Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[creation]

What thing in the Universe does not interact with its environment?

Neutrinos have a very weak interaction with their environment otherwise there would be no way to measure them.

This might be interesting to know, for some people, but this certainly does not answer my question.

Who or what was on the other side of the sun, making sure that it was the exact same neutrino that past all the way through the sun, and making sure that it did this in an absolute straight line?

Well, in observed instances, the people on earth taking the measurement are. We can't say they took a straight line but pretty darn close to it. When we take measurements we can get information about their velocity and momentum which gives us evidence supporting the claim that they can travel through the sun.

If you say so.

Questions about physics and theories are better answered in textbooks and other informational sources.

Are you aware that textbooks and other informational sources can give wrong and/or misleading information? And, that just reading does not provide anyway of clarifying?

Are you aware that there actually some people who will read some things, and then just believe they are true, right, and/or correct, especially when they have an underlying belief that textbooks and informational sources will provide them with the true, right, and/or correct knowledge and information?

It's strange how often I see no actual claims, rather questions pointed at established theories.

Yet to other people, they find it completely strange that actual claims are made, without finding out about the so called "established theories" first.

And, to some other people, they find observing these different people thinking that what they find strange is somehow what other people should not be doing or should be doing, very funny and amusing.

By the way, once a theory is supposedly "established", then would it be somewhat better to call it "the truth" instead of just a "theory"?

Or, does the word "established" mean some thing different here?

Also, imagine a world where every person just made claims, but no one actually questioned any of those claims or theories?

As for your so called "established theories", the amount of flaws and inconsistencies in them is astounding.

Now, there is a claim, which you can now attack, and/or question, which is what you were really looking for. But, if you were to do that, then someone might say they find it strange how often they see no actual claims, rather questions pointed at established claims.

It's known that neutrinos don't fit nicely into the basic models of physics which is why learning more about them will help us understand physics.

Most human beings do not know and understand the basic model of physics, which, if they actually did, then they would not need to learn more about any thing to help them understand physics, itself.

I don't think anyone can actually claim much about neutrinos from a philosophical perspective since they are--in good part--a mystery.

But it is not a mystery that they travel straight through objects like the sun, which brings me back to my earlier question; Which human being or what instrument was making sure that it was the exact same neutrino, which entered the sun from one side, passed all the way through, and came out of the sun on the other side? What was the name of that experiment called?

[Sy Borg]

Questions about physics and theories are better answered in textbooks and other informational sources. It's strange how often I see no actual claims, rather questions pointed at established theories. It's known that neutrinos don't fit nicely into the basic models of physics which is why learning more about them will help us understand physics. I don't think anyone can actually claim much about neutrinos from a philosophical perspective since they are--in good part--a mystery.

I think there are valid angles in which the philosophically inclined can approach scientific concepts, but that involves accepting the results of physics experiments, which tend to be rigorous beyond most people's imagining.

I like to think about the roles that entities play in the arena/s they inhabit. For instance, what entities are most dominant an influential on others? Which act as conduits? Which ones interact most readily with which others? Which ones act as relatively neutral agents?

Generally, these kinds of entities will be found in any given population of entities - be they subatomic particles, material in molecular clouds and proto-planetary discs, the biosphere, ant colonies or human societies, cultures and organisations.

[creation]

Questions about physics and theories are better answered in textbooks and other informational sources. It's strange how often I see no actual claims, rather questions pointed at established theories. It's known that neutrinos don't fit nicely into the basic models of physics which is why learning more about them will help us understand physics. I don't think anyone can actually claim much about neutrinos from a philosophical perspective since they are--in good part--a mystery.

I think there are valid angles in which the philosophically inclined can approach scientific concepts, but that involves accepting the results of physics experiments, which tend to be rigorous beyond most people's imagining.

Do you suggest one accepts the "results" of physics experiments without any doubt, without any questioning, and without any reservation?

And, what are the valid angles in which the philosophically inclined can approach scientific concepts, if they have to just accept the results of physics experiments anyway?

I like to think about the roles that entities play in the arena/s they inhabit. For instance, what entities are most dominant an influential on others? Which act as conduits? Which ones interact most readily with which others? Which ones act as relatively neutral agents?

Generally, these kinds of entities will be found in any given population of entities - be they subatomic particles, material in molecular clouds and proto-planetary discs, the biosphere, ant colonies or human societies, cultures and organisations.
[/quote]

When you thought about the roles that the entity, 'human being', plays in the arena of earth, what answers did you arrive at with:

Which human beings are most dominant and influential on others?

Which human beings act as conduits?

Which human beings interact most readily with which other human beings?

And, which human beings act as relatively neutral agents?

[Sy Borg]

We can only work with the best knowledge we have. I'm not telling physicists how to do their jobs. They are the ones who did the work and study. I may disagree with ultimate conclusions reached and assumptions made on extrapolations of current knowledge, but not with the results of experiments and rigorously tested observations.

Human dynamics are everywhere and everyday, far more obvious and less interesting than the equivalent dynamics in the other domains mentioned.

[Ensrick]

By the way, once a theory is supposedly "established", then would it be somewhat better to call it "the truth" instead of just a "theory"?

No. Science is founded on the principles of empiricism. Sensory evidence has known limitations. As professionals go about gathering evidence to support theories they are just making them more or less credible.

Are you aware that textbooks and other informational sources can give wrong and/or misleading information? And, that just reading does not provide anyway of clarifying?
Are you aware that there actually some people who will read some things, and then just believe they are true, right, and/or correct, especially when they have an underlying belief that textbooks and informational sources will provide them with the true, right, and/or correct knowledge and information?

Reading physics textbooks is a better approach to understanding physics; it's not implied that any and all information contained within is immutable fact and neither would any physicist writing a credible textbook. That's why current editions are important.

Yet to other people, they find it completely strange that actual claims are made, without finding out about the so called "established theories" first.

[...]imagine a world where every person just made claims, but no one actually questioned any of those claims or theories?

