cladking

This would hardly be unusual. To me "theory" is akin to "human knowledge" or "state of the art". Of course, neither of these terms presupposes accuracy or correctness in my mind especially as the subject (specific art) drifts off toward the soft sciences. State of the art knowledge is far more likely to be wrong where premises are more poorly defined and more assumptions exist in foundational beliefs. But in the hard sciences, especially those which can be manipulated mathematically, state of the art (theory) is the sum total of all experiment and (proper) observation. This state of the art is unassailable in its entirety even though every single piece is always open to being rewritten. It's hardly impossible it's all wrong and reality isn't reflected in experiment or even that all experiment is misinterpreted but this might be no more likely than stepping into a vacuum on your evening stroll. Frankly, I probably have less confidence in any given fact than almost anyone but I have no doubt at all about the scientific method and its applicability to understanding nature. It's also ironic that it's only the second best science but I'll save this to when it's more appropriate.

I nearly didn't respond at all because we are so close to a semantical argument. But "theory" by definition requires experiment agree with it. It seems you're much closer to agreeing with the alien than I am. If the alien presented you with empirical evidence that scientific theory is wrong you'd change your mind whereas I'd simply assume he was using his "magic" to fool me. It would be impossible for me to accept the idea science is wrong without completely reorganizing everything I know. It would require a great deal of proof and then some time before I had an opinion about anything at all.

If "theory" doesn't agree with experiment then it's no longer theory. I would be highly disinclined to put any constraints whatsoever on nature; not so much because I consider it blasphemous which I do, but because so little of nature/ reality is known that it's presumptuous to believe it must be right or that it always behaves the same way. I think that for all practical purposes we must consider established theory to explain observation and we must always be vigilant to see where observation differs from that reality. By the same token I believe we should assume a perspective from outside of our knowledge and understanding of theory to better attend to these anomalies. I believe this perspective, metaphysics, and observation should be taught from a very young age to all students who are predisposed to science and who are naturally skeptical. To each his own.

Perhaps I should have said "theory" can't be wrong. Of course this statement wouldn't have been strictly true either because theory can be incomplete, true only in limited applications, or misinterpreted. It simply seemed easier to say science can't be wrong and leave each reader to fend for himself. You sound like me now. Next you'll be saying language is confused and math can't be properly applied to reality.

He's probably telling a joke and you should laugh politely if you don't get it. Science can't be wrong because experiment reflects reality. Our understanding of experiment and how we extrapolate its results can be wrong, and I believe it is, but experiment itself and the observation that leads to it is "right".

Let me answer in a few hundred years.

We all see what we believe. We can only see confirmation of our beliefs most of the time. Progress individually and collectively comes from seeing the anomalies but these tend to be invisible. "Suppression" isn't so much a collective event in science due to its nature. "Science" isn't founded on belief so scientists are more likely to see truth as it comes into the light. Science has tools like math for identifying truth which is merely logical statements about reality. But scientists are still human beings and still think like other human beings today. "Suppression" is the blindness imposed on al of us by our own beliefs and is mostly an individual thing in science. Whether you believe in one God or that two gods plus two gods equal four gods or even that two plus two equals four you are still a product of your beliefs and still see the world in terms of those beliefs. It is exceedingly difficult to see any sort of reality directly or to see anything that you don't already know. This is what observation is about; seeing what's there without preconceptions and without perspective.

