Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,432 Year: 3,689/9,624 Month: 560/974 Week: 173/276 Day: 13/34 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cern Debate:
tesla
Member (Idle past 1615 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 16 of 51 (678772)
11-10-2012 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phat
11-10-2012 9:48 AM


Re: Philosophical jabberwocky
Sounds like a point for the Creator.
Son Goku or cavediver would be useful at this point.
No one is useful really, that is why I wrote the letter. I want scientists to not rule out potentials. you have to have the ability to research the potentials, and if you close a potential that is the answer, the path to its discovery is an accident of researching something else.
Science needs funding. and if people will pay for research into the potential that we live inside of a living thing, then it's a greater chance of discovering how to communicate with that greater being sooner than later.
And even if the science was to never discover that, be it by limitations, or by evidence to support the opposite: knowledge and discovery will still have been made, such as with brain research, and space explorations.
Would you agree? The only thing I'm proposing is to do research we already do, under a different theme, with more money. The same reality is being scrutinized, but with a different object in mind for the end question to be answered: Is it possible, that there is a greater being we exist in, that it has consciousness?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 11-10-2012 9:48 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 11-10-2012 10:09 AM tesla has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 17 of 51 (678776)
11-10-2012 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by tesla
11-10-2012 9:57 AM


Re: Philosophical jabberwocky
Hi Tesla,
You seem to be arguing that science may be able to get more funding if they put a religious slant on it. Do I have that right?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by tesla, posted 11-10-2012 9:57 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by tesla, posted 11-10-2012 10:29 AM Percy has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1615 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 18 of 51 (678780)
11-10-2012 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Percy
11-10-2012 10:09 AM


Re: Philosophical jabberwocky
You seem to be arguing that science may be able to get more funding if they put a religious slant on it. Do I have that right?
No. Religious is the wrong word to add to science. I'm saying the religious will help fund science to the end of looking for higher being.
Science does not have slants. Science is Science.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 11-10-2012 10:09 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 11-10-2012 10:41 AM tesla has replied
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 11-10-2012 6:10 PM tesla has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 19 of 51 (678783)
11-10-2012 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by tesla
11-10-2012 10:29 AM


Re: Philosophical jabberwocky
I'm saying the religious will help fund science to the end of looking for higher being.
If that were true it would simply show that the religious haven't really thought things through; that they are bent on destroying the very concept of a higher being.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by tesla, posted 11-10-2012 10:29 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by tesla, posted 11-10-2012 5:06 PM jar has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1615 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 20 of 51 (678810)
11-10-2012 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
11-10-2012 10:41 AM


Re: Philosophical jabberwocky
If that were true it would simply show that the religious haven't really thought things through; that they are bent on destroying the very concept of a higher being.
I don't follow. How does seeking ‘God’ destroy your concept of higher being?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 11-10-2012 10:41 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 11-10-2012 5:23 PM tesla has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 21 of 51 (678816)
11-10-2012 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by tesla
11-10-2012 5:06 PM


Re: Philosophical jabberwocky
Anything science can study can only be natural and so any god science might find, study, understand cannot be a higher being but just another natural thing we understand.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by tesla, posted 11-10-2012 5:06 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by tesla, posted 11-11-2012 8:19 AM jar has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 22 of 51 (678821)
11-10-2012 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by tesla
11-10-2012 10:29 AM


Re: Philosophical jabberwocky
tesla writes:
No. Religious is the wrong word to add to science. I'm saying the religious will help fund science to the end of looking for higher being.
Oh, okay, I see, a higher being isn't religious, it's scientific.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by tesla, posted 11-10-2012 10:29 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by tesla, posted 11-11-2012 8:42 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 23 of 51 (678849)
11-10-2012 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Phat
11-10-2012 9:30 AM


Re: Philosophical jabberwocky
Hi Phat,
Phat writes:
Reality can exist before a thought of that reality is generated,no?
YES.
BUT reality can not exist until there is existence.
Atoms are the basic building blocks of ordinary matter.
Atoms are composed of particles called protons, electrons and neutrons.
These protons, electrons and neutrons are composed of quarks and gluons.
If no quarks and gluons existed, then there would be no protons, electrons and neutrons, which means no atoms would exist.
That would be a state of non-existence.
If you had a state of non-existence there would be no potential.
There must be existence for potential to exist.
Phat writes:
If a universe happens into existence before physical laws can be defined, is it subject to those laws?
What would this universe you are talking about be made out of?
Without existence there would be no atoms that makes up matter to construct it out of.
But where would the universe you are talking about begin to exist, if there was a state of non-existence.?
But if a universe existed before the physical laws can be defined it would still be subject to those physical laws.
The universe we live in obeyed what we call the physical laws for billions of years before man defined them.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Phat, posted 11-10-2012 9:30 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by anglagard, posted 11-11-2012 1:02 AM ICANT has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 24 of 51 (678873)
11-11-2012 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ICANT
11-10-2012 9:36 PM


Re: Philosophical jabberwocky
ICANT writes:
Without existence there would be no atoms that makes up matter to construct it out of.
But where would the universe you are talking about begin to exist, if there was a state of non-existence.?
But if a universe existed before the physical laws can be defined it would still be subject to those physical laws.
The universe we live in obeyed what we call the physical laws for billions of years before man defined them.
First, God bless you as well ICANT.
Second, I have this feeling that the human mind, being so tied up with the idea of cause and effect, is at the moment insufficiently endowed to provide an answer.
What happened prior to the singularity is pretty much the same question as who were God's parents.
Perhaps the problem is not in the stars, but rather in ourselves, Horatio.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 11-10-2012 9:36 PM ICANT has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1615 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 25 of 51 (678884)
11-11-2012 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
11-10-2012 5:23 PM


