Jasper10

On 5/21/2017 at 4:17 PM, Randolpin said:

This topic talks about the relationship of philosophy, science and reality.

I will expound it thru questions:

1. Is philosophy more advance than science in understanding reality because it can form ideas even when there is no experiments performed or observations (While science on the other hand can't step forward because it relies on data)?

2. Is philosophy always correct? Are there instance that science prove philosophy?If philosophy always correct, we can rely solely to philosophy than science.

3. Is philosophy as accurate as science?

4. When can we say that a question become philosophical? Can we say that philosophy is an advance science? If yes then we can conclude that the only task of science is to prove philosophy ( is it correct?).

 

I hope you understand my points. If you need clarifications, just ask me. Thank you...

In answer to your first question it is my opinion that that philosophy is far superior to science.Mainstream science  just thinks it knows best…it doesn’t.

Mainstream science is wrong and failing because it adopts a half philosophy that it has no way of definitively proving.

Half philosophy science suits secular scientists though because it pampers to their hopeful belief systems.All they have is hope you see like everyone else.

If you let unaware secular scientists loose with science it will all go belly up and it has.

Secular scientist don’t even understand consciousness and yet a child could understand it.

What mainstream scientist don’t get is you have to adopt “player” science to understand consciousness.You can’t understand it with “spectator” science.

Its the “easy problem” in “player” science and not the “hard problem”.

29 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The theories don't fail until they're applied where they're not supposed to be applied, and I think you've taken that to mean they don't explain everything and therefore are flawed. For some reason, when we try to correct you, you think we "don't want to hear what you have to say". We've been asking nicely for you to tell us what you mean but you're too busy bitching about "failed theories" to explain it.

Can you at least explain why you think BB theory is wrong after so many have pointed out some of your misunderstandings? If you could address some of those criticisms, it might help you formulate your ideas in a way that you can explain to others.

You have to start off with philosophy because that is what will dictate your science.

You can state that good is bad and bad is good or you can state that good is good and bad is bad.

Quite frankly…who cares…

Real science and philosophy is only interested in your view on good and bad if you accept all possibilities…PERIOD!!!!

Nature adopts this principle in its make up and workings.

53 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Nobody cares about your opinion. You're making scientific claims and then refusing to back them up with supportive evidence. You can't hide behind "opinion" when you're claiming things that can be shown otherwise. If you think science is guessing about the BB, PLEASE SHOW WHERE, and if you think electromagnetic fields support your idea, then PLEASE SHOW HOW. It's up to you to explain your conjectures and assertions, to persuade us that your idea has merit. PLEASE stop making disparaging remarks about all of science, since it invites off-topic defense. Focus on what you think your idea means, and how it might be observed or measured. If all you have is insistence and hand waving, you aren't convincing anybody.

 

I gathered that much…I have tried to express my opinions but if they don’t fit in with FAILING mainstream flagship theories you get blocked by a few dinosaurs who wouldn’t  know REAL science and philosophy if they tripped over it.They don’t know where to begin with consciousness and how this interacts with science at all.

Listen I really couldn’t care less if you don’t want to hear what I have to say.Go back and play with your failing theories.

The universe and everything in it operates due electromechanical processes,PERIOD.

If Mainstream science will not accept that magnetic force interactions provide the push/pull forces that hold all matter together.More fool them.

I’ll give you a clue …you can start your science off with half logic possibility philosophy but that ain’t how nature operates.It couldn’t  care less about such philosophy and will mock you every time.

So you keep twiddling with your nonsensical theories if you wish.

Sound philosophy and science allows for individuals to choose their beliefs one way or the other.It’s the individuals choice…nobody else’s.

Philosophy and Science is constructed this way.
 

Hope in a belief system philosophy that ultimately leads on to hopeful scientific theory in order to try and confirm an individuals philosophy is all anyone has.

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Believe it or not, you're not the first person to rock up on this site knowing their opinion is more valuable than the knowledge of the ages; few of us stay long enough to actually learn something.

What am I or anyone else for that matter learning from mainstream science other than their flagship theories like the single Big Bang theory confirm what isn’t happening in the universe?

The magnetism theory is a far better theory than the biased gravity theory.

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I don’t just reply.I know about philosophy and I know about science and I know enough to to be aware that mainstream science only focuses on attractive forces with it’s gravity theory.

Nature has push/pull forces.Magnetic interactions confirm this.

Mainstream science can’t even get the basics right.

If you let secularist loose with silence then it will all go belly up…..this is precisely what we are witnessing.

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us. - Socrates
The thing about philosophy is, it's all been said before; if one say's something new, your probably wrong - me

Ha Ha, try getting that to sink into arrogant mainstream scientific thinking, if you can.

At the moment everything they ignorantly claim, is truth and can be trusted and therefore backs up their hopeful philosophy and belief systems.

So true wisdom is to not believe in these mainstream secular scientific theories invented by fools then…. is that what you are saying?

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance. Plato
 

So the individual who dreamt up the single Big Bang theory is ignorant then.Is that what you are claiming?

Why quote Plato?