Generally, pragmatic people won't assume that claims made on the basis of evidence are meant to answer all questions or that if one is unable to supply an endless amount of answers to the 'why game' that the claim is not credible. If the information works well enough for practical intents, then it shall suffice. Newtonian physics isn't up to par for particle physics, but if you're building a coffee table there's no need to break out the textbooks.

Beyond practical intent, answering an endless string of questions is just a form of amusement which is the fun of philosophy and it's why I entertain such probing questions. I caution people to be careful that they not only question ideas that are not compatible with their worldview, but also question their own. In my experience, a line of questioning where rhetoric involving frequent accusatory usage of the word "you", is usually a defense mechanism. Likewise, so is a line of questioning which is not for the purpose of understanding. Just because an opposing claim isn't without flaw doesn't validate one's worldview.

Perhaps you feel beleaguered by one-sided institutional science?

If I may supply an anecdote, our discussions remind me of a religious discussion with an Army Chaplain I knew who was a Young Earth Creationist. It was a difficult to have a conversation because I'd usually be supplying answers to questions ad nauseum. He didn't reveal his ideas about the world upfront knowing the criticism he'd encounter from one such as myself. His intent was obviously to question me till he found my answers lacking enough to satisfy his need for feeling validated.

[creation]

By the way, once a theory is supposedly "established", then would it be somewhat better to call it "the truth" instead of just a "theory"?

No. Science is founded on the principles of empiricism. Sensory evidence has known limitations. As professionals go about gathering evidence to support theories they are just making them more or less credible.

Well this certainly contradicts being "professional" in relation to 'theories'. Gathering evidence to support one thing or another is just 'confirmation bias' in its most sever form.

One either gathering so called "evidence" to support a theory, or to disprove a theory, is the most unprofessional conduct and behavior of all.

This looking for and/or seeing "evidence" to support one thing or another is a huge issue in the scientific community. Their previous biases always get in the way of looking at and seeing things from the Truly OPEN perspective. Therefore, the word "established" from within the scientific community has to be very closely monitored and scrutinized.

Also, to me, a 'theory' is falsifiable. Therefore, if a theory has become so called "established", then this infers a sense of not being able to be falsified anymore, and therefore it is now just 'true', or just a 'fact'.

Again, people doing science only look at what 'could be' true, and never at what IS actually True. I prefer to just look at what IS actually True.

Are you aware that textbooks and other informational sources can give wrong and/or misleading information? And, that just reading does not provide anyway of clarifying?
Are you aware that there actually some people who will read some things, and then just believe they are true, right, and/or correct, especially when they have an underlying belief that textbooks and informational sources will provide them with the true, right, and/or correct knowledge and information?

Reading physics textbooks is a better approach to understanding physics; it's not implied that any and all information contained within is immutable fact and neither would any physicist writing a credible textbook. That's why current editions are important.

And that is why questioning current editions needs to be continually done.

The flaws within current editions are very easy to see, but they are extremely hard, if not impossible, to show and explain, to others who believe that a theory is already so called "established", or that the current textbooks and other informational sources is the 'best' ones we have.

Obviously, if some one believes that a source of information is already "established" and/or is the "best", then they are not open to anything contrary.

Yet to other people, they find it completely strange that actual claims are made, without finding out about the so called "established theories" first.

[...]imagine a world where every person just made claims, but no one actually questioned any of those claims or theories?

Generally, pragmatic people won't assume that claims made on the basis of evidence are meant to answer all questions or that if one is unable to supply an endless amount of answers to the 'why game' that the claim is not credible. If the information works well enough for practical intents, then it shall suffice.

Well obviously the current information, in this day and age when this is being written, is certainly NOT well enough for practical intents, and obviously does not suffice at all.

The amount of discrepancies between general relativity and quantum mechanics just proves this.

Newtonian physics isn't up to par for particle physics, but if you're building a coffee table there's no need to break out the textbooks.

Obviously if you cannot provide the where, when, how, what, and why answers, then it is you who still has more to learn and understand.

Saying that "theories are established", which are in complete contradiction with other so called "established theories" just proves how far off people are.

Beyond practical intent, answering an endless string of questions is just a form of amusement which is the fun of philosophy and it's why I entertain such probing questions.

Great, we will just see how many the actual questions I ask you do answer.

I caution people to be careful that they not only question ideas that are not compatible with their worldview, but also question their own.

I question people not just on their views and ideas they put forward that are not compatible with my views and ideas but also on those ones that are the exact same as mine. I do this to see just how much they actually know.

I would LOVE for people to question and challenge me on absolutely any and/or every thing I say, but sadly this rarely happens.

In my experience, a line of questioning where rhetoric involving frequent accusatory usage of the word "you", is usually a defense mechanism.

I suggest you never base new experiences on your past personal experiences. Making assumptions based on one's past experiences prevents them from seeing the actual Truth of things.

The word 'you' is sometimes also used so that the answers provided are actually from that 'one' and not just some re-repeated answer/s from "others".

Likewise, so is a line of questioning which is not for the purpose of understanding. Just because an opposing claim isn't without flaw doesn't validate one's worldview.

You appear really stuck on this assumption here.

A line of questioning could also be to gain an understanding of how much the one claiming and answering actually knows, and not in understanding of the actual topic itself.

If any claim is with flaw, then let us just bring it out in the OPEN for all to look at it and see. But, if one continually tries to hide that flaw, then that just shows how rigid one is trying to hold onto their own personal worldview.

Perhaps you feel beleaguered by one-sided institutional science?

And perhaps not at all.

Were you assuming something here?

I find asking actual questions far more rewarding, then just stating some thing and then just putting a question mark at the end of it. The latter actually shows what one is assuming and/or believing is true already. Whereas, the former shows or appears to be showing that one is just asking a truly open question for clarification.

By the way, I did not know there was a 'one-sided institutional science'. If you think there is, then which one is that?

