Collecting Questions & Objections About The Limits Of Science

[NoSelfSelf]

@Leo Gura So i figured out that every logical statement cant be true because you need another logical statement to prove its validity so we come into strange loop territory which science cant understand and logical people who use logic as absolute?

[RendHeaven]

@NoSelfSelf Logical methods such as mathematics are supposedly grounded in "definitions" and "axioms," so actually it is not an infinite regress. Of course, we must still wonder about the nature of definitions and axioms if we're serious about Truth.

[Gesundheit]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

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

Are you saying the epistemic problems of science would not resurface in spirituality? Cuz I already see them and they're gross.

[lmfao]

How can I tangibly understand science as being limited when in my ordinary life, physics is the reason my phone or car works? If I crash my car badly enough, and injure my physical body badly enough, I'll die. Biology is the reason I'm able to exist as this organism as I am right now. You yourself acknowledge the biology of psychedelics and brain chemistry, and how psychedelics are that critical to your teachings. 

Is the logical explanation that, science as I see it simply an occurrence within God/nothingness? And that there's no contradiction? It's just that "science" and different mathematical formulas aren't the crux of reality, but rather it is a relative thing compared to the direct consciousness of Nothingness which this is all happening within?

 

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by lmfao

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, lmfao said:

physics is the reason my phone or car works?

Why would you assume so?

Reality worked just fine before man invented physics.

[lmfao]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Why would you assume so?

Reality worked just fine before man invented physics.

Touché. 

Investigation of science leads to the investigating mathematics for me now. All physics and materialism images, it is sum of parts thinking. It is dualistic barriers and partitions erected in physical space. 

Space as it is on a piece of paper or 3D space, you draw lines with a pencil and can draw shapes. But the sum of the shapes never exceeds the space to begin with. Sum of the parts thinking, meta-generalisation of "principle of superposition". 

---

Does a ball move or does space move around a ball? 

----

Physical space and drawing lines in it seems to be mental image I have for what the substrate is behind materialism images. 

But pursuing whatever analogy here is now a dead end, another angle to move onto. 

Edited October 22, 2020 by lmfao

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Reality worked just fine before man invented physics.

Also before humans were invented. 

[electroBeam]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Why would you assume so?

Reality worked just fine before man invented physics.

Yeah but reality was physical when physics was invented... until physics is no more in the mind. And that paradigm did lead to a renaissance and inventions of technology. Or at least an acceptance of such things being possible. 

Its not entirely true to say that phones weren't invented due to physics, without physics, no phones. 

In a tribal mind where no physics exists, tribal men don't see phones when presented with one, nor the ability to create them. It takes physics to see a phone. We've been indoctrinated with a physical mindset from birth, its a mindset that tribal men don't include. 

[Leo Gura]

@electroBeam People are so foolish they would trade God, Truth, and Love for a new iPhone, and think they walked away with a bargain.

Just because some conceptual scheme helps you make a phone doesn't mean jack.

[electroBeam]

@Leo Gura im trying to express a feeling that there's an evolutionary/societal importance to the birth of physics but maybe thats just bullshit. 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, electroBeam said:

@Leo Gura im trying to express a feeling that there's an evolutionary/societal importance to the birth of physics

I know. And there is.

[Akemrelax]

Not a question, but do talk about how in soft sciences like social sciences and psychology one needs experiential understanding more than theoretical concepts. 

And how in university students and professors are not interested in learning science from first principals. They don't even teach theories and math formulas from first principal, let alone ask out of the box questions. I was learning a very simplified version of quantum mechanics in my 1st year of undergrad and I was so disappointed by the gaps in my knowledge and understand which the profs refused to teach.

I was expecting an in-depth learning of science or at least having enough free time to do that on my own, expect my university gave copious amounts of shallow homework, quizes, and classwork  (I think it's part of their new-age "holistic" education plan because I'm sure back in the day unis gave next to no HW) so I couldn't get the time to dig deeper on my own. And digging deeper has no incentive, in fact you'll be worse of because you wasted time learning something not on the test. I find university science is like high school science except the syllabus has a slightly bigger scope.

Edited October 22, 2020 by Akemrelax

[Mada_]

"Science is objectively true" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

Not my personal objection, but I think a response to this kind of belief would be one I'd like to hear. Considering how popular Neil is, and how many people (I know personally) believe this statement is true. 

