Consciousness Explains Evolution

[truedeity]

Preamble: This piece comes with a tenured understanding and perspective that not every PHD has. One would have to understand the maturing phase of relativistic thinking. Only someone who is old enough to understand for example where both the eastern school of thought arrives, and western schools of thought collides, and how they can be woven together and made to work. Someone like that would be my intended readers.

 

One of the things that I like to get people to understand about the reality is that you have a certain level of control within that reality. I will try to go ahead and explain how certain leaps of understanding are made to get you to these basic laws. For now we will call these law's "the illegitimate child theory"

 

1. Energy, Frequency, and Vibration make up everything, particles do not exist. Particles only seem to illuminate into existence /within a vicinity of consciousness --> explained later./. However, we subscribes to wave particle duality, with the exception that particles only exist once they need to be observed and thats it. This can be explained with a combination of Max Plank E=hf and Richard Feynman's "One Electron Universe" but in this case the electron dances through all the possible multi-verses. You can think of it like the discharge of lighting how plasma is visible for a moment, and then quickly disappears as equivalent to the momentary "expression" of a particle. (Note: It's not that I want to use the 4th state of matter to explain what this would "be like" because we are dealing with electrons, we probably can never have the language to explain something like an electron.)

 

2. Consciousness creates reality. Reality is illuminated in the wake of consciousness (This is the same in principle as turning on your flashlight in a dark room...). The more concentrated the consciousness the more ‘real’ things are. Without consciousness reality fails to materialize. So before consciousness, we go back to the wave form of reality, and the materializing of particles brought about a material reality. Before that there were only plausibilities that reality in fact exists. Now that definitely feels counter intuitive, but this is the exact same feeling or feedback we get from quantum physics. Because when it comes down to the math, bizarreness is the name of the game we play in quantum physics. So these discussions are necessary for our maturing process.

 

So being that I will have to explain how consciousness ties in, I will have to offer this footnote to start the thought process off by bringing us back to number one: "a thought" produces sound, frequency, energy, and vibration. Thoughts themselves produce the very fundamental pieces that configured the system to work in the first place.

 

3. The universe evolved itself to be "like" a living organism itself, which contains its own consciousness, and self awareness. And the universe has its own replication systems, and we call these replication systems parallel universes. You could think of it in the same way that you think of cell division. Almost like with membrane universe but quite different... All of the universe is a fractal of life, containing more life. The more you zoom out or zoom in you get a more complex picture of the same thing.

 

3.1 The "void" we call blackspace, is the ether or aether which is an aspect of the electromagnetic universe. Electromagnetism creates gravity, the perception of bodies moving through space creates the "psychological illusion" of time. Therefore, time is not real it is merely temporal in the "Mind Dimension". But it feels very real to us within our "Mind Dimension"...

 

In the "Mind Dimension" feelings are an adjustment by the brain, we learned only through dealing with the nervous system since our infancy as a newborn. The comparison / contrast between pain and pleasure create a synesthesia that we envelop within our physiology, along with that physiology feelings create aspects of "Qualia", this "Qualia" can be translated into Consciousness.

 

3.2 In light of the before stated speculations, and the hypothesis that there are infinite parallel universes, you can "unknowingly" shift your experience from one universe to another. What that means is that you change your reality with your consciousness at any given instant, and there are infinite earths, and the people around you all change according to how you change your reality. This is not a complicated thing, it is just a natural thing we do with our thoughts (which control our actions) we can call this reality shifting "decisions". This reality applies to all other people and other conscious living beings. (This is a very important concept to understand so I’ll describe it another way so you’re sure to understand it...) People in your reality do not matter like you think they do, they change according to your consciousness you can shift them out of your reality and into your reality according to how they correlate with your consciousness. You shouldn’t get upset when someone dies because they are experiencing a different consciousness in another reality more adequate to their consciousness. Because we are all living in an infinite realm of possibility.

 

One question I would like someone to ask is "What makes us experience this reality?"

 

But i'll leave that up to you.

 

Edit... Sorry have to pick up where I left off from last night so that I can bring Evolution in.