You're seeing this in terms of "science". You're seeing the methodology required to build on existing science/ theory. And you're understanding it all in terms of models and existing paradigms. Many times new ideas simply spring from new facts or new perspectives rather than scientific methodology. Saying they aren't "science" isn't necessarily accurate. Yes, often they aren't subjected to the rigors of experiment, mathematical proof, or normal methodology but this hardly means such ideas aren't "scientific" in nature or that they are wrong. If I hypothesize that "bigfoots" are descended from alpine Neanderthals then the problem is lack of a specimen to study moreso than that there might exist a more reasonable explanation of how bigfoot arose. That the evidence they exist at all is poor at best is irrelevant to their na- ture or their ability to survive. Sometimes reason puts the onus of proof on the contention and sometimes on existing models or dogma. Progress always arises as ideas of individuals and often the same idea pops up in many locals. If a yeti appeared then many people might recognize its ancestry. Such is the nature of progress. Until something is proven to be consistent with theory derived from experiment it is simply a mod- el for understanding. Much of what we believe has little to do with experiment and everything to do with beliefs. Even experiment can be misinterpreted. We "know" far less than people think we do. Science isn't successful because it generates knowledge. If we depended on knowledge We couldn't have built the pyramids or put a man on the moon because we don't know what gravity is. Science is successful because reality asserts itself through (in) experiments and we model this reality to gain ever more knowledge which results in ever more experiments. It is the ability to perform the "magic trick" of manifesting experiment outside the lab as tech- nology that is the basis of science's success. We don't need to know why something works to build it into a machine.

All evidence is subject to interpretation. We order evidence to create models and then see the world in terms of these models. The models are never the reality itself and the evidence and math are never clean fits to support the models which means no new evidence will perfectly support the model either. The model will simply evolve to better support these new facts. Nobody is really trying to impede progress or prevent observation of the reality, we are all simply a "servant" of what we already think we know. Our "understanding" (modelling) has given us tremendous creature comfort and has seemed to set the universe at our feet so we have no desire to give up hard won progress in any field or belief system. We each would like to build on the system and many make a career of it so we each have a strong tendency to protect the vehicle we're trying to improve. In the modern world one's position in the establishment often hinges on his ability to protect this status quo. Being first to support new ideas is highly risky to your place within the field. So long as there is real "progress" in the sciences "reality" will always find more ways to assert itself until the establishment is forced to accept it. The problem in so many discussions both virtual and otherwise is that the participants are talking past one another. Naysayers latch onto irrelevancies and though they are proof positive the assertion is wrong. We all seem to be reading from different pages of the same book. Rather than examing premises and seeking agreement we are all trying to present our beliefs as reality itself. Add in confusion, misapprehension, and miscommunication and it's a wonder there is any progress at all. It's a wonder people can't see the wonder of it.

The problem is that people have a knee jerk reaction to support the status quo. Whether you believe in ghosts, gods, or science your beliefs are always being reinforced by observation and new learning. You simply will lose track of the reasons and methods for obtaining knowledge. The more fundamental the premises being attacked the greater the amplitude of the jerk. It's not as difficult having your most cherished beliefs shaken as it is having your fundamental definitions, axioms, and premises laid bare.

I think it's a bad thing Americans are not doing science. Few (real) Americans appreciate this danger, eh?

I said the pyramid was built right on top of the water tight paving stones because this is essentially what Petrie reported. The paving stones were put dowm first on sockets cut especially to recieve the fine Turah Limestone. Other places this was done were water tight and this whole pyramid base was surrounded by a 15' wall obviously to impound water. I've broght the thread back for two reasons. Chiefly because pictures of the pyramid founded on the water collection device are beginning to appear on the internet finally; But also because it appears Egyptology is finally planbning to study this and it will show the pyramids were built with water; http://www.aeraweb.org/articles/the-2015-great-pyramid-survey/ If they check the altitude of each of these points they will see that the water catchment device the ancients called the "Ssm.t" (integrated apron) follows the curve of the earth because water follows the curve of the earth. I don't comprehend why people resist the obvious. It's great to see Egyptology looking into this.

Thank you. If you consider each of these commands to constitute a single "word" then what is an approximate total number of words needed to program? Of course it's much more than "7".

Hi. I used to do a little programming back in the very old days. I know languages are far different now. I'm curious to know how many words (approximately) are required for a computer to follow. Can you list a few of these words like "go to"? I'm trying to get a feel for the number of words needed for basic one way "communication" and the most extensive computer vocabulary should be reflective of this, I believe. Thanks in advance.

