unifying theory of life?

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Brian)]

[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 (Brian)]

[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 (Brian)]

Originally Posted by bojan

I don't get it either..

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.

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.

Brian

[joe_smith]

Brian you might like this article from discovermagazine.com

The Biocentric Universe Theory: Life Creates Time, Space, and the Cosmos Itself - 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 (Brian)]

Originally Posted by joe_smith

Brian you might like this article from discovermagazine.com



Looks like it would be an interesting book to read

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 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 (Brian)]

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.

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:

Originally Posted by Brian W

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

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]

You speak of other realities. My post #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 ?”

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...ience-science/

Consciousness is not just an issue for biologists; it’s a problem for physics. There is nothing in modern physics that explains how a group of molecules in a brain creates consciousness. The beauty of a sunset, the taste of a delicious meal, these are all mysteries to science — which can sometimes pin down where in the brain the sensations arise, but not how and why there is any subjective personal experience to begin with. And, what’s worse, nothing in science can explain how consciousness arose from matter. Our understanding of this most basic phenomenon is virtually nil. Interestingly, most models of physics do not even recognise this as a problem.

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 (Brian)]

Originally Posted by 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...

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]

Originally Posted by Brian W

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

That's a hard one
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]

Originally Posted by Brian W

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.

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 behind 1+1=2, emerges from the profound logic behind 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 (Brian)]

-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]

Originally Posted by Brian W

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

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]

Originally Posted by Brian W

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Brian W

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.

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 (Brian)]

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]

Originally Posted by Brian W

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

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 !!