 

4. Evolution. Because the universe has a self awareness, and consciousness, there is a bit of "natural selection" taking place on the multi-verse level. For us to come from hydrogen, and helium gases, to a place like earth where life is so abundant, to the human brain, to skyscrapers and airplanes, it boils down to 1 thing for everything to make since. There have to be infinite possibilities, infinite parallel universes. And even with infinite earths there has to be a selection within that which narrows the scope of consciousness to a wave of various possibilities. I offered an idea based on the Copenhagen interpretation and drew some radical ideas that expand on this "natural selection" and I called it the Maybeverse Theory ( http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/34195-maybeverse-theory/ I learned that this forum would rather call peoples theories a speculation because a lot of individuals want to have a theory. Which is not too uncommon even in academia because of the fears associated with publish or perish; I maintain that I should not have to read anybody's rules, I just feel it is my duty to offer some value to a community so confused by the eastern school of thought.)

 

 

.

Edited March 4, 2011 by truedeity

[Mr Skeptic]

Preamble: This piece comes with a tenured understanding and perspective that not ever PHD has. One would have to understand the maturing phase of relativistic thinking. Only someone who is old enough to understand for example where both the eastern school of thought arrives, and western schools of thought collides, and how they can be woven together and made to work. Someone like that would be my intended readers.

 

Well aren't we feeling self-important today. As if most of us educated people wouldn't have heard of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, or that some attempt to implement the anthropic principle, and the various other interpretations.

http://en.wikipedia....es_the_collapse

[Mrs Zeta]

3.2 In light of the before stated speculations, and the hypothesis that there are infinite parallel universes, you can "unknowingly" shift your experience from one universe to another. What that means is that you change your reality with your consciousness at any given instant, and there are infinite earths, and the people around you all change according to how you change your reality. This is not a complicated thing, it is just a natural thing we do with our thoughts (which control our actions) we can call this reality shifting "decisions". This reality applies to all other people and other conscious living beings. (This is a very important concept to understand so I’ll describe it another way so you’re sure to understand it...) People in your reality do not matter like you think they do, they change according to your consciousness you can shift them out of your reality and into your reality according to how they correlate with your consciousness. You shouldn’t get upset when someone dies because they are experiencing a different consciousness in another reality more adequate to their consciousness. Because we are all living in an infinite realm of possibility.

 

The idea of shifting from one universe to another has been discussed here. It is a long post (like yours) and has some interesting concepts which some people actually believe in.

[truedeity]

Well aren't we feeling self-important today. As if most of us educated people wouldn't have heard of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, or that some attempt to implement the anthropic principle, and the various other interpretations.

http://en.wikipedia....es_the_collapse

 

 

Yes your right. What i'm saying is that you probably wouldn't understand it; educated people do not necessarily qualify as intellectuals. Intellectuals do not necessarily qualify as having wisdom. And wise people do not necessarily have enlightenment. Enlightened individuals have a deeper understanding, and they are few and far in-between. To be enlightened is a gift, for those that know themselves, know the world they live in, which can not be discovered merely through long division. There is a state of understanding that science has not evolved into. You can use concepts of existing sciences to sort of pave the way into a new understanding, but an understanding of one particular aspect of something is not enlightenment. Enlightenment is real, and there are very gifted people who want to share their views in a way that will bring the understandings together. The problem with science is that everything has to be measurable. And everything has to be explainable, for a "theory" of something to hold validity. And that is a problem because there are so many things an enlightened person can understand easily, but can never be explained because it is ineffable. And therefore cannot be endorsed by a scientist that polarizes algebra and wisdom. What I have not said is that its my intention to seem pompous. To me, being able get a scientific community to admit that lack of understanding... That an eastern mindset has merit.

Edited March 5, 2011 by truedeity

[Moontanman]

Isn't this one of those "If it were not for the consciousness of the Universe I would not be conscious of being conscious of the consciousness of the Universe type questions?"

[PhDwannabe]

educated people do not necessarily qualify as intellectuals. Intellectuals do not necessarily qualify as having wisdom. And wise people do not necessarily have enlightenment. Enlightened individuals have a deeper understanding, and they are few and far in-between.

 

But, I would continue, enlightened individuals are not necessarily baked hams. And baked hams are not necessarily Phillips-head screwdrivers. And Phillips-head screwdrivers, as I'm sure you would agree, do not all qualify as globular clusters. And globular clusters, you know, are few and far between.

[Schrödinger's hat]

But, I would continue, enlightened individuals are not necessarily baked hams. And baked hams are not necessarily Phillips-head screwdrivers. And Phillips-head screwdrivers, as I'm sure you would agree, do not all qualify as globular clusters. And globular clusters, you know, are few and far between.

