, either in one's mind, or in conversation.

For your personal reality the above is true. But for myself the ultimate goal of a unified theory of the universe must and I stress the word -must- include the spiritual / mystical.

Perhaps as I learn more my opinion will change but for now my quest is to understand the interconnectedness and the interdependence of this marvellous place we inhabit.:hi:

Brian




Cheers[/QUOTE]

[bojan]

Brian, sorry to jump in... but I can't resist.
This is a SCIENCE forum....
So - it seems you already made up your mind, and the following quote support this:
In science, I am afraid, there is no place for "mystical" reality.
There is only one - and that one is measurable by adequate equipment in repeatable way, or not yet measurable - but the existence of that reality follows from existing measurements, by applying mathematical methods and procedures. Sorry...

[joe_smith]

many people have done the same using the same data reading the same books and come out of it with totally different views.

What bugs me about the current view of the universe is that conciseness is not even mentioned in their theory's but it could be the missing link in the "theory of everything."

Food for thought.....

from an article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31393080/ns/technology_and_science-science/


Another thing that bugs me is Ancient history why dose science say that EVERY thing done in the day was only for sudo religious purposes. Look at the remarkable constructions they built in the day, the amazing knowledge they had of the universe and more importantly how their consciousness played a major role. They did things that are still nearly imposable to replicate today with our technology, and consciousness in their way of life was a major part of life. Why did we leave it out in modern science??? For me what they did or more what they left behind shows that consciousness plays a major role in our perception of how the universe works and could be the cause of it in the first place, only time will tell but then again is time only in our consciousness anyway. Our consciousness to me is the missing link after all its the ONLY thing we do use to understand the universe. Why cant it also be a major part of the universe, why is it left out of science and why do most class the phenomena of consciousness building the universe or being a major player in it "sudo science"??? to me the way science explains today the evolution from big bang to universe to consciousness human being is also "sudo science". Its like describing the evolution of a car we measure this and that, look at this and that from all angles and sizes, come up with theory's on how it was made but never mention the consciousness driver that puts it all together and what its really for. The car is a empty shell for a consciousness driver, could the universe be the same empty shell that our consciousness brings to life?? it would also explain the paranormal as normal events of the universe and these also played a major part of ancient history and people still have strange paranormal events today so nothing has changed in our consciousness only in our current world view of modern science.

[Brian W]

Hi Bojan, no need to be sorry... helping me to understand science is why I am here... fitting it into my strange little mindset is my own dilemma.

Now here is where you may be able to help me Bojan... lets assume you are correct and science is dependent upon observation and math.

My eyes are good and I can make decent written reports on what I observe. The stumbling block for me is the math....

In the Principia Mathematica A.N. Whitehead does some serious math most of which absolutely looses me.

Can you suggest some on-line resources that would help me to develop the needed math skills to even do something as basic as understand his proof of 1+1=2.

Thanks in advance,
Brian

[bojan]

That's a hard one :eyepop:
Unfortunately I am not aware of such on line resources.. perhaps someone else may help here.

All I can help you with is the story of my own educational background - High school (it used to be called Mathematical Gymnasia - today they call it Mathematics - Informatics Educational Centre or MIOC), where I obtained basics... and later on I took electronics engineering university course(s), which included two years of math. And today I am just an RF engineer.. however I believe I have a reasonably good "feeling" of how all this stuff works.
Of course, I can't compare with some other guys on this forum (Carl or Steven for example, who are at masters or PhD level).

So, If you haven't been already at high school level with math, you will have a very hard time to go anywhere up from there - it is not impossible, but I would recommend you to take a good personal coach/tutor if you really want to embark on this journey.

[CraigS]

Brian;
Learning maths from the ground up is essential in understanding science.

Like Bojan, I spent years learning at many different levels.

Where to start ?

Your question about understanding the mathematical proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof) behind 1+1=2, emerges from the profound logic behind deductive reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning). There is much philosophical basis behind each of these concepts, and could be why there is such a yawning gap in understanding between where you are in big matters (the universe, BBT, etc) and where scientific minds reside. The links I provided above, are merely links to Wikipedia, but it really is as concise as it gets.

The only way I know how to fully experience the full depth and rationale behind mathematical reasoning and logic is to work through examples of each concept and build upon each step. The trick would be to start from where you are most comfortable. I occasionally pick up those books high school kids use as 'study guides' from the local newsagents and peruse them. They are a useful way to establish a starting point. (And some of them are still challenging .. even for pros).

Cheers

[Brian W]

-So, If you haven't been already at high school level with math, you will have a very hard time to go anywhere up from there - it is not impossible, but I would recommend you to take a good personal coach/tutor if you really want to embark on this journey.[/QUOTE]

Actually I took a little university level math but that was in the last century and most of it has been forgotten.