Here's a fairly little thing. I've finally discovered the scientific term for the counterweight that lifted the stones though I've suspected it for some time now. Utterance 300. 445a. To say: O Hrti of Nsȝ.t, ferryman of the ’Iḳh.t-boat, made by Khnum, 445b. bring this (boat) to N. N. is Seker of R-Śtȝ.w. 445c. N. is on the way to the place of Seker, chief of Pdw-š. 445d. It is our brother who is bringing this (boat) for these bridge-girderers (?) of the desert. I hadn't been confident of the meaning of "Hrti of Nsȝ.t" and since meaning is contingent on context in the ancient language I couldn't be sure that the "’Iḳh.t-boat" was actually the boat in which the ballast (seker) sat (the counterweight). "R-Śtȝ.w" is the ancient name of the place the great pyramids were built and it meant "Mouth of Caves". "Pdw-š" is the proper noun for "Spread Lake" which no doubt got its name because it spread from the source of water. There are a couple of explanations of this in the PT. The pyramid expressed in its vulgar form was the bridge to the sky for the dead king. This makes the "boat" needed at Giza for the ballast (seker) to be needed for the ballast to build the pyramid. But this understanding is contingent on "Hrti of Nsȝ.t" not rearranging the context and meaning. Well, it turns out through solving the context Hrti is merely the name of the individual from Ns3.t who was in charge of bringing in supplies or boats. Jobs were awarded on the basis of the hometown of the city whose inventor called home. All of these terms are solved by context as the meaning emerges. Every word had only a single meaning and every object had three words to describe it; a scientific term, a colloquial term, and a vulgar term. The meaning of the utterance depends on the selection of terms. . So: "’Iḳh.t-boat" was the scientific term for the counterweight that actually lifted stones one step at a time to build the pyramid. "Henu boat" or "3nw-boat" was the colloquial term and; The (thighs of the) "Bull of Heaven" would be the vulgar term. Of course they also used descriptive terms in context and from other perspectives called it things like, "the boats of maat (balance)" and the "boats tied togerther". It was isis (goddess of the counterweight) who siezed the "forward cable of the boats tied together" as her harmonious sister (nephthys) "held the stern cable". The language and means to build the pyramid are both quite simple but are intimately connected because the words were the "the words of the gods", and it was the "gods" who built the pyramid which not only built itself but whose scientific name was "mr" which meant "instrument of ascension". Everything just fits together.

I don't believe there's a good reason to believe anything at all other than that reality exists and it is exactly the same for all observers. Of course we can't necessarily trust our senses and our perception of reality is usually dependent on perspective. We must try to learn to factor perspective out of observation just as we factor angle (parallax) out of reading analog dials. Beliefs are destructive because we see what we expect and believe. We become our beliefs. It is much better to just estimate the odds of something being true and always avoid being more than 99.9% confident or you'll typically be wrong.

Interesting ideas. Why couldn't gravity be a product of chaotic processes?

Perhaps you're right here and my point seems to be getting lost anyway. I've come to think of science as the tool and math as its handmaiden. Obviously math is used properly often enough to give us rockets and biotech so misapplications can be seen as inconsequential. Even when things go horribly wrong they tend to isolated incidences. We don't notice that things go wrong on the smaller scale very frequently and it's only when everything comes together that failures and catastrophies are not the norm. These smaller scale failures are in aggregate more serious than collapsing bridges and poorly made telescope mirrors. Some of them could be eliminated by simply seeing the world from a different perspective. More could be eliminated by looking at the bigger picture and many would never arise if metaphysics recieved more emphasis in school.

No. Not exactly. I believe these authors are a little overconcerned about speculations becoming "established science". Science reflects reality solely because of the effect of reality on experiment and then technology is spawned by understanding the forces at play and the nature of that reality. If some falsehood is elevated to "science" it will simply cause science to stop "working". It will not be able to make predictions and it willnot generate technology. Students would be well advised to understand metaphysics before choosing their paths.