If I may supply an anecdote, our discussions remind me of a religious discussion with an Army Chaplain I knew who was a Young Earth Creationist. It was a difficult to have a conversation because I'd usually be supplying answers to questions ad nauseum. He didn't reveal his ideas about the world upfront knowing the criticism he'd encounter from one such as myself. His intent was obviously to question me till he found my answers lacking enough to satisfy his need for feeling validated.

Well, as I suggested earlier, NEVER perceive new experiences based solely off of your past experiences. You will find yourself WRONG far more times then you would like to admit. Just like you are here now.

If I recall correctly you already KNOW some of my ideas of the Universe, so any assumptions based on me not being upfront are completely unfounded.

If you would like a better anecdote, have you ever considered to ask the "other" what their ideas are? Or, are you just solely interested in your own ideas, and/or do not like having to defend them? If you are supplying answers to questions, supposedly "ad nauseum", then that suggests the other is curious, and, if you did not bother asking any questions to them, then that suggests no care at all about the other. How would he know the criticism he would encounter from you if he never asked you multiple questions about what your views or ideas?

I do NOT need to question you till I find your answers lacking enough to satisfy my need for feeling validated at all. I have absolutely NO need at all for that. Also, if I find your answers lacking, then so be it. That just shows more about you, then me.

Also, what has a so called "creationist" (young or old) got absolutely any thing to do with me anyway?

Are you making some sort of assumption, based on some sort of past experience of yours, here?

By the way, I have an acronym for the behavior of making Assumptions based on Past Experiences, which, to me, is a behavior so far in the past, from my perspective, that it is like behaving like an APE compared to human beings in evolutionary terms. To me, making assumptions and believing things is WHY human beings are so slow in evolving any further, than they are now, in the days of when this is being written.

[creation]

We can only work with the best knowledge we have.

There is a whole other, and better, way than just working that way. Especially when the so called "best" knowledge might be false, wrong, and/or incorrect to even begin with.

I'm not telling physicists how to do their jobs. They are the ones who did the work and study. I may disagree with ultimate conclusions reached and assumptions made on extrapolations of current knowledge, but not with the results of experiments and rigorously tested observations.

Okay, you might not do this. But, the "results" are not always as conclusive as some people believe they are. This is because of the way "results" can be very easily misinterpreted, or used to "explain" other "found results". "Rigorously tested observations" also can be very easily used to also explain things, which have been misinterpreted previously.

Human dynamics are everywhere and everyday, far more obvious and less interesting than the equivalent dynamics in the other domains mentioned.

[Ensrick]

Gathering evidence to support one thing or another is just 'confirmation bias' in its most sever form.

To avoid confirmation bias the scientific method begins with questioning and applies rigorous skepticism. Confirmation bias is when you only look for evidence to support your ideas. Most of the time evidence disproves the hypothesis so we start over using the evidence and by making a new hypothesis to better explain the evidence.

One either gathering so called "evidence" to support a theory, or to disprove a theory, is the most unprofessional conduct and behavior of all.

This looking for and/or seeing "evidence" to support one thing or another is a huge issue in the scientific community. Their previous biases always get in the way of looking at and seeing things from the Truly OPEN perspective. Therefore, the word "established" from within the scientific community has to be very closely monitored and scrutinized.

Also, to me, a 'theory' is falsifiable. Therefore, if a theory has become so called "established", then this infers a sense of not being able to be falsified anymore, and therefore it is now just 'true', or just a 'fact'.

Again, people doing science only look at what 'could be' true, and never at what IS actually True. I prefer to just look at what IS actually True.

Science is also founded on the principles of skepticism; Claiming to know the truth does you no credit. I'm not sure if you realize how unconvincing it is to tout about the truth and science when you disagree with science itself and seem to lack any skepticism in your own understanding. To me this implies you lack the rigorous investigation required to hold any kind of knowledge. Have you been studying physics here on the forum by asking questions?

Obviously, if some one believes that a source of information is already "established" and/or is the "best", then they are not open to anything contrary.

On the principles of skepticism I reserve doubt for anything I consider to be established or the best. Lacking skepticism is the quickest way to become close-minded. I hope to see you demonstrate similar skepticism in the idea that you know "the truth" as you refer to it.

Well obviously the current information, in this day and age when this is being written, is certainly NOT well enough for practical intents, and obviously does not suffice at all.

The amount of discrepancies between general relativity and quantum mechanics just proves this.

For my part it is practical. If our understanding of physics can put a man on the moon, I'd say that it's fairly credible.

Obviously if you cannot provide the where, when, how, what, and why answers, then it is you who still has more to learn and understand.

Oh I certainly do. The information must meet certain standards though; such as having an empirical foundation. What you seem to perceive as "close-minded" is an unwillingness to accept information that isn't supported by evidence and I have provided answers; it's fairly easy because I have an abundance of credible information available. When I provide you with an answer and that leads to more questions as opposed to your offering a different perspective, that could just as easily indicate is a lack of comprehension on your part rather than a lack of understanding on mine. That's where we seem to be as the only thing I've done besides answering questions is disagree with your idea that the universe is fundamentally simple or that you have a "True" understanding of it.

Saying that "theories are established", which are in complete contradiction with other so called "established theories" just proves how far off people are.

Yes and to me, this is much less far off from physical realities than a philosophy forum's best and brightest.

I question people not just on their views and ideas they put forward that are not compatible with my views and ideas but also on those ones that are the exact same as mine. I do this to see just how much they actually know.

Very cool. I grow suspicious if this isn't clear upfront. Also, I don't think asking questions will help you understand how much I know if it's not something you already understand. That's why your asking questions for that purpose seems presumptuous.

[creation]

Gathering evidence to support one thing or another is just 'confirmation bias' in its most sever form.

To avoid confirmation bias the scientific method begins with questioning and applies rigorous skepticism.

Using words like "rigorous" and "skepticism" does not mean that is happens each and every time.

It does not matter what methods have been used up to the era of when this is written in, ALL of those methods were done by human beings, and it is human beings who are skewed by 'confirmation biases'. 'Confirmation biases' are used in the forming of and the using of words like "rigorous skepticism" as though, "I am not biased in any way, shape, nor form". This is all just how human beings fool and deceive themselves continually.

