Message 436 of 456 (559045) 05-06-2010 10:07 AM

Reply to: Message 434 by nwr 05-06-2010 9:47 AM

Exactly. If such a thing happened... you would have an incredibly good point to make. However, last I checked, such a thing never happens... in the history of scientific checking... so it kinda reduces the impact of what you're attempting to say.

Exactly. Professionally speaking, mathematical questions are based on "First Principles" of mathematics... which are not scientifically testable. They are, however, also not objective (professionally speaking). They are subjectively agreed upon rules from which to proceed (and things are then objective from that basis). With neither of us being mathematicians (I'm assuming you're not?) I don't think we can go much further down this road... if Rrhain happens to stumble over this conversation... perhaps he can correct any issues since he is a mathematician.

However, if we move to colloquial-speak... then mathematical questions are "objective" (the way you explained the term). In which sense... the scientific tests can be carried out and they always (so far) come out in agreement. In fact, if we're using this colloquial-speak usage of the term "objective" to refer to mathematics... then the mathematical proofs going back to First Principles actually counts as scientific testing.

But, if you insist on mixing the Professional usage of "objective" and "scientific test" with your defined Colloquial usage of "objective mathematics"... then yes, I agree that confusion occurs.

Message 437 of 456 (559047) 05-06-2010 10:14 AM

Reply to: Message 433 by cavediver 05-06-2010 9:19 AM

I know that I've always had a hard time explaining what I'm attempting to discuss with respect to this aspect.

There is "objective reality".
There is "known to exist within objective reality".
There is "unknown to exist within objective reality".
There is "known to not exist within objective reality".

In this thread, I'm trying to say there is always a scientific test for those things that fall into the "known to exist within objective reality" category and do not fall into either of the 2 following categories.

Does that help at all? Or have I moved on to eating my legs instead of just my feet?

Message 439 of 456 (559057) 05-06-2010 10:56 AM

Reply to: Message 438 by nwr 05-06-2010 10:30 AM

Yes, I agree with you.

But I've covered both sides of the "significant disagreement within philosophy".

They will either think mathematics are subjective (First Principles) and therefore we don't have an issue.

Or they will think mathematics are objective... in which case they will have to show which aspects they claim to actually be objective and how they claim that to be the case. When such a claim is backed up, the scientific tests are easy to conduct. And, again, we don't have an issue.

Unless you are able to show an aspect of mathematics, back up a claim for it being objective (not refer back to any subjectively assumed First Principles), and then ask me what scientific test can be done.

So far, the only aspect we've tested is "2 + 3 = 5". It was my example of what I'm guessing you're talking about. And I showed you how a scientific test can be carried out to back up such a statement. With those basics scientifically covered... we can go up to multiplication, division... all higher-level functions that are derived from basic addition... they can all be brought back to scientifically testable addition.

The only place to go from there is lower-level assumptions.
Things like assuming "a straight vertical line means 'one'"... which I think you'll have a hard time showing to be objective in any sense of the word.

If all you mean to say is "some philosophers, in some areas of the world will disagree with me... and they really believe themselves"...

Then I happily concede to such a... mundane point.
I don't really care what others think or believe, I care about what we can show to be true.

Message 440 of 456 (559060) 05-06-2010 11:11 AM

Reply to: Message 439 by Stile 05-06-2010 10:56 AM

In which case, I am far more convinced of the "objective" reality of mathematics than any "physical" aspect of existence that one would normally regard as objectively "real"

Sorry, really busy at the mo, so will join in with this properly later.

Message 441 of 456 (559064) 05-06-2010 11:29 AM

Reply to: Message 440 by cavediver 05-06-2010 11:11 AM

Let's not get too off-topic (although I'm interested to see your planned reply and see what you understand the current topic to be... )

All this is going back to a statement I've made:

At the bottom of Message 380:

If you plan on "proving me wrong", please focus on this. I don't really care if mathematices turns out to be objective or subjective. I do care if mathematics turns out to be objective and there's no way to study such scientifically.

If there exists such a thing in objective reality that cannot be tested scientifically, then there exists a "supernatural realm" within objective reality.

The "supernatural realm" is purported to be an area of objective reality that cannot be tested scientifically. As far as I've been able to piece together from others promoting such a place to exist, anyway. Therefore, I am extremely interested if we can actually define "mathematics" to be equivalent to "supernatural realm".

I don't think we can, but I am interested to see where this goes. Perhaps the vocabulary being used is simply... confusing.

Message 442 of 456 (559151) 05-07-2010 3:24 AM

Reply to: Message 435 by nwr 05-06-2010 9:51 AM

In Message 383. The post you keep referring to as forming the basis of your position on this.

But 50+ posts since then and nobody (least of all yourself) is any the wiser as to what you mean by "shared subjectivity".

Many do indeed agree that mathematics is objective. But has it ever occurred to you that others may have some inkling of what they mean by this? Do you just assume that everyone else is as bewildered by their own use of terminology as you have demonstrated yourself to be? Are they just combining words and nodding sagely at each other?