From the perspective of today, yes; it is an exceedingly good thing. Billions more people have lived proiductive, fruitful, and happy lives because we are able to mimic reality with math (ie- try to apply math to nature). There are drawbacks as well. The first 3500 years after the collapse of the metaphysical language and (probable) natural math were touch and go and many people burned at the stake or who otherwise suffered through the loss of science would disagree with us. We gave up a great deal besides just science and math. We lost our history and the knowledge gleeened over 40,000 years. We lost the ability to form consensus even with enemies. We initially gained nothing at all except for the ability of the average man to stand on the same footing as the greats in disputes and in opportunities. At that time no one had even considered the idea of modern science. "Experiment" was anathema to ancient scientists because they believed it would distort results. The idea of basing science on experiment wouldn't even occur to natural scientists. It would be as far fetched to them as our believing a federal banking committe could just brainstorm a unified field theory. Ancient science does have some advantages over modern science. It can't be used any longer by humans because the metaphysics would become too complex to contain modern science. But the process of ancient science provides a different perspective that might be highly beneficial to some scientists. The perspective could be of immense value especially in industry and government. It's possible that computers could handle the complexity of the metaphysics and it could even become the basis of machine intelligence! The weaknesses and failures of modern systems are not inherent in infrastructure, human nature, or randomness but because of processes that can be streamlined or redressed. It will require effort and a different perspective to identify the weaknesses. Once a person can see that math is derived from reality rather than reality derived from math then it's a huge step to seeing ancient science and metaphysics. It's a huge step to seeing reality in a new light where we don't really know much of anything at all.

No. This isn't what I mean. "We are doing it right. Modern knowledge is too extensive for ancient ways to work at all." You can't put a four hour baseball game in a two hour time slot or 20 lbs of potatoes in an eight pound bag. You can't express the English language with a seven letter alphabet. The metaphysics of ancient science can't accomodate all of modern knowledge such that any human could understand it. "The problem with the modern perspective is that it takes a position from which we can see only what's already known. If we know almost nothing then it follows that this perspective is highly unrealistic." But the ancient perspective worked very well for understanding and utilizing the little of nature that was known. Generalism is a good perspective for things like experiment design, hypothesis formation, and applied science. The perspectives of generalism and ancient science are very similar.

We are doing it right. Modern knowledge is too extensive for ancient ways to work at all. The problem with the modern perspective is that it takes a position from which we can see only what's already known. If we know almost nothing then it follows that this perspective is highly unrealistic. Math is quantified natural logic. Apparently reality behaves according to this natural logic. Apparently because the universe behaves according to natural logic math works. I think it would be far more true to say that experiments isolate aspects of nature for study and we know how these aspects behave under these conditions. We also know that we can observe these same "laws" (theories) under different conditions (different isolations) within the lab as well as they apparently exist in nature and outside the lab. When things outside the lab don't behave according to expectations we tend to assume there were unknown variables or unknown forces at play. We also will tend to amend our expectations to fit the observation. At this point in time no one understands the ancient math. This is very ironic! I don't know how it worked either but am quite certain ho human being could use it to compute the trajectories required for a moon landing. Perhaps even a computer couldn't handle it. I believe it threw away 1.5625% of every equation but each operation still approched the correct answer because operations were non-linear. I believe the math was ordinal. There are some exceedingly sharp people working on this and progress is being made, I believe. I believe the ancient math worked superbly for the needs of the science that existed at the time. It could not be used today except as a parlour trick unless, perhaps, it could be deciphered and then used by computers. There might be no advantage to using such math in conjunction with modern science. Modern science isn't wrong. It provides a perspective that encompasses far more than its metaphysics. Science only really works in the lab and in the manifestation of the lab we can take ourtsiude and call "technology". We mistake this technology as evidence of things that don't exist and we can't see how the technology arises. Science isn't the problem. There are many ways to state the problem and I've tried most of them. Essentially the problem is that everyone is a specialist and applied science is far behind the times. The world is highly inefficient and highly wasteful because human knowledge (science) is being applied haphazardly to industry, finance, and government. The problem is we've been studying the trees to the exclusion of everything else so long that we now know everything about the trees and nothing at all about the forest. I'm not even claiming here that ancient science is the solution to our problem with specialization. I just don't know. I'm saying that we need to train generalists or applied scientists by any name at all. We need a broader perspective to understand where we are, where we're going, and the best route through the vagaries of reality. From the perspective of anyone who believes the equation describes a bird's flight or the flight of birds; yes, it was discovered. From the perspective that no equation can possibly be applied to fully describe the flight of a bird with current knowledge, it was invented. No matter how many equations you apply to a migratory goose you can not completely describe nor understand its flight nor behavior. We can't predict what an individual will do nor understand why it did it. Even if you adjust the equations for tidal effects and relativity all you can do is try to better understand "what". The equation follows the same natural logic as reality but the real world is far too complex to model in such a way. This doesn't mean the equation is worthless but it also doesn't mean it was "discovered". Like everything everyone sees all the time it is merely a matter of perspective. Science factors out the observer but we are each observers anyway.

