Science Is Non-Sense

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
impermanence
Posts: 165
Joined: December 5th, 2020, 11:45 am

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by impermanence »

dirtrockground wrote: December 18th, 2020, 11:37 pm Hey there, let's divide this into three parts, (1) the time problem, (2) the math problem, and (3) science as a tool vs. science as a worldview.

1. The Time Problem

Let's start with Reality. When considering time, we have to be very clear about what how we understand Reality as well as our relationship to it. I want to make sure I'm considering it in a way that you would deem acceptable. It seems the definition of Reality you are using here as related to time is that everything that is "real" exists in what is normally described as the "eternal Now." What I understand you to mean by time being an abstraction is that our concepts of past and future are not real. They are intellectual constructs. This is acceptable, but by using this understanding to reject science is a misunderstanding of what science is and why we do it.

Let's use the term "Dynamic reality" to describe your eternal Now, and the term "Static reality" to accommodate our abstractions of past and future. Science is essentially a tool used to express our understanding of static reality, using dynamic reality as a test of its validity. Experience tells us that things happen in a serial order according to our subjective experience. While it is possible according to relativity that people may "experience things in a different order" so to speak, each individual generally experiences things in a serial order where one thing happens after another, and abstracting from that experience gives us the idea of the past and the future. These abstractions allow us to speak of a static reality, a reality which behaves in a certain way at all times. By comparing our understanding with replicative experiments, we can constantly put our understanding to the test of dynamic reality, the experimental data that nature provides allowing us to confirm or reject the validity of our scientific constructs.

As for your other two statements on this problem, I'm going to need some more explanation from you before I can dive into them. I do not understand them. I have an idea about what you mean, but not enough information to respectably speak to the points.
Thank you for your very thoughtful response. I do not believe that human beings have access to Reality. Even our personal reality is fraught with all kinds of issues [mostly temporal having to do with constant change].


2. The Math Problem

I take issue with most of the assertions that you have made in this statement.

* "Mathematics [the language of science]..." - Mathematics is not the language of science. It is a tool in the scientist's toolkit. Mathematics is a language unto itself.

* "paramount among them being that there is no such thing as more than '1,'..." - Again, I will need more information from you before I am comfortable digging into this statement. I suspect that perhaps this problem could be resolved if the suggested distinction between dynamic and static reality above were accepted.

* "math breaks down at its extremes." - Everything breaks down at its extremes. No system performs well in edge cases. That is why they are extreme, and why they are subject of study by many people far more intelligent and capable than myself.
The idea here is that each coordinate in the Universe is subject to differing forces, therefore since each object occupies it's own space [again, subject to differing forces], it must be unique. If all things are unique, then there is no such thing as two of anything. The idea of multiple things is simply one of computational convenience.
3. Science as a tool vs. science as a worldview.

"how does one make the case that science is anything but an extremely weak and unsatisfying alternative for religion?"

You've hit an important issue with this statement. There are many people who do choose to put the majority of their faith in science. I would agree that this is not the right move, but disagree with the notion that if science is not a satisfactory worldview, then it is not a satisfactory tool. The craftsman, in his service to God, may construct an impeccable church, the finest anyone has ever seen. He did not construct this church by centering his worldview around the church. The craftsman set his sights on God, and in the process, a church of incomparable quality was constructed. Analogously, the scientist, in his service to Truth and Reason, may construct an impeccable theory, the finest anyone has ever seen. He did not construct the theory by centering his worldview around the theory. The scientist set his sights on Truth and Reason, and in the process, a theory of incomparable quality was constructed. Still, Notre Dame burns and scientific theories are falsified.
Science is indeed a tool, but a very rudimentary one based on the idea that its constituents are all transitory. That's why science is ALWAYS changing [as is everything intellectual]. Humans create systems to try to make sense out of things but the systems only satisfy the need to exist as social beings. The truth of science has little to do with its efficacy [in almost all cases]. And after all, things are MUCH more interesting when they remain the mystery that is the true reality of our existence.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by Steve3007 »

Greta wrote:What in our usual experience of stars would give us a realistic impression of their reality - their scale, complexity or intensity?

We call them "balls of gas", which is like referring to humans and other animals as "specks of meat". But we don't refer to the latter in that way because we have direct experience with them. We instinctively know how much more living beings are than just their bodies' basic and unsystematised components. Nothing in our language is capable of even remotely describing stars' scale and intensity.

