Absolute thought

[Jarhyn]

A simple example is concluding the Earth is the center of the inverse based on eyeball observation.

Wherever the observer happens to be is the temporal center of the universe, and is definitely the center of the observer's relationship with it.

That's what relativity is about: context.

You are certain that what you will find at our observational limit is what the BB predicts, but there is no way to prove it.

Actually there is, by studying the nature and origins and properties of high energy plasma via super colliders.

But keep digging that hole.

I am as skeptical of science and interpretations of science as I am of religion.

And so are the idiots kvetching over masks (ugh... Fuck you metaphor for sticking that in my brain...)

The correct model is "trust but verify". Not "virulently distrust". Religion will inevitably fail most verifications, since it was trusted without verifying, and science will hold up more and more and more, because science is all about verification to whatever extent is possible.

 

[steve_bank]

What relativity says is that there is no preferred or absolute inertial reference frame from which we could determine a center of the universe if there is one.

The interpretation of modern observation is that no matter which point in space you pick everything seems to be moving away from you. Hence the idea of a 'big bang'.

Science has a long history of evolving and surpassing itself. Historically one can never say science represents any absolute truth. To elevate science to an absolute makes science into an ideology instead of a truth seeking process.

So, as I said I am as skeptical of scince as well as religion.

But then what is science? There is no pope of science or committee that says what science is true or what is not. It is a consensus that builds over time. Science is individuals drawing contusions. It is a complex social process.

A joke a physicist I worked with told.

Einstein was in the audince listeng to a resentaion by a fellow scientist. At the end the speaker said 'Therfore this is true."

Einstein asked 'But why is this true?'
The speaker replied 'Because it is written'
Einstein asked 'Written where?'
The speaker angrily pounded his fist on the podium saying 'It is true because it is written in my book!

 

[SIB]

Theist and atheist are absolutely mutually exclusive.

To me, atheist and believing in "something more" are not. From a logical perspective that is. Personal emotional or personal practical needs perspectives get to make up whatever they want and thats not really my thing.

"absolute thought" is like looking at a city with time sped up so you can see the people. Some would claim its all "city thought". But its a "Human field" that is "underneath" it. Changing states. Information is exchanged and express through matters state changes. No matter, no thought. Keep in mind when I say "matter" I really mean something that is changing its state somehow. If there were no "gradients" and it was all completely uniform, I don't think there would be thought or anything else.

 

[SIB]

Don't know why you brought up what you did other than an attempt to find some way to justify your taking cosmology as absolute truth.

My point about LC oscillator circuits was that from my own direct experience fitting curves and building models from empirical data is that a model can be predictive of observation does not mean the model reflects true reality. A simple example is concluding the Earth is the center of the inverse based on eyeball observation.

I am as skeptical of science and interpretations of science as I am of religion.

You are certain that what you will find at our observational limit is what the BB predicts, but there is no way to prove it. I am just as certain our observable universe is surrounded by cream cheese and a bagel.

To the OP title some can believe in science as absolute truth without defining what that is much as theists believe god is absolute truth without defining it.

I don't debate through wiki pages.

This makes sense. Some scientist over state things as facts ... most don't though.

How do we know? What steps acn we in the middle take to sort through both fundamental atheist and fundamental theist type noise? what can those of us that are not afraid of religion any more than anything else and just don't care past how the universe works do?

 

[Jarhyn]

Theist and atheist are absolutely mutually exclusive.

To me, atheist and believing in "something more" are not. From a logical perspective that is. Personal emotional or personal practical needs perspectives get to make up whatever they want and thats not really my thing.

"absolute thought" is like looking at a city with time sped up so you can see the people. Some would claim its all "city thought". But its a "Human field" that is "underneath" it. Changing states. Information is exchanged and express through matters state changes. No matter, no thought. Keep in mind when I say "matter" I really mean something that is changing its state somehow. If there were no "gradients" and it was all completely uniform, I don't think there would be thought or anything else.

