Followup to podcast FDR2451 (plenty to say!)

[RuralRon]

This is a follow up to the Sunday call in show of August 11, 2013 (FDR2451) where I was the last caller. I don't know if Stefan will have the time or care to comment, but I would greatly appreciate it if he would, or anyone else for that matter. I don't think on my feet as well as Stefan, and I am not as articulate verbally as I am in writing. 

 

As I tend to be rather verbose I will post my thoughts in several segments. If I could just be more concise…

 

I'm saving the deeper discussion about faith till the last segment, and I have much to say about that, including what appeared to be Stef contradicting himself. But perhaps I am mistaken. It wouldn't be the first time.

 

PART 1

I have spent several hours thinking this over. The process of writing and thinking are inseparable and this is why I have such voluminous posts. I don't stop writing until I feel like I've covered the entire spectrum of the topic. That's probably due to being offline and outside of real time. The writing and result would be much different if I were in a chat room! I will try to limit the size of this kickoff post. Let's see how that works out…

 

The conversation Sunday was about the tension I feel between relying on empirical information and the realization that I can't know everything. 

 

After discussing this with Stefan it seemed I was confused about what faith is. Dictionary definitions differ subtly, and this was the cause of some of my confusion. Although the discussion was helpful, I'm still troubled by the questions, How can I know if something is unprovable, and what role does intuition and inspiration play in how I figure that out?

 

Stefan took the position that faith is belief in the unprovable. Dictionary.com defines it as "Belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact". When I use the word faith I don't always use it in a religious context, as in that perfect example. My comprehension of what Stefan said was that he agreed with that definition. 

 

We went on to talk about intuition and inspiration, but I'll stop there for now and see what kind of response that stimulates. If you liked the discussion Sunday read on for more analysis and questions.

[FiddlertheLeper]

I listened to your call on the Sunday show and felt it was a good topic, I tend to agree with Stefan's definition of faith as it pertains to most things, but I think like most words it's context can be quite important as well.  I think in general my definition of Faith is something that does not need to be validated by facts or evidence.  Which is pretty much what the dictionary and Stefan said, the difference between the Dictionary definition and mine is just the in the dictionary definition things like logic or guess work is kind of covered, mine mainly pertains to a belief in which the facts are insignificant (don't matter, which isn't the same as not being based on them, in the example given that you posted, I assume "he" would still accept his belief or faith as being invalid if the facts didn't support his hypothesis.  The way I use it is to describe those belief's that can continue to exist even when contrary evidence or facts is presented, like Religion, and that's the kind of Faith I think you need to steer away from at all costs) Having a belief in something you have no evidence for, but evidence for or against IS possible (and a willingness to revise or release the belief if facts show it to be untrue) would be a different issue to me.  I think this is more the kind of Faith that is throwing you for a loop.  Let me know if i am on the right track. 

[RuralRon]

I listened to your call on the Sunday show and felt it was a good topic...

 

Thanks, glad you enjoyed the topic. 

 

You appear to understand my dilema, it being related to a distinction between things that may be possible to prove vs those that are not, such as knowing events in the future. And even that may be possible  according to Einstein's mathematics. Sometimes it's best to simply say I don't know. But that answer leaves the question open, and given how indoctrinated society is in the concept of duality (either you're with us or against us) often leaves people in an uncomfortable state. 

 

The conversation didn't focus on faith until near the end of the discussion, and after reflecting on it later I realized my dilema was more closely related to the provability of an assertion. But provability is an essential element of the definition of faith (that something of faith cannot be proven).

 

Your definition, in which provability isn't an essential element of faith seems to be at odds with Stefan's, though not necessarily with all dictionaries. It sounds to me like your definition may also arise from some past influence of religion on you. Do you think that's possible?

[RuralRon]

PART 2

If it is possible to devise an experiment to test a hypothesis does that mean it can't be a question of faith?