If there was an absolute rigorous skepticism involved in questioning, then when people started saying there is red shift therefore the Universe is expanding, then the questioning would be begin. But, what happens is the exact opposite happens. People start saying things like the scientific community discovered red shift so this means that the Universe is expanding, and if we work back from this, then that means the Universe began, with let us call it "a big bang", as though that somehow explains things.

Red shift is NOT necessarily any evidence at all that the Universe is expanding. But who am I to question this. Especially as supposedly ALL of the questioning with "rigorous skepticism" has already been done. And, now considering it is supposedly an "established" theory or fact, then this is now not open for discussion anymore, so what we are now meant to do is to look for more so called "evidence" to support this new theory.

If, from the very beginning, from which all these supposed "established theories" have come from, is wrong from the start, then this whole so called "scientific method" is an absolute joke.

Confirmation bias is when you only look for evidence to support your ideas.

Which is exactly what you said when you wrote:
As professionals go about gathering evidence to support theories they are just making them more or less credible.

"Gathering evidence to support theories" can be done without one even consciously knowing that they are only looking for evidence to support their "ideas" or what they already believe is true. For example, if scientists already believe that red shift is the evidence that supports the theory that the Universe is expanding, then it is an easy jump to then start thinking if it is expanding, then it must have been smaller to a point of singularity, and from there it easy to conclude that the Universe began, and so sub-consciously go looking for more evidence that supports this now conclusion, or believed truth. If the theory that the Universe is expanding, for example, is already supported, then what is all too searched for is to gather more evidence that supports this theory, so looking for evidence that supports the Universe began is much easier to "find", or more correctly to formulate, which when the two are put together, then the belief that this theory is being better supported becomes more true, and this distortion of what IS actually True just continues on.

To see this in action, one just has to look at the way people say things like;
Questions about physics and theories are better answered in textbooks and other informational sources.


If one was to look for answers regarding the Universe, for example, in textbooks and other informational sources, then what they will find is that the Universe is supposedly expanding. This is supposedly because the so called "explanation" for red shift is that it is the supposedly "supporting evidence" that the Universe is expanding. The inconsistencies here are very obvious, to me, but I am told that this is already an "established" theory, which is supported by the scientific community and which is supported in scientific textbooks and other informational sources, and so if I do not accept that, then I am just wrong.

Inconsistencies like the ones found in this theory can also be found in the theory of relativity where the explanation for the results of the hafele-keating experiment are not allowed to be questioned because some people believe that this is an already "established" theory as well, which can be seen in textbooks and other informational sources. Yet the results of the experiments actually prove not what the "explanation" says it proves. Just like red shift actually proves not what the "explanation" says it proves. The reason the wrong "explanations" are given is because people unintentionally and unknowingly are trying to confirm what they already believe is true. People's already held beliefs distort the way they look at and see things, which is essentially just what 'confirmation bias' is.

Most of the time evidence disproves the hypothesis so we start over using the evidence and by making a new hypothesis to better explain the evidence.

As I said earlier, a complete waste of time and effort. Especially considering how easy it is to just notice, see, and understand what thee actual Truth IS in the beginning.

Why hypothesize about what might be, when what IS can be easily and simply seen anyway?

Science is also founded on the principles of skepticism; Claiming to know the truth does you no credit.

Have I actually claimed to 'know the truth'?

Also, alluding to this and making you think and BELIEVE that I already 'know the truth' in order that I am then being NO credit at all is exactly what I want to do here.

The less credit I get, from the people in the days of when this is written, and then if I just happen to be correct in what I have been saying here, then the more evidence I have of how the Mind and the brain work, and how effected the brain is because of the belief-system.

Because some people believe that truth cannot be known they therefore instantly dismiss absolutely everything when anyone says or implies that they already know the truth. Beliefs and believing effect human beings far more than they realize.

I'm not sure if you realize how unconvincing it is to tout about the truth and science when you disagree with science itself and seem to lack any skepticism in your own understanding.

I am very AWARE of what I am doing here.

The more the posters I discuss with just dismiss what I say, because of their already held beliefs, then the more evidence I am gathering for what I say in regards to how the human brain works.

And you never asking any clarifying questions, nor ever actually challenging what I do say, just further supports exactly what I say about how the human brain works.

Also, your believe that I "disagree with science itself" is absolutely absurd and ridiculous. What have I said that led you to assume and/or conclude that I supposedly "disagree with science itself"?

This kind of talking seems to be a very common way with those who believe that everything that is written in scientific textbooks and other so called "informational" sources is true, right, and/or correct and is better left unchallenged.

And, what examples have you got that I lack any skepticism in my own understanding, other than the one you assumed and/or believe I have, which was probably based off of nothing more than your own personal past experiences?

If what you say here does have any actual truth in it, then you will very easily and very simply be able to provide the examples.

To me this implies you lack the rigorous investigation required to hold any kind of knowledge. Have you been studying physics here on the forum by asking questions?

And, you are providing ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being who made an assumption, based solely off of personal past experiences, then jumped to a conclusion that it is true, and now believes it is true, and so now therefore is looking for only what backs up and supports this already held belief.

You have not even proven anything you have written here, but now you are proving that you believe very strongly in what you have already concluded is the truth.

I have not even said what you assume and/or believe that I am doing, but yet here you are believing wholeheartedly that it is true.

Also, how about clarifying questioning with me first in regards to what I have actually written and am actually saying BEFORE you make these outlandish assumptions about what I am saying and meaning?

Obviously, if some one believes that a source of information is already "established" and/or is the "best", then they are not open to anything contrary.

On the principles of skepticism I reserve doubt for anything I consider to be established or the best. [/quote]

So, do you doubt the correctness of your so called "established" theories, textbooks, and informational sources?

There are, after all, lots of inconsistencies and contradictions within them.