Only math allows even an iota of comprehension, but it's an abstract kind of understanding that still cannot describe the visceral reality of objects that are so far beyond "awesome". View from mountains are awesome. The view of Earth from the IIS is apparently so awesome it is life-changing for astronauts. But the Sun and other stars are in an entirely different league. Trouble is, to be at a distance where comprehension is possible would be fatal in too many ways to mention. It would be akin to getting inside a meat grinder to see what it's like to be ground to bits. Even the Parker solar probe will come, at its closest, within about 7 million kms of the Sun.

Now, about black holes ...
OK. I see exactly what you mean by "abstractly understanding" something now. You're talking about things that we can't, so to speak, "get our arms around". Language, and more specifically (as you said) mathematics allows us to accurately describe such things as distant stars and even black holes, but it doesn't give us the the sense that we've genuinely intuited them, as we do with phenomena that we know from personal life experience, like throwing a ball up in the air. An interesting question is what to make of that distinction. Is there actually a fundamental difference between that "realistic impression of the reality" of something and the mathematical description of it? There certainly does intuitively seem to be.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve3007 wrote: December 21st, 2020, 7:08 am
Greta wrote:What in our usual experience of stars would give us a realistic impression of their reality - their scale, complexity or intensity?

We call them "balls of gas", which is like referring to humans and other animals as "specks of meat". But we don't refer to the latter in that way because we have direct experience with them. We instinctively know how much more living beings are than just their bodies' basic and unsystematised components. Nothing in our language is capable of even remotely describing stars' scale and intensity.

Only math allows even an iota of comprehension, but it's an abstract kind of understanding that still cannot describe the visceral reality of objects that are so far beyond "awesome". View from mountains are awesome. The view of Earth from the IIS is apparently so awesome it is life-changing for astronauts. But the Sun and other stars are in an entirely different league. Trouble is, to be at a distance where comprehension is possible would be fatal in too many ways to mention. It would be akin to getting inside a meat grinder to see what it's like to be ground to bits. Even the Parker solar probe will come, at its closest, within about 7 million kms of the Sun.

Now, about black holes ...
OK. I see exactly what you mean by "abstractly understanding" something now. You're talking about things that we can't, so to speak, "get our arms around". Language, and more specifically (as you said) mathematics allows us to accurately describe such things as distant stars and even black holes, but it doesn't give us the the sense that we've genuinely intuited them, as we do with phenomena that we know from personal life experience, like throwing a ball up in the air. An interesting question is what to make of that distinction. Is there actually a fundamental difference between that "realistic impression of the reality" of something and the mathematical description of it? There certainly does intuitively seem to be.
You probably know more about this than me, but this is my take on it.

There is an emotional difference, emotions being the link between body and mind.

Emotions, when not overly triggered, help to ground us in reality. Consider Descartes calmly performing open heart surgery on living primates, dismissing the poor animals' distress as automatic responses, that is, lacking in emotion. Without emotions, we can go off track, so we must extrapolate and use logic to fill the gaps and become "grounded".

Pure maths is an example. Without physical correlates, math can create all manner of patterns and forms that do no exist in reality. Basically it is mathematical fiction and, like fiction, sometimes they turn out to correspond with reality, but often not. Our senses and emotions ground us, limiting possibilities to those that occur in reality.

Another angle: we cannot be awed by a black hole in the same way as we might be awed by Uluru or the night sky out in the country. Yet many were awed by the first black hole image of M87*. Where did the awe come from? The photo itself, without backgrounding, was just a hollowed out, blurry and uneven orange form engulfed in darkness (not unlike the outgoing POTUS). The emotions in this instance are more "meta" - awe at the scientific achievement and, most tellingly, excitement at the novelty of seeing a black hole for the first time and having visible proof that they are real.

It's the proof of visceral, provable reality that excites us, no doubt an evolved trait that aids in survival. I could go on, but will leave it at so the dog can get out after yesterday's rain.
User avatar
dirtrockground
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: December 18th, 2020, 10:47 pm

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by dirtrockground »

impermanence wrote: December 20th, 2020, 1:27 pm
dirtrockground wrote: December 18th, 2020, 11:37 pm Hey there, let's divide this into three parts, (1) the time problem, (2) the math problem, and (3) science as a tool vs. science as a worldview.

