Alternatives

[Gill Simo]

Science bothers me....it's always seemed to me that it's just another religion, seeking a truth it can never possibly know.
Made all the more akin by having an army of believers/followers who'll most willingly mistake theory for fact.
The Big Bang `theory` is bullshit `truth` according to my number cruncher.
Does anyone have any alternative theories re this mysterious reality...ones that hint at PM being possible rather than a crap theory defining it as not?

[AB Hammer]

Hi Gill

I believe anything can become like a religion. It depends on the people dealing with it. Science is all to often treated like a religion and anything that disputes it is some form of evil. LOL

So I guess that makes us science heretics. LOL

[Gill Simo]

Most perplexing thing is that science has truths within it that it fails to recognize.
Evolution springs to mind.....everything is evidently evolving, a process of adaptation...learning, by mistake.
We, barely evolved from apes & a whole lot more stupid/pathetic judging by our behavior, actually have the rank audacity to consider ourselves on some upwardly mobile evolutionary path.....those before us less knowledgeable, those after us, more.
"Just keep going, God straight ahead folks!"
No...there's a multitude of dead end streets to travel before that, each one stretched over civilizations.
Gonna hit us mighty hard when we learn our mistake...as we most certainly will......
and once again, anyone care to suggest what it is....before I'm too tempted to appear the fool for your entertainment?

[agor95]

@Gill

I here you and will give your posts due consideration over the week-end.

[Gill Simo]

Thank you agor95....I'll look forward to considering an imagination other than my own for once.
I don't expect many to allow me that opportunity, replies are typically few for me at the best of times.
I suspect that most here view the way in which we imagine this realm to have been thoroughly tried & therefore thoroughly trusted.
They won't have any time for someone who's daring to point out that the chances of us being correct are about on par with the chances of an amoeba completing a Rubik's Cube.
Imagining that there was a big bang to the point of actually believing it will, inevitably, one day, be as hilarious as folk who actually once believed the Earth to be flat.
Won't be considered so funny though, that we had to suck the planet dry of its life blood in the name of arrogant ignorance.
My footnote here `All you think you know is purely the result of your ignorance` holds firm....if only Mother Nature had arranged for it to be written across the palms of every soul delivered here....tut

[ME]

Science bothers me....it's always seemed to me that it's just another religion, seeking a truth it can never possibly know.
Made all the more akin by having an army of believers/followers who'll most willingly mistake theory for fact.
The Big Bang `theory` is bullshit `truth` according to my number cruncher.
Does anyone have any alternative theories re this mysterious reality...ones that hint at PM being possible rather than a crap theory defining it as not?

Our main issue with truth: it ain't pretty.

Science is never a replacement for truth itself, it's just the best knowledge we collectively have collected: it's all just theory.
And it is as simple as: The scientific theory which is best at its ability of predicting the future condition of the environment wins.

If you think some current crappy theory sucks, for whatever reason, then just invent some new hypothesis.
When it predicts the environment better it adds to scientific theory. If it doesn't, then it's bullshit.

When emotion starts to interfere with truth, because it's still a beautiful theory or not "yet" provable, then such investigation forms belief.
This does not necessarily predict some likely future, but at least gives some "hope" about some possible future.
Some prefer this over having absolutely no idea and no future at all. And there's always some middle ground.

I guess all those attempts for predicting our future is the whole issue of our main mind-set: we could call it a form of evolved fear.
But we would rather not, as that sounds really sad and would shake our fundamental pride. So we call it "awareness" or even "consciousness" to make us feel better about ourselves.


Such pride in the predicting powers of mathematics can indeed go as far as stretching and extrapolating theories for an environment which can't be verified for real.
It's difficult to tell if branches like theoretical physics is pure science or pure fiction. For the ones to answer the likely answer probably depends on which answer pays best ...and then continue with not caring about the answer.

It's not scientific theory withholding the possibility of perpetual motion devices, it just predicts it's not possible.
Predictions still include a level of uncertainty.

I have yet to find an alternative theory.

Gonna hit us mighty hard when we learn our mistake...as we most certainly will......
and once again, anyone care to suggest what it is....before I'm too tempted to appear the fool for your entertainment?