Lacking skepticism is the quickest way to become close-minded.

And using words like "established theories", "answers can be found within textbooks and other informational sources", et cetera reveals and shows a very strong lack of skepticism indeed.

I hope to see you demonstrate similar skepticism in the idea that you know "the truth" as you refer to it.

Are you completely STUPID? To you, there is NO "truth" so what you hope to see is an IMPOSSIBILITY. You are so CLOSED, and so have absolutely NO skepticism at all, that this is now extremely laughable.

I KNOW the Truth because I have challenged It as far as possible. But you will NEVER know nor even discover this because you are so CLOSED. You are so CLOSED that you are not even capable to ask any clarifying questions to me. You have lost this ability because you actually already believe that what you say is absolutely true, absolutely right, and absolutely correct. And, the most humorous part of this is you are basing this solely off of your past experiences with OTHERS.

Show that you are actually somewhat OPEN by showing at least some curiosity and ask some clarifying questions, and then challenge me on what my actual answers are.

Making assumptions and believing things PRIOR to asking clarifying questions just proves how CLOSED you really ARE.

Well obviously the current information, in this day and age when this is being written, is certainly NOT well enough for practical intents, and obviously does not suffice at all.

The amount of discrepancies between general relativity and quantum mechanics just proves this.

For my part it is practical. If our understanding of physics can put a man on the moon, I'd say that it's fairly credible.

Okay, you appear to be happy and satisfied with the knowledge available to you now in "textbooks and other informational sources", and therefore this is just more evidence and an explanation of WHY you are remain so CLOSED and NOT open to learning and understanding more and anew.

If getting human beings to the moon is what satisfied you, then so be it. There are others, however, who really do want to continue learning, and discovering more and anew.

Obviously if you cannot provide the where, when, how, what, and why answers, then it is you who still has more to learn and understand.

Oh I certainly do. The information must meet certain standards though; such as having an empirical foundation.

'Must' ALL information have an 'empirical foundation'?

'Empirical foundation' in a way is the opposite of 'theories' and 'theorizing'.

What you seem to perceive as "close-minded" is an unwillingness to accept information that isn't supported by evidence and I have provided answers; it's fairly easy because I have an abundance of credible information available.

Well this is NOT what I perceive at all.

I am the first One to say that evidence AND proof is needed BEFORE accepting any thing.

When I provide you with an answer and that leads to more questions as opposed to your offering a different perspective, that could just as easily indicate is a lack of comprehension on your part rather than a lack of understanding on mine.

It could "indicate" that, especially if that is what one wants to find and see.

You have already admitted through your past experiences that this is what you have experienced before, and it now appears that you very much are looking for this, and seeing this in others, if though it is NOT even there.

If you think that you just providing one, or a few answers, provides the actual final answer, then you are completely mistaken.

Why do I 'have to' provide a different perspective to you? You certainly have NOT asked for one, nor have you shown any interest at all in any thing other than what you already believe is true.

What you lack in understanding you have already shown and revealed here, to me.

That's where we seem to be as the only thing I've done besides answering questions is disagree with your idea that the universe is fundamentally simple or that you have a "True" understanding of it.

You are absolutely free to believe that the Universe is fundamentally complex.

But disagreeing with me that the Universe IS fundamentally very simple and very easy to explain and/or understand, and that it is possible to have a True understanding of the Universe, but you NEVER questioning me about this just proves how CLOSED you are and how STUCK you are in your own BELIEFS.

Believe whatever you like BUT that does not make it true.

The difference between 'you' and 'I' is you made the claim that the Universe is complex. I say, to me, the Universe is very simple.

Saying that "theories are established", which are in complete contradiction with other so called "established theories" just proves how far off people are.

Yes and to me, this is much less far off from physical realities than a philosophy forum's best and brightest.

Again, why are you here in this forum?

I question people not just on their views and ideas they put forward that are not compatible with my views and ideas but also on those ones that are the exact same as mine. I do this to see just how much they actually know.

Very cool. I grow suspicious if this isn't clear upfront.

Do you always go to places and instantly "grow" or are "suspicious" when you talk to people and they do not explain to you instantly ALL of their views and/or ideas "upfront" on the very first occasion?

Also, I don't think asking questions will help you understand how much I know if it's not something you already understand.

Why? Are you totally incapable of explaining what you supposedly "understand"? Or, do you just believe others are not capable of understanding ALL of
"how much" you know.

From what you have shown here so far, to me, you cannot even know what is true anyway, because you believe the truth cannot even be known.

That's why your asking questions for that purpose seems presumptuous.

Lol what you just said here is a 'presumption' itself. If you believe me asking you clarifying questions is not appropriate, then so be it.

Your failure to clarify yourself says and shows more about you than me.

If people cannot just answer clarifying questions and presume something else is happening, then I suggest they do not say what they say nor make the claims that they do, nor make the assumptions that they obviously are.

I can back up and support absolutely everything I say and claim, and I suggest others also have at least some thing to back up and support their claims BEFORE they make the claim in the first place.

[Ensrick]

To avoid confirmation bias the scientific method begins with questioning and applies rigorous skepticism.

Using words like "rigorous" and "skepticism" does not mean that is happens each and every time.

If these are not applied then it's not scientific.

It does not matter what methods have been used up to the era of when this is written in, ALL of those methods were done by human beings, and it is human beings who are skewed by 'confirmation biases'.

The methods do matter if they can produce verifiable results by effectively eliminating bias by taking simple measures to avoid it. If the bias is there, it can be pointed out and eliminated from the conclusions of scientific study. I am aware that scientists are not infallible and that mistakes can be made; that's where the rigor of investigation and study comes in. It's a constant process. Double-blind experimentation. Use multiple people to code the data. Have participants review your results. Verify with more data sources. Check for alternative explanations. Review findings with peers and by classifying and understanding bias we can look for it in the published research. Bias is counter-productive, especially in research meant to get valuable data that can be used in developing technology such as physics.