 

What if I have intuition that something may be provable, such as when doing scientific research. My "gut" motivates me to pursue truth, to seek proof based on empirical evidence even if that pursuit flies in the face of what is already known. Perhaps new evidence will be uncovered that refines or invalidates what was previously accepted as truth. This describes a process that can lead to new discoveries and to new knowledge. Perhaps my intuition inspires me to investigate. Perhaps that's just simple curiosity.

 

We all know that such pursuits are often seen as aggression against "common sense", or rebellion to authority and those so rigidly locked into the status quo they reject other possibilities. The Wright brothers were considered to be the lunatic fringe until they birthed an industry based on aerodynamics. Genetics was once considered to be the cold hard blueprint for physiological characteristics, but research has now demonstrated that the environment does influence genetics (epigenetics). That is an explanation for adaptive changes that take place from one generation to the next within the same species.

 

When Stefan objected to my statement that I often felt as though he relied too much on empirical evidence he quickly disagreed and offered his exploration of dreams as a defense. I readily agreed with him about that, given the context there is obviously speculative and open to interpretation.

 

The 2nd law of thermodynamics says perpetual motion is impossible. I am going to go out on a limb here and say I question that, despite no "accepted" empirical evidence demonstrating it is possible. Besides, that "law" is true for closed systems, but not when an outside force acts upon it. Although the Earth is considered to be a closed ecosystem, it isn't. The sun and moon both exert their influences on the Earth.

 

What makes an electron spin around the nucleus of an atom? What about the rotation of planets around a star? Are those not literal examples of perpetual motion? If you counter with arguments based on time (eventually the orbit of a planet will decay and crash into the star, like man-made satellites do), how can a theory involving extremely long periods of time be proven? Perhaps by mathematics you say?

[LovePrevails]

Did you mean something along the lines of: "According to philosophy, as described on FDR, if someone predicted that there were such a thing as Radio Waves 200 years ago they would look crazy, because there was no evidence for their existence, but now we would know they were right." ??

[FiddlertheLeper]

Thanks, glad you enjoyed the topic. 

 

You appear to understand my dilema, it being related to a distinction between things that may be possible to prove vs those that are not, such as knowing events in the future. And even that may be possible  according to Einstein's mathematics. Sometimes it's best to simply say I don't know. But that answer leaves the question open, and given how indoctrinated society is in the concept of duality (either you're with us or against us) often leaves people in an uncomfortable state. 

 

The conversation didn't focus on faith until near the end of the discussion, and after reflecting on it later I realized my dilema was more closely related to the provability of an assertion. But provability is an essential element of the definition of faith (that something of faith cannot be proven).

 

Your definition, in which provability isn't an essential element of faith seems to be at odds with Stefan's, though not necessarily with all dictionaries. It sounds to me like your definition may also arise from some past influence of religion on you. Do you think that's possible?

Yes I would say that's a rather large factor in what lead to my personal definition but for me it mostly comes down to a personal dislike of the word, largely influenced by both religion and people who while not religious, use it in the general context used by religion.  I generally steer away from the word because so often it is used with that connotation, though when someone else uses it your kind of forced to deal with in one aspect or another.  now there are uses I don't mind as much such as "I have Faith in my abilities" which to me has a very different meaning.  When used in that sense to me personally it means something far closer to trust, except that faith is not as vulnerable as trust, so it implies a willingness to accept mistakes/failures/short comings, without losing the overall belief in ones capability.  I think one of the main problems is that faith is a word that for most people its meaning is simply assumed, and its also generally (specifically with religion) a very personal word with strong connections to things important to that person.  This makes it much harder to have any objective universally accepted definition in anything other than a dictionary.  Thus my dislike of using it where another word could serve in its place. 

