Does repeating a statement help in making it appear to be "true?"
A statement that begins with "ONE THING FOR CERTAIN..." is a very bold statement when there can be no evidence to support it. How does one come that 'certainty?'

Let's at least agree that "the universe" refers to EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS. (Not just this tiny speck of a planet we call earth.)Fossils or the earth itself are not evidence. We are not simply talking about a single planet. (Earth)

IF everything that we perceive as "existing" is all proven to be simply frequencies that we (conscious beings) merely sense and interpret as objects or entities, and we call that "reality," then it is our thoughts and observations that cause us to experience (create) reality.

Wouldn't experiencing reality be the same as creating it in this case? If not, why not?

If we can't or don't experience reality, can it still be called real?

If it turns out that time and motion are "illusions" (mental interpretations of frequencies) and we are like avatars inside of a simulated digital environment, and you make a statement like that without evidence, forbidding or rejecting the exploration of any other possibility, then you are standing in your own way when it comes to discovering the nature of reality.

And if a universe can exist with only stars and dead planets with supposedly no living creatures on them, does it really exist if no conscious being can know of it or observe it at all? Wouldn't it be a mote point if it did?

If you lived inside of a holodeck type reality, (as the one in Star Trec,) or a computer generated world (as in matrix) and you were completely convinced that it was the absolute true and only reality because it seemed so real to you, and you never questioned it or looked for evidence for any other possibility, would you not be standing in your own way in discovering the true nature of the matrix you are in?

If light is waves let's not forget that sound is also. So, does this mean sound doesn't travel either? Even with the reflection theory of waves does not the reflected waves occupy a forward space in time? This my friend is call travel. Albert Einstein proved this a very long time ago. There is always someone trying to re-invent the wheel.

JB,

The point was that we know that some fossils predate us. We also can use non-thinking devices to record that which happens while we're not looking.

There has been between 10 and 15 seriously intelligent rebuttals to this nonsense so far and the OP has not deemed it worthy to even acknowledge one of them apart from to argue about the definitions of the words used.

Classic cherry picking and abstract arguments which have no basis or relevance.

Welcome to Mingle science threads!

If a tree falls in the forest...

If no one is there to see the tree fall, how do you know it fell? Gravity may not have played a part in it. Hummm... maybe the earth rose up around the tree giving the illusion that it fell. According to the start of this thread light doesn't travel. Therefore, even if you were there you may be able to hear it but you wouldn't be able to see it.

I understand the scientific point of view and I don't disagree with it. But its a point of view, not a religion. However, I do apologize for trying to introduce an alternative way of looking at things. I see that most people who read this forum are not interested.

Honestly it has nothing to do what so ever with a perspective, it has all to do with how scientific knowledge is uncovered/discovered/created. When a book/paper/researcher tries to push unvalidated claims it is the duty of the scientific community to be honest and honestly point out problems with the claims.

A healthy process takes the criticism and uses them to revise the approach, or discard the concept if you cannot square the theory with reality. This is the foundation of peer review. If 1000 years later someone thinks they have a new idea that has been extensively researched and discarded the record if done right is still there and they would be able to save countless hours of time by not trying to recreate the wheel.

When I am working with a field that I am not a specialist in, I make use of other professionals who specialization IS in that field, and you should do so as well without feelings of ill will. It is healthy and productive. If you decide you cannot trust the person and have the time to relearn and new specialty then feel free to take the time and effort to learn the basics before jumping into the cutting edge.

Geeeze I knew someone would object to that statement but I seriously did not think it would be you, Bushibillyclub.

With all due respect, it (science and physics) is still a point of view from a particular point of observation. (Albeit it is one that is MOSTLY agreed upon in the "foundation of peer review"- or whatever.

I did say that I understand the scientific point of view and I don't disagree with it.

The laws of physics are certainly safe from me, but they still don't explain things like UFO's and other phenomenon that apparently seem to defy those laws. (I suppose you join the group of skeptics who simply claim that those things don't exist.)

I do have a spiritual and even metaphysical or philosophical approach to understanding the whole of reality that suits me fine. I don't have any scientific "theories" about physical reality or physics and I don't intend to create any. My biggest mistake was thinking that my point of view would make any sense to anyone else. I don't have a valid "theory of everything." I don't know anyone who does.

That is why I apologized for even introducing any of these ideas on this forum. I really am sorry I started this thread in the first place. However I did learn something valuable.



(P.S. I am not the first person to have said that 'time' could be an 'illusion.' etc.)

(..and we all know what an "illusion" is. It is something basically created by the MIND.)

Objective vs subjective.


Science is not a point of view if its done right becuase it would reveal objective truth.


Seriously JB, these are some of the fundamental misunderstandings that will forever prevent us to see eye to eye. This will never get better until we can agree on some basics.

It doesn't matter Bushidobillyclub.

Yes, it is Objective vs subjective, and never the twain shall meet.
I don't misunderstand you. On the contrary, it is very clear to me where the misunderstanding (and disagreement) is.

And BTW,
The valuable lesson I learned is that we will never see eye to eye.

Yes, indeed. From my view point (subjective) it is becuase you hold some things to be true regardless of objective evidence, and then everything else gets held up to those previous "truths" and if it does not support that previous "truth" then you cannot accept it.

This is the definition of a bias. As someone who actually does care, I try very hard to get you to see that, I am always sad when it boils down to threads like this where people end up with hurt feelings. I have really done quite a bit of "soul" searching on this and tried to take the edge off my own posts, I hope you see that effort, becuase I do care about your opinion.

For me I have experienced things I could not explain, but once I started to really dig into science I found soo many ways that experience can be misleading that I had to come to the conclusion that experience was not very trust worthy and that lead me to my current scientific skepticism. I really do feel like more of my beliefs are accurate now then before when I accepted experience as evidence, and other people's experiences who I respect as evidence even if the actual experiences conflicted, or could not be analyzed at all.

It was very difficult becuase I have had events occur in my life where very special people where taken, and my beliefs comforted me, and it was a real struggle to come to terms with my bias. I am not saying everyone should, or needs to do this, just that if you can, and if you try you may find that workable, objective truth is what you really sought out after all, it was what I seek, not just the truth that fit with our comforting world views.

It seems to me that is what you do.

You can tell the difference when the thing being held up as foundational can be tested, repeated, pulled apart and we can form theory on why it is so.

That is how I can know something. However if something does call it into question, and that something can also be tested, repeated, pulled apart and we can form a theory, and these two theories conflict, that is where science struggles the most, and where science also finds its greatest discoveries. It takes a breathtaking about of work to reach that place, and all of us that work with science dream of being the person who can find such conflicts, its the best skeptics who can honestly find the problems in there own work that tend to find themselves in that situation.

The bottom line is that I feel that I am a spiritual being. There is no objective "evidence" of spiritual beings.

That, I feel, is the short coming of objective science.

Could you be wrong?

I can estimate a percentage of possibility that I might be wrong according to my own personal experience and information that I have gathered and put together that fits and makes sense to me.

That is, in my estimation, a 10% or 15% change that I could be wrong. So if I were to bet on it, I would bet that I am not wrong. Of course that is according only to my personal experience and feeling about it.

Which is basically all I have.

No person or scientists has be able to prove me wrong with science either.