Should we abandon science now?

[doombot]

i raised my hand slowly and ask this question in a bewildering manner.

do you believe that humans are the only beings in the whole universe?

i stared on the window and viewed a pigeon which was eating hysterically on the curb. waiting for you to answer the question.

[doombot]

as i waited for you to answer my question.

i noticed another pigeon throwing some kind small piece of food on the side of the street. the first pigeon gobbled and gobbled what the second pigeon is throwing.

[Mojowatcher]

Science is as good as its keepers and its keepers are as good as their frameworks of approaches but, as it is, they are no longer appropriate.

The reality is that the two old and obsolete frameworks of approaches of the keepers of the two seemingly competing visions aren't only inconsistent but they both lead to confusion.

They both lead to confusion for they are linked to creation. Because it is always connected to religion eventually confusion.

The keepers have shown the gross incapacity to resolve the old and new contradictions and conflicts that stuck them.

[doombot]

after a few minutes of no reply from you.

in the middle of the street the first pigeon not minding the cars proceeds to eat his feast prepared by the second pigeon.

out of nowhere.

out of nowhere a black fast Chevy suburban, run over the first pigeon.

behind the flat body of the first pigeon. there is the second pigeon looking straight at me.

i can see beneath his dark eyes, that he planned everything. He keeps looking at me, like his telling me that he know me and he will find where i live if i don't keep my mouth shut.

[Mojowatcher]

The two frameworks of approaches are inconsistent because even as the physicists correctly tell us that common sense is no longer reliable in science, the keepers would want us to accept that we should portray the universe that it has a beginning.

According to the keepers, it always makes sense to start from the beginning, which is actually the common sense, thus, there is a double standard that exists.

In reality, they are protecting the doctrines of creations of the two seemingly competing visions.

The next question is: do I have an alternate solution? Yes, I have it is called the new cosmic approach.

The new cosmic approach is, so far, consistent, coherent and the most comprehensive framework of approach ever devised in the entire brief history of physics.

The new cosmic approach resolves all (the old and new, the external as well as the internal) contradictions in an all-round-way, and once-and-for-all to see.

It is the first ever solution and proposal by a Filipino in theoretical physics and cosmology. It is going to be printed and published in the U.S.A. .

[kuroihikari]

You do realize, Mojowatcher that there are several theories of the beginning of the universe, some of which involve a Big Bang, but not all of them implying that the Big Bang is an absolute beginning?

These theories are out there, there's no conspiracy by keepers to limit our research options.

[Mojowatcher]

Yup! Like I said, kuroihikari, it is a hotly debated issue.

But how come the keepers are conveying the impression that the big bang is the only working hypothesis?

What about the other hypotheses, they are something that the people aren't familiar with? We haven't heard much of them by our scientist writers.

As we all know, there are no data to support either one of the hypotheses, such as, the simultaneous big bang, cycle of big bangs, or no-bang at all.

[skye_phoenix]

Oh and regarding Big Bang and other hypothesis and/or theories that scientists came up with, to explain how everything all began, well, I use to accept them as if they were as precious as diamonds, you know, because I want to feel and believe that I'm smart. But! Common sense tells me they don't really make sense, all of these theories/hypothesis about the beginning of the universe, according to science, has a common denominator "we all came from nothing that turned into something but we'll still end up as nothing in the nothingness that we all came from." Makes perfect sense doesn't it?

And that's what science can't explain, how the "Nothing" became "Something", without the need for a Creator. Most scientists are so afraid to be labeled "biased" that they try their best to take God out of the picture, to the point that they themselves believe the lie as if it is the ultimate truth and dragged lots of people with their delusions.

Yup! I know many will raise their eyebrows because what I just said is unacceptable, but who really decides what's acceptable or what's unacceptable, if we are nothing that became, temporarily something and will go back to being nothing? And we almost didn't even turned into something, had it not been for some universal freak accident.

I could go on and on, but since I'm lazy and will end up as nothing anyway, what's the point? And don't bother arguing, you'll just be arguing with nothing about nothing which will most likely result to nothing.

[Mojowatcher]

I never said there is a conspiracy, kuroihikari. But that's ok with me if you wanna put it that way.

Care to explain why the totalitarian keepers named the Higgs boson the God-Particle even if it wasn't approve by the discoverer himself, Peter Higgs?

