Should we abandon science now?

[Mojowatcher]

Hey Doombot! Thanks for the tip but I had a bad connections yesterday with my dsl.

Did you notice that extra ordinary event?

He said, “I reject”!! That was exactly what I was illustrating in my discussions about the old keepers in rejecting the new theory of knowledge. Remember?

[Mojowatcher]

As previously mentioned in my other postings, the keepers decidedly rejected the new theory for they are fully devoted to their doctrines of creations. They brought them into the realms of science, thus, a violation of the first law of the new laws of contradictions of the new world vision even as they suppressed it.

This law said that any other use of the two competing visions lead to creation. Because it is always connected to religion eventually confusion.

That's just one of the extraordinary conscious efforts in the suppression of disquieting facts mentioned in my intro of the “Should we abandon science now?

As a consequence, they deprived the succeeding generations of scientists of the new power tool. They lost focus, and they were visually impaired to look at the total situation.

Instead of identifying the contradictions they identified themselves to either of the two competing visions. No option to choose from, no way to make wise decision –no way to advance. In that sense, the keepers got stuck and science for that matter.

Instead of plugging the holes the mechanical philosophical materialist scientists gave them loop holes. As a matter of fact, the greatest contemporary mechanical philosophical materialist scientist I have ever encountered is Stephen Hawking. As we will see, he also gave the latest loop hole.

Even as the derivatives of the two seemingly competing visions, determinism rather than probabilism is dominant in nature, nevertheless, they aren’t the real central issue as the ruling keepers would want us to believe. They are a great deflection to the real central issue of survival.

Accident or no-accident is not the question for it is a deflection.

The next question is: shall we abandon the expanding universe idea now that it is no longer consistent with observations, or retain quantum mechanics, the most proven theory in science?

[Mojowatcher]

Sometimes causes are preceded by effects, and vice versa

Obviously, Frank is unaware and so he is excuse for now.

He could never be worse than the grand keeper Einstein when he succumbed to irrationality. A neuro scientist said that’s actually what happens when a logically minded person is driven crazy.

He was referring, to Einstein when he was horrified with the odd behavior of the extremely tiny particles of the small world of the atom.

Remember the 32 quantum states? Sometimes causes are preceded by effects, and vice versa; and sometimes they are simultaneous. This is clearly empirical evidence that the universe is not interested in its beginnings but the keepers.

Because of that quantum state, he unleashed his God-does-not-play-dice dictum. And as mentioned also in my illustrations, he changed his mind drastically to have written “the evil quanta”.

Of course, we all know now that his second initiative was unleashed to firmly re-establish the basic doctrines of creations of the keepers into the realms of scientific theories, which he earlier demystified with his relativity principle.

[Mojowatcher]

By predicting the beginning of time it predicted its own downfall. Those were the words of Hawking. Like all manmade scientific theories will ultimately falter at some future date, general relativity has been falsified by Hawking in the late 70s. It breaks down into two extreme situations of singularities, the beginning of time, as in big bang and the end of time, as in black hole.

But, does that mean Einstein wasn’t successful?

In reality, Einstein was very successful in laying the foundations of the developments of the big bang and expanding universe. These scientific theories are now intertwined into our system of beliefs. Thus, the above keeper who is not a scientist would just react without investigating.

If you check the backgrounds of the key players in building our confidence to the big bang and the expanding universe ideas, they belong to either of the two camps of the keepers.

For example, using the field equation of general relativity theory of gravity, the Dutch mathematician De Sitter was the first to show mathematically the idea of an empty space necessarily expands, hence, the De Sitter Space now. Also, the Russian mathematician Alexander Friedman was also the first to show the expanding universe.

In 1927, the idea of expansion was boosted further by no less than the Belgian priest and astronomer Georges Lemaitre, (undoubtedly another defender of the doctrine of creation of philosophical idealism). He raised the idea that the universe originated from the explosion of a primary atom of enormous density at an extremely high temperature.

An American accountant whose hubby is astronomy, Edwin Hubble, started to catalog the redshifts of the observable galaxies in 1922 and published his work finally 1929. Some said that it’s exactly what one is expected in a De Sitter space.

At any rate, this provided the supporting evidence for the receding away (redshift light) of galaxies or as the keepers of the oldest vision thought of as an expanding universe— that the light of distant galaxies was universally shifted toward the red end of the spectrum of sodium (Redshift). Sodium is a basic element of all galaxies.

It fits perfectly to the keepers’ idea of a single big bang and a geometrically sphere-shaped universe that is expanding. In other words, these old keepers deliberately discarded the other possibilities like simultaneous or cycle of big bangs or the no-bang at all even as they have totally suppressed and ignored the new theory of knowledge and the fundamental law of contradictions in nature.