1. The Time Problem

Let's start with Reality. When considering time, we have to be very clear about what how we understand Reality as well as our relationship to it. I want to make sure I'm considering it in a way that you would deem acceptable. It seems the definition of Reality you are using here as related to time is that everything that is "real" exists in what is normally described as the "eternal Now." What I understand you to mean by time being an abstraction is that our concepts of past and future are not real. They are intellectual constructs. This is acceptable, but by using this understanding to reject science is a misunderstanding of what science is and why we do it.

Let's use the term "Dynamic reality" to describe your eternal Now, and the term "Static reality" to accommodate our abstractions of past and future. Science is essentially a tool used to express our understanding of static reality, using dynamic reality as a test of its validity. Experience tells us that things happen in a serial order according to our subjective experience. While it is possible according to relativity that people may "experience things in a different order" so to speak, each individual generally experiences things in a serial order where one thing happens after another, and abstracting from that experience gives us the idea of the past and the future. These abstractions allow us to speak of a static reality, a reality which behaves in a certain way at all times. By comparing our understanding with replicative experiments, we can constantly put our understanding to the test of dynamic reality, the experimental data that nature provides allowing us to confirm or reject the validity of our scientific constructs.

As for your other two statements on this problem, I'm going to need some more explanation from you before I can dive into them. I do not understand them. I have an idea about what you mean, but not enough information to respectably speak to the points.
Thank you for your very thoughtful response. I do not believe that human beings have access to Reality. Even our personal reality is fraught with all kinds of issues [mostly temporal having to do with constant change].


2. The Math Problem

I take issue with most of the assertions that you have made in this statement.

* "Mathematics [the language of science]..." - Mathematics is not the language of science. It is a tool in the scientist's toolkit. Mathematics is a language unto itself.

* "paramount among them being that there is no such thing as more than '1,'..." - Again, I will need more information from you before I am comfortable digging into this statement. I suspect that perhaps this problem could be resolved if the suggested distinction between dynamic and static reality above were accepted.

* "math breaks down at its extremes." - Everything breaks down at its extremes. No system performs well in edge cases. That is why they are extreme, and why they are subject of study by many people far more intelligent and capable than myself.
The idea here is that each coordinate in the Universe is subject to differing forces, therefore since each object occupies it's own space [again, subject to differing forces], it must be unique. If all things are unique, then there is no such thing as two of anything. The idea of multiple things is simply one of computational convenience.
3. Science as a tool vs. science as a worldview.

"how does one make the case that science is anything but an extremely weak and unsatisfying alternative for religion?"

You've hit an important issue with this statement. There are many people who do choose to put the majority of their faith in science. I would agree that this is not the right move, but disagree with the notion that if science is not a satisfactory worldview, then it is not a satisfactory tool. The craftsman, in his service to God, may construct an impeccable church, the finest anyone has ever seen. He did not construct this church by centering his worldview around the church. The craftsman set his sights on God, and in the process, a church of incomparable quality was constructed. Analogously, the scientist, in his service to Truth and Reason, may construct an impeccable theory, the finest anyone has ever seen. He did not construct the theory by centering his worldview around the theory. The scientist set his sights on Truth and Reason, and in the process, a theory of incomparable quality was constructed. Still, Notre Dame burns and scientific theories are falsified.
Science is indeed a tool, but a very rudimentary one based on the idea that its constituents are all transitory. That's why science is ALWAYS changing [as is everything intellectual]. Humans create systems to try to make sense out of things but the systems only satisfy the need to exist as social beings. The truth of science has little to do with its efficacy [in almost all cases]. And after all, things are MUCH more interesting when they remain the mystery that is the true reality of our existence.
I see what you are saying. I responded to your original post somewhat as an exercise in describing why I think science has validity, but I see we are looking at it from two very different perspectives. Our perspectives probably differ because there are very different things that bring us joy and fulfillment in our daily life. I find that adopting a scientific mindset brings me joy and enthusiasm for life because even though you are very right about it being a transitory expression of understanding, I see it as a certain form of rational art. In my mind, separating the arts and sciences is a mistake and I am as passionate about one as the other.