It depends on what frustrates you most.
I think the biggest issue which will hit us like an unexpected boomerang is the need of control (I'm thinking: CCTV, IOT, 24/7 track'n-trace).
Because it's so convenient on the one hand but on the other hand we can't protect and control all our vulnerabilities.
When we extrapolate things to the extreme (like, who checks the tracking of a stolen CCTV for example) - we'll eventually just end up in an excruciating panic, or dumb things down until we reach a level we can manage; probably both scenarios will happen at the same time.
The only solution which is seemingly counter productive: relax.

So Gill, what's your frustration (and possible solution)?

[WaltzCee]

Evolution springs to mind.....everything is evidently evolving, a process of adaptation...learning, by mistake.

Hello Gill,
The materialist/evolutionist and creationist do have something in common. Both believe the building blocks of life come from the material world. The cause of life is where they diverge and the very reason Darwin proposed a different origin of species. Darwin co-opted the necessity of a designer and attributed it to the process. I wonder how a racist like Darwin would be received today.

It's an open secret how the intelligentsia treats those who believe in my client.

ones that hint at PM being possible

My speculation is gravity is not a conservative force.

[Gill Simo]

Thank you for those thoughtful & interesting replies....
My frustration is the main point I'm trying to pursue...whilst I understand the logic of `science` I can't understand why the same logic doesn't apply to the only `truth` in science.....that every theory is almost certain to be incorrect, in truth.
I can only imagine that if this fact had of been drummed into us half as well as the fiction was, then we'd all be free to think/imagine freely.
Instead it's swept under the carpet, too awkward to contemplate, arrogance the only excuse for doing so.
Here, for instance....bar a precious few, almost all here apply what they've been told, to what they've been told is impossible.
Logic alone, surely...dictates that it is & always eternally will be, impossible under this circumstance.
PM hasn't eluded this civilisation over millennia because not one single intellect, amongst millions, bar Beessler, possessed the ability to knock up a `simple` wee duck-billed, lever, spring, thingy, like no other....it's because so few have applied their intellect to an alternative that could make PM possible....simply, logically, so.
Arrogance is the killer here....when it comes to alternatives then we actually have somewhat scant but nevertheless insightful knowledge of a past civilization with a very fundamentally different take on this physical reality...but who'd listen?
If they were smarter than us then why didn't they have iPhones eh?

[eccentrically1]

I can't understand why the same logic doesn't apply to the only `truth` in science.....that every theory is almost certain to be incorrect, in truth.

Predictions still include a level of uncertainty.

The Big Bang `theory` is bullshit `truth` according to my number cruncher.

Who, or what, is your number cruncher, and how did they explain this about the big bang theory to you?

Most perplexing thing is that science has truths within it that it fails to recognize.
Evolution springs to mind.....everything is evidently evolving, a process of adaptation...learning, by mistake.
We, barely evolved from apes & a whole lot more stupid/pathetic judging by our behavior, actually have the rank audacity to consider ourselves on some upwardly mobile evolutionary path.....those before us less knowledgeable, those after us, more.
"Just keep going, God straight ahead folks!"
No...there's a multitude of dead end streets to travel before that, each one stretched over civilizations.

Evolutionary science fails to recognize dead end streets in evolution? Can you show us any sources to verify this?

[Silvertiger]

Darwinistic evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, aka the law of entropy, which is the inevitable tendency of things to break down into lesser organized forms of energy over time, to decay basically. This is why science redefined evolution as "a change in gene frequency in a given population over a given amount of time." Adaptation is accepted. A species can adapt by selecting the best suitable genes in procreation from one generation to another that best fit the surrounding environment, but the species has not attained any more energy than what it came with originally. In fact, the notion that gene frequency changes are selective suggests that such organisms actually lose what they once had, even if it was "bad genes." What if they need them again at some point? Then they're SOL.

In a nutshell...take a salt shaker and pepper shaker...pour both into a container and shake it up to mix them together. How long did that take? From the salt and pepper's point of view, they adapted to your "shaking." Now, go get some tweezers and separate them grain by grain. How long did THAT take? It takes far, far, far more time and energy to build organized forms of matter than it takes to change their gene frequencies...to mix them up. Moreover, and disturbing to some, it takes "intelligent design," since the salt and pepper cannot be separated by any natural accidental means, assuming for this example that salt isn't a solute. Or just pick two types of sand.