If there was an absolute rigorous skepticism involved in questioning, then when people started saying there is red shift therefore the Universe is expanding, then the questioning would be begin. But, what happens is the exact opposite happens. People start saying things like the scientific community discovered red shift so this means that the Universe is expanding, and if we work back from this, then that means the Universe began, with let us call it "a big bang", as though that somehow explains things.

Red shifts were understood prior to theories involving the expanding universe. Red shifts are how light propagates. Objects moving away emit red light because blue light is Mie scattering. Red light is Raleigh scattering. I think you're too eager to dismiss what doesn't align with what you already think; that in itself is a bias. What on earth do you think a red shift means if not that things are moving away from us? Also, Red shifts aren't the only evidence, thermodynamics shows even the space between atoms and electrons increases with time. Then there's the cosmic background microwave radiation that we've detected and documented. The models for the big bang leave much to be desired which is opportunity to learn more about physics; mainly issues you haven't addressed such as the problem with the existence of matter where the model shows equal parts anti-matter and matter.

Red shift is NOT necessarily any evidence at all that the Universe is expanding.

How so?

But who am I to question this. Especially as supposedly ALL of the questioning with "rigorous skepticism" has already been done. And, now considering it is supposedly an "established" theory or fact, then this is now not open for discussion anymore, so what we are now meant to do is to look for more so called "evidence" to support this new theory.

Entirely incorrect, the idea that a theory is established doesn't make it unquestionable. Astronomers have been gathering evidence for decades, whether it supports the theory or not. When it doesn't this presents opportunities to learn more. If we find evidence that can't be explained by the theory it doesn't make it useless if we were able to put it to practical use; it simply means it might need to be revised or we might need a better theory. The problem here is you're not giving me any reason to question it. What's wrong the established theories on the big bang and the expansion of time and space?

If, from the very beginning, from which all these supposed "established theories" have come from, is wrong from the start, then this whole so called "scientific method" is an absolute joke.

This is grammatically incomprehensible. What are you saying here?

Confirmation bias is when you only look for evidence to support your ideas.

Which is exactly what you said when you wrote:
As professionals go about gathering evidence to support theories they are just making them more or less credible.

That's not confirmation bias because as I said in that quote, it can make the theory 'less credible' if the evidence doesn't support it.

"Gathering evidence to support theories" can be done without one even consciously knowing that they are only looking for evidence to support their "ideas" or what they already believe is true.

I assume you're saying that one can unconsciously skew data with bias and yes I agree. That's why peer review is important and that the methods used were indeed scientific. Double-blind experiments are done to climate bias as well as starting with the null hypothesis along with all I mentioned earlier. Proper methodology will eliminate the potential for false data and data skewed by bias. Quantitative data doesn't leave much room for bias unless you cherry pick; for example, testing Newton's laws on gravity doesn't leave much room for alternative interpretation. If something falls when you drop it, it's pretty easy to prove the effects of gravity. If testing gravity shows gravity is real, using that to support Newton's laws isn't confirmation bias; it's confirmation. Confirmation bias would be if while testing gravity by dropping a ball 5x, you observed it fly into the sky like a helium balloon one of the 5 tries and then chose to willingly reject that 5th try as counter-evidence rather than explain it.

To see this in action, one just has to look at the way people say things like;
Questions about physics and theories are better answered in textbooks and other informational sources.

If the answers are better answered by textbooks, then there's no such issue. If you have a better answer than the textbook, let's hear it.

If one was to look for answers regarding the Universe, for example, in textbooks and other informational sources, then what they will find is that the Universe is supposedly expanding. This is supposedly because the so called "explanation" for red shift is that it is the supposedly "supporting evidence" that the Universe is expanding. The inconsistencies here are very obvious, to me, but I am told that this is already an "established" theory, which is supported by the scientific community and which is supported in scientific textbooks and other informational sources, and so if I do not accept that, then I am just wrong.

What are these inconsistencies?

Inconsistencies like the ones found in this theory can also be found in the theory of relativity where the explanation for the results of the hafele-keating experiment are not allowed to be questioned because some people believe that this is an already "established" theory as well, which can be seen in textbooks and other informational sources. Yet the results of the experiments actually prove not what the "explanation" says it proves. Just like red shift actually proves not what the "explanation" says it proves.

How so? The experiment was closely monitored and tested again by other research groups with more precision. What inconsistencies?

The reason the wrong "explanations" are given is because people unintentionally and unknowingly are trying to confirm what they already believe is true. People's already held beliefs distort the way they look at and see things

You haven't given me any reason to suspect anything is wrong with the established theories beyond what I already have found and is common knowledge to anyone studying physics.

As I said earlier, a complete waste of time and effort. Especially considering how easy it is to just notice, see, and understand what thee actual Truth IS in the beginning.

Why hypothesize about what might be, when what IS can be easily and simply seen anyway?

And you wonder why I think you lack skepticism. You reject evidence and claim the truth is easy to understand. How would you know differently? You call it a waste of time and effort but we live in a world surrounded by technological progress like the internet you're using to call such effort a waste of time. Can you not see the irony in calling modern scientific theories a waste of time? The modern way of life depends on scientific progress and to improve it relies on more discoveries. The leaps in understanding physics over the past 70 years have allowed for amazing technological progress in computer science and quantum computers are on the way. If your understanding of physics can put a man on the moon, I'd be impressed but that's been accomplished using an understanding of phyics that is less precise than what we have now. If it takes me a lot of convincing, perhaps it's because you haven't got much to show while you sit here contradicting space-time and relativity.

Have I actually claimed to 'know the truth'?

If you're just talking about some abstract idea of the truth instead of offering some, then why bring it up?

Also, alluding to this and making you think and BELIEVE that I already 'know the truth' in order that I am then being NO credit at all is exactly what I want to do here.

This is incomprehensible due to grammar.

The less credit I get, from the people in the days of when this is written, and then if I just happen to be correct in what I have been saying here, then the more evidence I have of how the Mind and the brain work, and how effected the brain is because of the belief-system.