Its very interesting how much a simple word like faith can reveal about a person and the way they think.  Its such a central concept to so many things in our modern lives, (and i have noticed how it's been cleverly inserted into politics since "trust" can be violated, while faith is more impregnable. I.E, "Have faith in your local politician, or President, that he will do what he's promised to do")  at least for those who don't give much thought to its actual meaning.  I hear phrases using it everyday, in situations where its actual meaning would seem out of place or ludicrous.  Either way I think i have stumbled off topic on a rant for long enough, I look forward to reading the rest of your posts on this topic.  Have a wonderful day

 

PART 2

If it is possible to devise an experiment to test a hypothesis does that mean it can't be a question of faith?

 

What if I have intuition that something may be provable, such as when doing scientific research. My "gut" motivates me to pursue truth, to seek proof based on empirical evidence even if that pursuit flies in the face of what is already known. Perhaps new evidence will be uncovered that refines or invalidates what was previously accepted as truth. This describes a process that can lead to new discoveries and to new knowledge. Perhaps my intuition inspires me to investigate. Perhaps that's just simple curiosity.

 

We all know that such pursuits are often seen as aggression against "common sense", or rebellion to authority and those so rigidly locked into the status quo they reject other possibilities. The Wright brothers were considered to be the lunatic fringe until they birthed an industry based on aerodynamics. Genetics was once considered to be the cold hard blueprint for physiological characteristics, but research has now demonstrated that the environment does influence genetics (epigenetics). That is an explanation for adaptive changes that take place from one generation to the next within the same species.

 

When Stefan objected to my statement that I often felt as though he relied too much on empirical evidence he quickly disagreed and offered his exploration of dreams as a defense. I readily agreed with him about that, given the context there is obviously speculative and open to interpretation.

 

The 2nd law of thermodynamics says perpetual motion is impossible. I am going to go out on a limb here and say I question that, despite no "accepted" empirical evidence demonstrating it is possible. Besides, that "law" is true for closed systems, but not when an outside force acts upon it. Although the Earth is considered to be a closed ecosystem, it isn't. The sun and moon both exert their influences on the Earth.

 

What makes an electron spin around the nucleus of an atom? What about the rotation of planets around a star? Are those not literal examples of perpetual motion? If you counter with arguments based on time (eventually the orbit of a planet will decay and crash into the star, like man-made satellites do), how can a theory involving extremely long periods of time be proven? Perhaps by mathematics you say?

 

I wish I was better educated when it came to physics, as I lack the knowledge to really comment at all on the theory in question.  But, my personal opinion on the overall question would be, as long as you understand the obstacles your likely to face, and do have some way you can either validate or invalidate your theory that it's fair game, I'm gonna fall back on an old adage here, and just say "don't put all your eggs in one basket."  Basically as long as you have a good cost/benefit ratio (at least potential) and it's relative to your realistic chances of success then I (personally) don't see any reason not to pursue a truth that intrigues and inspires you.  as for the mindset overall i think this falls into skepticism, just because there is already an answer, doesn't always mean it's the best answer, or the only answer.  Questioning is always fine as long as you keep things logical and empirical.  

[RuralRon]

To LovePrevais:

 

Yes, that's exactly what we're talking about. Just because there isn't empirical evidence doesn't mean a theory is incorrect. And in the example you gave there wouldn't have even been a way to test the theory 200 years ago.

 

Truth will ultimately prevail. Yes, that's a faith statement, but one that seems to be supported by a considerable amount of empirical evidence in my opinion. Secrets and oppression of the Truth seem to keep failing, though not 100%. There is still plenty of untruth out there.

 

With the scientific community moving more and more towards quantum physics and embracing Kant's view there is no absolute truth, the statement may seem odd, as I oppose the corruption of science and the slow migration away from logic and empirical evidence. It's my intuition that gives rise to this faith in Truth. 

 

So the question arises, is it arrogant to ever say "that's impossible"? Based on FDR philosophy and Stefan's perspective that's so deeply rooted in empirical evidence I'd say no. I'll bet Stefan says "That's impossible" much more often than I do. But I understand and generally accept the need for a foundation based on empirical evidence. But when it comes to drawing a conclusion about facts or the lack thereof I'm much less willing (but I sometimes do) to claim "X" is impossible.