This is also how I understand it.

Thought IS a process, so there can be no absolute of it other than, perhaps, a disconnected inactive model that doesn't actually think at all, itself, but could think all the things given a context.

At that point though you just end up with "universe machine" and the very concept of it being "intelligent" in any way beyond the individual actions of intelligent humans mediating the interactions of buildings and corporations and those other collective objects (including the individual humans themselves), and you can observe that "the hypervisor is dumb, if there is one."

Otherwise you would be saying the language C++ has a will for how you use it, or that a "SUBLEQ" processor or Turing tape is "infinite thought".

Spaces of potentiality do not think without an implementation in matter.

 

[steve_bank]

Don't know why you brought up what you did other than an attempt to find some way to justify your taking cosmology as absolute truth.

My point about LC oscillator circuits was that from my own direct experience fitting curves and building models from empirical data is that a model can be predictive of observation does not mean the model reflects true reality. A simple example is concluding the Earth is the center of the inverse based on eyeball observation.

I am as skeptical of science and interpretations of science as I am of religion.

You are certain that what you will find at our observational limit is what the BB predicts, but there is no way to prove it. I am just as certain our observable universe is surrounded by cream cheese and a bagel.

To the OP title some can believe in science as absolute truth without defining what that is much as theists believe god is absolute truth without defining it.

I don't debate through wiki pages.

This makes sense. Some scientist over state things as facts ... most don't though.

How do we know? What steps acn we in the middle take to sort through both fundamental atheist and fundamental theist type noise? what can those of us that are not afraid of religion any more than anything else and just don't care past how the universe works do?

It is not an impeachment, just human nature.

 

[steve_bank]

Theist and atheist are absolutely mutually exclusive.

To me, atheist and believing in "something more" are not. From a logical perspective that is. Personal emotional or personal practical needs perspectives get to make up whatever they want and thats not really my thing.

"absolute thought" is like looking at a city with time sped up so you can see the people. Some would claim its all "city thought". But its a "Human field" that is "underneath" it. Changing states. Information is exchanged and express through matters state changes. No matter, no thought. Keep in mind when I say "matter" I really mean something that is changing its state somehow. If there were no "gradients" and it was all completely uniform, I don't think there would be thought or anything else.

That is why I think atheist without qualification has no more meaning than Christian without being speicific about exactly what you do or do not believe.

 

[billyshears]

Christian atheist is yet another variation, one of many. Like all variants there is a logical reasoing and claims. One can interet history to support a wide range of claims. Gnostic Christian Bishop no longer around made his set of claims about true Christianity. In his view you woiud not be true Christian. Evangelicals do not consider Mormons and Catholics true Christians. Catholic theology says the RCC is the one true Christian church.

Go with Christian Atheist if it works for you.

My motto, neither an atheist nor a theist be. I identify as atheist because it is convenient to s do so. Arguing atheism and making it into an ideology is the flip side of theism. I need neither.

Your position strikes me as reasonable. For myself, I am driven to find healthy outlets for my enthusiasm. This is the best I can find. L'chaim--to life!

I concur, Steve. Your motto is a great one.

 

[steve_bank]

Christian atheist is yet another variation, one of many. Like all variants there is a logical reasoing and claims. One can interet history to support a wide range of claims. Gnostic Christian Bishop no longer around made his set of claims about true Christianity. In his view you woiud not be true Christian. Evangelicals do not consider Mormons and Catholics true Christians. Catholic theology says the RCC is the one true Christian church.

Go with Christian Atheist if it works for you.

My motto, neither an atheist nor a theist be. I identify as atheist because it is convenient to s do so. Arguing atheism and making it into an ideology is the flip side of theism. I need neither.

Your position strikes me as reasonable. For myself, I am driven to find healthy outlets for my enthusiasm. This is the best I can find. L'chaim--to life!

I concur, Steve. Your motto is a great one.

It is copyrighted, I get $10 every time somebody uses it....