Re: Philosophical jabberwocky
Anything science can study can only be natural and so any god science might find, study, understand cannot be a higher being but just another natural thing we understand.
So if higher being is natural, we can study it. but like physics, that doesn't mean we will understand all of it.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 11-10-2012 5:23 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 11-11-2012 10:09 AM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1615 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 26 of 51 (678886)
11-11-2012 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Percy
11-10-2012 6:10 PM


Re: Beware the jabberwock my son!
Oh, okay, I see, a higher being isn't religious, it's scientific.
Religious has nothing to do with higher being in the context of science. Anyone can choose to be religious and worship whatever you want to as 'God'.
But in the scientific realm no one really ignores potentials concerning higher being. For instance: how much has been spent on the search for Alien life? For many, belief in a higher Alien life-form is a real possibility, and money is spent on it.
There are unlimited possibilities in that realm. The entire universe we live in could be a cell in a greater 'universe' we are not even aware of. I should not have to remind you how small the earth is in our system.
Do you think it is possible you live inside of a living thing? Is there evidence that living things live inside living things, unaware of what is beyond that living thing?
Is it arrogance of man when mankind sets themselves to be the most intelligent thing in the universe because we figured out how some of it works? Or is mankind really as great as many humans would like to believe? After all, the human body and mind is an awesome bit of engineering.
But you don't care about none of that do you? you want PV=nRT, Pie dee squared / four. A string of algebra with a number at the end that shows 2 million Kilowatts will produce an atom of gold.
Science wants to know everything, and scientists do too, but what scientists do not want to know is if there is a higher being? oooh wait that's right, you’re not the only scientists out there, you just want to convince everyone that religion is bad, science is right, and go back to drinking coffee and doing math.
Is it even possible to have a real conversation without you throwing some negative value and connotations to anything that you can interpret as adding to a religious person's belief?
You have plenty of cannon fodder here, but how about simply answering this one question: Is higher being a possibility?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 11-10-2012 6:10 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 11-11-2012 9:11 AM tesla has replied
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 11-13-2012 11:28 AM tesla has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18300
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 27 of 51 (678889)
11-11-2012 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by tesla
11-11-2012 8:42 AM


Re: Beware the jabberwock my son!
Is it arrogance of man when mankind sets themselves to be the most intelligent thing in the universe because we figured out how some of it works?
Yes. We have no idea what idea we even wish to discover, apart from having the answer. Not only have we bitten off more than we can chew...we never will be able to chew this much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by tesla, posted 11-11-2012 8:42 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by tesla, posted 11-11-2012 10:06 AM Phat has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1615 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 28 of 51 (678897)
11-11-2012 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Phat
11-11-2012 9:11 AM


Re: Beware the jabberwock my son!
we never will be able to chew this much.
Well...maybe. But the moon was an impossibility until we set foot on it.
My fear is we will not be given much of a chance in the cycle of things. We will be living underground for centuries, and possibly nearly extinct due to the changing chemistry of our atmosphere being well ahead of the abilities of evolution. Maybe we can hasten evolution through selective breeding and biological chemistry...
Anyways, one has to have a question that needs an answer before you can do any science. So the question of higher being still needs a real answer, and it's worth researching. Mankind will have a lot to gain along the way, even if the answer is never found along the way.
It's frustrating that so many look for the final answer without taking the path that leads to the answer. Like when you’re doing math on a systems flow and you do not calculate density of the substance. you will get the wrong answer.
The search for higher being cannot be looked for without knowing some crucial points that will enable us to look. Light is a record of many things, but maybe other wavelengths are also records. you have to actually spend money on that kind of research, and knowing how the brain writes information and stores it will be an important piece of the puzzle.
I think that a vast majority of people are beginning to wake up and realize old books and past writings can contain some truths, but that what we know today is greater than what writers of old knew. So that battle is won, yet we are missing the opportunity to advance science through funding of those who would fund research on the brain and space with the question being sought to answer is "Is there a higher being" which cannot be answered until we know more about communications between living things at the atomic level.
Imagine being able to speak to a dolphin clearly in its own language, not by the clicks or verbal messages, but through the brain with a device that reads and sends information to its brain via the brains language.
Having that power would enable us to use that language potentially sent via a satellite and see what comes of it.
What are your thoughts on my musing of this?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 11-11-2012 9:11 AM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 29 of 51 (678898)
11-11-2012 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by tesla
11-11-2012 8:19 AM


Re: Philosophical jabberwocky
But just like physics, it would not be a higher being, just another natural being.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by tesla, posted 11-11-2012 8:19 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by tesla, posted 11-11-2012 10:17 AM jar has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1615 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 30 of 51 (678900)
11-11-2012 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by jar
11-11-2012 10:09 AM


Re: Philosophical jabberwocky
But just like physics, it would not be a higher being, just another natural being.
I cannot figure out your thinking...so...to you God is not natural?
Anything that is actually true will be natural. Super or not-natural, is only considered that because it is beyond understanding.
If your God is real, he is natural. If he only exists in your mind, then sure, you can call that super-natural. But like a dream, a thought is not substantial. Thoughts are potentially substantial, but if true, will find validation through a natural way.
But science does not have the answers to everything. So old super-natural things have been found natural, and there are other super-natural concepts that also have a natural explanation once we figure out what’s going on. But without research, we will never know.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 11-11-2012 10:09 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 11-11-2012 10:22 AM tesla has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024