To summarize, George Gamow, a former student of Friedman advanced the idea of the big bang in 1948, which is actually the first working hypothesis to support further the expanding universe idea. By the 1950s, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church pronounced that the big bang is in accord with the Bible.

In 1964, two radio engineers detected white noise on their war vintage microwave. It turned out to be the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Of course, we know now that the missing shadow of galaxy clusters proves that the CMB radiation doesn't emanate from the so-called big bang, and so we can throw it out. That's according to the astronomers who analyzed the data sent by WMAP.

However, we cannot discount the fact of history. You can never tell that a smart aleck from the Council of Shadows at the Vatican may come up with an irrational idea.

At any rate, if Constantine the Great was able to transmogrify two religions into Christianity, the modern Church have seemingly adapted likewise with the so-called Orders of Knowledge converging into one to keep up with the times. So, I’m sure the Vatican will not tolerate any misguided element from its own ranks.

If ever the Council of the Dark Shadows reconvenes it would not be for some smart aleck and ambitious priest who may conjure up a scenario from these missing shadows. I would not even venture to think that they will entertain the idea for it may fire up once again a clash—the differences between science and religion. For its own advantage it is better to be the defender of modern science now.

Moreover, because it has learned from its past mistakes I feel that it will never allow albino-like Retrievers of the Council of Dark Shadow to suppress the disconcerting facts of the missing shadows. In fairness, and in fact, having recognized its mistakes, I gathered that it is encouraging free debates now on all matters.

If I’m not mistaken including the authenticity of the Bible, the old Scriptures, and the Gospels of the New Testaments of the Essenes’ found in the Nag Hamadi desert and the Dead Sea Scrolls that are easily retrieve and read in the worldwide internet. But if the past is the prologue expect the unexpected!

[Mojowatcher]

Split in Philosophy

Largely not known is that the great basic question that split philosophy into two great camps is about the relationship between Spirit and Nature.

Those who answered that Spirit is primary belong to the camp of the various schools of philosophical idealism. Those who answered that Nature is primary belong to the camp of the various schools of philosophical materialism.

The new theory of knowledge (new world vision) is aka dialectical philosophical materialism is distinct from the mechanical philosophical materialism and the Hegelian conscious dialectics.

[Mojowatcher]

Yes, you are correct in asking that if the new theory of knowledge is really a far better new world vision than the two then how come the keepers rejected it?

Definitely, the old keepers decidedly rejected it not for science but for their firm beliefs in the doctrines of creations of the two competing visions. It is not by accident that they rejected but by designs.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly the crux of the problem of the keepers why they are stuck. They are allergic to it now because it is a clear and present danger to their authority.

[Mojowatcher]

In theology, they are referred to as the Orders of Knowledge.

But, in philosophy, they refer to the two competing visions as philosophical idealism (aka western philosophy) and philosophical materialism.

The third or new world vision is also known as the new theory of knowledge aka dialectical philosophical materialism as distinct from the purely mechanical or vulgar philosophical materialism.

In epistemology, they are referred to as doctrines of development, thus, the third vision is actually known as the new theory of knowledge.

It is a far better doctrine of development (from non-knowledge to knowledge) for it doesn’t merely prepares you mentally from being led to confusion but its new power tool is effective in quickly clarifying the issues.

[doombot]

Hey Doombot! Thanks for the tip but I had a bad connections yesterday with my dsl.

Did you notice that extra ordinary event?

He said, “I reject”!! That was exactly what I was illustrating in my discussions about the old keepers in rejecting the new theory of knowledge. Remember?

sorry i wasn't able to catch up with you. your mind is to fast for me. hehehe

who says reject? and what extraordinary event?

[Mojowatcher]

Some writers refer to them simply as the two competing visions but in the world of science they are the two standard and conventional conceptual tools: determinism and probabilism (indeterminism).

The former is usually referred to by its proponents when they assert the positive opinion that there-are-no-accident even as their opponents, the latter, regard that there are accidents in nature.

[doombot]

mr mojo.

im like a fish on the fishtank right now, you feeding me big chunks of feeds. but my small mouth can only feed on small chunks.

please feed me small chunks mr mojo. little by little.

i cant catch up with you. my brain only functions that much. heheheh

[Mojowatcher]

Frank rejected my assertions as regards one of the disquieting facts even as the old keepers decidedly rejected the new theory of knowledge.

Obviously, he is unaware of the new theory of knowledge. In reality, this is also a manifestation of the on going intellectual suppression.

According to Plato in his The Republik the Greek philosopher Zeno deserved to be called the inventor of dialectics. The modern version now is called new modified dialectics. The best contribution in the development of the science of dialectics were from Hegel, called conscious dialectics. It was developed further and put into practice in politics by Engels, Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong.

This is the reason I am re-posting again the basic question that split philosophy into two great camps. Obviously, he is one philosopher who made up his mind and is lazy to read.

