Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Paradigmer]

I realized this notion of "Mother nature is a great illusionist!", and out of the blue had ended up developing a theory of everything.

This notion is elaborated in my philosophical article on "The paradoxical effect of the cosmos".

It eventually developed as a treatise published as an open-access modular e-book titled: "Universal Vortical Singularity ".

Its about a natural negation of the cosmos and the actualities of the empirically observed natural phenomena that are naturally negated throughout the macrocosms and the microcosms, as on how the universe and everything in it actually works.

[ernestm]

I realized this notion of "Mother nature is a great illusionist!", and out of the blue had ended up developing a theory of everything.

This notion is elaborated in my philosophical article on "The paradoxical effect of the cosmos".

It eventually developed as a treatise published as an open-access modular e-book titled: "Universal Vortical Singularity ".

Its about a natural negation of the cosmos and the actualities of the empirically observed natural phenomena that are naturally negated throughout the macrocosms and the microcosms, as on how the universe and everything in it actually works.

Well I started to read. Generally the current thought in philosophy follows the Capernican prinicple

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

That is there is no 'necessary' center geonmetrically, however geocentric models are still not only meaningful but necessary for map generation. Transferring a sphere onto a flat plane resuilts in errors, and there still is debate about the best way to do it. Due to the need of humanity to ridicule stupidity it is no longer called a geocentric model, but thats what it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-cen ... ate_system

Also one should note, while we cannot identify a center the universe geometrically, the earth is still the entropic center of the universe. Unfortunately entropy is a fairly advanced concept in physics, so while everyone who knows what it is agrees with that, you wont find any arguments about it on the web because, unless we actually find life on aother planet, there arent any disputes with it, those who know what entropy is see no reason to say anything about it, although maybe we should say more, which is why I do.

[ernestm]

I realized this notion of "Mother nature is a great illusionist!", and out of the blue had ended up developing a theory of everything.

This notion is elaborated in my philosophical article on "The paradoxical effect of the cosmos".

It eventually developed as a treatise published as an open-access modular e-book titled: "Universal Vortical Singularity ".

Its about a natural negation of the cosmos and the actualities of the empirically observed natural phenomena that are naturally negated throughout the macrocosms and the microcosms, as on how the universe and everything in it actually works.

While of course the issue should be on entropic center, I guess I should point out what the Capernican principle actually is, and that is, in Euclidean space ANY locatiopn can be modeled as a center, it's just a matter of convenience to consider heliocentrism in some cases, geoctentrism in others, or oneself as the center if one wishes, it doesn't make any difference in any absolute terms, it's just that some centers are more convenient than others.

That is to say, you are not right to say that the sun rising is an illusion. It is not. It merely depends on what framework one wishes to choose. That is all, and your statement is called the Capernican fallacy.

[ernestm]

I realized this notion of "Mother nature is a great illusionist!", and out of the blue had ended up developing a theory of everything.

This notion is elaborated in my philosophical article on "The paradoxical effect of the cosmos".

It eventually developed as a treatise published as an open-access modular e-book titled: "Universal Vortical Singularity ".

Its about a natural negation of the cosmos and the actualities of the empirically observed natural phenomena that are naturally negated throughout the macrocosms and the microcosms, as on how the universe and everything in it actually works.

What I should say is that your statement is an example of a Copernican fallacy, excuse me, I am a little tired.

That said, with some alterations you certainly could write a book thing like you say, and I have done so in the past, and here is my feedback. What you will find is that people will get to something that they think of believe is obviously wrong,and not bother reading any more. I've seen what you are writing hundreds of times, and the first thing you should realize is that you are not saying anything new, but it you work on it, you will make something good. But most people don't. Most people discover their own early mistakes later on and give up. So please don't consider what I am telling you to be a dismissal of the value of what you want to do.