If mathematics is an example of "shared subjectivity" you can presumably tell us what aspect is subjective and how it is being shared? Except that we both know that you can't. Because it is obvious to all that you have no idea what it is you mean by "shared subjectivity".

What do you mean by "shared subjectivity" Nwr? Do you have any idea at all what you mean by this phrase or not?

Message 444 of 456 (560347) 05-14-2010 1:40 PM

Reply to: Message 443 by nwr 05-13-2010 1:09 PM

Nobody asked you for a precise definition of objectivity. I think we would all agree that precise definitions of such things are debatable at the very least.

What you have been repeatedly asked for here is an example of what you men by "objectivity is just shared subjectivity".

If mathematics is your example of "shared subjectivity" then please tell us which is the subjective part of it and how are we sharing it.

You can explain this in whichever thread you deem most appropriate.

Message 445 of 456 (562119) 05-25-2010 7:35 PM

We live in a world filled with diverse beliefs. Some are based upon reason and observation; others are based upon faith and tradition; some are based on truth and others are based on falsehood; still others are based upon combinations of these things.

Some people rely upon science to provide the answers about life, whilst others look to religion. Most people let others come up with the answers, yet, there still remain those who search for themselves.

Over the course of time, many theories and beliefs about the Earth and its place in the scheme of things have emerged. Among those, the Genesis version of creation is fairly well accepted in certain religious circles. Naturally, religions incompatible with the book of Genesis have different understandings and beliefs about the origin of the Earth. In the scientific and academic communities, belief in a theory of evolution from a Big Bang is generally accepted, from which the Earth was supposedly formed.

Geologists have studied the Earth and created a model about the nature of the planet that has been fairly well accepted. They have surmised that the inner Earth must be molten, and there have been many volcanoes that have spewed forth molten lava to prove that there is a hot, molten liquid somewhere under the surface of the planet. The accepted scientific belief system today incorporates the theory that hot molten liquid is in the core of the Earth. This core is then believed to be covered by a mantle, which in turn is covered by the crust of the Earth.

Based on the molten-core theory, scientists explain how they think the world works. They surmise that sometimes parts of the core shoot out of the vents of volcanoes, and that sometimes plates under the Earth’s surface move about and cause earthquakes.

The prevailing scientific dogma emphatically rejects any beliefs that there are unseen beings who cause volcanic eruptions or earthquakes. These beliefs are scorned by scientists, who call them superstitions that could only be accepted by ignorant people. Further, scientists argue that once these ignorant people are shown evidence that current scientific beliefs are based upon sound scientific principles, the ignorant believers will be converted into enlightened scientific followers.

A flaw in the scientific model is that it is based on five-sense perception limitations. That is, what can be seen, heard, touched, tasted or smelt is what there is. Therefore, science has little room for unseen intelligent forces at work in its model of the Earth. Genies, angels, ghosts and gods are ridiculed into non-existence under most of the currently accepted scientific models. When unseen intelligent forces are included in the models, those theories are generally lumped into the category of pseudo-science or fantasies.

Pseudo-science is not acceptable to “real” scientists, who prefer their scientific method, where things are either proven and accepted, or not. Although scientists cannot prove Darwin’s theory of evolution, that matters little to them, because the “theory of evolution” has been repeated so often by so many that the mantra is now accepted as a fact. The words “theory of” are now usually removed from the phrase, and Darwin’s hypothesis is now commonly referred to as “evolution”. Thus, “evolution” has been elevated to a factual premise.

The same can be said of the scientific community’s general acceptance of the theory that the Earth contains a hot, molten core. Since the theory cannot be proved or disproved at this time, the academics have taken the position of stating the theory over and over and over again until most people accept it as fact. They have taken the same stance to “prove” the theory of the Big Bang, among several other virtually unsupportable theories.

© 2008 Amitakh Stanford & AHSAF

All materials on this page are copyrighted. People are allowed to post any of these articles elsewhere provided they are posted in their entirety with acknowledgment given to the authors and xeeatwelve.com and include notification of the copyright. However, if someone wishes to post a partial article, they are allowed to do so only if they provide a hyperlink to the original article on xeeatwelve.com and give acknowledgment to the authors and notification of the copyright.

Message 446 of 456 (562124) 05-25-2010 8:51 PM

Reply to: Message 445 by Bach 05-25-2010 7:35 PM

A word of caution, there are many natural scientists here, and at least one library scientist. They do not casually accept false assertions.

Scientific theories are not proven or unproven, they either have evidence or counter-evidence. If the evidence is overwhelming, such as no counterexamples have ever been shown to exist under controlled conditions, they are often promoted to laws. Hence the Law of gravity, or of conservation of energy. Other theories have massive favorable evidence and virtually no counter-evidence, such as the theory of evolution, germ theory of disease, or even an expanding universe but do not exhibit the absolute recorded history over several hundred to thousands of years of continuous evidence so are slightly less than laws.

Now there is a subfield of geology called geophysics, and it is from the uniting of these two fields that the general deep structure of the earth is pretty much known. This is because of the behavior of sonic waves traveling through a solid, liquid or plastic, something that can be verified to anyone at any time in a physics lab.