 

I don't know about you, but all my Phillips-head screwdrivers are globular clusters.

[lemur]

2. Consciousness creates reality. Reality is illuminated in the wake of consciousness (This is the same in principle as turning on your flashlight in a dark room...). The more concentrated the consciousness the more ‘real’ things are. Without consciousness reality fails to materialize. So before consciousness, we go back to the wave form of reality, and the materializing of particles brought about a material reality. Before that there were only plausibilities that reality in fact exists.

 

3. The universe evolved itself to be "like" a living organism itself, which contains its own consciousness, and self awareness. And the universe has its own replication systems, and we call these replication systems parallel universes. You could think of it in the same way that you think of cell division. Almost like with membrane universe but quite different... All of the universe is a fractal of life, containing more life. The more you zoom out or zoom in you get a more complex picture of the same thing.

How are #2 and #3 consistent? If consciousness creates reality, how can the universe have any essential reality that is not rooted in the conscious subject?

[insane_alien]

lets get causality sorted out here.

 

evolution does not require conciousness to be true. ALL evolution assumes is that there is a replicator with inheritence and it is possible for mistakes to be made in the replication.

 

conciousness on the other hand evolved. you could even say conciousness was the RESULT of evolution. nobody would classify the fruit fly as concious but they have been observed evolving. bacteria and viruses certainly aren't concious but they are observed evolving all the time.

[truedeity]

I'm assuming everyone replying here is enlightened and smarter than a PHD. Well at least we established the "enlightened ones"...

 

I am speculating that evolution is a type of "natural selection" of parallel universes. It could be that this "natural selection" process is the experience of consciousness.

 

So the one electron is creating the whole universe, all parallel universes, consciousness, and what we think of as evolution. It would seem that all these things are in a 1:1 relationship with the electron.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Curious...

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes, I've heard suggestions that perhaps some universes can spawn others, and furthermore that they can pass on some traits, and that therefore the sort of universes that can best replicate like this would be more common. As far as I know it is just speculation upon speculation. It makes sense, but there's no evidence for it (nor against it).

[truedeity]

Yes, I've heard suggestions that perhaps some universes can spawn others, and furthermore that they can pass on some traits, and that therefore the sort of universes that can best replicate like this would be more common. As far as I know it is just speculation upon speculation. It makes sense, but there's no evidence for it (nor against it).

 

 

Yes. And we are at a point where we HAVE TO implement technologies to infer new science... At this stage technology is so far behind theoretical science and the cosmologies within; that without the implementation of new technology we cant draft measurements, conduct experiments, or gather new data... We are at a point in our evolution where new ideas in science are only left to speculation, leaving us at the mercy of technology to drive us forward. Sadly, our best hope for physics for the next 10-15 years is the large hard-on Collider. In the past it has always been that science can provide new information that improves technology from electricity, to computer processors, to fiber optics, to rotating superconductors at area 51...... 'in turn' that technology improves science. I feel that humanity is in a sort of stalemate position between science and technology, and worse its occurring during a time of exponential growth of human population. Which is sad because if we are not living in the clouds like the Jetson's in 50 years we will not survive the upcoming civil and or natural devastations.

[PhDwannabe]

And we are at a point where we HAVE TO implement technologies to infer new science

So, literally, science would just... stop tomorrow if university physics departments stopped upgrading their equipment. How exactly do these scientists function between equipment upgrades, anyway? How do you even go about defending a claim like this?

 

large hard-on Collider

Did that seriously just... was that a... was that a joke?

 

Which is sad because if we are not living in the clouds like the Jetson's in 50 years we will not survive the upcoming civil and or natural devastations.

Are you honestly suggesting that we have two dichotomous options as a species: advancement to a "Jetsons" level of technology within 50 years, or extinction (of the species or of the civilization) within 50 years? Because, really, people get into trouble making predictions of this nature. Like, "the next time I go into the living room, it's either going to be on fire or everything'll be coated in two inches of ice." There's a bit of room between "Jetsons" and extinction. If you just categorically dismiss the enormous range of possibilities between these, you sound like a madman.

[truedeity]

So, literally, science would just... stop tomorrow if university physics departments stopped upgrading their equipment. How exactly do these scientists function between equipment upgrades, anyway? How do you even go about defending a claim like this?

 

 

Did that seriously just... was that a... was that a joke?

