Collecting Questions & Objections About The Limits Of Science

[Carl-Richard]

3 minutes ago, JosephKnecht said:

@Leo Gura Your tone of voice when presenting the Science Series is very different from your other videos. Are you doing this on purpose? If yes, why? 

The content is great. Your insights are valuable and if written they would be perfect.  But your tone of voice is negative, almost as if you talking down to your viewers. I am wondering why?

I think if you presented the insights with a more loving tone of voice more people will be inclined to continue listening and it will have a more positive effect on them.

I'll take authenticity over fakeness every time. Go listen to some ASMR.

[Leo Gura]

@JosephKnecht You ever been slapped by your mom cause you were acting so stupid?

And then suddenly you wised up

[JosephKnecht]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

@JosephKnecht You ever been slapped by your mom cause you we're acting so stupid?

Yes. I have. I don't think it made me wiser tho... But I know she did it out of love.  

@Leo Gura Thanks for the answer. 

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'll take authenticity over fakeness every time. Go listen to some ASMR.

Authenticity is the way, but not the end-goal. Hitler was also authentic when he was burning the Jews, but I wouldn't want to follow him because he was authentic. (Extreme example )

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, JosephKnecht said:

Authenticity is the way, but not the end-goal.

Not true.

[Anderz]

I propose looking into corruption in science. The ego stage of humanity because of its tendency towards separation, manipulation, conflict, secrecy and power games has made science incredibly corrupt behind an isolated and whitewashed facade of an ivory tower of authority which even political leaders are kept out of and hostages to.

Without going into incredible conspiracy theories I think we need to look into things taken for granted as scientific facts and find out that many of them are actually enormous hoaxes. This even harms the scientists themselves who need to go along with the fraud or else will be kicked out of the ivory tower and end up homeless after having been branded as insane kooks.

[Victor van Rijn]

This is a great presentation by Peter Russel about the essential problem of science not including consciousness in their paradigm:
 

 

I am also curious as to what Bentinho will teach us in one of his upcoming mirror talk podcasts (next saturday) about spirituality being the true science:

 

 

[Thewritersunion]

 

Here is your science 

[EternalForest]

@Leo Gura I was going to come back and offer more objections, but after watching parts 2 and 3, I've changed my mind. The middle of Pt. 2 and the ending of Pt. 3 in specific were truly challenging moments and paradigm shifts for me. Now that I see the big picture of what you were trying to communicate with the series, I think what you're doing is pretty noble and makes a lot of sense. You've gotten me even more excited about the future possibilities science holds once it begins studying the non-physical.

I will run a few of your contradictions past my science major buddy and see what he has to say, but overall I came out the other side of this "black hole" with a very different perspective than I had going in!

[Leo Gura]

@EternalForest Good

They aren't my contradictions

[Anderz]

@Leo Gura Leo, maybe you have already dealt with falsifiability in your videos. I heard Stephen Wolfram mentioning that there are problems with falsifiability but he didn't explain it in detail. That could be something to look into further. One problem that I came to think of is what if a theory is falsified and then later it turns out that the theory was correct after all when looking at it with new premises. 

[Leo Gura]

Here's the key thing that scientists misunderstand about falsifiability: It is impossible to falsify Truth.

It's so obvious. But they don't get it.

So when an atheist says God isn't real because it cannot be falsified, that's absurd because the very nature of God is that it's impossible to falsify, which is precisely what makes it true.

The notion of falsifiablility in science is much overrated. Most actual science is done through confirmation, not falsification. You need both, and you must use both intelligently. Neither one alone is sufficient.

[Leo Gura]

@Lauritz Bewer Truth and consciousness is prior to proof.

Proof if always a second order activity of the mind. Proof is indirect. It is always happening at the symbolic level. Truth is prior to symbols.

[Rilles]

1 minute ago, Lauritz Bewer said:

@Leo Gura i have much more contemplating to do. This point is very hard to grasp for me .

Can you prove to me that you are thinking. 

 

 

 

That sounded like an insult... lol... but you get the point. 

[Leo Gura]

@Lauritz Bewer Try proving to a donkey that you are human.

[electroBeam]

@Leo Gura Objections from 3 part series:

1. You've implicitly assumed throughout your videos that deconstruction, contemplation and trial & error definitively and absolutely leads to truth about what science is. What evidence, observations, reasoning, proof or experience verifies this assumption? And if you say blablabla verifies it, then what evidence, observations, reasoning, proof or experience verifies blablabla? If you say that you did not assume this, then how can you claim your critiques are valid?

To expand more, you assumed that there are different methods that exists for discovering the truth. And the premise was you need to go around and try them all to find the truth. What evidence do you have to support that there are methods that discover the truth? How do you know for sure that a method caused a discovery of truth to occur. Can you verify that? It might sound far fetched, but what if you discovered truth without that method, and that method was a coincidence. And with that point begs the question on how do you know whether 1 method is more effective at discovering the truth then another method. What method are you using to rate the truth finding effectiveness of a particular method. 