According to the physics of waves traveling through solids and liquids, the earth consists of a solid inner core of approximately 800 miles radius, an outer liquid core of a further 1200 miles, a solid mantle of around 2000 miles, a basaltic (oceanic) crust of several miles and a further continental crust of several miles (if on dry land or continental shelf).

How is this evidenced? There are two types of waves that can penetrate the earth, pressure waves and shear waves. The reason the outer core is surmised to be liquid is because liquids can't be sheared. Everytime there is an earthquake in Japan that is strong enough to be picked up in California, there is a giant hole (representing the outer core) where there are pressure waves but no shear waves. All the data recorded throughout history is consistent - there is a liquid outer core between 800 to 2000 miles from center. Also the liquid outer core is the only explanation for the strong magnetic field of the earth.

As for the solid inner core, that is because there is a strong echo of p waves that bounce off, indicating a solid beneath the liquid. As for the mantle, the transmission of both P and S waves show it is solid. In fact there was even a drilling project called Project Moho to drill down to the mantle. However someone finally figured out that Kimberlite pipes came from the same place, so the project was discontinued around 62 or 63.

Which is probably a good thing because they would have hit the Mohorovicic discontinuity a bit before the mantle, a plastic portion of the crust that is heated to the point it is, well plastic. The evidence it is plastic comes from both the behavior of sound waves and the knowledge of the rock constituents, along with the PVT phase diagram which covers the action of molecules under specific conditions of pressure, temperature, and, if relevant, volume.

It is this plastic layer that is generally considered the cause of crustal heating that causes volcanoes, they do not come from the earth's core except through heating the outer mantle and crust.

The principle behind everything I just mentioned can be shown in a freshman physics or chemistry lab. Also you don't even have to take my word for it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth

The primary reason why most people prefer science to demonic forces is because science feeds the hungry, cures the sick, and makes life more comfortable. Belief in demons and boogeymen has historically been shown to do nothing to feed the poor, heal the sick, or make life more comfortable. If anything it has killed millions of innocents at holy war and at the stake.

So which belief system is more aligned to Jesus' dictum to heal the sick and feed the poor?

Which belief system is a better fit for democracy, that of unquestioned dogma from the temporal false prophet, or the ever questioning scientist trying to discern the nature of reality as is common to most people.

Which belief system has more to say about the nature of reality? Dark age clerics or enlightened freethinkers?

Don't believe in gravity? jump off a cliff. Don't believe in the germ theory of disease? lick a urinal.

Want to learn something that benefits you and us, have the guts stick around and ask questions rather than assert absolute answers born of an unexamined life.

Best of luck in your journey.

Edited by anglagard, : Add wiki URL

Edited by anglagard, : use correct terminology per radius and miles. Don't need to crater a Mars satellite mixing metric in there.

Edited by anglagard, : Precision, want all to know volcanoes do not directly come from the earth's core.

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Message 447 of 456 (562142) 05-25-2010 11:28 PM

Reply to: Message 445 by Bach 05-25-2010 7:35 PM

quote:

---

Greetings to all Tarra-ha-tikas (Light Workers)

I am an extraterrestrial being – code name – Amitakh. I came to the Earth as a “walk-in”.

One of my main responsibilities has been to keep close tabs on an evil alien being – code name – Ikluk.

The ruling elite are intimidated by my writings. The beings of Darkness try all sorts of ways to link me with Ikluk, who has “re-incarnated” on Earth many times over millennia. He has taken on many identities, such as: Aaron (brother/cousin of Moses), John the Baptist, Kirok, King Arthur, Hitler and, in his current “incarnation”, he has taken on a relatively insignificant body as a small-town medical doctor known as Joseph Chiappalone.

In order to attempt to discredit me, the ruling elite have deliberately tried to link me and my work with Ikluk on the internet via many ruling elite websites, which include search engines, bulletin boards, and other types of websites.

It is now time to make certain announcements:

---

My apologies, I did not realize I was addressing an extraterrestrial being who knows more about geophysics than any of us mere earthlings could even begin to imagine.

BTW - as a former mineral collector, I have many crystals of various rare specimens. Perhaps one will have the proper resonance frequency to allow your spaceship to reach its home planet.

For the right price that is, of course. Just follow my posts, my real identity is easy to discover, especially for a superior mind such as your own.

ABE - Thanks jar for the tip

Edited by anglagard, : provide website link - it has to be seen to be disbelieved

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Message 448 of 456 (562143) 05-26-2010 12:00 AM

Reply to: Message 447 by anglagard 05-25-2010 11:28 PM

First of all, Kirok the God-Slayer is revered throughout the multiverse

and thus unlikely to be confused with those other brothers.

But beyond that, hell hath no furry like a woman scored on

http://educate-yourself.org/...osephchiappolone10nov07.shtml

Message 450 of 456 (562154) 05-26-2010 5:45 AM

Reply to: Message 449 by hooah212002 05-26-2010 1:11 AM

Becoming?