Ensrick wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
creation wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 1:44 pm
Another PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being seeing that the way 'it' thinks and behaves then that is how all others think and behave, and/or how all others should think and behave. This is a great example of the ego at work.
creation wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 1:44 pmAs I just said; The very reason why these, truly meaningful in Life questions, have not yet been answered, by most, is because those people do not do things for what is Right in Life but instead they do things for them 'self'.
Doing anything for money, prizes, fame, et cetera means they are doing things for very wrong reasons, and so why they do not discover and uncover what is actually True and Right in Life.
In general some have more internal motivations than prizes but the motivation is based on a reward system all the same. Satisfying this reward system tends toward hedonism either way.
Only if one is a egotistical, selfish person.
By the way, how one is Truly rewarded, and Truly satisfied for that matter, is when they are doing what is Right in Life for EVERY one. When one is doing is only Right for EVERY one, which is helping in achieving what we ALL want and desire, then that is when one is Truly rewarded and fulfilled. Only when one is Truly fulfilling their True purpose in Life do they ever feel Truly rewarded, and thus Truly satisfied.
Ensrick wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
I am confident my comments are a better viewed as an example of basic human behaivoral psychology. Doing things for superficial reasons doesn't necissarily entail wrongdoing.
If one is only doing for one's own self, or for just a select few, so they can obtain some superficial feelings, while others miss out, are neglected, and/or are deprived of something, instead of doing what is at the deepest level for ALL equally, then I would suggest that is wrongdoing.
But, I KNOW every person will 'try to' "justify" their wrongdoings. One very basic human behavior is to imagine and/or say that "others do it also" and so therefore "justify" to one's own self that what they are doing is actually all right, and not wrong at all. This 'trying to' "justify" wrong behaviors is a very basic human behavior, and a very large part of the adult psychology, in the days of when this is written. But this is NOT the natural instinct within us ALL. Although EVERY adult human being does this.
Ensrick wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
creation wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 1:44 pm
Life is Truly simple and easy. Nature is pure simplicity. This is extremely easy to see and understand. That is; once one discovers or learns how to see this.
Those who believe that Life is complex and hard or that nature is inherently complex are obviously not open to the simplicity and ease of Life, Itself.
Not seeing any reasoning here, I'll just refer to my original position.
Ensrick wrote: ↑April 6th, 2020, 3:15 pm
I think people who believe that things are complex and hard to understand are usually more open to the complexity inherent in nature which is seemingly indefinitely complex.
And I will just refer to my view: People who believe things are NOT open to the actual Truth of things.
Also, what you believe here comes across loud and clear.
By the way, you also said you would argue some thing, but when I put it to you to do it, I notice you did not. Also, EVERY generation discovers knowledge, which was perceived and/or believed to be beyond or bigger than the scope of humanity to previous generations. What the generation in this day and age finds or believes is unknowable is already KNOWN, by some.
Ensrick wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
creation wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 1:44 pm'any perceived "difference" between general relativity and quantum mechanics can be almost instantly resolved AND 'united'. But his can only happen IF and WHEN the alleged "differences" that some people see are explained and shared.'
What this means, in case you missed it or in case you just do not yet understand it, is; If you would really love to see my solution, then I can ONLY show to you the solution to, not just a unified "model" of physics, but to the actual unification, itself, when, and ONLY WHEN, the alleged "differences" that you see are explained and shared to me.
This is a failure to understand the burden of proof.
This is NOT a failure to understand the burden of proof at all.
What this is IF you Truly want to learn and understand some thing, then it is up to 'you' to explain what 'it' is that you do not yet understand.
I have NO burden of proof at all because I have NO need to prove anything at all.
If you see discrepancies and/or differences in those human made up theories, then so be it. I just SEE and UNDERSTAND where, why, and how human beings have separated the One, and made the apparent discrepancies and differences. I have also informed people that if they are Truly curious in matters, and Truly want to KNOW the Answers, then it is up to them to explain and show what they do not understand, so then I KNOW how to explain things to that person. If people are not that interested, then neither am I.