Do you not have mind of your own?

44 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

A wise man speaks because he has something to say. A fool speaks because he has to say something. - Plato

So are you saying the fool is the one who has said and continues to claim that the single Big Bang theory is how it all started and the world any everyone in it should trust in this nonsense? Observations are making a fool of that person who has to say something.

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

And I speculate that you are just pulling random stuff out of your arse in a bid for attention😁.

Speculate what you want…It is the speculation forum.

I speculate that my philosophy and science are absolutely spot on.

It is my opinion (SPECULATION ) that the electromagnetic fields that permeate the whole of the universe at both the macro and micro levels were around at the same time as the many many big bangs and big crunches that happen in the universe all the time.I speculate that BB and BC’s can’t happen without these electromagnetic fields.Why do scientists guess that these electromagnetic fields came after an assumed single big bang? Mainstream scientific observations are now providing firm evidence that the universe is not expanding uniformly and so the single Big Bang theory is now being put into question.What about the gravity theory then….uummm…it would be good if scientist knew what it was in the first instance.

Things spin in electromagnetic fields creating electromagnets which produce push/pull magnetic forces between other electromagnets.The spin speed ; tilt angle and distance between all these electromagnets would determine their interactions.As all things spin at the macro/micro levels then we have a universe full of interacting electro magnets.Electromagnets produce electricity.Electricity produces sinusoidal waveforms which interact with electromagnetic sinusoidal waveforms.Electrical and Electromagnetic waveforms although different cannot exist without each other.It’s the chicken and egg scenario.

As all sciences are interconnected then in my opinion there is a direct connection between the functioning of the universe (which utilises electromechanical systems in its operation) and the human brain which utilises exactly the same systems in its operation.

I speculate that there is a direct connection between the electrical and electromagnetic sinusoidal waveforms and the 2 consciousness states i.e. manual and autopilot.

These two separate and different waveforms each toggle between a + and - forming the sinusoidal wave pattern.I speculate that the electrical and electromagnetic waveforms interact with each other in a specific way either being in synch or out of synch.It being this in synch or out of synch interaction that is experienced by the individual in the form of manual and autopilot consciousness.

Incidentally,,and on a separate note, as there are push/pull magnetic forces in nature I speculate that the neutral part of all matter will vibrate between these two push/pull magnetic forces hence matter is held together.

On 7/20/2021 at 4:03 AM, the Riddler said:

My theory is that we live in a hyperspace, where stars and black holes are connected throughout the dispersal of timespace.

Our star, the Sun, is an aggregate of light created by the light a singularity is creating at another locale (or universe altogether.)  

There it is witnessed as a black hole, sucking in light.  Here the singularity still has pull, gravity, creating nuclear fusion.

 

Space is not curved, but warped.  That is, the Sun pinches space in all around it, in every direction.  The Earth has some pinch, too, but is within the sphere of the sun's warping.  

 

Time is 4D, all times coexisting simultaneously, and Dark Matter is simply past and future states of matter we can't see in the present, like a book opened to the middle.

 

The Universe is like a vinyl record that is being played on a record player, a world of sound and movement, and a world of matter.

 

I have more thoughts, and I just signed up for this forum, so...  Everyone just ignores me.  Maybe you guys won't be mean to me.

 

Revenge of the Nerds!

 

-- Andrew James van Berkum

Welp, nevermind.  Already got a negative reaction.  See ya, all around, was hoping for a positive, optimistic, enlightening, imaginative experience, but the Darkness is everywhere.

 

For inquiring minds, I'm easily found.  Check ya later!

 

PEACE...oooouuutttt.

Hey….there is no such thing as black holes……you can’t define a hole by a colour….it’s just a hole with darkness and light within it.

If you knew anything about consciousness then you would be AWARE of this.

14 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I know this is far out there but is the concept of all black holes ending up at the big bang make sense? this just popped in my head bit black holes end up in a singularity. could this singularity be the the big bang? black holes could could result in a hole in time and space and it makes sense that they could could connect with the singularity of the big bang. have any any scientific papers suggested this possibility? 

As the universe isn’t expanding uniformly then this is strong evidence that there was never a single Big Bang and there never will be a single Big Crunch.All matter is exiting and entering many many holes.Scientists know this already.They are just beginning to realise that the present scientific model is load of utter nonsense.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Do you need to know how a computer works at the hardware/software interface in order to use it? Why do we need to understand consciousness in order to do science? 

Because the 2 consciousness states  are directly related to binary code in experiential form.

All sciences are interconnected.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

I didnt say it did or that it didn't.

I said

This, for your information and in accordance with the rules of the English language reffers to the last named nound, this this case "thread"

I even added, for clarity, the reason why this thread is not about consciousness.

 

Please read the postings of others before you react.

I have other mundane things to do this evening, like the wahing up, before the evening film.

Apologies then and please please don’t take this personally but I’m not remotely interested in any discussions about science or philosophy for that matter that does not involve consciousness.Some of us have moved on from waste of time Spectator science and philosophy discussions that don’t involve consciousness.