 

I am a skeptic of all absolute statements, and the more emphatic a statement is the more I ask questions to get to the root of their steadfastness. 

 

To FiddlerTheLeper:

 

Most excellent points you raise concerning the word faith. I agree, and that's quite possibly what some of my confusion / tension stems from, especially when you consider my past roots in religion. For the sake of this discussion however, we need a working definition, and as you so eloquently explained a dictionary definition (cited in part 1) is the least overloaded and plain to understand. I will continue to use the word based on that definition, but this discussion is not only about the concept of faith (belief without proof) but also how we live or don't live with it. It's at least worth exploring as an exercise in self awareness.

 

But the discussion also involves intuition, inspiration and creativity, and it's my position these are all related. I don't want this to only be about faith.

 

As for your thoughts about pursuing an avenue of research in the face of opposition and on the basis of intuition, I thank you for your words of wisdom and encouragement. Fortunately I am not in an environment such as a university or government subsidized research lab in which that would be a problem. But for those that are what you said is very important.

 

Doing a cost / benefit analysis before embarking on any pursuit is usually a good thing. But it's also possible to over analyze and become paralized in that too. As in so much of life one needs to learn how to strike a good balance.  

 

And don't worry about "Ranting" in this thread, I can be the worst at that. Besides all of your response was quite on topic and contributed positively to the discussion.

[RuralRon]

PART 3

Are "proofs" based upon mathematics empirical or simply abstract theory?

 

There are clearly cases where theories based solely on mathematics are proven by empirical evidence, such as the equations that allow the path of objects in space to be predicted, providing the means for spacecraft navigation for example. Did proof for the accuracy and validity of such equations exist prior to gathering empirical evidence through experimentation? Even the equations predicting the amount of energy released through nuclear fission were later demonstrated to be highly inaccurate by the actual detonation of the Hiroshima bomb. 

 

So how can mathematical formulas be an authority of proof absent empirical evidence when the "constants" used within them may be wrong? In mathematics "inaccurate" = wrong, it is not a science of approximation (statistics aside). To say it provides no value to mankind is blatantly incorrect, but does it constitute proof absent empirical evidence? Can it be said mathematics provides "proof" a planet's orbit will "eventually" crash into it's star?

 

Aren't some theories based on faith, like time travel, despite mathematics telling us it is "theoretically" possible? In my opinion Darwin's evolution of the species is a faith based theory. Evidence is not proof a theory is correct. Sure, evidence is undeniable that evolution within a particular species exists, but none exists to prove one species evolves into another, or so little evidence of that exists the theory doesn't explain why. Why wouldn't there be more evidence of cross-specie animals, or why can't an intermediate species be observed in nature or proven through reproducible genetic experiments right now?

 

I no longer have faith in God or the bible but that doesn't mean I swallow evolution or the status quo hook line and sinker either. 

[RuralRon]

Not too surprised at the lack of discuusion on this aspect. Math, physics & philosophy all combined can be pretty dry I guess.

 

PART 4

Are inspiration and intuition related? Both are an undeniable fact of human existence. Inspiration is a stimulant for creativity, whereas intuition is knowing without conscious reasoning. Both have elements of the unknown, such as their source. Could their source be life itself?

 

Whether intuition arises out of past experience, subconscious processing of our senses or some other influence such as genetics is not known and may not be knowable. Can "other influence" be classified as "inspiration"? 

 

What is the essence of inspiration? What is it's source? Can inspiration be proven, or is it merely a euphemism, an abstract concept? Is it a catch-all bucket we use to describe what motivates humans to action? Can the cause of it be determined? Can it be controlled or forced to occur? Can experiments be devised to investigate inspiration, to find empirical evidence to its cause? Is inspiration provable? If not it must by definition be a religious experience. 