I only help those that want to help themselves.
Ensrick wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
You providing me with an answer to a unified model doesn't depend on the existence of current models. I might be able to point out differences in your theory but I don't have it.
But I do not have a 'theory'. So, you cannot point out differences there.
Of course me providing you with the answer to thee Unified, Itself, and not to just ANOTHER model does not depend on the existence of current models. I thought I had made it CLEAR how "models" are really worth nothing at all. Especially compared to the fact that one can just look at and SEE what the actual Truth IS, almost immediately.
Yes.
Ensrick wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
Currently were not seeing the thermal radiation expected from black holes and GR doesn't explain locality in the way quantum entanglement does.
Obviously. The reason is very basic and simple indeed. But, some believe otherwise, and so are not open to the contrary.
Ensrick wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
creation wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 1:44 pm[...]if all your life you have only been told that 'theories' are how we discover things, then that is all you would know. You obviously would not know that by just looking at the actual Truth of things is how you actually discover, learn, and understand the actual Truth of things. Obviously, once this is known and understood, then it becomes knowledge that one does question them self about how they did not come to this obviously true, right, and correct knowledge all by them self before. But, this goes with absolutely any and all knowledge in Life.
One is not "stupid" because they have not yet learned or discovered some thing yet. One is only stupid when they assume and or believe they know some thing is true, when thee actual Truth is that it may not be true at all. One is only really stupid when they are closing them self off from discovering and learning, and this is done when they are assuming and/or believing some thing.
I'm a skeptic. I'm establishing more or less credibility based on the scientific method and research methods: observational, experimental, simulation, and derived. You'll have to explain what you mean by "looking at the truth" vs accepting theories.
What are 'theories' if they are not just more or less a guess or assumption about what 'could be' true?
Why bother spending so much time and effort into looking at some thing that may not even be true in the first place.
If one just wants to SEE what thee actual Truth IS, then just look at
what IS instead.
For example people could go on for thousands of more years looking at whether the Universe began from God or from some bang, but when just
what IS is looked at, then what thee actual Truth IS is discovered and seen.
Ensrick wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
I'm operating on the scientific definition of a theory which relies on the scientific method.
And, what is this so called "scientific definition" of the word 'theory', which you supposedly operate on?
Ensrick wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
The supporting documentation for theories is much more convincing than armchair philosophical discussion.
Is it? So why are you here in this forum?
How about we discuss the so called "supporting documentation" in relation to 'relativity' for example? If you would like to, then bring that forward, and then we can look at it and see just how "supporting" it really IS.
Also, is so called "supporting documentation" for theories more convincing than round table philosophical discussions or any other discussions, or only for the armchair ones?
Ensrick wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
creation wrote: ↑April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmTruth is important to the discussion.
Who said that I am unable to express it to some people?
I'm only responding to what you've said.
creation wrote: ↑April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmAre you aware that some people are just way to slow and way to simple to be able to express themselves in a way that that they can be Truly and FULLY understood, by most people?
And my question remains the same. Who said that 'I' am unable to express it to some people?
As can be clearly seen here, you are not responding to what I have actually said and written. What you are responding to is what you thought and assumed I have said and written.
Ensrick wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
creation wrote: ↑April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmI suggest for 'those people' who require empirical standard for evidence, then they ask for it.
That's a good suggestion, I'll ask for some empirical evidience for this "Truth" with a capital 'T' that you keep reffering to which could explain everything in simple terms but first we need to reconcile a misunderstanding about what a theory is in scientific terms.
What is the so called " "misunderstanding" about what a theory is in scientific terms" are you assuming here now?
What do you assume in regards to me now this time?
To reconcile any alleged "misunderstanding" all you would need to do is provide your 'scientific definition' of the 'theory' word. Since you have not done this yet, and since I have never done this, then some might be wondering how you have jumped to a conclusion that there is a "misunderstanding" somewhere here?
Ensrick wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
creation wrote: ↑April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmGathering empirical so called "evidence" to support 'theories', again, means one has a biased opinion or view already.