Can you enlighten us also what is this particular boson about and how it differs from the other bosons?

[skye_phoenix]

Oooops...I just turned my first comment into nothing, argh!

I think I said something like this:
We can't abandon science, because there is a scientist in all of us, how can we therefore abandon what's part of us?

And Science is power, if in the wrong hands...to just use your imagination.

Oh and did I say all scientists? Well, that's not what I meant. And I didn't say that there is a conspiracy, nope that's not what I meant either.

And didn't you understand the last part of my post?

"don't bother arguing, you'll just be arguing with nothing about nothing which will most likely result to nothing."

Don't know if you believe that we came from nothing, but that goes for you too.

[Mojowatcher]

Skye phoenix, thanks for joining. It's ok to withdraw or rectify mistakes, we are only humans. We are only exploring the full spectrum of reality to find the real central issue and solutions.

[Mojowatcher]

Skye phoenix I fully agree with you as regards the irrational exercise of wisdom. As we all know, the keepers are linked to the exercise of irrational power with the atomic bomb. And we don't want that to happen again.

We are all trying to avoid self-destruction here, thus, the mentioned Top Secret Codeword in a top secret race among the keepers -reductionism is entirely not unfounded.

If you can imagine the destruction that the atomic bomb can do to the human race you can also imagine what a gravity machine can do if in the wrong hands. It can be used to suck up an island like the Philippines or even an entire continent.

Of course, the standard line of the keepers is that it can be used to solve the energy problems and the likes.

Thus, I say reductionism isn't the real central issue in science. It is not a priority.

Even if ever I found out the missing puzzle on how to combine the two incoherent scientific theories with the new cosmic approach I will not reveal it here or to anyone else.

[Mojowatcher]

Para sa akin tapoz na ang usefulness ng Expanding Universe Idea. Dapat abandon na natin. Bakit kamo?

Sabi ni Einstein ay ganito:matter cause’s space to curve, but if energy and matter are balance, there is no curvature—and the universe is flat. So, who says it is expanding? Only the totalitarian keepers say so.

[Mojowatcher]

Usefulness saan? Sa intellectual struggle.

E bakit? kasi d na sya consistent sa latest observation. Sabi ng mga experimenters na nka discobri noong 1998 the expansion is accelerating.

Aba laking gulat daw nila! D b nkaka tawa un? Sinabi nga sa atin ni Einstein di sya bilog parang lobo ng mga bata kundi flat sya tlaga! That's according to his E=mC(square).

[Frank_Macky]

...For example, John Hogan said that science has reached its usefulness for it has already described practically everything. The End of Science (1996).

In addition, Günter Stent’s Paradoxes of Progress (1998), who have even gone so far as to argue that science as a discipline has finished its work; that there is nothing important left for science to discover that no further revolutions lie ahead and so on.

Moreover, Stephen Hawking pronounced in 1992 that it is the end of physics. His book Gödel’s theorem and the end of physics explains why he believes so.

The way I see it, Science - which has been the guiding paradigm of human civilization for probably the last one or two centuries - is the expression/exploration of a particular philosophy - the philosophy of Materialism essentially.

Such a mindset was definitely far from being the primary one that ruled the minds of people in the past, but the evolution of history has decreed that it is the one that guides our current age.

This is essentially the philosophy which self-described "skeptics" such as Randi et al espouse. Basically, for them, something which can not be explained in terms of the Materialist philosophy is bunk. This is pretty much the case with their debunking of homeopathy (and frankly that debunking makes a lot of sense to humans of our age who have been thoroughly indoctrinated in this philosophy) where they state that the dilutions of the substances in homeopathic cures are so miniscule as to have no meaningful 'physical' interactions and thus cannot have any "real, physical" effect.

The homeopaths will then go on to claim to posit some "unscientific" explanation - perhaps vibrations (or whatnot) - for why their cures work. Of course, because such suppositions cannot be couched in orthodox scientific language, they come out sounding ridiculous. But, empirically, it would seem that quite often, these "unscientific cures" actually work! So, you have skeptics trot out their catch-all term - placebo effect - to supposedly "explain" what might be going on, while blithely ignoring the fact that this term is probably even more meaningless and undefined than the explanations being offered by those providing the alternative cures.