 

If inspiration is defined as "The process of being mentally stimulated to do or feel something, especially to do something creative" as it is by the Apple computer dictionary, then is it "inspirational" to ask someone the question, "What is a mathematical formula where 11 is the answer"? It sure fits the definition, and there's nothing mysterious about the process by which the stimulation occurred. The only thing unprovable is the creative process by which an answer to the question is provided. Inspiration and creativity clearly are different but related. 

[RuralRon]

PART 5

This is the last segment of my follow up. If this post fails to stimulate any discussion I'll be hard pressed to understand why.

 

Empirical evidence or cold hard facts are just raw data. Proof is a claim about facts and a conclusion based on them. It is a demonstration of a cause and effect relationship. Proof is predictive. When does enough evidence and facts exist to support a conclusion? When does a theory become a fact? 

 

If someone claims that intuition or inspiration are real but can't prove it, aren't they espousing a belief based on faith, and is therefore a religious claim? What kind of proof is possible for such a claim? Evidence of creativity is not proof of inspiration is it? If someone says, my intuition tells me X, can that be proven true or false? Attributing X to intuition isn't provable. What about love? Can you prove you love someone? Don't these questions take us back to the fact evidence does not equal proof? 

 

Near the end of the show (2:14:09) I made the statement that "Everyone lives by faith to one degree or another, whether they realize it or not". Stefan disagreed. Yet, at 2:14:52 Stefan admits he does NOT live as though he were going to die tomorrow, saying at 2:15:00 that if he "believed he was going to die tomorrow he would be having a different kind of day". He also said if he claimed he would be alive tomorrow that would be a false claim. How is he not then living on faith, if he is living as though he WILL be alive tomorrow but can't prove it? 

 

He is living day to day on a belief he cannot prove (by his own words at 2:13:57), yet is unwilling to admit that is living on faith. Perhaps Stefan also has some vestigial trappings of religion in his rejection of the word faith. Whether you live as though you will die tomorrow or as though you will be alive, either way you are living on faith because you can't prove the future.

 

How would Stefan answer these questions? I don't know. I can't answer for him. Hopefully he'll tell us himself.

 

Empirical evidence is the basis for rationality. Just the cold hard facts please. But there's more to life than that. Empirical evidence presented throughout history PROVES to us that what we often rely on as truth may actually be false. We have faith in our facts, faith they will hold true in the future. The future is uncertain, unprovable and unknown in the present. Everything we think about the future is based on faith in the present.

 

So I haven't yet come to any firm clarity about how to determine if a theory is not provable. If I can't think of a way to gather empirical evidence to support it that may simply be a limitation of my abilities or knowledge and not an indication the theory is invalid or is just a position of faith. It seems somewhat arrogant to label something as unprovable when only a small amount of empirical data may be known about it. Theories supported by even the tiniest amount of empirical data are stronger than pure abstract conjecture in my view, to put things into perspective.

 

So how then should we live, quoting the theologian Francis Schaeffer? My answer, "With a balanced perspective". We need humility as we seek truth, not arrogance that what we believe to be right will always be so, yet with rationality and logic that grounds us all in a shared, physical plane of existence, and most of all with love and compassion towards all life.

 

The movie "Contact" comes to mind, based on the life of the late Carl Sagan, played by Jody Foster. The juxtaposition of faith and hard proof was portrayed by Foster & her love interest played by Matthew McConaughey. So when Stefan discussed the movie Elysium, in which Jody Foster also acted, I was disappointed his review was not very positive. I'm still interested in seeing that flick, primarily due to Foster's role in it. She picks & chooses the films she stars in quite carefully, and there aren't many scripts she likes. I have really enjoyed many of her films, and I rate Contact quite highly, as I do the movie "Nell".

 

So that wraps up my long winded exploration of faith, facts and the scientific method, and how this guy tries to make sense of them. I hope you got something useful from reading this.

[Mishelle]

I want to comment how I admire you really deconstructing this topic as well as your call in RR, and all those who have contributed to what I feel is a hugely important conversation. 