[agor95]

I am impressed with the responses to this thread.

I hope this post helps.

I imagined three views: -

A target with our goal in the center.
Then each word (concept) surrounds it and each layer one stage from the truth.

Truth

Reality,
Believe,
Mathematical Models,
Scientific Method (Observations and Repeatable Results ),
Theories,
Hypothesis,
Conjectures,
Faith,
Religions,
Myths,
Memes,
Ideas,
Dreams.

The other view is the limitation in time for original thought.
This requires time to create, store, retrieve and propagate memes.
This competition is a function of evolution.

The last view is the interweaving threads of Religion and Science.
Each has the seed to generate the other.

This is not the answer to your question; however it is a framework that could help.

[agor95]

Alternative

We seek the Objective Truth; however our Reality is subjective.

Reality is affected by our perception driven by Believe and Faith.

We should hope to attain the Truth; however we should be humble in its pursuit.

Our imaginations evolved to simulate ‘What if I did that’.
In time we were able to project our imagination on issues like
others people and abstract objects.

Best to imagine and ask the question; Will that kill me?

How can we prove what we imagine is true?

True is our Reality, it is not Truth.

Before Religions came the Dream time and that passed into Ideas of the creation Myths.

These Ideas are all Memes and they live, adapt or get forgotten.

Religion requires emotional commitment, devotion, to address
the lack of objective proof.

Within this Faith structure, you have good and evil.

Science requires emotional detachment, devotion, to build objective proof.
Within this Believe structure, you have good and bad.

However it is so emotionally loaded with financial and personal reputation risks.

Yes both have followers.

The use of Conjecture, Hypothesis and Theories
signal the loading devotion placed on the Idea.

Laws are a red flag

The power of Science is only the Objective Repeatable Results method.

Anything that is not testable is Hypothesis or Conjecture.
The ‘Big Bang’ is not a Theory as it does not pass the test.

A Mathematical Model is a Model and will be partial
by it's very nature.

They are not Facts; however your direct experience is a Fact to you and to others it is Belief.

Evolution does not progress in a direct line to anywhere; it has no goal.

There is a Conjecture that there is no apparent live out in the void.
Therefore sometime in the future we will hit the extinction crisis.

I hope we are not a global society when that happens.
For the sake of the human race.

Planet – Exploitation is an extinction crisis

P.S. Original thought; question everything you are told and
believe in your direct experience.

The Truth is out there; however it speaks very quietly.

[Not_James_Lindgaard]

Most perplexing thing is that science has truths within it that it fails to recognize.
Evolution springs to mind.....everything is evidently evolving, a process of adaptation...learning, by mistake.
We, barely evolved from apes & a whole lot more stupid/pathetic judging by our behavior, actually have the rank audacity to consider ourselves on some upwardly mobile evolutionary path.....those before us less knowledgeable, those after us, more.
"Just keep going, God straight ahead folks!"
No...there's a multitude of dead end streets to travel before that, each one stretched over civilizations.
Gonna hit us mighty hard when we learn our mistake...as we most certainly will......
and once again, anyone care to suggest what it is....before I'm too tempted to appear the fool for your entertainment?

Scientists have observed evolution happen in 40. The particular flower a long beaked bird in Hawaii got it's nectar from became extinct.
Needless to say, scientists couldn't explain how that happened. They were expecting the bird to become extinct as well.
There's a lot we don't know and is there a God, that's up to the individual.

[John doe]

There is a lot of truth in this thread.
What are laws a red flag of?

[ME]

My frustration is the main point I'm trying to pursue...whilst I understand the logic of `science` I can't understand why the same logic doesn't apply to the only `truth` in science.....that every theory is almost certain to be incorrect, in truth.
I can only imagine that if this fact had of been drummed into us half as well as the fiction was, then we'd all be free to think/imagine freely.

It frustrates you because you contradict yourself in your quest.

I had a longer answer, but it became quite depressing - I deleted it, a dead end.
My (perhaps contradicting) conclusion in short: you simply don't want science to be completely up to par with truth.
Currently you're more free to think, believe, imagine, wonder, spark and surprise..

Consider this:
Reality is truth; science a short-cut; imagination the difference.
You need all three.


Merry Christmas.