Anyway, if one looks closely at it, the Materialist philosophy (like any other philosophy I suppose) needs certain axioms - ideas that are taken for granted, assumed correct and unassailable. The "propaganda" and demonstration behind Science is so effective, in fact, (e.g. "the marvels of modern science") that whereas in previous ages, such axioms were recognized for what they are (e.g. arbitrary to some degree), suddenly the mass of people today have ended up believing that those axioms CANNOT BE CHALLENGED AT ALL and that to question them is to believe in "magical thinking" (a pejorative term).

For example, in physics, the guiding principle for the longest time was that there can never be such a thing as "spooky action at a distance". No instantaneous interactions are possible... everything must be mediated by some "physical" (or at least measurable... with physical instruments that is... ) phenomenon and such phenomenon CANNOT be faster than the speed of light.

I think more recently physicists have recast and subtly altered their vocabulary more in terms of information theory, but the essential principles are still supposed to apply. But in fact, physics - which is the spearhead of just how far our Materialist philosophy can take us - has already been revealing to us not only that the cherished axioms of Materialism have to be rethought, but our notions of things such as causality and the arrow of time as well!

Because Science itself depends on the acceptance of philosophical ideas such as cause-and-effect and the idea of "material" (energy and matter having been proved to be the same thing) interaction, the fact that physics has advanced so far as to eventually pull the rug under the validity of such ideas is, I believe, what caused a lot of leading minds to declare that "Science is over" or make some similar statements.

Einstein already realized that certain "metaphysical" axioms (such as uniform flow of time) needed to be discarded (his critical thinking supposedly helped on by his exposure to Kant as a teenager), but the genius himself clung on stubbornly to other notions (and very justifiably so, because without such a framework, a lot of things would not make sense). But today we have experiments such as the below:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...beforehand.ars

which threaten to totally obliterate just about all the remaining philosophical assumptions behind "science" as we understand it today. (With respect to particles, we still find it convenient to explain things in terms of such, but it would seem that this is just out of habit, since this was one of the most easily given up axioms) The Democritus-Newton idea of atoms clumping together to make up the stuff that we perceive has long become passe and even a grade-school student can parrot the notion that "energy is matter and vice versa" but that is still pretty much the underlying philosophical worldview that girds our interpretation of our perceptions.

[Mojowatcher]

Hi Franky Macky! Thanks for joining in.

[Mojowatcher]

To all humans, scientists, physicists, cosmologists of the entire planet Earth!!!

Humans are the most endangered species, and we are trying to avoid self-destruction here, as well as, avoiding nature’s destruction's. The Earth is still exposed as it was in the past to mega tsunami, mega volcanic eruptions, mega climate change, mega asteroid impacts and so on.


In the last instance, it’s man against nature. So, the real central issue with respect to the intellectual struggle is the ultimate survival of the human species in our lonely planet.


Before humans can solve the external contradictions in nature humans must first resolve the internal contradictions.

So, therefore, we can only tackle correctly the external contradictions such as the figuring out of the many mysteries and puzzles of the universe after we resolve the internal contradictions.

We all know now that the seemingly two competing visions aren't only the available power tools at our disposal. But the keepers decidedly rejected the new theory of knowledge in favor of their doctrines of creations and not for science.

Science is stuck in our intellectual struggle because the ruling keepers haven’t only thought that the two competing visions are enough tools but the monopoly of correct knowledge.

Clearly, the contradictions that science encountered at this stage of our intellectual struggle to understand the universe isn’t like any other contradictions it has encountered in its brief history.

It is also clear now that the keepers of the two seemingly competing visions, which rule the world of science, have shown the gross incapacity to provide solutions on both the internal and external contradictions, meaning the crisis they created in science.

This is the missing piece of the puzzle that I unraveled: the keepers are entangled with creation because they violated the first law of the new laws of contradictions of the new theory of knowledge by decidedly rejecting it.

My main argument is: why use only the two competing visions when there is a clearly more powerful vision than the two? Thus, I said science is as good as its keepers and its keepers are as good as its tools they utilize at their disposal. But, as it is, the keepers are stuck because their power tools are no longer useful as regards resolving both the internal and the external contradictions and conflicts.