Now Bojan, please allow me to challenge one or two of your statements in a most respectful way.

You suggested, perhaps reasonably, that I should gain more knowledge before I spouted off nonsense. Fair enough, and I am now attempting to gain that knowledge.

You have also stated that science is based on observation and math. Again fair enough.

You have also said science and religion should never be thought of as equals. Perhaps because science is based on hard facts and religion is based on faith. Fair enough.

Now here comes the challenge; unless you have already come to understand Whitehead's proof of 1+1=2 then your math and your science is pretty much based on faith.

By faith I mean that you have accepted someone else's explanation for the basis of your belief. Could you get the verification... yes and then your faith becomes fact. But unless you have or until you do... welcome to my world.

Brian

[bojan]

Wrong.
Why? because I can at any time go through proof myself (following mathematical logic - see Craig's comments above).
So, no, I do not base my understanding on acceptance of someone's else's explanation (in practical world this approach may happen.. but it is NOT encouraged).
It the process, many (all, in fact) of those "accepted" explanations are being challenged and in some cases, they are debunked as false.
And this is the difference between faith and science.

[CraigS]

Do not assume that Bojan hasn't covered mathematical proof of similar problems such as 1+1 = 2. Even if he can't remember it, I do !

And, even if someone cannot replicate the logic due to faded memories or skills, does not mean that the proof does not exist or is invalid, as it can be replicated at will. This I assert, is completely the opposite of the concept of 'faith', which does not rely on such tests based on physical reality, observable by all .. not just some.

Knowing that the proof is available to anyone who takes the time to revise (or learn) that proof, is not acting on 'faith'. It is acting on proof !

Cheers

[CraigS]

I am simply overwhelmed by the irrationality of this argument !

I'm almost speechless !

People who study science ARE NOT ACTING OR SPEAKING BASED ON SOMEONE ELSE'S EXPLANATION !!

I see these insinuations frequently on this forum, and I ignore them because they are such utter nonsense, I simply cannot be bothered responding.

I do so now, because I can actually see that someone out there may actually honestly believe that is what is being practiced, (for example, in this forum).

Are you serious ??

The people who partake in the threads I have raised, with whom I clearly resonate with, are not responding purely because someone has told them a story once !!

I'm simply exasperated !!

If anyone seriously believes that this is what is going on here, (or elsewhere in Science), I'm sorry but I have to assert that they would then be coming from blind ignorance, and an overwhelmingly biggoted judgemental delusion !

I apologise for the strong language, but I need to use such language as a metaphor, to emphasise the cavernous gap between faith and science.

Cheers

[Brian W]

It the process, many (all, in fact) of those "accepted" explanations are being challenged and in some cases, they are debunked as false.
And this is the difference between faith and science.[/QUOTE]

One of the Dahlia Lamas most often given bit of advice is that try it, if it works keep it, if not throw it out.

However you have missed the point of my challenge. I am not asking what science does I am asking what you have done.

If I read your reply correctly you have not yet worked through that particular proof. Obviously it is silly to keep on inventing the wheel. My point is simply that you and all scientists accept a very large and esoteric body of knowledge as true.

This acceptance means you believe they are true, you don't in the hard sense of the word -know- they are true because you have never taken the time to actually work through it all.

All I am pointing out is that science is a bit more than just hard facts mam, just the hard facts.

Brian

[CraigS]

Garbage ! … sorry Brian, but pure garbage !

See Deductive Reasoning, Inductive Reasoning, Theorem , Axiomatic Systems, Formal and Informal Proof, Proof theory, Mathematical Logic … it all underpins why we don't need to invoke 'belief'.

Check it all out .. they're all on Wiki !!

[bojan]

Yep, garbage.
Please, read what I wrote more carefully. You have missed the point I made (and I dare to say, deliberately).
And, I don't need Lama to tell me what to do and how to do it.
In the course of my scientific education over the years I DID go through that (and many, many more) proofs - this is how math is supposed to be learned.
So, I don't have the BELIEF - I have KNOWLEDGE. And, as Craig said, if I forgot something, I can ALWAYS go through the process again.
Brian, I did advise you before, and I do it now, again: please study in more details the subject before you come up with statements like this...
This is science forum, where people can learn a lot.. if they really want to.

[Brian W]

You are missing the point here Craig, and it is not garbage it is simply the truth.

Whitehead showed to the world that 1+1= 2. Those who take the time to check his work repeat his procedure come out with the same result and wamb bamb thank you mam you got science... no invocation of the much hated 'belief' needed.

However people such as myself who do not have the skills or people with the skills who choose not to use them, must accept his work or not, based on someone else's understanding of the validity of his work.

No wamb no bamb no thank you mam and no repetition of the procedures and no verifiable results and no science. This takes our understanding of his work out of the realm of science and into the realm of trust in some one else's understanding of his work.

