997,504* seems a number was skipped in the most recent posts ;)
@anoni:
"Ok first of all that doesn't really make sense. You are suggesting that an old idea is indefinitely better than a new idea and if that were true, we'd still be living in caves. Technology would of never progressed, society would of never progressed and nothing would of progressed. Owning slaves has been around for thousands of years, does that meet we should own slaves because it was around longer? Your argument is essentially [against change] and that simply does not work in such a dynamic universe."
No modern scientist is elligible to disprove something that cannot be proven either way, yet we can assume the fact because it is observable to you. Technology has no meaning to the universe, it is something that only applies to whatever it was made for, and yet technology only manipulates the forces of the universe, it doesn't create it, it usually services society and that is merely augmented reality. There you are, science is a means of deluding oneself into the anticipation that everything should be explained instead of being used. Why the hell recreate something that is already there or far more incredible? Science has no purpose beyond the desires of the various societies.
"The definition of computational is "Of or relating to computers" or "Using computers: The computational analysis of the earth", so I don't know where you go that from. However, what science is doing is trying to make a uniform and consistent theory, with results that can be predicted through patterns."
No, mainstream scientists are currently trying to prove that the universe is simulated because it cannot work out from which all of everything is rendered from, because it's beyond scientific perception, it even tries to warp it with pseudo-concepts that will never be absolutely tangible to humans such as the vast volumes of dark matter, if something is not tangible is that really evidence? Those theories are only made up because the scientists don't really understand the probability factors behind their owns maths, as it is astrophysicists keep finding that the local visible universe is bigger than they previously thought. Hypothesis derived sciences are no different from religion, it's like the big bang, it's an idea conceived by creationists, it's a form of new age, quantum woo it's not even realistic; if that weren't the case why do alternate theories often get opened to research? Why do old ones get dismissed and new ones made? Science doesn't even progress where it is not tangible, because no one can prove a pseudoscience they cannot experience directly, sciences like the medical sciences are, however, tangible and are a benefit to society's wants/dreams or needs.
"This shows a clear lack of understanding of science, first of all you can't see atoms through a microscope. Second of al, I doubt there was a culture that knew that atoms existed and knew their exact behavior and was able to use that behavior to their advantage if I'm wrong please prove it with a reliable source(s)."
I've studied science since I was very young (albeit I gave it up for the enjoyment of what really matters in life) and I am aware of what you can see with a microscope, and technologies such as STM allows you to anticipate atoms.
And atom is actually a Greek word, through woo scientists made up theories upon it, the forces are seen on a larger scale they could understand the workings of atoms, the Hellenistic era's philosophers were well aware of how spheres were the most crucial shape to the force, they realized the Earth was round and that from pebbles to dust everything's most energy saving shape was the sphere, they realized the how forces worked on a large scale such as the solar system and took to note that this was very well what happens on an atomic scale, independent behavior didn't matter, because nobody needs to know, the Greeks endorsed life and rank not filling the brain with useless facts and hypothesis.
"First of all that's not scientific, science relies heavily on the ideas of observation and uniform measurements, not philosophy. However, what you have dived into is the concepts of relativity which I do believe in, but that quote you just said assumes that there is an existent property. What I believe is the concept of absurdism, in the sense that there is a table, the table itself exists but all we can know or tell of the table is our own perception or "opinion" of the table. We can never truly understand what the table actually is, in reality, but we can only say what the table appears to be. The difference between my theology and your theology is that your theology says that no table exists at all, and that we are seeing concepts of an imaginary table, which raises all the questions I stated before."
Actually, science can prove this, you live in what is deemed space, and it acknowledges the various schools of thought, as it possesses many subforms itself, cross-evidence, pseudo-theory, you name it. Perhaps you are unaware that nihilism is popular amongst scientists, religion and philosophy parallels this and can well deem there is reasoning to what exist, and if nothing means anything then science resolves that the universe is a worthless mistake. But a mistake of what? Science cannot anticipate this, there is far more to what surrounds you and what is within you than science.
So, can you prove anything exists with science? What kind of equation can do that? This is where you realize not everything is explainable by science. It's like consciousness through the soul, we know it exists, we experience, but it is not tangible so the likes of mainstream science can never explain it.