The following are the principal contradictions. As mentioned already in my postings in the many threads of this site, I have already identified the real nature of the principal contradiction, and resolved all the contradictions in an-all-round way, and once-and-for-all to see.

So, I will not bother you anymore on the secondary contradictions, I feel this would suffice at the moment to move on and advance science to the next higher stage. Those who are interested on the details can buy my book. It is going to be printed and published in the U.S.A. .

The Internal Contradictions (Principal)
1. No one can deny that physics evolved out of philosophy. The principal contradiction at this stage is one of philosophy and not technical such as devising new theories, postulating or not even a new math.

And it can only be resolved by a better philosophy and that is precisely the new theory of knowledge, aka the new world vision, which the keepers decidedly rejected since 1905. If it isn't deterministic or probabilistic it can only be dialectics, the new modified dialectics.

2.After Einstein, there is no free inquiry in the real sense of the word. Only the purely technical aspects are entertained in the world of science of the keepers, thus, I say it is the bastion of the totalitarian keepers.

The External Contradictions (Principal)
1.At this current stage the principal external contradiction is the key shocker of 1998.

As pointed out already the accelerating expansion so-called is only a mystery if you have the two competing visions at the back of your head.


The next remaining question now is: shall we abandon the two competing visions or just include a new world vision with a new power tool?

I have already made myself clear about the new cosmic approach; it doesn't only recognize the two competing visions but enjoins them in a new era of clarity and purpose in science.

All right, that's if their works are for the betterment of humans and its ultimate survival and not of chaining the mind with their doctrines of creations.

[Frank_Macky]

No one knows now why science was invented by our ancient ancestors because the keepers of the two competing visions have fully abandoned the real central issue of survival.

Pfffft.... Actually those who are well read can easily discern when the attitudes of science started being embraced. The art of logical argument seems to have been developed close to its modern form by the Greeks.

The application of mathematics to physical theories together with the logical approach - e.g. the modern form of science - began around the era of Renaissance - Copernicus, Galileo, Newton et al's vision of a Clockwork Universe - one governed not by divine fiat but by Natural Laws which are supposed to be deducible not by appeal to "God" and "Divine Writings" but by scientific-empirical approaches and hypotheses.

It was a very powerful vision and has come to rule our thinking. (and that is precisely why we stuck with it - because it brought enormous tangible benefits) But physics has pushed this vision to its limits and as you seem to be hinting at, we need to start casting around for something to succeed it.

The irony is... while many realize this, we still have people who have not even come around to this current vision and are STILL STUCK WITH THE OLD, OBSOLETE VISION. e.g. you have "theists", like XIII (but by no means limited to him), who are hopelessly stuck and lost in the quagmire of pre-Materialist thinking at a time when even the Materialist viewpoint is becoming obsolete. And no, going to the next step doesn't mean discarding Materialism and going back to the more naive viewpoint that preceded it. That would be a bit like insisting on using teletype-based computer when PCs are already on the verge of being replaced by iPads and thinking that somehow iPads and teletype-based computers are equivalent...

Science is stuck in our intellectual struggle because the ruling keepers haven’t only thought that the two competing visions are enough tools but the monopoly of correct knowledge....

It is also clear now that the keepers of the two seemingly competing visions, which rule the world of science, have shown the gross incapacity to provide solutions on both the internal and external contradictions, meaning the crisis they created in science...

This is the missing piece of the puzzle that I unraveled: the keepers are entangled with creation because they violated the first law of the new laws of contradictions of the new theory of knowledge by decidedly rejecting it.

Who are these "ruling keepers"? You make it sound like they may be some Elite Lizard Race ala what loons like David Icke posit. If so, these Lizards are pretty dumb indeed to have allowed the Internet to be invented since that seems to start exposing them to a lot of people.

The more mundane explanation is that these "ruling keepers" are none other than the modern philosophers of our age. I don't think Western philosophers have been pulling their weight lately though and instead we seem to be turning to Eastern Thinking for the next stage. Very few western philosophers (with the exception of a few such as Wittgenstein... and Lacan perhaps?) seem to realize that they are stuck in the language that they use to philosophize with. To use a particular language is to take as given the metaphysical assumptions that language was built on! It is fiendishly awkward to reason your way out of these assumptions as long as you use that language.

Clearly, the contradictions that science encountered at this stage of our intellectual struggle to understand the universe isn’t like any other contradictions it has encountered in its brief history.