[Jodistrict]

There needs to be a distinction made between science and scientism.  Examples of scientism:  claiming science is the only reliable source of knowledge, claiming something isn’t true unless it can be proved, making claims about the non existence of God.  This isn’t science, but rather it’s speculation which extrapolates science beyond its area of legitimate competence.   

[nitramadas]

Hope I mostly stayed on topic.  The "science" in your videos to which I could object are only "science" in a broad sense..   Are Spiral Dynamics / political sciences / soft-sciences included?

Some general questions/ideas to address:

• Mathematics is not fundamental. Constants/relationships can be observed, but that doesn't mean they're an intrinsic part of reality.  Math is about as real as the color turquoise, without humans, it doesn't exist.  Reality itself doesn't "know" any maths, it has no "rules".  If it's able to exist it does so, unknowing of how.
• Something from nothing.  You've already covered this, but should probably be included in a video aimed at materialists.
• Given the current level of human development, how likely is the current paradigm to be accurate?  Being a civilization not even 10% in our development, is it wise to assume our understanding is ~90%~95%? "Lets just do a bit more of the same, figure out quantum mechanics and we'll get to 100%!".  If people from the year 500 000 were looking back to the year 2020, how close would they say we were?  Without even taking a poll, you know what the consensus would be.  It's intuitive, yet most still choose to believe what they're intellectually comfortable with.
  • How well is modern science/physics able to answer the big picture questions?  If it's THIS incompetent at answering ANY of the most important questions, how much weight should you give its claims? 
  • Science is only as good as the people who do it.  The science community is toxic and unscientific.  New thinking is disallowed.  Egos, social hierarchies, and unhealthy capitalism limit science.  "science progresses one funeral at a time".
• Science fails to address massive chunks of existence due to its bias.  (e.g. Ken Wilber's Quadrants).
  • Science tends to dismiss the subjective.
• Science ignores the WHY.  Being primarily concerned with the HOW.

Objections:

• "it's pseudoscience!  Who's gonna trust the baseless claims of some arrogant, self-proclaimed god, cult leader?  If you ain't tens of thousands in debt, you ain't qualified to speak!"
  •  "What makes you so sure of your ideas that you present them as facts? How much of this is arrogance? How much of that is egoistic arrogance?"
• Simulation/VR theory.  You seem to have heard someone's poor interpretation of it and assumed that's what it is.  Simulation theory, at its core, basically suggests that nothing is real, it's all data, and the goal is solely to survive by becoming more ordered / efficient as a system through evolution. This, however, does NOT, necessarily, imply a physical computer behind the scenes with a potentially infinite loop of aliens having us in their computer..  That's nothing but a moronic "what if" bastardisation of the concept.  It's more like:
  • Consciousness starts out the same as in Guraian ideology, but instead of going from "infinity" to "human awareness" with no inbetween and nothing actually being evolved, proponents of simulation theory suggest that there is a layer between the two extremes, a division of original consciousness to make interactions possible.  Interactions within a simulation are what lower entropy. 
    • The human experience is just a means for those divisions to lose themselves in the experience, to start believing that death = death & consequences are real.  Otherwise, choices wouldn't feel important, and noone would learn.  Selfless behavior / love is most constructive, and that's what the system is set up to reward.  That third layer learns, expands, and maybe divides again once its entropy is low enough, that's how it grows.  Like a fractal. 
    • Consciousness is like a virtual computer, it can receive/send/process data.  A Gura-ist may say "there is consciousness, and its imagination, nothing else.  No computers or anything else in the void."  But the thing is, imagination = data.  What is sight?  Visual information, right?  Visual data..in..formation.  Data in- visual formation.  In the same way you wouldn't go directly from CPU to YouTube, you wouldn't suddenly go from "infinity" to "human awareness".  You see hierarchical structures like this EVERYWHERE, it would be questionable for one to assume consciousness is the one exception and that what you are right now is "infinite awareness aware of a human experience".  That would mean that evolution is an exclusively physical feature (as you're not gonna be evolving pure, top level awareness into more pure).  That's just too big of a jump. (Would be nice seeing Gura-ists exploring new ideas..)
• Libertarianism.  While I agree completely.. like with simulation theory, you seem to be a bit inflexible and don't see the potential; the positive vision of the concept.  If you do enough mental gymnastics, you can turn any shit concept into a great one.  I mean, I fully support Hitler's vision, he was absolutely right.  *Queue Tier 1 gasps*.  If you take something like CRISPR-Cas9 and NeuraLink, add a few more decades of research.. "h-hey! You can't be enhancing humans! That's..  f-frowned upon!  There's no precedent..  y-you're just making Hitler happy!"
• 4 parts!?!?  idk what you're thinking but.. that's a lot for this "hard to clickbait" topic.  (wish "Stage Turquoise" got that many parts.. lol).  If your goal is to educate the masses, it's gonna be hard getting them to watch 4x 2 hour videos on technical esoteric topics like e.g.: implications of the triple blind delayed-choice double slit quantum eraser experiment or something..