 

 

Are you honestly suggesting that we have two dichotomous options as a species: advancement to a "Jetsons" level of technology within 50 years, or extinction (of the species or of the civilization) within 50 years? Because, really, people get into trouble making predictions of this nature. Like, "the next time I go into the living room, it's either going to be on fire or everything'll be coated in two inches of ice." There's a bit of room between "Jetsons" and extinction. If you just categorically dismiss the enormous range of possibilities between these, you sound like a madman.

 

See what I mean, the really smart ones come out of hiding. How can I entertain your response? Should I entertain your response? Yeah man, i'm really talking about "university" equipment. :/ Are you serious? Do you comprehend what it takes to capture a neutrino!!? We virtually have to go miles under the earths surface and create things like this ---> http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/9906/sudbury_sno_big.jpg just to provided a very general understanding of particle physics.

 

It's not the first time anyone made a joke about the large hard-on either, if rich. dawkin can do it I can. He's just a biologist anyway. And I think the jetson's are a fine example of what we should be working towards as our next evolutionary step. Does that resonate with you Elroy? Furthermore, planet's are not very stable places cosmologically speaking... Unless you want to turn this into a debate of weather or not we can survive, that's an entirely different thread.

[Dave49]

So, essence precedes existence. If I'm reading the creator of this thread correctly. And even more, Divine Mind is the only thing that exists, and the visible universe does not exist, or it is simply error.

[truedeity]

So, essence precedes existence. If I'm reading the creator of this thread correctly. And even more, Divine Mind is the only thing that exists, and the visible universe does not exist, or it is simply error.

 

 

HAH... There are always categories that we don't want to be apart of. In this case, its more scientific than spiritual. Part of the reason why I mentioned enlightenment earlier is because that you can take a variety of cosmological concepts that you "subscribe to" and mush them together to create a perspective of science that seems somewhat spiritual. This whole concept feels like the presence of consciousness creating tactile reality, rather than tactile reality creating the presence of consciousness. But I arrive there through science, not meditation, religion, or spirituality. Because these implications were inferred through scientific cosmologies.

 

What I mean to say is that most scientists would say that the belief in ghosts or apparitions is a completely repugnant concept. unless someone comes along with some weird finding about the natural world that opens the door for that possibility. But at that point its not ghosts or apparitions, its something that we can create in a laboratory. Imagine for a moment that "reality" is a TV recording on a vhs cassette , and your watching this tv show, and the tape is twisted in certain places, what happens is that the image gets distorted for a moment and then goes back to normal. But until someone discovers the illusive vhs cassette, crackpots will continue to preach about ghosts, which is still repugnant because its like confusing H2S04 with H20 the difference is the understanding chemistry provides us, with that we know not to drink from a hot spring.

[Dave49]

HAH... There are always categories that we don't want to be apart of. In this case, its more scientific than spiritual. Part of the reason why I mentioned enlightenment earlier is because that you can take a variety of cosmological concepts that you "subscribe to" and mush them together to create a perspective of science that seems somewhat spiritual. This whole concept feels like the presence of consciousness creating tactile reality, rather than tactile reality creating the presence of consciousness. But I arrive there through science, not meditation, religion, or spirituality. Because these implications were inferred through scientific cosmologies.

 

What I mean to say is that most scientists would say that the belief in ghosts or apparitions is a completely repugnant concept. unless someone comes along with some weird finding about the natural world that opens the door for that possibility. But at that point its not ghosts or apparitions, its something that we can create in a laboratory. Imagine for a moment that "reality" is a TV recording on a vhs cassette , and your watching this tv show, and the tape is twisted in certain places, what happens is that the image gets distorted for a moment and then goes back to normal. But until someone discovers the illusive vhs cassette, crackpots will continue to preach about ghosts, which is still repugnant because its like confusing H2S04 with H20 the difference is the understanding chemistry provides us, with that we know not to drink from a hot spring.

 

Frankly, it takes me as much "faith" to swallow what science theorizes, as what spiritualists theorize. The closer you get to something, the further away it becomes. I would probably worship at the alter of which side can tell me, to my satisfaction, where the first "something" came from. But neither science, nor things spiritual can do that. So for all our fine talk, nothing is ever revealed. No one can begin to nail down what we can see, much less what we can't. Kind of like everyone lives in this cave, with a large fire in the middle. All they can see are their shadows on the wall. But one day someone looks away from the fire and the shadows, and makes his/her way out of the cave to find out what is outside. But with no one to share any of this with, all he/she can do is to go back into the cave and work to lead the others out.