The thing is, nothing does exist, but nothing is a something, this shows that what you perceive comes from nothing, so in essence the entirety of the actual universe is a product of nothingness, and from nothingness, since science cannot explain how nothingness can cause something, science is then unusable, which through mind blowing intuition can exemplify that your very existence goes against the very fact that since trusts that everything you see must have some cause, yet the very existence of science has no defineable cause.
"But ESP of subatomic particles isn't proven, you can't use something that's unproven to prove another thing that's unproven."
Yes it is, by viewing particles from different points in space there can be temporal disruption, this is observable and lead to the concept of eigenvalues to assess how probability factor can arise from the limited precision in extremely small particles. Science is always finding things that contradicts it, the universe itself literally outwits the sciences.
Also, science shows that time would exist in higher dimensions, rendering the retained idea of time being of the fourth dimension seemingly ridiculous, one cannot simple use mathematical rounding to substitute the concepts around the ideas of the universe being array-based.
"First of all I don't know how it shows what you say it shows. Secondly it shows how little you know about what science is about. Science doesn't believe anything, it doesn't believe the universe is meaningless, it's not a belief! It's knowledge gained through the scientific method and the scientific method is simply, and only, a really, really, really, really, really harsh and unforgiving way of getting information. A way where, a million right data-points can be very easily proven wrong with one wrong data-point, in the case of General Relativity. Science doesn't have an opinion nor does it care whether the universe has a meaning, or whether a god exists, or whether nothing exists, all it "cares" about is what it finds. If it finds a meaning to the universe, science will /say/ "THERE'S A MEANING TO THE UNIVERSE" but in order to find said meaning it needs to be proven through the scientific method, no meaning has been proven with the scientific method. This does not mean science is against meaning, it just means that meaning is probably something humans made up, but if science could discover meaning, then if it discovers it that's it! It doesn't hate meaning, it just hasn't discovered anything to suggest there's a meaning."
Science is and is named after a religious set of concepts that were founded in Europe and Mesopotamia based on the concepts such as alchemy and the belief that everything has a cure, a solution and a reasoning.
And I reassure you science as an agenda has an opinion, and that is to explain everything tangible while denying everything untangible because of the lack of evidence, yet outside of science evidence does not really serve purpose. Science is also controlled by woo, the ideas of rocket science were once based upon fiction, the ideas of the universe being created was based upon creationism, the idea of time travelling atoms is based upon the fiction of time travel, the idea of cure is much related to what religion realized as the fear of death and ailment, and the idea of the lack of anything beyond the world being from the fear of not knowing everything to establish ones own purpose, therefore leaving you wishing to make up your own. It is also established that general relativity, like any other science is only somewhat correct and based upon statistics for reliance. And I reassure you humans did not invent the concept of meaning, cause and effect is a very long established natural phenomenom, meaning describes cause. Science is the meta-religion of the scared and the insecure, where one relies upon external facts instead of their own actual experience.
"You made some conflicting points in this sentence. You say that things are "in essence a void" but then you say the universe (which is things) is "the opposite of the void" which means that the universe is the opposite to itself, which is a logical paradox and usually means an argument is incorrect. You also say the universe is "binded" to something but don't say what it's binded too and say the forces show how it's "binded" which, again, I don't see how the forces show the universe is "binded""
Existence, to science is a logical paradox, but outside of science logic nor paradox is nothing, the universe just is, nothing and everything at once, thanks for proving my point. Forces is the act of binding, and science cannot explain the origin of forces, it is mystical, science can only observe them for as long as they seem predictable enough to rely on.
"When you talk about internal life, you are talking about consciousness (I assume) and external life as perception. In which case, you have to ask yourself what consciousness really is, do you know what consciousness is? There's a lot of argument about consciousness so I might not actually dive into that, instead I offer the theoretical scenario of the an artificial intelligent computer, and ask you whether that computer has consciousness. If this AI acted the exact same way as a human would under all stimuli, would you say it has consciousness? If it doesn't what separates it from a human?"