Despite the evidences I have presented in this site, he cannot accept the fact that the world of science is ruled by the keepers of the two seemingly competing visions.

In reality, this is also a manifestation of the great success of Einstein in having firmly re-established the basic doctrines of creations of the two seemingly competing visions which he concealed in his general relativity.

Scientific theories are now intertwined into our system of beliefs, such as, the big bang and the expanding universe ideas.

This is the crux of the conundrum that Einstein created when he unleashed his 2nd initiative. We were all entangled with creation even as there are other hypotheses on the issue of the beginning of time.

[Mojowatcher]

The Randomness Camp Bothered?
In reality, the defenders of the anthropic principle are the keepers of the mechanical philosophical materialism and so, it is not really difficult to understand their doctrine of creation.

Their argument is like this: The defenders of the anthropic principle argue that the Big Bang happened some billion years ago, because that is approximately the time needed for intelligent life to develop.

To reach our present situation, an early generation of stars had to develop; then these stars turned some of the original hydrogen and helium into elements like carbon and oxygen, out of which man was ultimately made.

The stars then exploded as supernovas and out of their fragments other stars and planets were formed, including our solar system, which would be about five thousand million years old. During the first one or two million years of the earth’s existence, temperatures were too high to allow the development of any complicated structure.

The remaining three billion years would be the time frame of a long process of biological evolution, which led from the simplest organism to the human being.

The anthropic principle implies basically, that accident or chance is not the dominant force of nature; instead, natural processes are found to be channeled in some way in line with a plan. The existence of in determination and random events in the evolution of the cosmos would not rule out the presence of an ultimate principle of order.

In fact, it is known that physical systems which have become unstable tend to recover at a higher level of organization.

Obviously, the points involved in the anthropic principle are more in line with the doctrine of creation than the theory of chance. However, one should not rush into thinking that it is an outstandingly clear proof of theological principles. Those were adapted from the work of Jose Morales, author of Creation Theology.

[Frank_Macky]

Mojowatcher starting to remind me of timecube.com ...

[Mojowatcher]

It's ok doombot! Those were intended for everyone.

It really takes time to grasp the new ideas I am presenting because we were all completely indoctrinated.

As I said, the contradictions at this stage aren't like any other contradictions that the brief history of physics or science has encountered in the past.

In my historical chart, we have a parallel in history. The more than 2000ys rule of the Aristotelian physics and cosmology were adapted by the Christian successors of Aristotle. Of course, we all know now why it setback also the human enterprise development.

As pointed out previously, the modern Church has likewise adapted the two seemingly competing visions.

[Frank_Macky]

It's ok doombot! Those were intended for everyone.

It really takes time to grasp the new ideas I am presenting because we were all completely indoctrinated.

it would be nice if you actually presented something other than [mostly] incoherent innuendoes about "keepers" and "new visions".

I do resonate with the notion of science as being a paradigm whose envelope we have [finally] pushed to its limits rather than as some ultimate explanation of our reality. But other than that, I frankly have no idea WTF you are getting at.

[doombot]

it would be nice if you actually presented something other than [mostly] incoherent innuendoes about "keepers" and "new visions".

I do resonate with the notion of science as being a paradigm whose envelope we have [finally] pushed to its limits rather than as some ultimate explanation of our reality. But other than that, I frankly have no idea WTF you are getting at.

that's the thing i have been asking the whole time. heheheh

mr. mojo please kindly tell us

[plokiju]

should we abandon science? no

we can't explain these things, this can be attributable to our lack of knowledge and the current limitations of our technologies:

our knowledge of the universe or of the things around us is "limited." There are a lot of things out there that we can't see or observe by using our current telescopes, radars, etc. Sometimes these things baffle or even awe the scientists that are investigating them. This will lead to a new step in their study. After they observe or investigate these new things, they then add these things/variables to their theories or calculations. this will lead to the development of our science and our technology.

when something is disproved, it doesn't mean that we should discard it and give up. if something can't be explained YET, then use another method/way to solve it. curiosity, that's what drives science.

yes, the things that you mentioned are still under debate. should we abandon science just because of that? again, no

[Mojowatcher]

I'm really sorry to all of you, I messed up. I made a mistake in sending my draft addressed to Sakiman and statement to humans, scientists and physicists, which I previously mentioned that I deliberately took out from the Big Bang Disproved thread.

In this connection, I withdraw all my irresponsible statements made against Frank. I apologize for my negligence. I would like to thank him also, and doombot for pointing it out to me.


Sorry guys, to err is human.

Mr. Moderator, I respectfully ask that this mentioned particular wrong statements addressed to humans and so on be deleted. Thank you.

[Mojowatcher]

Frank, I apolize. Please forgive me.

[Mojowatcher]

doombot, thank you for pointing out my mistake. I'm sorry. I am preparing another statement to clear that erroneous message to humans.