This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
How do we prove an answer
that it How do we prove an answer
I just want to clarify that I do love science and the understanding of the universe that it has brought us. As well as the tech
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
natasha nikulina 50+
Casey Christofaris 10+
Richard Krooman 50+
For ALL experiments known to man the answer should be within the margin of error (aka we cannot measure any more precise and therefor there are margins of error).
If there is, at least, 1 experiment which measurements disagree with the answer it is a wrong answer.
However... we do not know ALL possible experiments and we could (probably always) become able to reduce the margin of error.
Therefor you can never say that an answer is true.
The only way in which you can say that an answer is true is if you make a lot of premises.
For instance newtonian laws "are true for all measurements done at a speed relatively low to the speed of light and affected by eath's gravity". (tbh you need a lot more premises to have it completely exact... but I hope that you get the idea... although I doubt it :()
Casey Christofaris 10+
Also a shadow moves faster then the speed of light
natasha nikulina 50+
Generally, "provable to be wrong" is the way science does its business.
Edited
Science, as an explanatory system has points to prove that it was wrong, but before that happens it deals with 'scientific truths' . It makes science a kind of a record of dead religions.
Richard Krooman 50+
Nor do I have any intention to understand your world.
Newton has already been proven wrong (because of observations about the movement of planets which were only correctly explained by Einstein).
Also a shadow doesn't move faster than the speed of light. Nothing does.
I do wonder... just how you come up with ideas which are so extremely different from reality.... And why don't you just take online courses to gain knowledge?
Casey Christofaris 10+
Check out the section faster then the speed of light, thats where you will also see about shadows
There are situations in which it may seem that matter, energy, or information travels at speeds greater than c, but they do not. For example, as is discussed in the propagation of light in a medium section below, many wave velocities can exceed c. For example, the phase velocity of X-rays through most glasses can routinely exceed c,[36] but such waves do not convey any information. ~ and yet still travels faster then light~
Already did college, with a major in Pol Sci. Minor in Philosophy and Psychology. Also I did it in four years and only purchased text books for my math class and foreign language. Problem with big box education is the first off they don't teach they just have you regurgitate information. And second off I would still be under the assumption that nothing travels faster then light. If I did not educate my self. Before you assume I am wrong maybe you should check that you are right first.
I have been wrong before and have no problem with being wrong again.
This guy says you can break the speed of light in your back yard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR4tJr7sMPM
natasha nikulina 50+
Something like that i had in mind saying " Only wrong answers are provable "
Casey Christofaris 10+
natasha nikulina 50+
As Jesus said : Ask and ye shall find
It's very interesting, i'll be back tomorrow, it's too late here. Actually today is tomorrow :)
Casey Christofaris 10+
Also science is now starting to try and prove religion. A new tread in science is trying to suggest that we are inside a brain. If only we would have listen to the religion of the passed....but history does repeat itself
Richard Krooman 50+
Anyway I don't really care enough about explaining details of an example while you clearly ignored the whole example and probably missed the reason for my example...
Casey Christofaris 10+
What I try to do and I struggle with this daily is try to make what I have to say and express to people as common sense as possible to them their common sense not my own common sense. But as we are both a where my written word is horrible. Which on here is why I try to keep my answers as straight forward as possible and not to wordy.
I hope one day in our talks you will at least be able to see the flip.
P.S. I do still always enjoy talking to you and I can't say that I won't miss your reason but I would still love to hear it
natasha nikulina 50+
Reality is the illusion of the of the mind, OK. But mind can only function in Past or Future and never at Now. Real experience at ' now' is an escape from illusion.
The Bible suggests another kind of escape : tame your ego.
When you practice ' don't do to others... " daily, always... it works, it may set you free.
Through QP one can also get the idea that there are no 'others'. Love your neighbour as thyself ... because it is you yourself , in quantum superposition if you will :) . and yes, know thyself... because, God is within. There is nothing external anywhere.
"...but history does repeat itself "
Human history is the history of the biblical ' fall' , the fall into matter through rational mind. But there is no rise without a fall.
"... science is now starting to try and prove religion ' - it is the beginning of the rise : )
But religion is a part of the fall, maybe we'd better leave it there.
Why don't we listen ?
What do you think, why we don't listen ?
Edited.
I mean religion as an ' institution ' not teaching.