 

I don't think I have a lot to offer at this point, but this call did interest me very much, and I felt RR that Stef was agreeing with you on the fundamentals of intuition.  This is something that has struck me as a unique strength of his since I first started listening, otherwise I would have never continued.  While I understand "atheism" as Stef's definition of his 'belief system', honestly to me, he practices gnosticism, which to me means the marrying of the left and right brain.  This separates him from the "true intellectuals" and of course from the "true mystics." 

 

I dislike the word faith, as many here do, this has nothing to do with faith, imo.  What we are looking at here is 'can I trust my intuition over my reason? And why? And how?  And once even asking these questions we are thrown into left brain.  This is why the scriptures were meant to be symbolic, in order to bypass the left brain so that we could understand the universe in the holistic sense of "intuitive logic" -- not bypassing the whole to focus on the parts.

 

What religion and scriptures have "taught us" for now generations is to forget intuitive knowing, or gut feeling, and follow the leader, even to the cross.  But we are animals!  Like any other animal, we have such keen senses that have been lost to programming.  You can't call this faith!  Or maybe I am way off what you are getting at.  Faith means to me believing whatever someone tells you without proof, but what I'm talking about is KNOWING.  Like when my dogs can play-fight on a small deck with absolute certainty of their surroundings and not disturbing a single plant or ever hurting each other--2 big dogs on a deck with such a keen sense of each other that they can run, leap, chase, bite, roll, snarl, leap, fall, without ever missing a beat--that's intuition!  We have this same knowing!  But it's buried, for some very deeply.

 

Anyway, it's late, and I will think on this more and come back again, because it's a great and necessary and fun conversation!

[RuralRon]

I dislike the word faith, as many here do, this has nothing to do with faith, imo.  What we are looking at here is 'can I trust my intuition over my reason? And why? And how?  And once even asking these questions we are thrown into left brain.  This is why the scriptures were meant to be symbolic, in order to bypass the left brain so that we could understand the universe in the holistic sense of "intuitive logic" -- not bypassing the whole to focus on the parts.

 

Thanks M, for your breath of life into this forgotten and dead thread. As always your input is greatly appreciated!

 

I may have lost the bigger picture and myself in this discussion near the end, with my focus on Stef's definitions (faith: the belief in things which cannot be proven) and the apparent contradictions of them I noticed in the conversation.

 

As wonderful as he is, when I see these discrepancies I just want him to acknowledge them. Is it a projection of my own imperfection onto Stef or a rational observation? Do I just want to "be right" to win an argument or am I trying to get the objective truth out for all to see?

 

Either way, it is silly to be so hung up on such minor things I think. In my mind I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander as the saying goes, and I see him dwell on some pretty minor points at times.

 

Anyway, I am very sensitive to hypocrisy, probably b/c it also dwells in me, as does the passion for truth. Both characteristics probably have a common root in my psyche I haven't become consciously aware of yet.

 

As for disliking the word faith, that probably stems from emotional baggage from religious experiences. I come from such a background yet don't feel any bias against the word. That's partially what this conversation was about, the boundaries between faith and intuition. Establishing definitions are fundamentally important in such a discussion.

 

But you did concisely hone in on the essence of this conversation in the quote above with your questions. You cut right to the chase with them, so many thanks for the eloquent summary

 

I can sure spew out plenty of thought through my verbosity and sometimes it has value to focus or bring out useful avenues of pursuit while others it seems to obfuscate and cloud the waters, so your feedback here is highly valued.

[OzTrAlien]

RR i think you have done well in what you have presented to what i would view as "the acceptance or adherence value, in the use of knowledge or application of principles",  as you have pointed out much of what is used empirically are based on theories which inherently are not absolutes, likewise with many words, they present a context the meaning of which often has variation at each use and interpretation by another.