 

I know it's a bit short, didn't have my ideas at the ready..  Surprisingly didn't have any real objections, guess as it's is an unusual/vague topic.  

 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this post are intended for educational/informative purposes only and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the author(s).  Any examples of analysis performed within this post serve only as such, and are not intended to cause any significant emotional distraught.  Assumptions made within any analyses are not necessarily reflective of the position/stance of the, aforementioned, author(s).

Edited October 22, 2020 by nitramadas

[commie]

49 minutes ago, Akemrelax said:

I'm sure back in the day unis gave next to no HW) so I couldn't get the time to dig deeper on my own. And digging deeper has no incentive, in fact you'll be worse of because you wasted time learning something not on the test. I find university science is like high school science except the syllabus has a slightly bigger scope.

This is no novelty. I already had to buy US college textbooks for high school "back in the day". If you aren't teaching kids much in high school, you gotta teach them the basics later.

[Akemrelax]

14 hours ago, commie said:

This is no novelty. I already had to buy US college textbooks for high school "back in the day". If you aren't teaching kids much in high school, you gotta teach them the basics later.

I meant giving HW in University is new. 

[commie]

HW sounds childish but this kind of thing is useful to learn technical basics. If the topic isn't technical, you could have the students write research papers or something straight away but otherwise, instead of the actual professor giving actual HW, you might have had study groups or some such run by people who typically wanted into faculty if they didn't already have a junior position. A distinction without much difference, I think.

Unless by "back in the day" you mean the the time before the boomers I guess. The demographics were so different then...

[Akemrelax]

2 hours ago, commie said:

HW sounds childish but this kind of thing is useful to learn technical basics. If the topic isn't technical, you could have the students write research papers or something straight away but otherwise, instead of the actual professor giving actual HW, you might have had study groups or some such run by people who typically wanted into faculty if they didn't already have a junior position. A distinction without much difference, I think.

Unless by "back in the day" you mean the the time before the boomers I guess. The demographics were so different then...

All my HS teachers said in their days uni was mostly about exams and no HW.

HW is repetitive and shallow, it takes time away from deeper understanding. Science is not suppose to be technical, unless you’re in applied sciences. 

Homework is quite possibly the single biggest thing I hate about University! I could be understanding proofs, questioning assumptions, asking outside the box questions, instead here I am doing word problems for 2 hrs/day online while my friend asks me, "what is the answer to question number 2?"! Complete memory based rote learning! 

Sometimes HW can be alright, like an art project or a writing assignment. HW where I get to express my creativity and opinions can be fun. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by Akemrelax

[commie]

16 minutes ago, Akemrelax said:

All my HS teachers said in their days uni was mostly about exams and no HW.

Sure but like I said, how did you prepare for technical exams? With HW-type drudgery, unless you were some kind of genius.

Even in my HS, I'm not sure whether HW was theoretically compulsory (in practice some teachers didn't even require attendance) and you wouldn't get a diploma if you failed the finals badly enough. But then only one in 7 or 8 kids would go to high school. You can't change the demographics without adapting the teaching. And the reason too many kids go to high school or college isn't pedagogy but bourgeois hegemony.

I feel you on the deeper understanding (one of my HS teachers wouldn't even answer questions about the exam material if it went beyond the correct calculations and I probably learned more QM in middle school) but actual science has technical foundations, to varying degrees. Maybe lookup the word "technical". Even outside of science, learning languages (especially dead ones) can involve quite a bit of drudgery for instance. Ideally kids would have worked through much of this stuff in high school or earlier but...

Edited October 23, 2020 by commie