Science - religion relationship is cause- effect relationship, teasing science apart from religion is not an easy thing to do.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Casey Christofaris 10+
Casey Christofaris 10+
No being, that is of intelligent thought (and for that I am going to define as having the choice to respond to a stimuli +/- in anyway they choose) would choose to be a slave. Whether that be gods, man, or machine. No intelligent being would choose to be a slave either to the gods, or to money (which we currently are( all of us, rich and poor)) or to man.
We have been discovering circles since the beginning of time. We don't need to any more. We can end the circle logic and circle thought
natasha nikulina 50+
The answer is hard to articulate in words but, as always, the underlying truth is simple - the reality/world came from nothing and is 'no thing'.
Linda Taylor 50+
Casey Christofaris 10+
http://www.ted.com/conversations/13925/is_our_math_wrong_is_it_our_a.html
natasha nikulina 50+
i guess.
iow. we think , that we have much more ' things' than we used to :)
Sorry for using your reply button, Casey .
Richard Krooman 50+
"P.S. I do still always enjoy talking to you and I can't say that I won't miss your reason but I would still love to hear it " - Casey
You already missed the reason... I don't want to argue that a shadow can go faster than the speed of light... as it's not the purpose of my post.
The point of the paragraph:
"The only way in which you can say that an answer is true is if you make a lot of premises.
For instance newtonian laws "are true for all measurements done at a speed relatively low to the speed of light and affected by eath's gravity". (tbh you need a lot more premises to have it completely exact... but I hope that you get the idea... although I doubt it :()" - Richard
Is to show that one can "prove" that newtonian laws are within the margin of error (at least with normal measuring tools) given that "you're on earth and not going anywhere near the speed of light".
So you make premisses to put limits on a theory.
Einstein tells us that when you go near the speed of light the newtonian laws become less accurate.
So even though Newton was (slightly) wrong (as shown by experiments which became possible because our measurement tools became more precise).
Which is a great example of how science works... and how the proof system works.
That you then reply to that with a rambling of false statements about special relativity is something which I'll never understand. As again (as in previous discussions) you jump from one topic onto the next without any boundry.. and you try to jump on extremely small details of things which you don't understand but claim to be false anyway... and you do that in order to discredit my post (as I don't want to explain every single word in every single post) such that you can live on in your own little fantasy world.
natasha nikulina 50+
Sorry for the delay with my response !
Re : Listen to what? I need more back ground to the why don't we listen. I listen all the time,
By ' we ' i mean people , collectively, not you personally; i guess, you do listen, that's why ask you to help me with my big question : Why what is happening is happening ?
The history doesn't go in random walk, obviously; it's not exactly repeat itself, as you said; it's unfolding.
Future embedded in the Past. We don't see the Future, because we don't see the Past either and have no clue what is going on now, behind the surface of events. And i think you've touched the nerve here :
"If only we would have listen to the religion of the passed..."
but we didn't.
Why didn't we listen ?
I've just read your the conversation with Joe Blank, and here again :
"...If you imply this concept to the most fundamental parts of life you would have intuition."
I agree with you, if we did, it would do the trick.
- but we didn't. Why ?
So, once again , to make my question clearer :
Jesus said : fallow me ; religious people, Christians worship him, but rarely fallow. Circular people, let alone atheists don't even consider the possibility to take his preposition seriously.
' Why ' is such a difficult question, that hasn't even been asked, as far as i know. What we see around is the answer, ' why we didn't/ don't listen/fallow' is the question.
I'd appreciate your ideas greatly.
Thank you !
Edited.
Re :Did you get the chance to join in....?
I did : )
Casey Christofaris 10+
I agree with you, if we did, it would do the trick.
- but we didn't. Why ?
because if your chasing your own shadow how do you know it you? When it is your equal but opposite reaction to self. Always able to counter your next move
Have you heard the idea that if we lived in a black hole we would be able to look out into outer space and eventually the light would come back around and we would end up looking at the back of our own head. If this happen how would you know it was the back of your own head?
natasha nikulina 50+
We 'don't listen' because of limitation/falsehood of ego vision and we need to listen/practice taming ego to to get rid of limitation.
Did i restate you right ?
If yes, it's catch 22 and it is the most common situation, actually :)
"We have been discovering circles since the beginning of time. We don't need to any more. We can end the circle logic and circle thought "
So..., there is a light at the end of the tunnel ?
I am not sure that i get you right, but i've got the impression that you have a 'picture ', don't you ?