You can call that trust anything you want but it is not knowledge.

Brian

PS, I am often wrong but I do not do garbage.
B

[bojan]

You are quite right here, Brian: and this is precisely the reason why people like you are not scientists.

However, you should not extrapolate your way of thinking to others, because then, this becomes garbage.

[Brian W]

I did re-read your posts and nowhere do state that you have worked through Whitehead's work. You did tell me what your course used to be called and what it is called now. I made the guess that you were schooled in Germany. Strange as this may sound in my 25 or so years of attending various universities I never once took a course describing what a math student in Germany studied.

That I did not grasp what you thought and think is obvious is undeniable. But rather than accuse me of dishonesty or you of intentionally obscuring what you meant why don't we just chalk it up to an honest misunderstanding.

Of course you do not need the advice of HHDL in your life. All he has ever done is win a prize or two for peace and host multiple science conferences with some of the leading scientists on the planet.

I was simply pointing out, perhaps too subtly, that groups other than scientists employ the scientific procedure of think... experiment... validate or not validate by repetition.

Brian

[CraigS]

And why do you think they do that, Brian ?

Answer .. because that's how its done !!
Nothing to do with belief !

Did you read any of the links I have posted in this thread ?

If you had, you would appreciate a topic called 'rational thought' and 'logic'.

In conclusion, I concur with Bert's, (perhaps), premature assessment of the technique you seem to favour … 'Superstition'.

Sorry, I'm prepared to listen to rational human beings, but when what they say has nothing more than superstition in support of it .. we'll there's no point in continuing because there's nothing rational left to say.

Cheers

[Brian W]

ok. have a good one.
Brian

[bojan]

Well, your guess was reasonable enough (Gymnasia) but not correct ;)
Many other European countries had that (German) model of high school education in those days (late '60-ies)..

[Brian W]

Wrong again, well as I said to Craig, have a good one.
Brian

[avandonk]

Brian W I do not normally say straight out what I think but work up to it under provocation by ignorant hordes. What is your problem?

Are you trying to understand the axioms of the real number theory or some idiotic faith based drivel that has no place in any scientific discussion.

Science and Religion are totally exclusive sets. To use one to argue any basis in another is not only pointless but meaningless.

You can go away and follow your delusions as to what some mythical spirit world has. This is a science forum not a forum where the tallest tale is true.

You are delusional at best or a troll at worst.

I am sick and tired of fools who think that mythical being worship is the answer to our problems let alone a model for reality.

I will make a deal with you, stop trolling science forums and I will stay away from the forums that deal with your mythical mates. OK!

Bert

[Brian W]

[QUOTE=avandonk;707124]Brian W I do not normally say straight out what I think but work up to it under provocation by ignorant hordes. What is your problem? snip snip

-You are delusional at best or a troll at worst.

-I am sick and tired of fools who think that mythical being worship is the answer to our problems let alone a model for reality.

-I will make a deal with you, stop trolling science forums and I will stay away from the forums that deal with your mythical mates. OK!

As I said to Bojan and Craig, have a good one Bert.

Just for the record, I do not worship mythical or indeed real beings, I am not delusional nor am I a troll.

I simply tried to get some help, which I did, thanks to Craig and Bojan, in understandings things from a different perspective.

Sorry to have pushed so many of your buttons.

Brian

[joe_smith]

There is an article in this months, April 2011 Scientific American called "The inflation debate - Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed? by Paul J. Steinhardt

one part had me thinking about the point Brian W is trying make (i think) in the article it states this.

Quotes from here ;)

Now to the point.....
Do the scientists that "Most astrophysicists have gone about their business testing the predictions of textbook inflationary theory without worrying about these deeper issues" do they have faith and belief that they are right or are they using knowledge and facts from science itself to say its right, facts that are not yet true. To me they are putting their "faith" that the current world view is true, because they believe it to be true. Because scientists that say its wrong are also using the same "Deductive Reasoning, Inductive Reasoning, Theorem , Axiomatic Systems, Formal and Informal Proof, Proof theory, Mathematical Logic …" to say the others are wrong and have faith and believe they are right .
Can you tell me how one or both sides don't have faith in the belief that they are right?? They are all looking at the same universe, looking at the same data, and looking for the real truth in the matter. Surely (I know, "Don't call me Shirley" lol) they must be using some faith and belief deep down?? sure they use Deductive Reasoning, Inductive Reasoning, Theorem , Axiomatic Systems, Formal and Informal Proof, Proof theory, Mathematical Logic but they also use their emotions and consciousness as well,

If you are interested in the theory put forth by Paul J. Steinhardt the one who did the article in scientific American check out his youtube vid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb2USbR6_DQ) where he talks about his book about his theory called "Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang"

[bojan]

Joe,
Everything you wrote above may look plausible on the first glance..... Yes, not many theoreticians are involved in this because the subject is extremely complicated and to deal with it requires mathematical tools that many people simply do not have..
BUT the mere fact that people are re-checking inflation theory is a proof that we are not dealing with faith here - instead what you see is the scientific process in action.
Faith would have been if inflation is accepted by all.. this is clearly not the case, even the theory creators are still working on it's details and re-checking the thought process that gave rise to the theory.