But the problem with what you want to do, like the hundreds of other cases, is that you have an insight and assume you don't need to learn anything more and start writing what you know. No one can be expected to have perfect knowledge. The ERROR is thinking you are right from the start. Thats the nature of philosophical investigation. What happens is that people start thinking they are writing philosophy, but then make errors, which reduces it to a false ideology. And you can make money off false ideologies, so there are one hell of a lot of them.

Thank you for making a pretty page, and wishing you a nice day )

[Paradigmer]

I realized this notion of "Mother nature is a great illusionist!", and out of the blue had ended up developing a theory of everything.

This notion is elaborated in my philosophical article on "The paradoxical effect of the cosmos".

It eventually developed as a treatise published as an open-access modular e-book titled: "Universal Vortical Singularity ".

Its about a natural negation of the cosmos and the actualities of the empirically observed natural phenomena that are naturally negated throughout the macrocosms and the microcosms, as on how the universe and everything in it actually works.

While of course the issue should be on entropic center, I guess I should point out what the Capernican principle actually is, and that is, in Euclidean space ANY locatiopn can be modeled as a center, it's just a matter of convenience to consider heliocentrism in some cases, geoctentrism in others, or oneself as the center if one wishes, it doesn't make any difference in any absolute terms, it's just that some centers are more convenient than others.

That is to say, you are not right to say that the sun rising is an illusion. It is not. It merely depends on what framework one wishes to choose. That is all, and your statement is called the Capernican fallacy.

What you are saying here is frame of references from different point of views.

What my treatise also pointed to is the fundamental errors in heliocentrism. The mainstream physics based on heliocentrism for quantitaive predictions is fundamentally flawed.

This is why the Newton's laws of universal gravitation flopped when it comes to 3-body problem.

I have an analysis on why it flopped in this page on "The interactions of the hyperspherical pushed-in gravity in superior and inferior conjunction".

This is also why the mainstream solar physics failed to predict solar cycle with the inherent error of its reference frame.

I also have a topic on this in "The UVS visual inductive resolution on sunspot", and had wrote a few papers for the postdictions and the qualitative predictions of the short and long solar cycles.

The mainstream model with the nebular hypothesis that asserts heliocemntrism to explain the formation of the Solar System is fundamentally flawed as a result.

[Paradigmer]

I realized this notion of "Mother nature is a great illusionist!", and out of the blue had ended up developing a theory of everything.

This notion is elaborated in my philosophical article on "The paradoxical effect of the cosmos".

It eventually developed as a treatise published as an open-access modular e-book titled: "Universal Vortical Singularity ".

Its about a natural negation of the cosmos and the actualities of the empirically observed natural phenomena that are naturally negated throughout the macrocosms and the microcosms, as on how the universe and everything in it actually works.

What I should say is that your statement is an example of a Copernican fallacy, excuse me, I am a little tired.

That said, with some alterations you certainly could write a book thing like you say, and I have done so in the past, and here is my feedback. What you will find is that people will get to something that they think of believe is obviously wrong,and not bother reading any more. I've seen what you are writing hundreds of times, and the first thing you should realize is that you are not saying anything new, but it you work on it, you will make something good. But most people don't. Most people discover their own early mistakes later on and give up. So please don't consider what I am telling you to be a dismissal of the value of what you want to do.

But the problem with what you want to do, like the hundreds of other cases, is that you have an insight and assume you don't need to learn anything more and start writing what you know. No one can be expected to have perfect knowledge. The ERROR is thinking you are right from the start. Thats the nature of philosophical investigation. What happens is that people start thinking they are writing philosophy, but then make errors, which reduces it to a false ideology. And you can make money off false ideologies, so there are one hell of a lot of them.

Thank you for making a pretty page, and wishing you a nice day )

No worries. We all are quite tired to the extend of being worn-out in this business.

The alleged Copernican fallacy is on its posit of circular planetary orbits.

Little was known in modern science that Copernicus did postulated the Sun actually moves; it is a Keplerian fallacy for missing out on this fact.

I've seen what you are writing hundreds of times, and the first thing you should realize is that you are not saying anything new,

I believe you only came across my work for the first time, but had read writings of alternative hypotheses hundreds of time.