[Ophiolite]

For the record, having read and re-read your OP and subsequent posts I can fairly declare I am unenlightened. I am not sure if this is because your communication style is opaque, or because you are talking nonsense, or because I am low quality intellect. Your best bet would be to assume the latter, since that will remove any disappointment you might feel at failing to convince a truely enlightened individual.

[truedeity]

For the record, having read and re-read your OP and subsequent posts I can fairly declare I am unenlightened. I am not sure if this is because your communication style is opaque, or because you are talking nonsense, or because I am low quality intellect. Your best bet would be to assume the latter, since that will remove any disappointment you might feel at failing to convince a truely enlightened individual.

 

 

You are unenlightened, because you have proclaimed yourself to be unenlightened. I am talking opaque nonsense, because 'all' of our intellects are low quality. I don't feel much at all, other than I know the latter to be true.

[Edtharan]

You are unenlightened, because you have proclaimed yourself to be unenlightened. I am talking opaque nonsense, because 'all' of our intellects are low quality. I don't feel much at all, other than I know the latter to be true.

Ahh, but to be enlightened, you have to know yourself, and only someone who knows themselves would be able to make the claim they are unenlightened with any certainty. It is also said that enlightenment is to show true wisdom and that the only true wisdom is that you know nothing, so by these arguments Ophiolite must be enlightened as Ophiolite has shown true wisdom in knowing that (s)he is not enlightened.

 

Ok, now that was in a bit of humour, but there was also a point to it. It is possible to make valid English sentences, that make sense, but have no meaningful content, as the paragraph above proves that Ophiolite is both enlightened and unenlightened at the same time, in other words, a meaningless claim.

 

Now, in your opening post, and subsequent posts, you have attempted to use scientific terms, but have not used their proper meanings. It would be a bit like me making the claim that I am enlightened because I have a light on in my room. The word enlightened does not mean the state of being lit (although it sounds like it could as to be entranced is to be in a state of trance and enlightened has the same prefix "en" and the word "lightened" in it).

 

It is this same misuse of words and miss understanding of their meanings that has lead to your post. Communication is about getting your ideas across to other people, so it is vitally important that for your communication to be effective (and thus not a waste of your time and the readers time) is to make sure that you and the reader have the same meanings of words (even if this requires a discussion of the meaning of the words). Also, if one uses a completely different meaning of a word than what is accepted (ie: you make up your own meaning because it sounds like it should be that - remember the enlightened/entranced example above) then you are not going to be a very effective communicator regardless of the validity (or otherwise) of your claim.

 

Now, all that being the case. We know what evolution is: It is a process that certain systems undergo if the show the properties of replication with inheritance and variation, and selection.

 

Any system that displays these properties will have evolution. This extends beyond biological evolution and even included computer programs. The circuits of your computer were developed by using an evolutionary algorithms (a computer program that uses evolution). Even the way that information is passed around the internet is dependent on evolution (however it is not an explicit program doing it, it is a property of how it works).

 

So evolution is not dependent on consciousness. There are plenty of example where even natural processes (without any concious effort) displays evolution, and as even completely mathematical computer programs also display evolution this puts the final nail in the claim that evolution need consciousness (unless you are also claiming that a sum like 1 + 1 = 2 is conscious).

 

Conciousness can understand evolution, but understanding is not causation. Also as evolution is mathematical (algorithmic) it does not require consciousness to operate, you can not reach the conclusion (as you do in point 4 of your opening post) that there is a causal link between consciousness and evolution (even universe evolution).

[truedeity]

Ahh, but to be enlightened, you have to know yourself, and only someone who knows themselves would be able to make the claim they are unenlightened with any certainty. It is also said that enlightenment is to show true wisdom and that the only true wisdom is that you know nothing, so by these arguments Ophiolite must be enlightened as Ophiolite has shown true wisdom in knowing that (s)he is not enlightened.

 

Ok, now that was in a bit of humour, but there was also a point to it. It is possible to make valid English sentences, that make sense, but have no meaningful content, as the paragraph above proves that Ophiolite is both enlightened and unenlightened at the same time, in other words, a meaningless claim.