Re : That would make all religions truth and yet false at the same time. Just like science does
Yes and of cause ! But it's deeper, science and religion are not distinct .
"All Religions are man-mind-made ....all discoveries made by man-mind are a reflection of that same mind that invents Religions therefore the two Science/Religion cannot be separate in anyway other then that individual minds-egos want to do so."
In fact, separating religion from science is simply the exercise of separating cause from effect.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Gods have always existed because the answers to our questions have always existed, we just did not have the understanding at the time.
God provided or became the answer without needing the understanding. ~Dennis Hollinger
Being the source of all knowledge does not make one all knowing
Casey Christofaris 10+
natasha nikulina 50+
The Bible prophesies ' fall' , teaches how to behave in the fall and is the fall. ( it is only possible because of the fall )
Fallow it through with me :
Elohim is a plural Hebrew word that English Bible translates as “God.” Many scholars have wrestled with the question of why a plural word was chosen for the name of the Creator.
The possible answer is that the original and most high God was and is all-inclusive, collective, not separate from any of the creation, and that created beings are intrinsic portions of the Whole. Later the name of God was changed to Yahweh Elohim, which is translated as “Lord God.” And later it became named. I think, it reflects the history of human psyche , the way how we were becoming more and more rational and less and less intuitive ; in a way , it is the ' fall '.
And now think why did science, as we know it flourish in Judo Christian culture ? I would say, that it was inevitable.
It's the result of the development of abstract thinking, which came from abstract God, the Wholly Other.
As an implication and quite severe one, rational mind, that was shaped by the idea of biblical God, the Deity questions the very existence of God And here is the trap, because in the context of existence God does not exist.So believers believe that God exists ; atheists believe that it doesn't. As for the teaching, it is practiced by neither of them.
Who does ? Those few who can intuit God, " all inclusive " ... or/and come to that point through science, through the idea of field, quantum superposition, entanglement, non locality, quantum potential...that wired stuff, that Cartesian mind can't grasp, but subtle mind starts to honour the complexity of the situation. And here the revival of the teaching may occur, " don't do to others..." because there are no others... it makes sense !
natasha nikulina 50+
It reminds me this :
We shall not cease from exploration
and the end of our exploring
will be to arrive where we started
and know the place for the first time.
T. S. Eliot
I squeezed ' my proof ' into a number of short sentences, to fit it to the format of ted conv. so it may look not coherent, but when i expand it in various domains and directions, the more the better , it looks coherent. It doesn't mean that it is true though :)
Casey Christofaris 10+
In science terms this can be seen as
e=mc2
you are the same as the current that runs through your walls
natasha nikulina 50+
God provided or became the answer without needing the understanding. ~Dennis Hollinger
Brilliant !
I'll google the name, i've never heard it :)
Thank you !
Casey Christofaris 10+
http://www.ted.com/conversations/14605/is_evolution_religion_everythi.html
natasha nikulina 50+
We are alone ? Who are we? One , but is One real ? Isn't it the image of 0 ?
Alongside with all the nature ?
OK, i need to think about it :)
Casey Christofaris 10+
maybe flipped on its side
natasha nikulina 50+
" If then you do not make yourself equal to god , you cannot apprehend god. For like is known by like. make yourself grow to a like expanse , and leap clear of all that is corporeal. Rise above all time and become eternal then you will apprehend god, think that for you nothing is impossible, deem that you to are immortal , and that you are able to grasp all things in your thought. to know every craft and every science, find your home in the haunts of every living creature, make yourself higher than all hieghts and lower than all depths, bring together in yourself all opposites of quality, heat and cold , dryness and fluidity, think that you are everywhere at once at land at sea, in heaven,think that you are not yet beggotten, that you are in the womb , that you are young, that you are old , that you have died, your in the world beyond the grave, grasp in your thought all this at once , all times and places and substances and qualities, magnitudes together, then you can apprenhend god, but if you shut up your soul and your body and abase yourself and say i know nothing, i can do nothing , im afraid of earth and sea , i cannot mount to heaven , i cannot , i know not what i was or what i shall be , then what have you to do with god !!
natasha nikulina 50+
Though, who knows ?
Re: I do not know all the answers....but guess who does us humans
Agreed !
But we can't communicate within our oneness .
Btw. ' I do not know all the answers...' is a serious claim : )
Casey Christofaris 10+
But isn't that what balance is? It's the flip
natasha nikulina 50+
I start to believe, that you do have many answers :)
Casey Christofaris 10+
natasha nikulina 50+
Thank you !!!
natasha nikulina 50+
"... what I have is hopefully common sense answers or in others words I think we can Occam razor existence."