I could understand why are you so frustrated to even response at all after readings hundreds of the alternative hypotheses you had came across.

Nonetheless, TBH, I did discover my early mistakes all the times, and it was what I envisioned kept me going despite all the shortcomings.

But the problem with what you want to do, like the hundreds of other cases, is that you have an insight and assume you don't need to learn anything more and start writing what you know.

I do realize I need to learn lots of stuff for writing this treatise, of course many are beyond my pay-grade.

My main issue is on the mainstream scientific method is intrinsically flawed, and I had a detailed analysis for making this claim.

This required much re-learning, and also the different approach developed to efficaciously evaluate empirically observed natural phenomena for their actualities.

And you can make money off false ideologies, so there are one hell of a lot of them.

IMO, it is the mainstream modern science has been doing that all the time, but the practices are nevertheless pragmatic for its values.

There indeed are hell of a lot of them as how you put it, namely the known practices of pseudoscience.

Dozens of mainstream scientists had dug into the UVS treatise, and they were not disappointed; I hope you could take a few steps further.

Thank you for commenting that page is pretty, and you have a nice day too.

[ernestm]

I realized this notion of "Mother nature is a great illusionist!", and out of the blue had ended up developing a theory of everything.

This notion is elaborated in my philosophical article on "The paradoxical effect of the cosmos".

It eventually developed as a treatise published as an open-access modular e-book titled: "Universal Vortical Singularity ".

Its about a natural negation of the cosmos and the actualities of the empirically observed natural phenomena that are naturally negated throughout the macrocosms and the microcosms, as on how the universe and everything in it actually works.

What I should say is that your statement is an example of a Copernican fallacy, excuse me, I am a little tired.

That said, with some alterations you certainly could write a book thing like you say, and I have done so in the past, and here is my feedback. What you will find is that people will get to something that they think of believe is obviously wrong,and not bother reading any more. I've seen what you are writing hundreds of times, and the first thing you should realize is that you are not saying anything new, but it you work on it, you will make something good. But most people don't. Most people discover their own early mistakes later on and give up. So please don't consider what I am telling you to be a dismissal of the value of what you want to do.

But the problem with what you want to do, like the hundreds of other cases, is that you have an insight and assume you don't need to learn anything more and start writing what you know. No one can be expected to have perfect knowledge. The ERROR is thinking you are right from the start. Thats the nature of philosophical investigation. What happens is that people start thinking they are writing philosophy, but then make errors, which reduces it to a false ideology. And you can make money off false ideologies, so there are one hell of a lot of them.

Thank you for making a pretty page, and wishing you a nice day )

No worries. We all are quite tired to the extend of being worn-out in this business.

The alleged Copernican fallacy is on its posit of circular planetary orbits.

Little was known in modern science that Copernicus did postulated the Sun actually moves; it is a Keplerian fallacy for missing out on this fact.

I've seen what you are writing hundreds of times, and the first thing you should realize is that you are not saying anything new,

I believe you only came across my work for the first time, but had read writings of alternative hypotheses hundreds of time.

I could understand why are you so frustrated to even response at all after readings hundreds of the alternative hypotheses you had came across.

Nonetheless, TBH, I did discover my early mistakes all the times, and it was what I envisioned kept me going despite all the shortcomings.

But the problem with what you want to do, like the hundreds of other cases, is that you have an insight and assume you don't need to learn anything more and start writing what you know.

I do realize I need to learn lots of stuff for writing this treatise, of course many are beyond my pay-grade.

My main issue is on the mainstream scientific method is intrinsically flawed, and I had a detailed analysis for making this claim.

This required much re-learning, and also the different approach developed to efficaciously evaluate empirically observed natural phenomena for their actualities.

And you can make money off false ideologies, so there are one hell of a lot of them.

IMO, it is the mainstream modern science has been doing that all the time, but the practices are nevertheless pragmatic for its values.

There indeed are hell of a lot of them as how you put it, namely the known practices of pseudoscience.