 

Now, in your opening post, and subsequent posts, you have attempted to use scientific terms, but have not used their proper meanings. It would be a bit like me making the claim that I am enlightened because I have a light on in my room. The word enlightened does not mean the state of being lit (although it sounds like it could as to be entranced is to be in a state of trance and enlightened has the same prefix "en" and the word "lightened" in it).

 

It is this same misuse of words and miss understanding of their meanings that has lead to your post. Communication is about getting your ideas across to other people, so it is vitally important that for your communication to be effective (and thus not a waste of your time and the readers time) is to make sure that you and the reader have the same meanings of words (even if this requires a discussion of the meaning of the words). Also, if one uses a completely different meaning of a word than what is accepted (ie: you make up your own meaning because it sounds like it should be that - remember the enlightened/entranced example above) then you are not going to be a very effective communicator regardless of the validity (or otherwise) of your claim.

 

Now, all that being the case. We know what evolution is: It is a process that certain systems undergo if the show the properties of replication with inheritance and variation, and selection.

 

Any system that displays these properties will have evolution. This extends beyond biological evolution and even included computer programs. The circuits of your computer were developed by using an evolutionary algorithms (a computer program that uses evolution). Even the way that information is passed around the internet is dependent on evolution (however it is not an explicit program doing it, it is a property of how it works).

 

So evolution is not dependent on consciousness. There are plenty of example where even natural processes (without any concious effort) displays evolution, and as even completely mathematical computer programs also display evolution this puts the final nail in the claim that evolution need consciousness (unless you are also claiming that a sum like 1 + 1 = 2 is conscious).

 

Conciousness can understand evolution, but understanding is not causation. Also as evolution is mathematical (algorithmic) it does not require consciousness to operate, you can not reach the conclusion (as you do in point 4 of your opening post) that there is a causal link between consciousness and evolution (even universe evolution).

 

 

Ophiolite must be enlightened as Ophiolite has shown true wisdom in knowing that (s)he is not enlightened...

 

Response: It is also said that enlightenment is to show true wisdom and that the only true wisdom is that you know nothing... What your saying is true, but instead I offer this as my belief to that translation, I believe it is better stated as "you can assume nothing"...

When you let go of what you have learned you can liberate yourself of infectious thoughts. For instance, you can take principals such as Occams Razor and make exceptions. We have situations in science where we have to make determinations and sometimes throw out some widely accepted theories such as "the strong force" people that are unable to let go of these concepts because they cannot visualize an alternative, those people are rigid. That rigid state dates back to an ancient philosophy called minimalism. Yet 99.9% of people will defend the strong force to the death. That other 1% is either enlightened, or delusional.

 

Thanks, and I will cover your other reply's in a latter post...

[Ophiolite]

Yet 99.9% of people will defend the strong force to the death. That other 1% is either enlightened, or delusional.

The 99.9% of those qualified to defend the strong force do so on the basis of substantial evidence supporting its and minimal to no evidence contradicting it. They will continue to defend it, not to the death, but until the time that that changes. The other 0.1% (Not 1%) are delusional.

[Edtharan]

Ophiolite must be enlightened as Ophiolite has shown true wisdom in knowing that (s)he is not enlightened...

 

Response: It is also said that enlightenment is to show true wisdom and that the only true wisdom is that you know nothing... What your saying is true, but instead I offer this as my belief to that translation, I believe it is better stated as "you can assume nothing"...

This boils down to what you can consider as Truth. IS there anything you can be 100% sure of as true. The closest is "I think therefore I am". But, even this can be shown to be doubtful.

 

If you were a simulation in a computer, then in what sense can you be thought of as "existing"? (or thinking for that matter).

 

So, although the translation of the original might be closer (or not) to "assume nothing". It is probably still better stated as "know nothing" because there is nothing that you can know is 100% true.

 

But this will bow your mind: If nothing can be known to be 100% true, can the statement that "you can not know something to be 100% true" be shown to be 100% true? If it can be then it proves itself false, if it can't be shown to be 100% true, then there can be something that can be 100% true, and therefore the statement could be true...

 

When you let go of what you have learned you can liberate yourself of infectious thoughts.

I disagree here. The problem with infectious thoughts is that they are infectious. Now an infectious thought may be true, or it may be false. But how can you tell without prior knowledge? or, how can you tell if a thought is infectious or not without prior knowledge.