I am firmly standing by my earlier words "we have knowledge, not faith".
Not ALL knowledge yet of course, but we are trying to get there..
(by the term "we" I don't mean or include myself personally - this would have been stupid - I meant "we" as a humans, as a society.. and that knowledge is available to all of us.
Of course, necessary training is required to make any use of it...

[CraigS]

Joe;

..What Bojan said.

Of course they'll use the logic of mathematics to keep them honest ! Why wouldn't they ?

To those working on these problems, Inflation is itself, a theory. The enquiry into it, is the scientific process in action ! You yourself, just used this process to make your point ! You used it by producing evidence from a respected authority. This is a rational approach, and it seems that others are not even conscious of where this approach first came from, and why they make use of it in their everyday lives!

The matters Brian was raising come from superstition. I suspect he was using an extreme example to make his point, as well.

The fringe areas of any system are subject to possible causes lying outside that system. This in itself, is a mathematically proven theorem. The fringes also produce areas of 'greyness'. The topic being discussed was mathematics ! Would you seriously attempt to query the validity of a mathematically proven theorem ?

The 'fringes' are where most wish to dwell. But examples from the fringe should be taken as not being true, unless you need to make use of hypotheses and maybe even informed conjecture formed at these fringes, to explore the sanity of moving forward with these assumptions. The driving force is the need to progress ! And this progress, may end up disproving the assumptions !

We are privileged thesedays to have immediate access to the workings of great, (and not-so-great), scientific mindsets. We follow their deliberations, as they use vast accumulated knowledge and wisdom, in pondering the unponderable. Why use that against them ? What gave rise to that computer you're sitting in front of ? (Answer: pondering scientists !).

Picking on one fringe area as an example to undermine a discipline developed over hundreds of years by hundreds of thousands of brilliant, if not millions of minds, smacks of pure ego. It seems you wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater !

Get over it, and get on with it. If you believe in the fringes, you are simply being manipulated by the media .. and then you are using it to demonstrate for us how huge your own ego is. Frankly I'm not interested in exploring that. That is for you to 'enjoy' .. just make sure you use a scientific approach in that exploration though. If you don't, you'll end up permanently deluded ! At the moment, I'll assume its only temporary, as in your particular case, I sense we are dwelling on the fringes … yet again

Cheers

[CraigS]

Its hilarious …

A media 'personality appears. His name is Brian Cox. He presents science. I review his presentation from a sceptical scientific perspective. I detect flaws in his logic, and in some of the items he presents as fact.

I am severly criticised for making fun of someone I don't 'believe' in. After all, it is 'seen' by some here, that he is a scientist and I'm not. "Craig, you are simply jealous of him, you are driven by 'ego' ".

Absolutely zero comments about the flaws in his arguments and facts which I raise, are forthcoming.

How may IIS personalities including Joe, (but certainly not limited to Joe), are entirely manipulated by the media and its icons/deities ?

How many 'astronomers' are using 'faith' as their only guide ?

How few are using science 'filters' (knowledge, process and rational thinking), as their guide ?

Why do they not turn up in the Science Forum ?

Is it out of an irrational fear ?

And rather than putting these aside, and yielding to their own obvious, innate hunger for knowledge, they would rather blatently accuse 'students of rationality', of arrogance, and then go on to flaunt their self-imposed wounds, to gain the sympathetic popular vote ! (Reality by consensus).

Children confront these fears on a daily basis ! They are the true masters of courage !
It seems all we learn to do with age, is learn how to 'look good' and barely survive ! Is this living ?

'Try it on !' …. That is my 'world view', Brian …
'See if it fits !' is the corollary …. but whatever you do …
…. 'don't believe it !'

Craig

[Octane]

Craig,

You are quickly alienating yourself with your aggressive language.

People with opinions other than your own will simply stop responding or replying to you.

Maybe that's the scientist and sceptic in you, but, if one person finds it aggressive, I am sure others do, too. Perhaps that's the least of your concerns, but, it might go against the grain of this community, in general, despite this section being your playground.

I enjoy reading your posts but you're about to lose me as audience due to the aggression that's been on display in this thread. Perhaps you need to get over it, too? We are /all/ human beings. We /all/ have opinions. We /all/ have faults. We /all/ deserve respect. The way that Brian has been treated by yourself, Bert and bojan, for some opinions he has openly shared on an Internet forum, one would think he ate babies. If Joe keeps responding, he's going to be deemed a babyeater, too. Even Alex/Jarvamundo wasn't treated this way, despite his continuous protestations and lack of engaging in dialogue.