 

An example of this is in the way each sees colors, while many see a color differently the waveform may be derived of that color and presented to all and this will show they are all seeing the same description, while with words it is not as easily resolved in their use, as they can have many different applications within their use, ie: their definition and use from a legal, scientific or dictionary can vary their meaning and application.  

 

 As you pointed out much of the empirically used or should it be said "agreed to" and used information carries validity within a confined or narrowed field or view with application of the principal, E=mc2 and the laws of thermodynamics both suggest as Tesla put it "energy is ever present", while many rely on the theories of relativity or special relativity and many other theories used as support of conclusions, they seemly overlook or disregard the outcomes within application, like dimensions and other applications like "string theory" outcomes derived from the use of these agreed to formulas and the fact they are only theories.

 

It is known many of these theories come to points where they cease to work or expose their flaws(for lack of better description) at certain levels of application, like of an atom's structure and seeming defiance of the "rule", or when expanded to "black holes", and this is where i feel you are trying to expose and explore from what you have presented in regard to the value of or collection of information, with respect to adherence of direction where knowledge may be obtained for use or in regard to weight of credibility given in application.

 

 You mention duality and while it seems for everything there is "created" an equal opposite, like,  matter / anti-matter, hot / cold and good / evil, this somewhat creates a "scale" for things to be given a relative objective or subjective use or weight of significance, like hot or cold really becomes situational, just as good and evil are considered opposite ends of the scale, with words it seems they are placed on a scale as to their meaning, they become somewhere between good and evil, this individual "scale" placement can make some reject or accept a word and a definition considered good or bad.  

 

It would become very hard to make a non dual approach as we often have to play with "schrodinger's cat" when discussing things, people can often "switch off" or reject things at one word due to the connotations it invokes in them, yet in trying to relay a "foundation" or "principle" it can often be hard to describe what might cause someone to do something or pursue their direction, even if it is in the face of all odds, is it intuition, belief or faith that someone steps from where they are, it would be like trying to write a description of "fair play", it would become a huge impracticality.

 

Most of the discoveries of science and many other fields are formulated or stumbled upon by accident or by those not of the "regulated" opinions held by many of these areas or held within the current structure of these fields of endeavor,  take for example the recent discovery of the Chestahedron, what can we say it was that caused this person to go completely against all of what was known and thought to be complete in forms known and discoverable and agreed to by the whole of science and physics, surely it wasn't ignorance, he had to somehow suspect there was something yet to be revealed and he proved it.  

 

 To go through and try remove or change the use of words for political correctness would surely lead to many problems, i mean history would really need to be rewritten if we want to be politically correct, would the discovery of America be considered politically correct if we look at the word discovery in relation to how it is historically presented, it would seemingly suggest no-one was there or knew about the land before Columbus happened upon it or laid claim to it. 

 

For me personally I do not think using the discussion between you and Stefan is an attack on Stefan, its use allows for ease of definition in what you are presenting and saves creation of a purely hypothetical scenario to present the issue from, everyone can see/hear all what is involved and in essence it makes things easier to help comprehend the situation.  

 

It does seem unbalanced to allow validity of investigation of meaning from a dream by someone, which it is know to be from a release of DMT while asleep, but to give no credibility or to reject other intuitive pursuits like tarot readings or astrology, can a conscious use of DMT and any inspiration gained from the experience be considered plausible or given the same value as a sleep state DMT experience.

 

RR I hope i have been able to grasp what you are referring to in what you have presented and if not i hope you will be able to help me understand and correct my context. 

[RuralRon]

wow, woW, WOW - am I extremely impressed OzTrAlien!

 

And thank you for the compliment as well.

 

I have read your post here several times, and I believe I understand most of it now (I'm a bit foggy about the second paragraph; was it that the waveform, as presented on say an oscilloscope would be a less subjective representation than words like red or violet?).

 

Don't let me put words in your mouth, but given your interests as expressed on your profile and your manor of writing you appear to be far above my pay grade in terms of your physics knowledge, and yet (perhaps this is just you being polite or constraining the scope of your reply) you didn't raise any specific objections concerning my statements about perpetual motion.