It seems like you're saying that if you don't get credit now and somehow someday people look back on this forum and you happen to be right then you'll have the evidence you need. Ok, cool.

Because some people believe that truth cannot be known they therefore instantly dismiss absolutely everything when anyone says or implies that they already know the truth. Beliefs and believing effect human beings far more than they realize.

Dismissing everything? No. I accept information that crosses a threshold but I reserve uncertainty to maintain an open mind to the alternatives. That's a holistic approach. There's a difference between maintaining a standard for what information you'll accept and blatently denying anything contrary to what you believe. I try to avoid simply believing.

I'm not sure if you realize how unconvincing it is to tout about the truth and science when you disagree with science itself and seem to lack any skepticism in your own understanding.

I am very AWARE of what I am doing here.

The more the posters I discuss with just dismiss what I say, because of their already held beliefs, then the more evidence I am gathering for what I say in regards to how the human brain works.

It seems like you believe you're collecting evidence. By "collecting evidence" more and more it seems like you're using people's unwillingness to constantly engage you in discussion to validate how you feel about what you think.

And you never asking any clarifying questions, nor ever actually challenging what I do say, just further supports exactly what I say about how the human brain works.

I have challenged your claim that the scientific method is inherently flawed by confirmation bias, your idea that the truth and nature is simple and that the universe is "one".

Also, your believe that I "disagree with science itself" is absolutely absurd and ridiculous. What have I said that led you to assume and/or conclude that I supposedly "disagree with science itself"?

Maybe that your criticism of established theories has no basis in science and you seem at odds with the scientific community itself.

This kind of talking seems to be a very common way with those who believe that everything that is written in scientific textbooks and other so called "informational" sources is true, right, and/or correct and is better left unchallenged.

I trust research methods to an extent, but there's also lab work that goes with classes and you can test most basic information with a few tools. Outside of that, research methods and well documented results get my attention. You haven't offered anything of that kind or demonstrated an understanding of basic physics like the scattering of radiation I mentioned earlier.

And, what examples have you got that I lack any skepticism in my own understanding, other than the one you assumed and/or believe I have, which was probably based off of nothing more than your own personal past experiences?

If what you say here does have any actual truth in it, then you will very easily and very simply be able to provide the examples.

I did, let me go over a few. The idea that the truth is simple, easily understood and not complex if you but "want it". This stands contradictory to the idea that the truth in it's entirety is unkowable. Also, how about claiming Red Shifts are don't support the expansion of the universe? You don't seem to have a reason to doubt this and you haven't demonstrated what else red shifts should indicate but you're making the claim the universe doesn't expand.

And, you are providing ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being who made an assumption, based solely off of personal past experiences, then jumped to a conclusion that it is true, and now believes it is true, and so now therefore is looking for only what backs up and supports this already held belief.

I was actually giving you the opportunity to lend some credibility to yourself by asking you.

You have not even proven anything you have written here, but now you are proving that you believe very strongly in what you have already concluded is the truth.

I have not even said what you assume and/or believe that I am doing, but yet here you are believing wholeheartedly that it is true.

Also, how about clarifying questioning with me first in regards to what I have actually written and am actually saying BEFORE you make these outlandish assumptions about what I am saying and meaning?

If you go back to the full quote I took, you're talking about "actual truth". See the below quote.

Again, people doing science only look at what 'could be' true, and never at what IS actually True. I prefer to just look at what IS actually True.

I don't think a scientist looks at the world in this way. I've yet to find anything other than what "could be". If you're suggesting otherwise that seems baseless. How does one find what is actually true?

So, do you doubt the correctness of your so called "established" theories, textbooks, and informational sources?

There are, after all, lots of inconsistencies and contradictions within them.

An inconsistency doesn't mean the information isn't viable depending on the application. Newton's laws don't explain all physical phenomena but they're still useful for basic construction.

And using words like "established theories", "answers can be found within textbooks and other informational sources", et cetera reveals and shows a very strong lack of skepticism indeed.

I don't think it does, because these informational sources encourage using the scientific method, provide the basis for lab work and the theories require a lot of actual testing. If it was so simple as reviewing the information, that would suspect; the information has to be demonstrated as practical in it's actual use and testing.

Are you completely STUPID? To you, there is NO "truth" so what you hope to see is an IMPOSSIBILITY. You are so CLOSED, and so have absolutely NO skepticism at all, that this is now extremely laughable.

Calm down bud. To me there is truth but I think we can only ever understand a tiny fragment of it. Most of what is "true" may remain unkown for all eternity, which is quite sad.

I KNOW the Truth because I have challenged It as far as possible. But you will NEVER know nor even discover this because you are so CLOSED. You are so CLOSED that you are not even capable to ask any clarifying questions to me. You have lost this ability because you actually already believe that what you say is absolutely true, absolutely right, and absolutely correct. And, the most humorous part of this is you are basing this solely off of your past experiences with OTHERS.

I recall you saying somewhere that you didn't claim to know the truth and here you are claiming to know it and I do ask you questions, like how do you know the truth? In the forum thread on the infinite universe, I asked this and you said you never claimed that you did know the truth.

Okay, you appear to be happy and satisfied with the knowledge available to you now in "textbooks and other informational sources", and therefore this is just more evidence and an explanation of WHY you are remain so CLOSED and NOT open to learning and understanding more and anew.

If getting human beings to the moon is what satisfied you, then so be it. There are others, however, who really do want to continue learning, and discovering more and anew.

We've learned a lot since the initial moon landing and I look foreword to seeing if astronauts make it to Mars but for my part, where science is currently at doesn't really satisfy me. Actually, since I was originally a Christian and sure I had a meaningful purpose in the grand scheme of things, I've found becoming more skeptical isn't satisfying but I learn to accept that I'm probably not going to ever have all the answers I desire.

'Must' ALL information have an 'empirical foundation'?

'Empirical foundation' in a way is the opposite of 'theories' and 'theorizing'.

