My interest in materialistic sciences

#1
That has always been about "can do" and doing. To the extent that those engaged in those sciences are realizing "mileposts" set up by visionaries, I see them as doing "what they are supposed to." In the areas where they aren't yet achieving, those who express "with our present state of knowledge we haven't . . ." or "we don't yet know . . " or even "so far we have no tangible evidence . . " I also see as doing "what they are supposed to." Those who engage in "that can't be done" or "the laws of blah, blah preclude blah. blah" or "we know that doesn't exist . . . " I view as being arrogant, limited thinking, whose pedestrian mindsets are more hindrance than benefit.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#2
That has always been about "can do" and doing. To the extent that those engaged in those sciences are realizing "mileposts" set up by visionaries, I see them as doing "what they are supposed to." In the areas where they aren't yet achieving, those who express "with our present state of knowledge we haven't . . ." or "we don't yet know . . " or even "so far we have no tangible evidence . . " I also see as doing "what they are supposed to." Those who engage in "that can't be done" or "the laws of blah, blah preclude blah. blah" or "we know that doesn't exist . . . " I view as being arrogant, limited thinking, whose pedestrian mindsets are more hindrance than benefit.
I smell a false dichotomy.

~~ Paul
 
#6
That has always been about "can do" and doing. To the extent that those engaged in those sciences are realizing "mileposts" set up by visionaries, I see them as doing "what they are supposed to." In the areas where they aren't yet achieving, those who express "with our present state of knowledge we haven't . . ." or "we don't yet know . . " or even "so far we have no tangible evidence . . " I also see as doing "what they are supposed to." Those who engage in "that can't be done" or "the laws of blah, blah preclude blah. blah" or "we know that doesn't exist . . . " I view as being arrogant, limited thinking, whose pedestrian mindsets are more hindrance than benefit.
Don't forget that part of conventional science is built on things that can't be done.

Energy (or at least mass-energy) can't be created or destroyed.

Total entropy can't be decreased.

Nothing can travel faster than light in a vacuum.

Chemical elements can't be inter-converted (at least without nuclear reactions).

Discovering each of those limitations helped to establish the very way we think about science.

David
 
#8
Don't forget that part of conventional science is built on things that can't be done.

Energy (or at least mass-energy) can't be created or destroyed.

Total entropy can't be decreased.

Nothing can travel faster than light in a vacuum.

Chemical elements can't be inter-converted (at least without nuclear reactions).

Discovering each of those limitations helped to establish the very way we think about science.

David
Umm . .no . . .what you mean is "status-quo materialism is filled with claims that things can't be done." The one about light-speed being one of the most hilarious ones. In fact of those things you believe, the only one that I give any credence to is energy and only when it does not refer to "mass-energy" or matter-energy. And - while I'm sure you don't agree with it - perhaps now you see my point. You (and yes of course many others) have strong beliefs in those claims as being actualities. I do not. I would have thought that would have been clear from my original post.
Those who engage in "that can't be done" or "the laws of blah, blah preclude blah. blah" or "we know that doesn't exist . . . " I view as being arrogant, limited thinking, whose pedestrian mindsets are more hindrance than benefit.
The one thing I see as correct in your post is that the strength and prevalence of the beliefs in such "laws" does help establish the canon of the Holy Temple.
 
#9
If you take your head out of that nether orifice of yours, the air will be a lot fresher.
Well, I'm shocked. People who consider themselves to be more spiritually enlightened than poor old 'materialists' should surely think this kind of petty, unhelpful insult is beneath them? And yet I see it everywhere on this forum.
 
#10
Well, I'm shocked. People who consider themselves to be more spiritually enlightened than poor old 'materialists' should surely think this kind of petty, unhelpful insult is beneath them? And yet I see it everywhere on this forum.
I don't think most people consider themselves spiritually superior to materialists. They just think they're patently wrong.
 
#12
Well, I'm shocked. People who consider themselves to be more spiritually enlightened than poor old 'materialists' should surely think this kind of petty, unhelpful insult is beneath them? And yet I see it everywhere on this forum.
rofl. It was rude but prompted by his use of "smell" in his response. For those who equates spirituality with certain morality/behaviour, I suppose your comment would have some validity. For me . nah. Spirituality just is. Petty, "unhelpful" zingers can be fun once-in-a-while. Letting then get out-of-hand is usually disruptive to a forum
 
#13
Umm . .no . . .what you mean is "status-quo materialism is filled with claims that things can't be done." The one about light-speed being one of the most hilarious ones. In fact of those things you believe, the only one that I give any credence to is energy and only when it does not refer to "mass-energy" or matter-energy. And - while I'm sure you don't agree with it - perhaps now you see my point. You (and yes of course many others) have strong beliefs in those claims as being actualities. I do not. I would have thought that would have been clear from my original post.

The one thing I see as correct in your post is that the strength and prevalence of the beliefs in such "laws" does help establish the canon of the Holy Temple.
I don't necessarily adhere to status-quo materialism - I simply report the standard positions. It isn't always clear what you believe in, perhaps it would be helpful to spell out your beliefs so that we can decide if we disagree about anything at all!

I would most certainly not be too surprised if there was ultimately a roll-back of some of the laws of physics - perhaps even including the constant speed of light - because I think modern theories are like a house of cards - nudge one card, and the lot comes tumbling down.

Nevertheless, you can hardly deny that physics and chemistry were advanced by the second law of thermodynamics - which is certainly a restriction on what is possible. If it is ever found not to apply, I would guess that the situation will be one in which a closed system is shown to be open in some subtle way (e.g. by contact with non-material mind).

David
 
F

Frank Matera

#14
Well, I'm shocked. People who consider themselves to be more spiritually enlightened than poor old 'materialists' should surely think this kind of petty, unhelpful insult is beneath them? And yet I see it everywhere on this forum.
Spiritually enlightened? Is that what you call looking at facts and data with an open mind? I call it Science :)

Materialists? well I just call that a religious group. Materialism is just the bible by which Skeptics use to live their life and form their views of the world.
 
Top