I experience, experience is enough evidence to me. In internal life everything has a consciousness, the state of awaring something exists is the point it exists in internal life as whatever the mind interprets it as, yet to my "soul" (the ultimate "I") it is mere realization, mind, soul and body become one and become consciousness, if I never, for example, acknowledged your existence, you could well have not existed. Souls are not perceivable, even to other souls, which is why external life is a unique phenomena, you cannot tell if I am genuinely consciousness anymore than a robot, but empathy is something of the mind and body, yet it makes our sentient life experienceable in as we are. A soul cannot think, feel or remember unless it manifests it as so, yet the balance of the forces in the external universe regulate this, in a sense. Why else do you think the external world is seemingly encapsulated to perception? Why do you think you are only one point when observing the external world? There are realities and there is the hypothesis of an actuality, science wishes for actuality to be entirely mappable, but the existence of actuality is a highly illogical concept to the schools of thought that science is applicable to.
"I think everyone but a very select few don't pick both of your theoretical external world and internal world."
External world and internal world are not theoretical and are observable by science, and external and internal are scientific terms. To call this theoretical is to deny the obvious.
"Of course and this is the idea of the subconscious, not the soul. The automated part of the body comes from "code" (just like computer code) made of proteins in something you've probably heard of called DNA. The larger automated processors are made through the subconscious, which is part of your brain that is not processed by the conscious part of you. The effects of the subconscious has been extensively observed, even going as far as having conscious patients in brain surgery test certain effects of the brain and how the brain reacts to these effects (sending electronic signals through the speech center of the brain, for example, caused the patient to temporarily lose the ability to speak) these are not used for science but rather medicine as we don't have a good understanding of the brain so it's best to use this method for some brain surgeries."
Why do you think protein codings exist? Do you think scientists invented them? Uh, nope, obviously not. It's an effect of the "universe" itself, and there cause is to what they create and this is life, which is why life evolves and seeks continuation. Science tries to make out what is there is science in itself, yet science merely observes it, what science observes is not science but rather just what is. The brain is very much a bridge between the internal and external worlds, if you break a bridge, those who travel across the bridge cannot make it across anymore, someone can tie me up and turn me into a puppet but that doesn't change the fact I "am", bodies are merely ways of having external life, if life required no internal core, life would be all limbs and nothing else (not that limbs cannot be alive, but hey, science logic for you).
"That quote assumes the mind if only possible with a "soul" or what ever you described (I honestly couldn't quite follow), I believe a mind can be possible purely in the physical, that it works similar to a computer, but much more complicated. (seeing as there's no central processor, it probably would be more likened to the internet)"
The moment something is identifiable as alive, it is possible that it has an internal life, but empathy says this is unnatural, nature follows the paths of ideals, the likes of, say, robotics is freakish to instinct and to those part of a feeling organism would rather evade. Not also computers are based off life and not the other way around.
"As I said before, you are quite wrongly assuming that a mind cannot exist without a soul. You continually ask "why" and we can explain it, to a degree, through science. "Why do things exist" we've been trying to figure that out, but the problem is Kio the answer isn't simple. I know you want the answer to be very simple, the answer to be something you can comprehend, but it simply doesn't seem to be that way. The answer is under a pile of abstract concepts and intense mathematics, this has been observed and has been able to make extremely accurate (to a 0.0000000000001% inaccuracy) of how the universe works. The answer isn't simple, it may be so complex that humanity can't even comprehend it, but it certainly isn't as simple as you make it out to be."
Why is not a question I seek an answer to, it is what if? As a being of the internal and external worlds, I strive to be existent, not to query who I am as a non-thought level I know well what I am, and what I am is what I am. Why is a question of emotion, while energy is a characteristic of emotion, and this is a fundamental part of what we experience and is, I need not to ask of energy as I am energy, everything is energy, nothing is a set point and the universe is forever moving, the universe is alive in itself, forces within it driven by its own external life, it's why forces are set as points in reality, it's why we experience life as set points. I know "why" because I am, we are, "why". Science cannot prove the impossible, and according to science, everything that exists is impossible. Science should be used only for purposes of health and society, but the foregoing "should" in this sentence is mere woo, as I too am a part of society.
(spoiler used to prevent visual interruption to other thread viewers due to this post's length)