Example of "RELIGIOUSNESS" in science

[MrDmitriiV]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/string-theory-may-create-far-fewer-universes-than-thought/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sa-editorial-social&utm_content=&utm_term=space_news_&sf194519341=1

“This picture with a big multiverse could be mathematically wrong,” ---Math is a complex belief system created by the human mind to work for their own needs, so if something doesn't comply with their beliefs (math) it's automatically wrong? (religious behavior)

“Paradoxically this makes things much more interesting because that means string theory is much more predictive than we thought it was.” ---Why does reality need to be predictive??? The fact that everything in reality can be predicted is a blind belief which most scientists follow with religious vigor.  (religious behavior)

“I think this ...” 

“I’ve been ....” 

“I think ...,” --- So many fucking "I"s, who is this "I" they are talking about?

“He asked me once if I’d bet my life these [landscape solutions] exist,” Kachru says. “My answer was, ‘I wouldn’t bet my life but I’d bet his!’” --- no comment.

 

 

[Sockrattes]

I don't get what this thread is aiming for.

 

Science is not a beliefsystem but a method to research reality.

There is not a single evidence that the string theory might be true. It isn't falsified yet.

According to Immanuel Kants Critique of Pure Reason, math is basically the only thing we can be certain of. Do you have any reason to doubt that?

[MrDmitriiV]

10 minutes ago, Sockrattes said:

I don't get what this thread is aiming for.

 

Science is not a beliefsystem but a method to research reality.

There is not a single evidence that the string theory might be true. It isn't falsified yet.

According to Immanuel Kants Critique of Pure Reason, math is basically the only thing we can be certain of. Do you have any reason to doubt that?

They are researching "their" own reality, which is different from actual reality.  

Do you have any proof that the screen you're reading these words from actually exists outside of your own mind? Do you have proof that your mind even exists to begin with? What if I am just a bot writing stuff inside a computer simulation? 

Read the The Book of Not Knowing by Peter Ralston and you will understand what I'm talking about.

Scientists most often just research to prove their already existent beliefs about reality, and they never questioned those beliefs.

Edited July 31, 2018 by MrDmitriiV

[Sockrattes]

Quote

They are researching "their" own reality, which is different from actual reality.  

Well, can't argue with that, since this is your opinion, which is your reality.

Quote

Do you have any proof that the screen you're reading these words from actually exists outside of your own mind? Do you have proof that your mind even exists to begin with? What if I am just a bot writing stuff inside a computer simulation? 

Of course not. That's not what science is about.

Science isn't trying to proof a materialist paradigm at all cost. That is just your assumption und prejudice toward science.

13 minutes ago, MrDmitriiV said:

Scientists most often just research to prove their already existent beliefs about reality, and they never questioned those beliefs.

This might be true for some scientist, but certainly not for all of science.

[MrDmitriiV]

@Sockrattes Opinion and Insight are 2 different things. One is stacked up on and from previous beliefs and the later is derived from the "not-knowing" part of reality, the only source where what we call "truth" can be accessed from.

I'm merely stating the knowledge I got from enlightened masters, if you want to disagree with them then this forum isn't for you.

And YES, "Science isn't trying to proof a materialist paradigm at all cost." they don't try to prove it, they are THINKING inside of it)))

Please read the book I mentioned and go disagree with the author)

[Sockrattes]

@MrDmitriiV Objectively speaking enlightenment could be some kind of misinterpretation of some insight as well. I think it is necessary to stay in "not-knowing" as long as you don't have those insights as well. It is easy to look down on people, just because someone else said, what those people saying is somehow false. You can't be sure about that nor can't you prove that those enlightened masters are right. Proving to someone what you think is right on the other hand is the exact opposite of religion. So in essence what you are doing is, lifting those statements from enlightened people on a pedestal and believing it, like it is a religion.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying, that what they are saying is wrong.  All i'm saying is, that enlightened people tend to argue in circular reasoning, which is very suspicious.

[MrDmitriiV]

3 minutes ago, Sockrattes said:

@MrDmitriiV Objectively speaking enlightenment could be some kind of misinterpretation of some insight as well. I think it is necessary to stay in "not-knowing" as long as you don't have those insights as well. It is easy to look down on people, just because someone else said, what those people saying is somehow false. You can't be sure about that nor can't you prove that those enlightened masters are right. Proving to someone what you think is right on the other hand is the exact opposite of religion. So in essence what you are doing is, lifting those statements from enlightened people on a pedestal and believing it, like it is a religion.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying, that what they are saying is wrong.  All i'm saying is, that enlightened people tend to argue in circular reasoning, which is very suspicious.

Very wise response! The thing is, nothing is wrong with our society  as it is. The reason most enlightened humans don't give a fuck about sharing their knowledge is because they realize that everything is illusions inside illusions, "proof" and what is "right" are absurd notions from a broad point of view. All words from turquoise stage humans are merely illusions geared towards guiding people out of their distorted view of reality. That's because all human languages are maps, not the territory itself.

"""According to Immanuel Kants Critique of Pure Reason, math is basically the only thing we can be certain of. Do you have any reason to doubt that?""" Math is a map created by humans, don't mistake it for the territory!

[Sockrattes]

@MrDmitriiV You shouldn't get Kant nor any mathematician wrong: Everyone of them is well aware, that math is just a map.

That is what everything in Kants epistemology is about. We can't say anything about the territory or to stay in his terminology -> the "things-in-itself" .

You are right, of course, if you want to exhort the scientists to be humble. But keep in mind: Most of them are. That's why they are always trying to find out more about the nature of reality.

[MrDmitriiV]

@Sockrattes While their purpose is indeed to find the true nature of reality, almost all of them neglect spirituality which is ironically the most "scientific science" there is, because in it's essence spirituality is about getting rid of our mental lenses which distort reality and seeing the world as it is. 

Buddha and other enlightened masters have known stuff which quantum mechanics is just begging to prove, THOUSANDS of years after his death! This shows that the neglect of true spirituality will GREATLY slow down most humans in understating their true nature.

Please read the book I mentioned, it is the most wisdom packed book I ever read.

 

[Joseph Maynor]

Clinging to the Paradigm of Tier-One Conceptual Understanding.