" I know that not everyone can handle such wide-scope, reality-spanning, conceptual thinking with ease...but it can be done and I feel you have the intellectual capacity to do just that."

I think you are over complicating your explanations, assuming people arent grasping your "wide-scope" thinking, and are coming off slightly rude.

Rather people just dont agree with you and you make a lot of assumptions.

Man where is this thread going....

I forget what great comedian said it...maybe it was bill hicks....''Opinions are like ass holes, everybody's got one''

I dont think that Zon is being rude. He/she even made his desire to beat some sense into Jamie into a positive, enlightening experience. Maybe a tiny bit condescending?



Evidently some words and concepts do have subjective meanings. The concept of God being one of them. I cannot see how you can use the allegory of apples and oranges for something that you do not believe exists.

Although i do believe that there is a scientific explanation for how everything works.

I think it was Dirty Harry .. but very true! Interesting read though, who needs to pick up a novel..?

Viable?...Sure.
True?...No.

'Believe' in Nothing ... Whatsoever! ... But reserve the Right to Change Your Mind at any given moment.

Only way to Truly be Free.

Half way through the thread very interesting and thought provoking indeed.. I will leave this here that may interest some regarding Holographic Universe Theory that was mentioned earlier..

Fermilab Holometer Interesting times..

@Synkromystic:





"Profundity", like "beauty," is in the eye (or mind) of the beholder...I agree completely...and yet I do think the fact that science is moving towards a view of reality as an eternal infinity eternally expanding, in which consciousness is intimately intertwined at every level is fairly easy to defend as both profound and beautiful. If you don't see it that way (although you didn't say whether you did or didn't) I would be curious as to why.



I have said that science is the most reliable method which humans have ever devoloped for studying and understanding the nature of realiy...and it is.

As for all that stuff about not being able to reproduce experiments exactly, and movement, change, and vibration, and so on, I would agree completely...and yet, even will all of that, science is STILL the most reliable method we have discovered! That's because reality (all that which exists) must operate according to self-consistent laws or it simply could not exist. (Nothing can exist which contradicts its own existence.) Science is the best way we have of determining what those self-consistent laws are.

If you REALLY don't believe in science, and feel that "reductioninst, scientific dogma" (as you refer to it) is so unreliable, then try an expiment. Get an assistant to help you bring a 100-pound anvil to the 10th floor of a building. (Find a building with an elevator.) Have your assistant rest the anvil on a window ledge, and you stand outside under the same window. Then have the assistant push the anvil out.

Science would say it would fall...actually that it would accelerate downwards at something like 32ft per second squared...but that's just science. According to you, science is unreliable, so the anvil could do anything....maybe it will float into space, turn to vapor, or whatever...But I wouldn't bet on it...



Reality, because it is self-consistent, and operates in self-consisten ways, is inherently limited to those self-consistent ways. Our definitions don't limit reality...reality is limited by its very nature. Since truth is the correspondence between a statement and some aspect of reality, apparently any statement which absoutely correspond with these "limitations" must be absolutely true.



Science IS "extremely helpful," as you have said...which is why I doubt you would try the experiment I suggested. And since a large part of science is focused on (and has been quite good at) determining the laws which govern all sorts of "change and corruption," as you call it, and since science is the best method ever devised for studying and understanding the nature of reality, it seems like the very BEST direction to look in the search for absolute truth. (I suppose a scientist might put it in terms of things like "energy transfers," "momentum changes," "entropy," or whatever the case may be...but "change and corruption" can suffice.)



...and you have fun watching the anvil float away!

@cyb:



I only DID say it was viable...but now I will also say that while what I presented was a very simplified version of the best scientific model so for, I will also say the pretty much EVERY variation of the scientific "big picture" of reality itself seems to be pointing to an eternal infinity eternally expanding. And THAT's the point.



I guess it depends upon how you define freedom. If you mean freedom from knowledge, then yes I would agree with you wholeheartedly...but freedom from knowledge is simply ignorance.

I actually find that much greater freedom, in terms of being able to navigate reality, lies in knowledge rather than ignorace. "Knowledge is power," as they say. I guess if you want to adandon science and technology (the application of science) you could start by giving up electronics...maybe put down the computer and stop glorifying ignorance.

@Synkromystic:



I've heard a longer version: "Opinions are like assholes: everybody's got one and they all stink!"

But that's the thing about science...it's not based upon opinion, but upon experimentation, observation and logic. Mysticism, on the other hand...well...back to the quote on "opinions..."

@hug46:

I have to say I think you mostly get what I am saying, although sometimes I think you might not fully follow everything to its logical conclusion....but you are really close!



Even the word "god" has an objective meaning, or range of meanings, to be more precise. Just because someone does not believe in something does not mean you can't use an allegory completely parallel to the "apples and oranges" one I used.

Adam and Barbara could be talking about Leprechauns and Unicorns. Adam says he wishes they were real, and that he would love to ride a galloping Unicorn, and might even try to tie a rope to its horn as a way of holding on. Barbara then says, "What are you talking about? Just climb on the Unicorn's shoulders and make him carry you to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow." And so on...

@anarchy:



I do try to keep my explanations as simple as possible...but let's face it, reality itself is quite complex, and my explanations are merely a reflection of that inherent complexity. Also most people have only a very superficial grasp of deeper scientific models and concepts; it's not realy "my" wide-scope thinking, but the wide-scope implications of science which I am trying to convey. As for rudeness, I do try to avoid all rudeness, because in an honest, frank discussion where people are really trying to get at the truth of things, rudeness is really not called for or appropriate. If, however, I see someone intentionally employing confusing, divisive language, essentially just for fun, I consider that to be rude in a discussion that is meant to increase mutual understanding. Here's one example of such language to which I am referring (emphasis added by me):



Perhaps my mistaken "assumption" is that this discussion was meant to be, as I said, an honest, frank discussion, meant to increase mutual understanding...but I don't think that's the case.