I agree with the idea that mystery is what brings interest to our existence, but I think with scientific inquiry we have the ability to expose greater and deeper mysteries than if we were to look at reality on the surface level only.

As for whether or not humans have access to reality, it is nothing more than faith persuading me that we do.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by Steve3007 »

Greta wrote:There is an emotional difference, emotions being the link between body and mind.
Yes. I think this relates a bit to a comment I just made in the "Is There Really An Equal Amount Of Good And Bad In Everything?" topic. I think most humans need an emotional connection to the subject that they're discussing in order to find it interesting. It needs to move them. Different people find that in different ways.
Emotions, when not overly triggered, help to ground us in reality. Consider Descartes calmly performing open heart surgery on living primates, dismissing the poor animals' distress as automatic responses, that is, lacking in emotion. Without emotions, we can go off track, so we must extrapolate and use logic to fill the gaps and become "grounded".
Yes, as was being discussed in that topic, it's difficult to be sure how we would behave there if we could somehow be taken out of our 21st Century secular context and given the environment and life experiences of a Descartes. But it's hard to believe that at least some empathy with the suffering of other animals is not an innate characteristic of humans which exists independently of any culture and environment. So it seems likely that, as with the Nazi doctors experimenting on humans in the Holocaust, that natural empathy for the suffering of a fellow sentient being is consciously switched off by a person like Descartes or Mengele due to their mistaken idea that what they would consider to be rational argument trumps emotion; a lack of understanding of the fact that rational argument, based on empirical observation, is empty without the emotions which inspire us to make those arguments and observations.
Pure maths is an example. Without physical correlates, math can create all manner of patterns and forms that do no exist in reality. Basically it is mathematical fiction and, like fiction, sometimes they turn out to correspond with reality, but often not. Our senses and emotions ground us, limiting possibilities to those that occur in reality.
Yes, and other languages than mathematics, like English, can also be let loose from the need to correlate with anything real. ("Twas brillig and the slivey toves..."). But it's interesting how in both cases those patterns and forms seem to come from a language which started as a map of reality but then logically extrapolated beyond the boundaries of that reality, while keeping the rules which worked for that map. Start by inventing the concept of number in order to count real world objects like apples or bricks and end up with such things as imaginary numbers, non-Euclidean spaces and fractals.
Another angle: we cannot be awed by a black hole in the same way as we might be awed by Uluru or the night sky out in the country. Yet many were awed by the first black hole image of M87*. Where did the awe come from? The photo itself, without backgrounding, was just a hollowed out, blurry and uneven orange form engulfed in darkness (not unlike the outgoing POTUS). The emotions in this instance are more "meta" - awe at the scientific achievement and, most tellingly, excitement at the novelty of seeing a black hole for the first time and having visible proof that they are real.
This brings in the subject of context. Without context, all sensory perceptions are meaningless, not just blurry pictures of black holes (or presidents :D ). But I guess some sensory perceptions (such as the perception of a blurry picture of a black hole) need more explicit contextual explanation than others. For most things that we perceive in life the context is provided automatically by our previous life experiences, so it perhaps doesn't even occur to us that we needed that context.

My personal experience of standing outside on a clear night looking at the moon, stars and planets is that it is way more exhilarating than looking at a picture of those things, even though the image is almost the same. The reason why I find that is the knowledge that I'm more directly connected to those celestial objects than if I was looking at a picture or film of them. The photons of light entering my eyes when I look at Betelgeuse (for example) are the actual photons that originated inside it. But of course I only know that because somebody has told me it. Without having been told that it's just an orange point of light in the sky.
It's the proof of visceral, provable reality that excites us, no doubt an evolved trait that aids in survival. I could go on, but will leave it at so the dog can get out after yesterday's rain.
I think it's good to throw in these little snippets of everyday life every now and then to remind us that wherever we are in the world we're all also eating breakfast, walking dogs or sitting in offices. In my case, I'm currently sitting in an empty office on the last day before we close up the office for Christmas. I drove to work this morning past an airport that is currently being used as a lorry park for thousands of lorries that can't currently get across the channel from Dover to Calais because most of the rest of the world, including France, has put a temporary halt on all traffic from the UK (because of a new British-made Covid strain. Good to see our manufacturing isn't quite dead yet, even if the product doesn't seem to have much of a market.). It's quite a sight to see a long airport runway packed bumper to bumper with trucks. Especially given the context.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve3007 wrote: December 22nd, 2020, 6:45 am
Greta wrote:There is an emotional difference, emotions being the link between body and mind.
Yes. I think this relates a bit to a comment I just made in the "Is There Really An Equal Amount Of Good And Bad In Everything?" topic. I think most humans need an emotional connection to the subject that they're discussing in order to find it interesting. It needs to move them. Different people find that in different ways.
True. With age I have become ever more impressed by the Earth and the Sun, after a lifetime of taking them for granted. It was never an emotional connection before, just ordinary facts of life. Then I thought more about the actual reality of planets and stars - their sheer immensity and intensity - and could see why ancients thought of them as gods. Awe of these exponentially larger entities looks to be the link point between logical positivism and theism, in that the entities are real, but also powerful and influential in ways that are beyond our ken.