 

But then, your focus wasn't on such details but rather about more abstract concepts of the meaning in language and words and issues of semantics in communication. Very deep indeed, and highly observant!

 

This is my favorite paragraph:

As you pointed out much of the empirically used or should it be said "agreed to" and used information carries validity within a confined or narrowed field or view with application of the principal, E=mc2 and the laws of thermodynamics both suggest as Tesla put it "energy is ever present", while many rely on the theories of relativity or special relativity and many other theories used as support of conclusions, they seemly overlook or disregard the outcomes within application, like dimensions and other applications like "string theory" outcomes derived from the use of these agreed to formulas and the fact they are only theories.

 

As to schrodinger's cat, which seeks to destroy duality of opposites in favor of a quantum theory of simultaneous existence and uncertainty, I am highly skeptical of the departure from traditional Newtonian perspective towards a "science" without absolutes and which treats theory as foundational fact. I also reject Kant's philosophical principles as well. But one of my primary points is to be weary of the status quo or traditional bias. Some form of balance between the rules of the known and the fringe of the unknown is required to innovate, and intuition, creativity and inspiration live there.

 

I understand Heisenbergs's slit experiment from which the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" was derived, and how quantum mechanics relies on it. Harriman's book is about how the rules and logic of induction are violated in the formulation of quantum mechanics, and how that has profound negative effects on science and ultimately the human race.

 

I am by no means an expert in any form of physics, but I can discern the propensity for corruption and the process of political agendas at work. I will admit I am persuaded by David Harriman's work on induction in physics. He was interviewed twice by Jan Irvin of Gnostic Media in May of 2011, in which they discuss Harriman's book, The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics

 

And what a wonderful point about DMT, delving inward and touching upon brain mechanics and how the very chemicals that influence our consciousness have a bias in their context. Fascinating as Mr. Spock would say.

 

Yes OzTrAlien, you not only grasped what I struggled to express in my conversation with Stefan, you also took it to another level. Hats off to you!

 

May I inquire as to your education & background?

[OzTrAlien]

Phew!!! I'm glad i was on track with what you had presented.

 

My thanks to you for finding some value in what i have said, inherently i guess we feel much the same about the issue, hence why you raised it and why i tried to provide input. 

 

You are correct with the analogy of the oscilloscope to verify a color, it would be a simple way to nullify variations, if only things could be so simple in many other areas

 

my use of schrodinger's cat was really in a "how" context of discussing things, one generally has to relay in terms of the "cat being both alive and dead at the same time" to define or prove something, more in relation to what you had said about falsifying to prove true(kind of jest on my behalf), not the literal reason for the creation of the "scenario" or use was meant to expose or destroy.  I could have said something like "we play cat in the box" but i figured most might not get what was meant, oh well, hope this clarifies it.

 

I was not out to pick at data or possibilities from their use, hence no comment on like you pointed to "perpetual motion", i think the issue what you raised is above and beyond that, i was out to express concerns i felt relevant to the how's and possible why's in the way relevance and acceptance is applicable in the use and collection of information, especially when purely statistical data can be so easily manipulated to validate outcomes(not something i'm a fan of).

 

I didn't want to turn this into a discussion of physics, math's or a subject related to those things as i mentioned above i felt you raise and expressed a concern that is above those in a content, yet is easily exposed through those areas.

 

So how then should we live, quoting the theologian Francis Schaeffer? My answer, "With a balanced perspective". We need humility as we seek truth, not arrogance that what we believe to be right will always be so, yet with rationality and logic that grounds us all in a shared, physical plane of existence, and most of all with love and compassion towards all life.

 

I really liked what you said and put here, i believe there is SO MUCH MORE TO LIFE than what has already been uncovered and this has me in pursuit of understanding and knowledge from wherever i feel Truth may be revealed...even if it has only me more convinced i'm on the right path.