In life there is listening and speaking. They are parallel realities.

-RibbedFlank

So how does science come to terms with constant change? Ignores it? If you measure something and it's never the same, how do you find an absolute reference. You can't. This is the limit of external science.

If there is nothing absolutely true about how science perceives and interprets reality, then these ''facts'' are nothing more than opinions based of off ''logic'' that could not conceive of the whole picture....thus there is no truth in that.

this thread reeks of verbose rhetoric and exercises in tautology (there's no shortage of this in so-called 'alternative thought' )



the older you get, the less you try to define reality...otherwise, get over yourself. perhaps it really is all just an illusion.

You misinterpreted my statements. Basically I said that no experiment will ever be repeatable. Thus, you cannot look for absolute truth in the experiment. The conditions are constantly different at such a small and large scale. But there exists a middle ground where relative experiments can be repeated with SIMILAR results. This is why I said that science is helpful, because it can give one a relatively stable view of this relative existence some of us call ''reality''.

And I really don't appreciate your use of the anvil example. Suggesting I go commit suicide. That is highly irresponsible and quite offensive. I suggest you be more responsible and not resort to such childish tactics.

I really do dislike repeating myself, so sorry about that nexus

@Skyromystic:

I would prefer not to have to repeat myself either, but in the interest of clearing up this issue, I will gladly do so.

I obviously understood and even agreed with what you said about the repeatability of experiments...and then proceeded to state that despite the lack of exact repeatability that science remains the most reliable method humans have ever developed for studying and understanding the nature of reality. I even told you WHY science works so well, as you can read in the quote above.

For you to say that science is "helpful" is understating the case drastically...so drastically as to actually misrepresent the value of science. It is not merely "helpful," but is (again) the absolutely BEST method ever devised for studying and understanding the nature of reality. That's a LOT better than merely "helpful" as you have stated.

As for the anvil example, I had sincerely assumed that you would have certainly had the sense to have moved out of the way of the falling anvil. Perhaps you don't...so I will still suggest the same experiment, but caution you to be VERY CAREFUL to move out of the way of the falling anvil! PLEASE BE CAREFUL!

That is an opinion. That is not a fact because some guy on the internet, or a bunch of people with a cult like attitude claim that's true.

I have studied science as a hobby, and still do, but I happen to know a much more effective method than science for understanding the nature of reality. I would describe it to you soo we could have a discussion if you weren't so rude and uninterested in other view points, but i'm not going to bother wasting my time on deaf ears.



How disrespectful you are. You think your soo funny dont you? I will not be responding to your posts any more. I only discuss things with people who can do it in respectful manner.

FYI the nexus is not a forum for childish tactics and wanna be comedians. The nexus is a forum where adults can discuss topics while being respectful.

There is nothing inherently wrong with either verbosity or tautology when they are called for.
Complex things such as we are discussing here often require complex explanations. I did not invent this complexity, but it exists and I deal with it in the manner it requires. And tautologies, such as "existence is everything that exists," are sometimes called for as a means for clarifying certain points. These are often points which may be very obvious to one person, but not necessarily so obvious to another. (For example, there was talk a little while back about "god existing outside of existence," which required me to respond with the tautological example just mentioned.)

As for rhetoric, I can speak for no one else; as for myself, I am simply trying to do my best to convey ideas which I consider extremely important, and which (again) can often be quite complex. The style of my language "is what it is." ( Sometimes you just can't get away from these damned tautologies! LOL! )

I would have to completely disagree with the part about getting older and defining reality. Children have very little in the way "definition" regarding reality, but as they get older and learn more they naturally begin to "define" reality more and more. For example, a flame on a stove may be hot, but at a young enough age a child will be unaware of this. With a bit more experience the flame becomes defined as "hot" and associated with pain. This is a simple example, of course, but it can be carried out much further than that. Science, in its search for a Theory of Everything, also sometimes referred to as a "Grand Unified Theory," is attempting to take such "defining of reality" to its logical conclusion, thereby increasing our knowledge regarding the nature of reality.

And...even if this all is an "illusion," it is apperently an "illusion" which is amenable to scientific study...and since we live here, and since we can experience both pleaure and pain here, it seems to make a lot of sense to know as much about it as we can. If it is just an "illusion," I can see no better means for learning how best to deal with this "illusion" or even possibly for discovering its "illusory" aspects, and "peeking behind the curtain" so to speak.

@Synkromystic:

It's not just an opinion. Merely look at the advance in human understanding regarding the nature of reality which has taken place in the few hundred years since science has gained a footing, as opposed to the slow crawl of the growth of knowledge in pre-scientific times.



You are mistaken. I would be VERY interested in such a thing, if it existed! In fact, I think that not only I, but the entire community here...and actually humanity at large, would love to know about this "much more effective method than science for understanding the nature of reality." If such a thing truly exists, the revelation of such a thing to the rest of mankind could conceivably be the greatest event in human history!

Perhaps you should reconsider withholding this great secret from the whole of humanity, simply because of some mistakenly perceived rudeness on my part.

Science is truly great. I don't think you'll find a single member here who disagrees.

Fundamentalism is not great, not at all. Again, you'd (probably) be hard pressed to find many who disagree.

Perhaps you should devise an extraction path to separate the one from the other