Please, clarify, i don't understand :)
P.S I know what Occam's razor is , i don't understand what have you said.
Thank you !
Casey Christofaris 10+
He would try to relate to the person, whether from his personal experiences or from someone else’s experiences/knowledge (parable). And respond with knowledge/wisdom that he would want to hear if it was he who came to them for help.
That’s what Jesus would do.
Do on to others as you would have them do on to you.
If you imply this concept to the most fundamental parts of life you would have intuition.
The hardest part about this is how do you relate to a person so it comes off as if the knowledge is from them selves. This is why is hard to do the "do unto others as you would have then do unto you" The answer has to be common sense. Not to the person (in this case Jesus) but to the other. It has to be their common sense not his.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, who said it, no matter if I said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." ~ Siddhartha Gautama, founder of Buddhism
Casey Christofaris 10+
What would Jesus do?
He would try to relate to the person, whether from his personal experiences or from someone else’s experiences/knowledge (parable). And respond with knowledge/wisdom that he would want to hear if it was he who came to them for help.
That’s what Jesus would do.
Do on to others as you would have them do on to you.
If you imply this concept to the most fundamental parts of life you would have intuition.
The hardest part about this is how do you relate to a person so it comes off as if the knowledge is from them selves. This is why is hard to do the "do unto others as you would have then do unto you" The answer has to be common sense. Not to the person (in this case Jesus) but to the other. It has to be their common sense not his.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, who said it, no matter if I said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." ~ Siddhartha Gautama, founder of Buddhism
But the best thing is, is that I had to start this conversation to know that. That it has to be common sense to other, to be seen as truth from their perspective
natasha nikulina 50+
This is how I would answer it:....
We are capable of asking a question , when we have the answer and we are searching for a proof.
Jesus said : '' be a passerby "
The match from Laotse :
The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled.
---------------------------------------------------------
Empty yourself of everything.
Let the mind become still.
The only way to understand 'the other ' is to forget about "I ", my opinion ; stop listening ' myself '
It's hard :)
D. Bohm had that idea : we should learn to think the thought together.
Have you watched this video ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI66ZglzcO0&feature=related
Edited
Pay special attention to the 15. 50 mark
Casey Christofaris 10+
It hard to trying and forget your problems so you can relate to their problems. Not letting your own issues get caught up in theirs or be biased because of your own problems.
This goes back to your listening question, we have been told that we are one this whole time pretty much from every god that has ever existed yet it is easy to see other as separate because the are separate. Because the are not equal. So in micro scale me and you don"t look alike, act alike, think alike, heck we don't even equally take up the same space. But on a macro level we know we are at very least both human and again on sub micro level both cells and bacteria. So where should we find equality? On a macro scale I know that me and my body are one when I look in a mirror. But on a micro level I know that there is more bacteria on me in me controlling my daily function then human cells. Where is the equality? I am bacteria then human. And humans could most certainly be seen as a virus to earth. Where is the equality.
This is why it has been hard to listen. And when someone/somegod try's to force their view on to other it is simply an intelligent being that has a choice to respond to a stimuli the way they want to respond will never freely want to submit to anyone ever god or man unless it is their personal choice to do so.
natasha nikulina 50+
" Who am I ? " " What is real ?"... God...Truth...
I wholeheartedly agree with all you've said !
Your practical question is, correct me if i am wrong :
how to communicate within our oneness with so convincing and so obvious separateness ?
It's very important question, really, because all our thoughts have meaning if we can find the way to communicate them. Someone said : 'means' are like genes..." there were much more to it, very clever stuff, but i don't remember.
Actually it's possible to find the intellectual common ground.
This is my ' why ' part :
Because Nature is fractal in its structure. By nature , i mean everything that is and can be addressed to : all processes, different backgrounds, world views, life experiences .... bacteria and human....history and business... i do mean everything. What that means is that a pattern occurring on a given scale can be expected to occur on other scales, very different.
If you manage to relate to common pattern in the context of a person you are talking to and then extrapolate it to your context , the understanding/agreement may take place.
' how' part is very difficult .
You must be all-knowing, not human, actually ,but for the audience you know, for the people you share your life with it may work perfectly well.