Can we continue with the quest for knowledge without the aggression and show a little compassion, or, at the very least, some tolerance?

If I'm way off base, then, I extend my apologies. I, for one, know that life is too short (despite it being the longest thing we endure) to be engaged in quibbles.

H

[sally1jack]

I agree totally with "H" some of the narrow mindedness dished out to people giving their opinion is boardering on aggorance.
I would have entered some of these debates except for this attitude .
Science is a wonderful thing & our world has improved greatly from it , but science is part of human life & not the other way round. Science can only explain a small number of question that humans pose. Other aspects of human life are just as important . some people that i have read hear need to look beyond their narrow view.
How about a bit more understanding, no wonder our world is riddled with war & hatred( science can't fix that!)
phil

[multiweb]

Where you see arrogance I see exasperation. Craig has a practical mind. He's deconstructed the arguments times and times again but it seems this thread is still going in circles. :lol: C'mon guys. Group hug. :P

[sjastro]

Agreed.:thumbsup:

Steven

[bojan]

Very true....
And that's why those other aspects of human life have other places and forums to discuss them (general chat perhaps?)
But not here, this is a science forum. So this discussion is actually quite OT (off topic).

As for our narrow views.. well, let me say again - this is science forum.

[sally1jack]

[QUOTE=bojan;707368]
But not here, this is a science forum. So this discussion is actually quite OT (off topic).

Your right Bojan this is a sciece forum.
As someone who is interested to learn more about science i find the way some people are sometimes treated by regular contributors makes it less likley for new or less knowledgeable ( about science) people to engage in debate on scientific topics .
phil

[bojan]

I know, sometimes blood pressure goes through the roof. I myself felt that from time to time from some of us here...
But, this is mostly the consequence of pure exasperation, as mentioned earlier by Marc..
You explain things once, twice... and you clearly see that the other side doesn't budge a bit and doesn't engage in discussion, and this is not always because of misunderstanding but sometimes because of refusal to accept the argument (or to provide the evidence that supports their view) ... At this point, some people will explode.
From my part, I am sorry if I caused inconvenience to anyone.. but if I did, it was warranted - (I think) I never placed a blow at the first occasion, and when I did, it was after several attempts to explain better my points. I think the same applies to other contributors here as well.

[CraigS]

H;

I have had this from you before, and I know you also know it.

You seem to never make any contributions to this Forum, and I never see you in these trenches. You seem very adept at jumping in, just when a big point is to be made. I made a mistake once before by backing off .. and it was a mistake on my part. Not this time. Please understand, I respect you, and I see you in many, many ways, even extending to being a living example of 'the voice of the conscience" of the IIS community, comprising many folk, for whom I also have much respect.

In this case, you see aggression where there is none. There is pure defense, (and a damned solid one, at that). I have no idea of whether you possess the perspectives needed to understand the issues at stake here, and to see how those issues extend wherever matters of rationality and science are at stake.

You are an expert in fields in which I have little or no skills. I have the utmost respect for you in these areas, and I have much to learn from talents such as those in which you are a master. If I was to dabble in your areas and tell you how to think about it, how would you react ? I've actually seen this occur .. (and, as I recall, it resulted in someone being rapidly ejected from IIS. Perhaps the same may happen on this issue, to me. It is not my desire, but if it has to happen that way, then so be it).

I respect all human beings and their beliefs. I have stated this numerous times. I'll state it again. I have the utmost respect for people's beliefs. They are free to believe whatever they wish. I have demonstrated this on many, many occasions. I don't often see others demonstrating the same degree of respect outside their areas of expertise.

These matters in this Forum, science in general, and rational thinking have zero to do with beliefs and opinions. What we are attempting to develop here, cannot proceed efficiently, without these being left at the door before entering.

Beliefs and opinions can be kept completely separate from the discipline of rational thought and science processes. I have also stated this many, many times. I have huge respect for those who venture to step beyond the boundaries of belief and opinions, as it requires great discipline and a ton of courage.

You read much into the words and styles I have chosen. You practice leveraging other's emotions and feelings for which I too, have the utmost respect. Please pay me some of the same respect by not attempting to shape my persona in the image of your world, as I make no attempts to do that to you, in your world.

If I am to be crucified for something of value, let it be for what this forum represents … not for what others believe it represents, or what I personally might appear to represent through the filters of others' own belief systems. I will state it again, I respect other folk for their beliefs and opinions .. which is another way of saying I respect all other human beings .. this also includes Brian and Joe, with absolutely no qualifications. They will always be my friends at the end of the day, and will be treated as such. They can make their own choices about how they see me. All I ask, is to have an unimpeded channel for explaining where I'm coming from.