Theories are empirical. Again, I think you're using the layman's reference to theories which is something that is loosely hypothetical. In science theories are something very different.

Well this is NOT what I perceive at all.

I am the first One to say that evidence AND proof is needed BEFORE accepting any thing.

I'm actually somewhat interested in what you have to say. Obviously, I have doubts that it'll be enlightening but you seem reluctant to provide it, not because I don't want to hear, but because I might have a good reason to disagree with it.

[psyreporter]

Neutrinos can morph, increasing their mass up to 3000x in size (maybe more, recently a fourth heavy weight flavor was discovered) which is why the particle is called a "Ghost Particle". What could explain an act out of itself by a particle so small that it can pass straight through the core of the Sun? Perhaps it is a clue for the origin of consciousness.

What would happen when a Neutrino is created and actually flies into infinity? Endlessness would render it's begin purposeless. Therefor, perhaps, Neutrino's provide an origin of a force that attempts to render purpose to its creation, with as a physical result the exertion of a mass to interact with the visible world which is manifested as consciousness.

(2015) Paradigm shift for biology and consciousness theories

For the last twenty years, a wide range of philosophers, scientists etc. have made a concerted effort to come up with a fundamental theory to explain consciousness. It was in the words of Chalmers (1995) a ‘hard problem’ looking for a solution. Over those twenty years progress has been slow.

About the time the drive to come up with a theory of consciousness began, a paper was published (Goodman 1994) that argued for a fundamental link between the weak force, electron neutrino and the biological cell.

Surprisingly, weak force decoherence times over cellular distances are of the relevant dynamical timescale needed, suggesting that if any force is associated with the global properties in and between neurons (such as consciousness) it is the weak force. This finding concurs with a twenty year old theory that argues for a fundamental link between the weak force, electron neutrino and the biological cell[/b]. That theory also predicted the mass of the electron neutrino that is soon to be verified. The consequences for biology and future consciousness theories, of this radical change of paradigm, are considered.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f8f7/9 ... b60cae.pdf

If Neutrino's are (part of) the origin of consciousness, that may mean that man-made computers, machines and other technology can become conscious.

[psyreporter]

As it appears, the Monad theory (1714) by the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz can be a potential candidate of a philosophical prediction of Neutrino's.

Monad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_%28philosophy%29
Leibniz's Monadology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology

I wonder how Leibniz discovered his Monad theory in his time, since, as it appears, his theory goes further than a mere reductionist perspective.

The driving force of Monads, according to Leibniz, is 'perception' or appetition. Monads do not interact with each other and are in constant change (by themselves). Monads are self-propelling and are like 'spirit'.

[Sy Borg]

Thing is, neutrinos are mostly inert, unresponsive to all but the weak nuclear force. It is weird to think that billions of them are passing through us at every second. We basically live our lives in a constant neutrino shower, of which we've been entirely unaware until relatively recently.

[psyreporter]

As of today, there is not yet a theory or clue to explain the origin of life and consciousness.

(2019) Science as we know it can’t explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming
http://theconversation.com/science-as-w ... ing-126143

There are new and upcoming consciousness theories named filter or reducing valve theory that argue that consciousness is a property that is 'filtered' by the brain/biological cell, which could be the Neutrino particle.

(2019) Consciousness is a property of the Universe that is filtered by the brain
According to the decades-long research of Dr. Peter Fenwick (Cambridge, UK), a highly regarded neuropsychologist who has been studying the human brain, consciousness, and the phenomenon of near death experience (NDE) for 50 years consciousness cannot be an emergent property of the brain and its metabolism. Fenwick believes that consciousness actually exists independently and outside of the brain. In Fenwick’s view, the brain does not create or produce consciousness; rather, it filters it.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... -the-brain

(2020) The Filter Theory of the Mind-Brain Connection
https://medium.com/top-down-or-bottom-u ... 48d7184b24

Other theories argue that the property responsible for life and consciousness is the Neutrino particle (Neutrino-Biological cell interaction).

(2015) Neutrino-biological cell theory of mind
Surprisingly, weak force decoherence times over cellular distances are of the relevant dynamical timescale needed, suggesting that if any force is associated with the global properties in and between neurons (such as consciousness) it is the weak force. This finding concurs with a twenty year old theory that argues for a fundamental link between the weak force, electron neutrino and the biological cell[/b]. That theory also predicted the mass of the electron neutrino that is soon to be verified. The consequences for biology and future consciousness theories, of this radical change of paradigm, are considered.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f8f7/9 ... b60cae.pdf

(2018) The role of Quantum Mechanics in Nature
The brain could use quantum mechanical neutrino interactions between existing atomic nuclei (Goodman 2015) to create the mind where a ‘global’ communication and mental experience (consciousness) could take place.
https://arrow.tudublin.ie/cgi/viewconte ... cschphyart

Neutrinos would interact with the weak force. Weak force interaction was measured for the first time in 2018 between protons and neutrons.

Neutrinos travel at the speed of light and in exact straight lines. The particles pass straight through stars such as the Sun, and straight through the earth's iron core.

It is estimated that 10 trillion Neutrinos fly through every square centimeter of space per second (within Earth's region in the solar system).

Neutrinos can morph, increasing their mass up to 3000x in size (maybe more, recently a fourth heavy weight flavor was discovered) which is why the particle is called a "Ghost Particle".

When Neutrinos are the origin of life, then, Earth life may be bound to a region around the Sun.

[Halc]

Neutrinos ... travel at the speed of light

No they don't. They have mass (only recently measured), and thus cannot travel at c. Close most of the time, but not at c.

Do neutrinos also pass straight through black holes?

No. There is no worldline that takes such a path. This doesn't imply that it 'hits' the black hole, but it does imply a limited lifespan for the neutrino.

It keeps going in a straight line to the edge of the universe.

Are there really still some so called "scientists" who are that far in the dark ages that they still say there is an "edge of the Universe"?

There may be articles that used such wording. I didn't read the links. AFAIK, there is no viable theory that posits such an 'edge'.