Steve3007 wrote: December 22nd, 2020, 6:45 am
Emotions, when not overly triggered, help to ground us in reality. Consider Descartes calmly performing open heart surgery on living primates, dismissing the poor animals' distress as automatic responses, that is, lacking in emotion. Without emotions, we can go off track, so we must extrapolate and use logic to fill the gaps and become "grounded".
Yes, as was being discussed in that topic, it's difficult to be sure how we would behave there if we could somehow be taken out of our 21st Century secular context and given the environment and life experiences of a Descartes. But it's hard to believe that at least some empathy with the suffering of other animals is not an innate characteristic of humans which exists independently of any culture and environment. So it seems likely that, as with the Nazi doctors experimenting on humans in the Holocaust, that natural empathy for the suffering of a fellow sentient being is consciously switched off by a person like Descartes or Mengele due to their mistaken idea that what they would consider to be rational argument trumps emotion; a lack of understanding of the fact that rational argument, based on empirical observation, is empty without the emotions which inspire us to make those arguments and observations.
Yes, empathy can be switched off - an ability evolved in all social predatory animals. They empathise with group members and objectify prey species. If they fail to do the latter, they will not compete as well as any who don't hesitate. It reminds me of Hartman (a former actual sergeant major) saying in Full Metal Jacket, 'If your killer instincts are not clean and strong you will hesitate at the moment of truth'.

Descartes had figured that God was not within non-human species, so what happened to them did not matter. Extreme Christians and Muslims today still dehumanise those who are not in-group members, which they think gives them permission to commit atrocities with God or Allah's blessing.

Steve3007 wrote: December 22nd, 2020, 6:45 am
Pure maths is an example. Without physical correlates, math can create all manner of patterns and forms that do no exist in reality. Basically it is mathematical fiction and, like fiction, sometimes they turn out to correspond with reality, but often not. Our senses and emotions ground us, limiting possibilities to those that occur in reality.
Yes, and other languages than mathematics, like English, can also be let loose from the need to correlate with anything real. ("Twas brillig and the slivey toves..."). But it's interesting how in both cases those patterns and forms seem to come from a language which started as a map of reality but then logically extrapolated beyond the boundaries of that reality, while keeping the rules which worked for that map. Start by inventing the concept of number in order to count real world objects like apples or bricks and end up with such things as imaginary numbers, non-Euclidean spaces and fractals.
So tools meant for one purpose ended up being used for another. There's a term to describe how this happens in evolution that I've forgotten, eg. feathers are thought to have originally evolved to keep dinosaurs warm but later obviously were found to be useful for flight.

Still, language and math seem more like Swiss Army knives than single function tools.

As things turn out, some models intended to be predictions end up being wrong (fiction), while models created for pleasure on rare occasions turn out to be true (examples here https://math.stackexchange.com/question ... cations-mu).

Since all models start with roughly the same initial state - both our predictions and our fictions tend to be similar. The more effective our information flows, the closer we come to being inadvertent hive minds.

Steve3007 wrote: December 22nd, 2020, 6:45 am
Another angle: we cannot be awed by a black hole in the same way as we might be awed by Uluru or the night sky out in the country. Yet many were awed by the first black hole image of M87*. Where did the awe come from? The photo itself, without backgrounding, was just a hollowed out, blurry and uneven orange form engulfed in darkness (not unlike the outgoing POTUS). The emotions in this instance are more "meta" - awe at the scientific achievement and, most tellingly, excitement at the novelty of seeing a black hole for the first time and having visible proof that they are real.
This brings in the subject of context. Without context, all sensory perceptions are meaningless, not just blurry pictures of black holes (or presidents :D ). But I guess some sensory perceptions (such as the perception of a blurry picture of a black hole) need more explicit contextual explanation than others. For most things that we perceive in life the context is provided automatically by our previous life experiences, so it perhaps doesn't even occur to us that we needed that context.