Spectator science and philosophy that thinks it can leave consciousness out is a waste of time and boring as hell.Yawn…sorry.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

I'm sorry you have completely missed the point of this thread.

This is not about consciousness

I carefully separated it out from a thread about that subject, because it is not about consciousness.

You were having, let us call them discussions, with the moderators in that thread.

This thread is there to help you understand what they and others are saying to you about Science.

Sorry but why do you think that science has nothing to do with consciousness? Science has everything to do with consciousness.Science can learn all it needs to learn from consciousness.The truth is that science doesn’t understand consciousness and freely admits it.I post stuff in order  to explain consciousness better and it’s direct relationship to both science and philosophy and the fact that it explains them both perfectly.

Why waste your time with a science that doesn’t involve consciousness and yet if you don’t understand consciousness how can you avoid wasting your time?

50 minutes ago, exchemist said:

OK but why seize on mathematics, when @Jasper10's comment was to do with science and philosophy, rather than  mathematics? 

Philosophy obviously does have a connection to science, since science relies on a certain approach to understanding the world which implicitly makes philosophical choices, e.g. reliance on methodological naturalism, the role of observation in developing and testing theories, and so forth. 

Regarding mathematics, I'm not sure what you mean by antithesis. I'd have though the true antithesis of mathematics would be something that was not quantitative and did not employ logic. Poetry, perhaps?

My comments/views/opinions are related to philosophy and all the sciences shall we say.

If the sciences cannot find a correlation to philosophy and if philosophy cannot find a correlation to science then both are on the wrong pathway because it is my view that both are interconnected and totally embroiled together.They are inseparable.

Consciousness is a tricky one because where does it sit? Does it sit in the philosophy or the science camp?

Science needs to start taking into account consciousness and the human experience/interaction to it.

The human interaction with consciousness should correlate with both philosophy and science.

34 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But what does your conscience say?

I believe we need to take up these discussions in speculations.I’m not sure what you mean by ….what does your conscience say?

I know from experience that there is a toggling of consciousness states from manual to autopilot.As far as putting this into an equation, I can only speculate that it is related to 2 sine waves within the brain being in either a duality or unity or in synch or out of synch state.I speculate that these sine waves are related to electrical and magnetic sine wave interactions.

So not only do both sine waves individually toggle between +/-, each sine wave toggles with the other sine wave as in they are either “in synch” or “out of synch”….i.e.in  a duality or unity state.

I will start another consciousness post in speculations.

My view is science is at a crossroads.

We already have spectator science.We now also need to consider player science as well if we are to understand consciousness better.

6 hours ago, iNow said:

No, not unless it’s on-topic and furthers discussion of said topic. As this is a thread on consciousness, your question has no place here. This question specifically: 

 

But it is on topic because in my opinion all sciences are interconnected and philosophy does have a direct connection to scientific theories/equations.

From my experience and from a consciousness point of view there is an “in synch” and “out of synch consciousness” state known in psychology as manual and autopilot.These consciousness states definitely “toggle”.

It is my opinion that these consciousness states are related to sine waves either being “in synch” or “out of synch”.These sine waves being related to magnetic field and electrical sine wave interaction happenings  within the brain.

As there is a “toggling” of these consciousness states the individual does know through experience that there is a difference between these consciousness sates.

Can I ask a question ….why does science persist in pursuing a science based upon a guessed half philosophy that it has no way of proving one way or the other?

All sciences are interconnected.

57 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

You were told not to bring this up again. You had your shot, and you blew it.

 

 

Sorry bring what up again?

45 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

 

Rather than indulging in a non productive slanging match about mostly off topic material I suggest you go away and study

Alfven and Lerner.

Alfven got the 1970 Nobel Prize for his work on such theories.

I will look that up.Thanks.

33 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’d have to respect you in order for you to make me upset. 

Hey they are just my opinions.That is why I posted them on the philosophy forum.

Science has run out of ideas in my opinion.

When presently accepted science can definitively explain to me why the 4 magnetic force interactions of NN….NS….SN…..SS are not the same, then I will take it seriously.

It amazes me that something as simple as science not being able to answer this fundamental question puts into question presently accepted scientific theories.

So what presently accepted science is claiming then is that push is the same as pull and pull is the same as push.They are identical.

Ummm..sorry I don’t  agree with that.

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Given the consistent crap and nonstop nonsense you’ve been posting here since registering, I reckon it’s safe to say that nobody gives a flying ____ about your “opinions.’

In my opinion, the issue you have is that you need to definitively prove that.It is my opinion that the 4 magnetic interactions (2 attractions/2 repulsion’s) would provide a spring like push/pull effect that would be the reason matter is held together.Hey,if you don’t give a flying……about my opinions then you wouldn’t be on here getting so upset about my opinions …..surely?

It is my opinion that the electromagnetic fields that saturate the universe at both the macro and micro levels are created by the spin of stars/planets/subatomic particles in those electromagnetic fields,the spin  creating the electrical signals that create the electromagnetic fields thus producing the 4 magnetic force interactions (2 attractions/2 repulsion’s) that are required for push/pull balance.