I am passionate about helping others to separate their beliefs and opinions from the physical world. Only by doing this can anyone see the physical world as it is, in that naked, physical reality. How it is viewed, and the tools we use to view it, must have the same integrity preserved. (My use of the word 'integrity' is very specific here .. integrity means completeness and wholeness .. there is nothing emotional in the use of this word in this sense. A person is perfectly able to behave with integrity, and still exhibit all of the negative characteristics leading perhaps, to alienation from others .. but at least they are demonstrating freedom in making this choice, rather than being bound by a confining belief system).

This stand I make, has nothing to do with my own ego or disrespect for others. I have no such interests .. I will continue to abdandon these where it is demonstrated that this is what is motivating me … no matter the personal pain or consequences involved. I stand prepared for it.

I cannot state this clearly, and long enough.

Please do not attempt to portray me for anything other that what I have chosen to stand for …

Cheers & Rgds

[Brian W]

Joe, that was and is my point.

Brian

[Octane]

I read your threads to learn from them, but, I have nothing to contribute because I am vapid.

My life is about making pretty pictures. If I learn something along the way, score.

My profuse apologies. I had no right to criticise. If you do something wrong, then it's up to a moderator to sort it out.

Cheers, Craig.

H

[CraigS]

Good onya, H !

Love your photos .. and they are way more than just pretty pictures.

I wish I had a quantum-sized dollop of your talents.
:)
Best Regards and Cheers.

[bojan]

Brian, we addressed your point(s) couple of times.
If it is still your point then you are not accepting the valid argumentation (for whatever reason) - which should be a part of scientific procedure....
We really can't do much beyond this....

[Brian W]

Indeed yourself and Craig have addressed my concerns a couple of times.

You are also correct that I am not accepting your argument.

To use your word I do not find your argument 'valid'.

I simply cannot accept that science is only about math and facts.

However even if it were only about math and facts, math has more than one paradox and a fact is only a fact until it is shown to be wrong. Which to me means, that some things just don't make sense and that some facts are just mistaken beliefs.

Now I could go on Bojan but we are probably never going to agree so lets rejoice in the 'fact' that we differ and that in our case 1+1 does indeed produce 2.

Brian

[joe_smith]

Thanks for the reply's its very interesting this subject to me :)

First let me say the views hear might be aggressive by some but this is human nature and cannot be avoided theist's and atheist's will always lock horns as the are at different ends of the scale. I respect any ones view no matter how they put it forth as it also tells what type of human character they have. The major trait that is the most important one. First let me say when I talk of faith its not in a theist or atheist view its using the word as just faith in a idea is right, and not in an entity based faith. Scientist's must have faith in their ideas to pursue them as not all the theory's can be proven Scientifically with its methods, Louie Paster and even Einstein must of had faith when starting their quest to greatness, as its all they could have to believe that their theory was correct and they had to find the evidence to prove it was true, and that faith and belief found in all humans was right. Yes they used the scientific method but it was based on an idea that started as an idea they believed in and had faith deep down they were on the right path to drive them forward.

Bojan, Craig and Bert you are using human emotions in your replies (yes, so am I) and this is the whole point I think you are missing you are classing your view of science as something separate from the human mind like its some kind of deity grater than the man doing the science. The scientific methods don't need faith or belief they are a set of rules one has to follow to prove a theory works. BUT the person doing the work, the person Interpreting the "See Deductive Reasoning, Inductive Reasoning, Theorem , Axiomatic Systems, Formal and Informal Proof, Proof theory, Mathematical Logic is totally different to those facts we have a conscious mind powered by an big self centred ego. This is the true power of science not the tools. Its people believing in ideas thought up by there conscious mind and having the faith in them to follow them.

I agree, but to follow a different path from the "accepted view" that person is having faith and a belief in their idea to pursue the new path in the fist place. Its a conscious mind doing it not a set of rules. He must follow the rules but is in no way part of them. our consciousness can give us an infinite number of ideas, dreams to follow and what it will even allow us to believe. We believe and have faith that we are on the right path but we cant prove it.

WHAT... are you saying human consciousness can be mathematically proven that the validity of mathematically proven theories on human consciousness to prove future events as fact!!! man, submit it and be the most famous scientist in the history of mankind. Explain how the speed of light is mathematically proven, but science has beaten it and gone faster? if so why do we still have the mathematically proven theorem that nothing is faster than the speed of light? maths is good up to a point but can be truly accepted as the cold hard truth. Just like my example of the speed of light scientific methods have proven this to be false, Einstein was wrong and his theory has been Disproven with the scientific method. If this is true why do we still use the theory that nothing is faster the light??