My personal experience of standing outside on a clear night looking at the moon, stars and planets is that it is way more exhilarating than looking at a picture of those things, even though the image is almost the same. The reason why I find that is the knowledge that I'm more directly connected to those celestial objects than if I was looking at a picture or film of them. The photons of light entering my eyes when I look at Betelgeuse (for example) are the actual photons that originated inside it. But of course I only know that because somebody has told me it. Without having been told that it's just an orange point of light in the sky.
Also, natural vision is richer than anything that can be captured on camera. It was a spectacular sunset last night and I took some photos. Aside from the camera's inability to capture the subtlety of the colours or their gradations, its also fails to capture the the scale - the whole huge sky versus an image just 10-15 cms across. It's possible that that could change with immersive VR, where visual data is almost on the eyes, without framing or peripheral sights.

Steve3007 wrote: December 22nd, 2020, 6:45 am
It's the proof of visceral, provable reality that excites us, no doubt an evolved trait that aids in survival. I could go on, but will leave it at so the dog can get out after yesterday's rain.
I think it's good to throw in these little snippets of everyday life every now and then to remind us that wherever we are in the world we're all also eating breakfast, walking dogs or sitting in offices. In my case, I'm currently sitting in an empty office on the last day before we close up the office for Christmas.
Ah, last one out. I had mixed feelings about it. On one hand I'd regret the time that could have been spent doing something more fun or personal, but there's a beautiful peacefulness about an abandoned office, like suburban streets at 2am. When I was young I used to love forgotten spaces - alcoves between buildings or under highways where the weeds would allowed to grow. Not sure why, but there seemed something beautiful in the decay and neglect (?). It was always disappointing when those spaces were "cleaned up".
impermanence
Posts: 165
Joined: December 5th, 2020, 11:45 am

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by impermanence »

dirtrockground wrote: December 21st, 2020, 9:38 pm I see what you are saying. I responded to your original post somewhat as an exercise in describing why I think science has validity, but I see we are looking at it from two very different perspectives. Our perspectives probably differ because there are very different things that bring us joy and fulfillment in our daily life. I find that adopting a scientific mindset brings me joy and enthusiasm for life because even though you are very right about it being a transitory expression of understanding, I see it as a certain form of rational art. In my mind, separating the arts and sciences is a mistake and I am as passionate about one as the other.
I am a physician [and have been one for over four decades] so it is not that I am not anti-science. If I have achieved a skill-level worthy of my patients' care, the science has little to so with it . Science is what it is [like all things]. It is what people do with it [and all tools] that means everything. The current obesity epidemic is a wonderful example.
I agree with the idea that mystery is what brings interest to our existence, but I think with scientific inquiry we have the ability to expose greater and deeper mysteries than if we were to look at reality on the surface level only.


The fact that it is unlikely that human intelligence will ever be able to penetrate Reality is our savior in many respects. Imagine the true horror of actually "knowing." It's easy to know when [deep down] you know you can not know. It's a child's game really.

As for whether or not humans have access to reality, it is nothing more than faith persuading me that we do.

Belief is something other than our "selves" is what keeps us sane, don't you think?
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by Sculptor1 »

Science is all about sense.
It's primary source is information is the senses.
This thread is non-sense.
Raymond
Posts: 317
Joined: January 23rd, 2022, 6:47 pm

Re: Science Is Non-Sense

Post by Raymond »

impermanence wrote: December 8th, 2020, 10:32 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: December 8th, 2020, 7:01 pm Time is change/motion. That's real.
Consider the following...

You [the observer] are standing in a room surrounded by numerous objects. Each object is a different distance from you and therefore exists in a different time. Therefore you are observing [simultaneously] many [actually, an infinite number of] time periods at once.

How is that possible?

If the objects are at rest, the clocks on them tictac in sync with your clock. It depends on their history what time they show. If the objects are in motion than their clocks go slower.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021