Dozens of mainstream scientists had dug into the UVS treatise, and they were not disappointed; I hope you could take a few steps further.

Thank you for commenting that page is pretty, and you have a nice day too.

Well I look forward to seeing more, thank you for accepting what I say. My contribution at this point is that your first section would be improved by direct reference to the Coperrnican fallacy. But I am tryuing to finish something on the academic perspective on the mind/body distinction, so please excuse me, I'll have to get back to this later )

[Paradigmer]

Well I look forward to seeing more, thank you for accepting what I say. My contribution at this point is that your first section would be improved by direct reference to the Coperrnican fallacy. But I am tryuing to finish something on the academic perspective on the mind/body distinction, so please excuse me, I'll have to get back to this later )

Appreciate your intention to seeing more of the UVS treatise.

It is recommended to start from the "Preface" of the treatise.

I hope you would enjoy the exploration of its worldview like many did. Best regards.

[Alan Masterman]

By the way, guys, just a gentle tip: be wary of quoting Wikipedia as a source. In academic circles, it's a joke.

[Alan Masterman]

On reflection, in case people think I'm being unfair, perhaps I should explain myself.

Articles in Wikipedia are not peer-reviewed in any academic sense (so far as I know). Their content is decided by a democratic vote. Additionally, Wikipedia editorial policy explicitly prohibits both critical analysis and original thinking. This means that you cannot say anything in a Wikipedia article unless someone has already said it before; and you are not allowed to dispute the received wisdom. This is a recipe for intellectual mediocrity.

[Paradigmer]

On reflection, in case people think I'm being unfair, perhaps I should explain myself.

Articles in Wikipedia are not peer-reviewed in any academic sense (so far as I know). Their content is decided by a democratic vote. Additionally, Wikipedia editorial policy explicitly prohibits both critical analysis and original thinking. This means that you cannot say anything in a Wikipedia article unless someone has already said it before; and you are not allowed to dispute the received wisdom. This is a recipe for intellectual mediocrity.

Many articles on Wikipedia are indeed not accurate, this is despite many articles are nonetheless well-developed and good as reference for making inroads to the topics researched. So there are values in Wikipedia articles with the right expectations.

However, the peer-reviewed articles for mainstream modern science despite could be excellent for pragmatism, they are also being politicized to begin with, which is also a recipe for intellectual mediocrity, and they mostly do not really refer to reality.

If this claim is not at all true, it should be easily refuted.

Check this out "[urlhttps://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#validity]Critical analysis of the scientific method on its intrinsic flaws[/url]".

This is why I believe many of the peer-reviewed articles, including those hallmark theories and experiments of modern science that have had won numerous N-prizes, like how you put it, are such a joke.

[Paradigmer]

On reflection, in case people think I'm being unfair, perhaps I should explain myself.

Articles in Wikipedia are not peer-reviewed in any academic sense (so far as I know). Their content is decided by a democratic vote. Additionally, Wikipedia editorial policy explicitly prohibits both critical analysis and original thinking. This means that you cannot say anything in a Wikipedia article unless someone has already said it before; and you are not allowed to dispute the received wisdom. This is a recipe for intellectual mediocrity.

Many articles on Wikipedia are indeed not accurate, this is despite many articles are nonetheless well-developed and good as reference for making inroads to the topics researched. So there are values in Wikipedia articles with the right expectations.

However, the peer-reviewed articles for mainstream modern science despite could be excellent for pragmatism, they are also being politicized to begin with, which is also a recipe for intellectual mediocrity, and they mostly do not really refer to reality with all sorts of fallaciously postulated objective reality.

If this claim is not at all true, it should be easily refuted.

Check this out: "Critical analysis of the scientific method on its intrinsic flaws".

This is why I believe many of the peer-reviewed articles, including those hallmark theories and experiments of modern science that have had won numerous N-prizes, like how you put it, are such a joke.

[Paradigmer]

Mod, please delete the earlier repeated post.
It must have been some kind of glitches or mistake.
And after that, please also remove this post.