That is a view from a atheists view point not a scientific view point science has to be agnostic it cant have a totally theist view or a total atheist view as its imposable to prove one or the other so by the scientific method its still on the table until proven by the facts one way or the other. you can have your personal views on the subject but you cant use science tools to prove one way or the other if a theists view is wrong. Because using the data they have then the same atheists view is also wrong using the same data. look at the theory of the Biocentric Universe this theory will challenge all current scientific views on the universe if found to be true its ground breaking because it includes human consciousness the very thing current science dose not include in their list of trick of the trade.

wrong I use science as my guide I just have a neutral view on things not yet proven. I don't hold a atheist view or theist view i'm in the middle with an open mind to the views. I haven't joined the war as its based on hate not facts, look at some of the replies by well educated people they come over like 3rd grade bully's imposing their world view on others, not facts or data to prove they are right in the first place. I have faith that the Biocentric Universe theory might prove once and for all the truth or very close to it to finally come up with an answer.

Don't abandon your views or how strongly you believe in them but don't make it a war and force your view as the only true view and same goes for the theists as well. until its fully looked in to and all theories past and future are look into then all views have to be looked at, if you believe in the theories or not.

no need to apologise we all need criticism it keeps us honest. No personal view can be wrong or right as it our own personal view made from our beliefs, knowledge, and ego. The most important part to remember, its not the other persons views that's important, Its the way we treat those views that makes us great.

[bojan]

Brian,
This is exactly where our little problem is.
You can't just not accept... (well, obviously you can and so you do, this is a free country after all.. ). But in any meaningful discussion you should be able to argue why my (or any other) argument is not valid and you should be able to offer the reasonable alternative.. Otherwise we are discussing art, poetry... things like that - no need for math here :-)





I disagree with the above...

You are talking about what is driving the scientist to do what they do (belief in their own ideas, "eureka" moments... joy of being right, joy when you learn something new and totally unexpected.. ) and this is all OK.. but it is "behind the scene".... it is their motivation, and we, human beings, we need motivation to do something.

However theory is not a theory until it is proven to others in a scientific community that is valid.. and for THAT you need tools, properly used, and proper procedure followed, supported with mass of test results.

Actually in my opinion the only "faith thing" that really is important in scientific method is belief in validity and usefulness of scientific procedure. Otherwise noone would be able to prove anything to anyone.

[CraigS]

Sorry Brian;

I assert that you will never be able to understand the points made here unless you suspend your 'beliefs', so your comment comes as no surprise. (You also stand in integrity of your beliefs .. which is cool by me). :)

To fully 'experience' the paradoxes you mention, one has to open one's mind to the rationale leading to the paradox. As I have asserted elsewhere, one can only ever achieve these 'experiences' if one accumulates the knowledge leading up to it, which leads to the understanding. Criticism of what we haven't understood or experienced, is easy. Accumulating the understanding is not. This won't happen unless you attempt to suspend belief. All I have said here also applies to getting into your world, also. I'll take a punt and say that you share this perspective as passionately as you do. Yep .. we may be in violent agreement ?? :question:

Come to think of it, perhaps we should recommend that the Science Forum entry advisory words make reference to suspending belief and opinion before entry. How to word that, without creating the offence which appears to result, (ala my apparent, present IIS reputation) however, is a major issue. Perhaps a good request for the Faqs section. :question:



Once again, I assert that agreement is not mandatory. Never has been.
Suspension of belief and opinion aids in understanding of what is being discussed in a Forum intended for Science discussions. If folk aren't willing to do this, then we just go around, and around, and around, …. (Just check out this thread, if you want a powerful example).

Cheers & Rgds

[CraigS]

This is not about religious beliefs ! I have no such beliefs in this place! I left 'em at the door. I urge you to do the same.

It makes no difference whether its about a deity or not. Its about the belief you are right!
…Leave it at the door and you will learn. Bring it here and you will have problems !

Not so. It wasn't until Karl Popper entered the scene that this rationale come into Science. He altered everything. Pasteur came way before Popper. Einstein's life was co-incident with Popper's. The wrangling of the two resulted in the airtightness of scientific method.


The power comes from striving for integrity. This is the 'discipline of Science' of which we speak so often. We are human beings each wrangling with our own weaknesses. I refuse to give in to them. To abandon the quest is to fall out of integrity. To choose not to even undertake the quest, is to exclude oneself from the pursuit of Science. (And Science Forums).

And you never will. But mathematics proves things all the time ! Remember .. you have made that choice … no one else did !

Not at all. You said that. Not me, man !

You still don't understand the difference between scientific method and mathematical certainty. And you never will until you check your beliefs at the door. Just because you choose to not undertake the quest for understanding does not give you the right to speak from an authority position, of that which you choose to not understand. Nor speak from this position in a Science Forum !