 

It is so common for people trying to sound mystic to say "let go of what you have learned...", but when you think about this, it really makes no sense. The only way to learn is to build upon what you have already learned. Letting go of what you have learned will not make future learning easier, it will only allow lies to enter easier.

 

A better mantra is to examine what you have learned and to check its consistency with the other things you have learned and with external reality. Of course, that is a lot harder (it can take lifetimes to do) and doesn't sound as mystical (and doesn't make as good a sound bite).

 

For instance, you can take principals such as Occams Razor and make exceptions. We have situations in science where we have to make determinations and sometimes throw out some widely accepted theories such as "the strong force" people that are unable to let go of these concepts because they cannot visualize an alternative, those people are rigid. That rigid state dates back to an ancient philosophy called minimalism. Yet 99.9% of people will defend the strong force to the death. That other 1% is either enlightened, or delusional.

 

Thanks, and I will cover your other reply's in a latter post...

Yes, and all these scientific advances were not brought about by people "let[ting] go of what they have learned", but instead of patiently checking what they have learned for consistency with other things they have learned and external reality.

 

As for the Strong Force, it certainly does exist, not because anybody rejected what they already learned, but because they built upon what they already knew, checked it for consistency with what they knew and external reality and checked what they knew against external reality.

 

In other words, they did real science, rather than use mystical sounding sound bites.

[truedeity]

I have a lot of stuff to address that I've been unable to address yet, but intend on addressing. I don't know that I will be able to address them. But I'll feel better if I just list what i wanted to address.

 

1. Still to be continued with an @Edtharan.

 

2. @Ophiolite The 99.9% of those qualified to defend the strong force do so on the basis of substantial evidence supporting its and minimal to no evidence contradicting it.

 

I hope qualified meaning, someone who understands the mathematical and hypothetical reasons for theorizing about the strong force. And that could be any good algebra student... 99% of the time physics is usually just algebra, but in academia the curriculum may have taken 10 years to reach there since high school, so I agree with you, though giving credit where credit is due, especially considering diff-eq. But still, its not beyond an algebra student. Plus, I didn't set out to debate strong force, and it is just an example. But I think if a person wants to ask why we have strong force; that it could present a decent starting point to build a case against strong force. But me personally... nah, I would build my case against interactive forces in whole.

[Edtharan]

I hope qualified meaning, someone who understands the mathematical and hypothetical reasons for theorizing about the strong force. And that could be any good algebra student... 99% of the time physics is usually just algebra, but in academia the curriculum may have taken 10 years to reach there since high school, so I agree with you, though giving credit where credit is due, especially considering diff-eq. But still, its not beyond an algebra student. Plus, I didn't set out to debate strong force, and it is just an example. But I think if a person wants to ask why we have strong force; that it could present a decent starting point to build a case against strong force. But me personally... nah, I would build my case against interactive forces in whole.

The theory of the strong force is not just "algebra". They use algebra to work out how to calculate the results of experiments where the phenomena they are describing exists and acts the way they expect.

 

In other words, the theory is not the Algebra, but that the phenomena exists and works the way they describe. The algebra is the description, not the theory.

 

The reason that the Strong Force was proposed was that there were forces occurring to particles (protons and neutrons) that could not be explained by any existing force.

 

As an example we know that the electrical force repels like charges. So, why does the nucleus of an atom stay together and not fly apart, they are just made of protons (positive change) and neutrons (no overall charge). As the neutrons could not cancel out the electric charge, then the nucleus made of particles of like charge should fly apart.

 

But it doesn't. Something must force the protons and neutrons to stay together, and it must be stronger than the electromagnetic force. This is the Strong Force that scientists talk about.

 

Further examination of the nucleus of atoms show that the more neutrons there are the more protons can be contained. So this Strong Force is not electrical (as neutrons are electrically neutral - hence the name neutrons) but must reside in some other property of the particles and that both protons and neutrons must have this.

 

It is through more careful examination and experimentation to test hypotheses about the nature of the strong force that has lead to the theory of the Strong Force. The algebra that we have just describes what we have learnt about the strong force. However, even if we didn't have any algebra, we could still have the theory of the strong force simply from the observation that protons and neutrons combine as the nucleus of atoms despite the electromagnetic force trying to push them apart. As we observe a force that is not electromagnetic, and far stronger than gravity (as well as stronger than the electromagnetic force), the name given to this force is the Strong Force.