My main argument is: why use only the two competing visions when there is a clearly more powerful vision than the two?

and what would this third vision be?

Thus, I said science is as good as its keepers and its keepers are as good as its tools they utilize at their disposal. But, as it is, the keepers are stuck because their power tools are no longer useful as regards resolving both the internal and the external contradictions and conflicts.

Well I don't know about "internal/external contradictions and conflicts", but these "power tools" of science or what I consider the guiding philosophical assumptions of science are indeed "under attack" and by none other than bleeding edge scientific observations. Irony? No. It's just human understanding and consciousness progressing further.

The Internal Contradictions (Principal)
1. No one can deny that physics evolved out of philosophy. The principal contradiction at this stage is one of philosophy and not technical such as devising new theories, postulating or not even a new math.

I don't know about physics "evolving from philosophy" per se - what is more clear to me is that we took Materialism as a guiding axiom and tried to see how far we can go with it. The tool for accomplishing that was physics and boy, did we get really really far (at least as per our current level of awareness).

And it can only be resolved by a better philosophy and that is precisely the new theory of knowledge, aka the new world vision, which the keepers decidedly rejected since 1905. If it isn't deterministic or probabilistic it can only be dialectics, the new modified dialectics.

Errr... what do you mean by "modified dialectics"? I'm not even sure what this much-bandied word "dialectics" really seriously means other than in the generic sense of "logical inquiry".

2.After Einstein, there is no free inquiry in the real sense of the word. Only the purely technical aspects are entertained in the world of science of the keepers, thus, I say it is the bastion of the totalitarian keepers.

Hmmm... are you saying Einstein made the last "free inquiry"? Einstein himself was actually of the "old guard". There are new inquiries and discoveries being made that go beyond stuff that Einstein felt "just had to be". God DID play dice. Stuff even more unbelievable than spooky-action-at-a-distance; such as reverse causality (e.g. stuff in the "future" affecting those in the "past") - which you can basically read as violation of causality - seem to be demonstrated in the labs.

So no... while there certainly are many authorities who cling to the old orthodoxy that we are waiting to die off (*) so as to make new viewpoints more palatable, I reject the conspiratorial notion of "totalitarian keepers" which strikes me as so much tinfoil-hattery.

Also turning Einstein into some sort of Jesus (BC/AD, pre-Einstein/after Einstein) strikes me as nothing but a cheap stunt. There were many profound physics thinkers after Einstein, it's just that they did not get into the popular view like he did. So this would be like trying to appeal to the masses at the cost of ignoring the real progress in thinking that came after Einstein, of which there are many names you can mention. No person/s locked the door and threw away the key after Einstein, except maybe for those people who just didn't bother to read up on the literature and weren't aware of those who came after him.



(*)to paraphrase Planck who said "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it" See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradig...aradigm_shifts

[Mojowatcher]

Whew! I thought I was alone here in this site. Can you beat that? That was unexpected.

Hi Frank, relax! It’s cool man. I come in peace.

We are just attempting to explore the full spectrum of ultimate realities, the inconsistency or the double standard that exists, and the great confusion in the world of science of the keepers.

Obviously, you aren’t aware that science is stuck because the keepers were entangled with creation. That particular message was my response to Sakiman based on his questions, and it was deliberately taken from the thread “big bang disproved” not knowing it would turn out perfect.

Ask me, why?

Ok. You just proved my point on one of my arguments: The old keepers decidedly rejected the new theory not for science but for their firm beliefs on the doctrines of creations of the two seemingly competing visions. What a lucky day.

Believe me Frank! Accidents can happen! That wasn’t intentional. Anyway, thanks for your innocence and co-operation Frank! Next time ask first if you aren’t up to what’s going on.

Don’t be a great come down like Wittgenstein. I never expected a furious reaction from a philosopher like you.

He he he! Frank, I'll give you a chance to read my intro, particularly my warning. You are excuse for now. I really believe that you are a philosopher but not a real keeper.

[Mojowatcher]

Kuroihikari, you do realize now the importance of my intro?

Haven’t I told you the mistakes of the contemporaries of the grand keeper? Einstein was successful in engaging them.

We know now why they eventually led us to the great confusion. Instead of plugging the holes they gave their opponents loopholes.