The world existed before displacement equaled the original velocity multiplied by time plus one half the acceleration multiplied by the square of time. The math statement isn't true because it was invented but because reality existed and the logic of reality supports the math and physics. Before the invention of trains this equation didn't really apply to things because this is a vector equation and birds don't exist in vectors. At least they can't fly in straight lines as their center of gravity oscillates up and down and they continually recalculate direction and are affected by wind, moisture, and myriad other factors which can't simply be plugged into any equation. Yes, we have endless more knowledge than 100 years ago or two hundred years ago and can continually improve our modeling of a bird's flight. We can make good predictions about when a flock of geese will arrive in NC or the swallows return to Capistrano. We believe all this fine tuning is leading to fundamental answers to all our questions and we see reality based on our understanding of the math and physics that make it possible. The problem is we are not seeing where the bird is going or why. We aren't seeing the reality of nature through the bird's eyes but through our own. Of course great strides are being made in biology, zoology, and ornithology as well so we have ever more information but it is mostly being seen in fragments by specialists and is mostly seen through our models and paradigms. We are little or no closer to truly understanding what it is to be a bird than we were 1000 years ago. We can't see the individual birds through the flock. I keep saying this but people are missing my point. I'm not advocating we abandon science. Far from it. I am suggesting that everybody should see that specialization leads to a perspective that is based on extrapolations. Some people, some individuals should be trained from a young age as generalists. All children should get more instruction and more reminders about metaphysics and a 7th step to the scientific method should be added; metaphysical implications. Additionally we (some individuals) should toy around with inventing new sciences with different metaphysics. These sciences can be run in parallel so they might be able to get one another over humps. I have a great science that might be usable by computers! One man working alone even within the confines of human progress and existing models can accomplish very very little. Human progress is made possible SOLELY by our ability to "stand on the shoulders of giants" and this is possible SOLELY because we have complex language. I'm trying to work outside of what is recognized and known and quite frankly it's so far outside that fixing science so that we can get over the unified field theory hump is tertiary to far more important and pressing concerns at the current time. My primary concern at this time is that the ancient science isn't lost yet again. I'll try to get to some of the other points soon. It will be difficult to address Bignose's points because ancient math eludes me still.

Perhaps if you actually challenged one of these statements rather than posting vacuous, patronizing, and insulting cliches and irrelevancies we might find some basis for disagreement or one of us could learn something. It's very easy to just dismiss something without ever really addressing it. This is what people do. The way we think and the way we understand reality is the cause. Logic has been reduced to mathematics and expunged from reality itself except to the degree we understand theory. We apply theory as models and paradigms and believe these explain all of reality.

You haven't taken one thing in any of my posts seriously but you're going to latch on to the one thing I won't defend. How we see the world is determined by how we think and in our case the math we use. Reality looks like a clockwork to those who use math but seeing reality as the cause of math rather than the effect doesn't prevent the application of math by the observer. It merely changes his perspective.