Collecting Questions & Objections About The Limits Of Science

[kai0]

4 hours ago, sandimay said:

I studied a little physics/science and understood stoichiometry quite well.  I've done lab experiments that bear out the results of mathematical chemical equations.  So getting back to @kai0's question - why does it appear that reality is consistent - surely they have something right?  
 

I guess it's all relative depending on which perspective we are looking at it from - a human one; a somewhat elightened one; an aspirationally enlightened one or totally enlightened one (and all the infinite perspectives in between).

this question is usually dismissed by appealing to the first person experience (subjectivity) without acknowledging that the assumption is that the subjective experience (dream) is the ultimate truth but its not viewed as assumption its viewed as truth so its a dead end 

[Carl-Richard]

15 hours ago, sandimay said:

I studied a little physics/science and understood stoichiometry quite well.  I've done lab experiments that bear out the results of mathematical chemical equations.

Are we talking high school level or postgraduate?

[Gesundheit]

Since everything is limited, perhaps you should try talking about the cons of being hyper-rational and over-scientific instead of pointing out the limitations of science. Imo, that would make much more sense to people. Because yeah, you're telling us that science is limited, and a lot of your viewers will resonate and agree, but then what's the alternative? And what are the limitations of the alternatives? Because any alternative would have certain limitations too.

Edited October 19, 2020 by Gesundheit

[sandimay]

20 hours ago, kai0 said:

this question is usually dismissed by appealing to the first person experience (subjectivity) without acknowledging that the assumption is that the subjective experience (dream) is the ultimate truth but its not viewed as assumption its viewed as truth so its a dead end 

@kai0 Is it even a little bit non-subjective that the whole class of students got the same (apparently correct) answer?  I.e. the expected answer.  

[Gesundheit]

[Leo Gura]

"A physicist is just an atom's way of looking at itself." — Neils Bohr

[Preety_India]

A scientist is busy denying God by inventing the God particle. 

—Me. 

 

[Enlightenment]

Sometimes you are trying to debunk logic using logical arguments. How do you reconcile that?

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, Enlightenment said:

Sometimes you are trying to debunk logic using logical arguments. How do you reconcile that?

What is there to reconcile? All logic will inevitably contradict itself due to self-reference strange loops.

[NoSelfSelf]

@Leo Gura can you explain in more detail i dont understand how it will contradict itself?

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, NoSelfSelf said:

@Leo Gura can you explain in more detail i dont understand how it will contradict itself?

Every finite symbolic dualistic system will necessarily have self-reference problems that cause contradiction.

Because reality is infinite and one, not two. Nonduality forces every dualistic system into contradiction because twoness cannot grasp oneness.

See my video about The Metaphysical Implications of Godel's Incompleteness Thereom.

All logic and science will forever be incomplete. This has been formally proven by Godel and Tarski.

[Angelo D]

Is causation a law or just a tendency? I have been assuming it is more of a tendency and a choice thing.

[Fadl]

How can we trust anything that’s not empirical? How do we know it is true?

[ajai]

So, finite is self-referential.

Is Infinite not self-referential? 

Infinity if it's Infinite must be self-referential by Infinite means, isn't it so? ( is it  because the null of all those self-references is zero it is perhaps a mere illusion? )

Twoness cannot grasp oneness, okay.

From where is this Duality coming from or the twoness? if it's coming out of oneness then it must grasp oneness, it should have the capability to grasp it or not? idk

[Leo Gura]

23 minutes ago, ajai said:

So, finite is self-referential.

Is Infinite not self-referential?

That's not what I said.

Reality is a singular whole infinite Self. But logic is a limit finite part of that Self which pretends that it can grasp the whole. But a part cannot grasp the whole. A hand cannot grasp itself.

Quote

Infinity if it's Infinite must be self-referential by Infinite means, isn't it so?

Infinity doesn't need to reference itself because it is itself.

Infinity conquers the self-refernce problem by dropping reference, period. But logic cannot drop referencing because logic's very method is reference. Without reference logic isn't logic.

Quote

From where is this Duality coming from or the twoness?

It's coming from ego and dualistic mind.

[Travelion]

Is direct consciousness a (the only?) way of accessing truth that 99.9% of humanity and science is missing?

[Leo Gura]

@Travelion Science itself tells you that it has studied less than 1% to the universe.

[Dazgwny]

I was actually going to post about this anyway. Not really a question but something I came across yesterday that really put some things into perspective about science and scientists. Seems convenient this thread has been started so I’ll post it here. So I was nosing through my social media and I kept coming across the same article from different groups. They lead me to this nonsense about simulation theory. I was gobsmacked to read, although I was already fully aware of this foolish concept, still it gobsmacked me yet again to read of our supposed top scientists claiming that there is a 50/50 chance that we’re living in a computer simulation. I know Leo’s made an episode on this simulation thing before but my point is how honestly can supposed intelligent clever people, scientists even suggest this nonsense that we’re living in a computer. True intelligence is truly lacking here, they may be clever, academically or what have you, but intelligent definitely not. Now what struck me even more so were the comments underneath these posts from the general public, actually considering this to be a possibility. And even just outright believing it. Suggesting that oh yea actually this definitely could be going on. I read and I read on, alls I could think is this some kind of joke. That these scientists that people look to for truth, are feeding people this bullshit, but yet even more so your average human is taking it in, believing this shite. No wonder in general the human race hasn’t got a clue what’s going on. Nowhere in any social media comments or in the article itself did I see anything about God, awakening, enlightenment or anything along those lines. Which suggests to me in general people don’t even know about such a thing, and if they do they’ve just written it off as fantasy, and would rather deluded themselves with idiotic ideas such as living in a computer. I did read the word infinite, but was then followed by a computer with infinite power??‍♂️. Seriously is this where we’re at as a race and within science. Joke ideas and joke gullible people lapping this shit up. It really disheartened me that this in 2020 is even a suggestion. People look up to scientists, yet many of them are leading people in the complete opposite direction to truth. Leo is right, in the fucking Stone Age. Anyway here’s a link to this fools article i was taken https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/

Edited October 21, 2020 by Dazgwny

[Leo Gura]

@Dazgwny Did you really think all the epistemic problems of religion would not resurface in science?

[Dazgwny]

@Leo Gura I don’t know why I was so surprised. Quite naive of me really. Just reading the social media comments I saw on the subject I was amazed at how I could see people taking this on as not just an idea but a belief. I’ve no doubt half those people are now telling friends we’re living in a computer simulation. Pure belief by just reading some scientific garbage. I remember one video from you saying I bet you’ve never done one bit of science in your life. Which yea just makes it a belief without any direct experience of anything you happen to read about. Science is just a religion of its own, and if I’m sat there talking to someone and they say well science says this, and they get out a book showing me this that and the other, from that persons point of view that would be no different than someone getting out the bible and saying well the bible says this??‍♂️. I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised ??