Fine. As for the round file, you are not seriously saying that you found reality in science theory, are you? Or are you just saying it is close enough for you?
Wave-particle duality is special
- Thread starter Genius
- Start date
Close enough? You mean like close enough to produce that computer you are using? Or close enough to have a space station? Or close enough to produce that car you drive?
Seems pretty close to reality if it can produce something that concrete. What realities are in the spiritual or religious?
No, at least not in any scientific sense. Don't get me wrong, spirit may be the answer, but that goes directly to the Supernatural, and the scientific method does not allow for the Supernatural. My personal view is that anything that seems Supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand. Spirit might be one of those seemingly Supernatural things that could be the result of natural laws, but I'm not sure I see how Spirit could be the underlying nature of wave/particle duality. I was looking for something more like an aether or medium that fills all space, or the spacetime continuum,.
I am adding the following excerpt to this thread from the CTMU by American autodidact Chris Langan for its theistic applications. It explains the mistaken premises that today's science has built itself on:
http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf.
"Scientific theories are mental constructs that have objective reality as their content. According to the scientific method, science puts objective content first, letting theories be determined by observation. But the phrase "a theory of reality" contains two key nouns,theory and reality, and science is really about both. Because all theories have certain necessary logical properties that are abstract and mathematical, and therefore independent of observation - it is these very properties that let us recognize and understand our world in conceptual terms - we could just as well start with these properties and see what they might tell us about objective reality. Just as scientific observation makes demands on theories, the logic of theories makes demands on scientific observation, and these demands tell us in a general way what we may observe about the universe.
In other words, a comprehensive theory of reality is not just about observation, but about theories and their logical requirements. Since theories are mental constructs, and mentalmeans "of the mind", this can be rephrased as follows: mind and reality are linked in mutual dependence at the most basic level of understanding. This linkage of mind and reality is what a TOE (Theory of Everything) is really about. The CTMU is such a theory; instead of being a mathematical description of specific observations (like all established scientific theories), it is a "metatheory" about the general relationship between theories and observations…i.e., about science or knowledge itself. Thus, it can credibly lay claim to the title of TOE.
Mind and reality - the abstract and the concrete, the subjective and the objective, the internal and the external - are linked together in a certain way, and this linkage is the real substance of "reality theory". Just as scientific observation determines theories, the logical requirements of theories to some extent determine scientific observation. Since reality always has the ability to surprise us, the task of scientific observation can never be completed with absolute certainty, and this means that a comprehensive theory of reality cannot be based on scientific observation alone. Instead, it must be based on the process of making scientific observations in general, and this process is based on the relationship of mind and reality. So the CTMU is essentially a theory of the relationship between mind and reality.
In explaining this relationship, the CTMU shows that reality possesses a complex property akin to self-awareness. That is, just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind. But when we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind?", the answer turns out to be a mathematical and scientific definition of God. This implies that we all exist in what can be called "the Mind of God", and that our individual minds are parts of God's Mind. They are not as powerful as God's Mind, for they are only parts thereof; yet, they are directly connected to the greatest source of knowledge and power that exists. This connection of our minds to the Mind of God, which is like the connection of parts to a whole, is what we sometimes call the soul or spirit, and it is the most crucial and essential part of being human.
Thus, the attempt to formulate a comprehensive theory of reality, the CTMU, finally leads to spiritual understanding, producing a basis for the unification of science and theology. The traditional Cartesian divider between body and mind, science and spirituality, is penetrated by logical reasoning of a higher order than ordinary scientific reasoning, but no less scientific than any other kind of mathematical truth. Accordingly, it serves as the long-awaited gateway between science and humanism, a bridge of reason over what has long seemed an impassable gulf."
I'm not suggesting I would be interested in doing it, but you would have to pay someone a hefty fee to wade through that and craft a meaningful response about what is scientific and what is not scientific about that paper.
The scientific literature is as exact, as measurably possible, at this point in the evolution of our universe. To that degree science does describe real natural phenomena. Like I said learn some physics. Read the scientific literature if you need to understand something. Quit making crap up.
It's complete nonsense. It's his religious vision for intelligent design. Hope somebody sues him for misrepresenting Professor John Wheeler in this nonsense. He should use it for toilet paper instead of his face.
We like to call it thinking, what do you 'think' it is?
The Mind.
That does make a whole different ball game out of what Spirit is. It is as if it shouldn't be capitalized. Cognative awareness is consciousness, and so, is your definition of spirit "consciousness", without the Supernatural connotation?
It's beyond ordinary science. Cognitive awareness is not the same as ordinary consciousness, no.
Thanks for the warning, lol, just kidding. And I would agree that I was hasty in saying cognitive awarenss is the same as consciousness and would amend my statement to say the cognative awareness is more of a combination of consciousness and intent, maybe "applied consciousness" is better. Still, it is in the realm of science. "Beyond ordinary science" leaves the realm of science and enters what ... pseudoscience, Supernatural, fantasy?
It's way beyond your ordinary consciousness since you're essentially brain dead. I kinda sounded like you when I was stoned on Orange Sunshine from 1971 to 1973 except I made sense.
Cognition really refers to a mental state associated with problem solving, learning and reasoning. How I long for the days before I knew how to think rationally. I wish I could be as kid again.
You probably made more sense back then than you do now. At least I'm in the middle of proving that spirit is not a mere figment of the imagination but an actual thing that can bring one to enlightenment and unity. So shut your ignorant trap or disprove it!
You are not proving anything except that you are an expert hand waver.
Spirit exists in 11th dimension but is anchored in our solar plexus. Prove me wrong or shut your ignorant trap!
See my previous response.