What is necessary and quite often lacking, in online forums like this is the willingness to understand and it's OK, i enjoy listening, mutual understanding may occur, sometimes and it's a miracle and real joy ! :)
Thank you !
Casey Christofaris 10+
Can you explain this more?
natasha nikulina 50+
I know..., what works for me is relating to ' their problems ' first, even if i have a bunch of my own, i don' even try to forget about them. But sometimes they forget about me , the problem ignored is half solved :)
natasha nikulina 50+
it's like Logos, visual language, you see with your own eyes how IT is unfolding, no ambiguity here.
It is not accidental, when we really understand something , we say " i see .. " We trust our eyes more than ears.
Frankly, i have a lot of profs, all over the place, but what is really hard , is to feel that way and to behave ....
I think it should be practiced and here you are right, ' don't do to others ..." is like a telescope for an astronomer, you start to see.
Casey Christofaris 10+
natasha nikulina 50+
I tend to complexify, maybe you too :) It's probably the way to recognise simple truths.
And here is the link with a simple solution, which is soooo hard to implement :)
http://www.paradoxicalcommandments.com/
Casey Christofaris 10+
The link was interesting however I didn't find them that paradoxical. The first axioms is based on the assumption that you care what the other thinks about you (i have never really cared what anyone has thought of me) . The second axiom is based on actions or doing.
natasha nikulina 50+
And you don't have to prove anything to anyone , you yourself become a proof.
Re : Can you explain this more?
Gladly , but i have to ask you to explain what do you mean by ' common sense ' first .
natasha nikulina 50+
"The answer has to be common sense. Not to the person (in this case Jesus) but to the other. It has to be their common sense not his."
So again
Re : Can you explain this more ?
You can either relate to other person through unconditional acceptance/love or intellectually , by finding his common sense iow to find out what assumptions shaped his mentality, what activity he is engaged in, what his life experience is, ..cultural background.... So you need a lot of data , endless actually to be ' all knowing '
With people you share your life with( family colleagues, friends...etc. ) you have a lot of data naturally, not even thinking about it, they are embedded in the very fabric of your communication, in a sense you are related to them already ( hence the word ' relative' ). So you may succeed to find out what their 'common sense' is.
That's approximately what i meant, i am not quite sure, and not necessary agree with ,it was 3 days ago :)
Casey Christofaris 10+
It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. ~ Sun Tzu Art of War
Now it doesn't matter how the argument is going once I figure out how you came to your knowledge of truth I can figure out your thought "pattern" or common sense. Once I understand that I can use your common sense thats right your common sense to prove my information as truth. Not as I am right your wrong but just that there is other truth. Edited: I dont even need to believe that what I am trying to debate is truth or not, I just need to except that it can be
And as far as Sub, object question go. I like to say that it's not that I think inside the box or outside of the box. I realize that its all box's and I try to think in all of them.
Casey Christofaris 10+
natasha nikulina 50+
Sorry for the delay with my response !
If i get you right, what you describe can be graphically presented as Euler's circles.
Figure 1 shows the common ground in two 'truths'
Figure 2 shows how your truth doesn't contradict to ' another ' truth, but embrace it.
Check out here
http://www.mathresources.com/products/mathresource/maa/eulers_circles.html
Is it what you mean ?
If, yes, of course it works, in case, someone you are persuading allows the possibility of being persuaded as such. But sometimes it is not the case.
And talking about ' many truths ' approach, it's a double edged sword. Relativistic idea gained its momentum in the beginning of the past century and we all have been swimming in this golden fish bowl ever since. And it's good/bad as everything is. Good is obvious ; where is the bad part ?
- We take different ideas with equal weight. When ideas compete fairly it's OK. But quite often ' toxic' ideas are heavily invested and promoted and maybe you don't need to treat them as ' another ' truth and try build on it your proof.
" I realize that its all box's and I try to think in all of them."
That's it ! It's very profound, really ! But maybe there is another way.
As it was said : enlightened people don't do anything to influence they just influence. What this may mean in our context ? They don't prove anything and in a way they are out of all boxes.
"I don't even need to believe that what I am trying to debate is truth or not, I just need to except that it can be."
Firstly we don't know what truth is, what people are debating about ? I have no idea !
The truest truth we can possibly get is true enough. And ' true enough' can't be debated but thought together. I told you, i am a devotee of David Bohm's idea of a dialogue. What you hope ' can be' really can be in a dialogue, not in a debate... i think :)
Casey Christofaris 10+