Of course explaining 'theories' is not so easy. This is because a 'theory' is essentially just a made up guess or assumption about what might be or what could be true. But, I was not talking about explaining 'theories'. I was talking about explaining 'Truth' instead. Usually two completely very different things.
A theory within the context of science is an explanation of observed phenomena that is testable and has evidence to support it.
So, in essence, a guess or an assumption about what could be the case, correct?
Also, if some thing has evidence to support it, then how exactly is that falsifiable? Or, does a 'theory' in the "context of science" not have to be falsifiable?
Do you have an example of an "explanation of observed phenomena that is testable and has evidence to support it"?
Ensrick wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
You're using the casual usage of the word 'theory' in relation to 'scientific theory'; completely different.
Am I?
So, if an "explanation of observed phenomena that is testable, (and falsifiable?), and has evidence to support it" is not, in essence, just a guess or an assumption about what could be the case, then what is it exactly?
If it is not a guess nor an assumption, then that would infer that it is true and right already.
If red shift, for example, is not a guessed nor an assumed explanation that the Universe is expanding, and is the evidence that the Universe is expanding, which by the way is untestable, then does that mean that explanation is right and true, or is that explanation wrong and false. Either the explanation is right and true, wrong or false, or a guess or an assumption, or some thing else. So, which one is it?
Ensrick wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
When you're talking about 'Truth' thats probably an epistemological disagreement we have about what can be known.
You can turn it into a disagreement if you like. But, making an assumption, based on previous experiences, and/or jumping to a conclusion as you have here already, is not really helpful to a conducive discussion, which has not even yet began.
Ensrick wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
I don't think anything can be known for certain.
Is what you think here known for certain, or is it just some thing that you think, which could be completely wrong anyway?
See, every time any one tries to put forward that an absolute, a certain, or a objective Truth cannot be known, then they have to admit that what they are saying could in fact be completely and utterly WRONG itself. If there are no known truths, then what they propose is not a known truth at all, and so not even worth really considering actually.
Also, if there is absolutely nothing you can know for certain, then now I know of one absolute certainty. That is; you do not think anything can be known for certain. I am certain I know this.
Ensrick wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 3:30 pm
creation wrote: ↑April 4th, 2020, 8:21 pmAlso, what evidence do you have that what I said here is "crap"? From what you have written here, it appears that you do not even remotely understand what I am saying and meaning, yet.
I use the word 'crap' as an expression like 'damn' or 'aww shucks', it's not describing what I think of what you're saying. I don't understand what you mean or are saying possibly because I'm using terms differently than you do, for example, how you use the word 'theory'.
But we are yet to see if we actually do use that word very differently at all actually.
I am still yet to fully understand the way you use that word, and this might take a few times of back and forth clarifying questioning and clarifying answering before I do.
See, to me, a 'theory' cannot at one moment be testable and/or falsifiable but at another moment be already supported with evidence.
To me, essentially, a 'theory' is about 'what could be', whereas, 'truth' is about 'what is', which is in agreement and acceptance with one or more up to but not including all, while 'Truth' is about 'what IS' in agreement and acceptance with All.
Obviously, from this perspective, 'theory' and 'truth' could be false, wrong, and/or incorrect. While, 'Truth' can only be True, Right, and/or Correct.
For example, if some people theorize (assume and/or guess) that the Universe began, and/or if some people think or believe that it is true that the Universe began, then we could discuss this, look at this, and 'try' and test to see if this is false or true, for thousands more years. Or, we can just look at what IS and so just SEE what thee actual Truth IS instead. If every action causes a reaction is true, right, and correct, and there is no one nor no thing that can say nor show otherwise, then for this time being, thee Universe did not just "begin". If thee Universe did not just begin, then It is
eternal, in nature.
Therefore, as far as we are aware thee Universe IS
eternal. Now, if any one has any evidence for the contrary, either the Universe began or the Universe could not be eternal, or any evidence of how every action does not cause a reaction, then bring it forward now. Until then I cannot see what would change this view.