Theories are never proven true. You said that. And it is based on a complete misunderstanding because you chose to not park your beliefs before you came here. Science does not even attempt to prove truths .. never has, never will

Joe, I hope we remain respectful of eachother. This is not about personalities. This is about business ! Science Forum business !

I'm worn out .. this thread needs locking ..!!

Moderators, Please, pretty please … Thread Lock Request ??

Cheers

[Brian W]

[QUOTE=bojan;707438]Brian,
This is exactly where our little problem is.
You can't just not accept... (well, obviously you can and so you do, this is a free country after all.. ). But in any meaningful discussion you should be able to argue why my (or any other) argument is not valid and you should be able to offer the reasonable alternative.. Otherwise we are discussing art, poetry... things like that - no need for math here :-)

Ok Bojan let me try...

Your argument is that science is a standardized process by which one arrives at facts and that belief is irrelevant because everything is based upon facts which are provable by mathematical procedures.

Obviously I need to show where the a scientific fact has been shown to be wrong.

Ok... it was a fact accepted by the leading scientists of the day that all heavenly bodies must move in perfect circles because the circle was the perfect shape.

Some very smart people went to a great deal of trouble using the best math around to prove that position and to make a model of the universe that fit into that basic (for the time) scientific fact.

As we all know they were wrong, their fact was not a fact even though they had math galore to back it up.

They believed that they had a fact but they didn't. Who can say that the same thing will not happen to sciences present day facts somewhere down the road.

Now let me address the science of math. Admitting up front that I am not an expert I still feel that I am on safe ground making the following statement.

physics is looking for a unified theory because the math that works so well when dealing with big stuff just doesn't work when dealing with the tiny stuff.

Now to me this means that one needs one type of math here and another type of math there. To perhaps coin a phrase is this not 'situational mathematics? which would give one situational facts? which brings us to my belief that at the core everything is based upon belief.

Even you have stated that one must have belief in the system.

So perhaps I am wrong but I do believe that I have repudiated your statement that there is no 'belief' in science and that facts are facts are facts. However even if I haven't you have.
Brian

[Brian W]

Joe, I hope we remain respectful of eachother. This is not about personalities. This is about business ! Science Forum business !

I'm worn out .. this thread needs locking ..!!

Moderators, Please, pretty please … Thread Lock Request ??

Cheers[/QUOTE]

Craig, when it was just a superstitious, delusional, brain dead, ignorant fool you were dealing with everything was just fine but now that there are others who feel that you may not be 100% correct you are worn out and want the moderator to lock this thread!

That hardly seems fair.

Brian

[[1ponders]]

This thread has just been bought to the attention of the moderators, please keep it respectful and on topic.

[CraigS]

Brian;
I never said anything about someone being 'brain dead' or being 'an ignorant fool'. I think you may find that was someone else.

Where would you like to take this thread from here, Brian ?

Your stance is purely religious.

This is the Science Forum.

Discussing religion is against the IIS TOCs.

We have been fortunate to get away with this thread for as long as we have.

I leave the matter in the hands of the mods, for their consideration.

Cheers
PS: I've had enough ! I'm outta here ! Cheers.

[Brian W]

[QUOTE=CraigS;707468]Brian;
-I never said anything about someone being 'brain dead' or being 'an ignorant fool'. I think you may find that was someone else.

that's true... but religious, superstitious and with garbage for opinions does come from you. :)

-Where would you like to take this thread from here, Brian ?

this thread is not now and never has been in my control. Where it goes is up to the people involved in it. I personally like the question of what is science and how does one do it. I also like the question about consciousness.

Your stance is purely religious.

I ask the questions 'how', 'why', 'can it be shown' and you declare that my stance is purely religious. Ok what would be some good scientific type questions?

A small aside for the Moderator(s) if I have wandered off topic you have my apologies as you also have them if I have been disrespectful.
Brian

[CraigS]

Yes. More clearly, in context of what actually transpired this time, (and explanation of my present assertion of 'religious'), as opposed to your views of what transpired …

Religious:
I assert you are driven by belief. Religion is about belief. Science proceeds by abandoning belief. You are unwilling to abandon your beliefs. You are not being scientific. I infer you are being religious.

Superstition:

.. Speaks for itself…

Garbage:

You were (..and still are), attempting to put words into what Bojan wrote, and into what "all scientists accept".

My response to this was:

.. words describing my feelings about your beliefs about the extent and time others put into 'working through it all', and how they interpret the results of this. You made a huge generalisation, and a massively sweeping statement.

For example, you have no idea of my background, nor the time I have put into anything.

My words were re-iterated by Bojan ..




The 'how' and 'why' questions were answered in my post #40. I referred you to read the Wiki pages above.

Please refrain from attempting to put your interpretation into words I have written. My words do that job quite nicely.

Cheers

[[1ponders]]

sorry folks time to close.