And besides, the whole idea that methods are used to discover the truth is not entirely substantiated. There's no 100% evidence or observations that directly prove or even infer that. Spiritually talented people seem to get by without effective methods. 

2. You said one of the problems of science is scientists specialising into technical fields of study, and what science needs more of is holism. What evidence do you have to support that an actual distinction between specialisation and holism even exists? The fabric of reality is consciousness whether that's limited to a specialised field of knowledge, or spread broadly throughout different domains. Contemplating what a wave is, yields the same result as contemplating what a solar system is, both the macro and micro are made of consciousness, so why is specialisation vs generalisation significant? And Leibniz did specialise in mathematics by the way, even though he had amateur understandings of other fields of study. 

3. You said everyone has a different method of science throughout the world like language and religion. But that's not entirely true. If you look around at different cultures, there are coarse similarities between different cultures and developments of science. Many cultures independently made mathematics. If such a system is entirely relative, what explains such similarities.

4. You talked about the black hole effect. The black hole effect assumes that others aren't imaginary but real. If others are imaginary, then how could they ever understand what you(God) understands. Only God can understand, not god's imagination. And further, the problem is a lot worse then that, the problem isn't just limited to science, but also to mysticism. When you have an awakening experience, and someone else has an awakening experience, because you can't enter their minds, how do you know that their awakening experience = yours. If I said I discovered infinite love, and you said you discovered infinite love, how do you know that our experience and knowing = each other. How do you know its even possible for me to awaken to infinite love when from your POV I'm God's imagination and by default God's imagination cannot awaken to love because its not God.

Also expanding on this point, you said science is tied in with language. How is this not also a problem in mysticism? How is the spiritual path also not directly tied with language? You might say that because mysticism is direct experience/knowing while language is conceptual, but once you break down that knowing to words you're creating false meaning. Isn't the entire spiritual path just breaking down knowing/being to false meaning? And if it is how can you even make any correlations what so ever between knowing/being and descriptions of it. Can you actually verify that the entire spiritual path isn't actually bullshit?

And to add to the point above, you said that science talks a lot about experience, but no scientist knows what experience is. Isn't that also the case in mysticism? What is an awakening other than an experience, and if experience is meaning, then how is awakening also not meaning? Again you might say because you become directly conscious of it, but there is a black hole effect way worse then what you propose which is there is an impenetrable/absolute barrier between what one knows/be and what one describes. 

Edited November 10, 2020 by electroBeam

[TheSomeBody]

the problem of statistics

the problem of knowing what is true

how science should change in his methods according for your understanding? should it stop statistics? maybe people will do random stuff at random places and verifie experience? how to verifie it fast? how science could keep up with all of the knowldge in the universe? does all of the ideas of yours are available to materialize them with our technology right now? to make all of this stuff we need to change the system heavily. 

 

[Raphael]

If I already started to notice a certain number of the points that you made without watching the series, nor reading about metaphysics and reading the books on the book list, nor taking psychedelics, but only by myself, does it make me superhuman?

Edited November 10, 2020 by Raphael

[Rilles]

5 minutes ago, Raphael said:

If I already started to notice a certain number of the points that you made without watching the series, nor reading about metaphysics and reading the books on the book list, nor taking psychedelics, but only by myself, does it make me superhuman?

yes

[Anderz]

Even with theories that are falsifiable, mainstream science adds more fudge factors instead of admitting that a theory has been falsified. The standard model in physics is today a colossal frankensteinish monstrosity in the form of a patchwork of accumulated fudge factors and add hoc modifications.

It's similar to how centuries ago when they believed that the sun orbited the earth, they had epicycle theories to fit that false belief and the epicycles were made more and more complicated in an attempt to fit their models into new observations and measurements.

As an example they claim that spacetime is bendable and that someone traveling fast in a spaceship can speed up the entire universe. Sounds like fantastical sci-fi to me, and also, which is it that moves, the spaceship in relation the the rest of all objects or those objects in relation to the spaceship? But okay, let's assume that the Einsteinian model is correct, then what about the Higgs field? Is the Higgs field made up of Higgs bosons and fills the entire spacetime like some kind of additional aether? And are gravitons needed in addition to that? And do objects attract by bombarding each other with gravitons? And that's just a surface example. Seems like a big mess to me.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Anderz

[Anderz]

Speaking of the falsify devil, here I found a new article:

Quote

"Jonathan Tennenbaum: The Big Bang is probably the most famous scientific theory since Einstein’s relativity. The Big Bang theory says that our Universe began with a gigantic explosion, about 14 billion years ago, and has been expanding and cooling down ever since.

Until relatively recently this theory has been regarded as the foundation of modern cosmology, the branch of science devoted to the study of the Universe as a whole. 

But not all scientists agree with the Big Bang theory, and some even say it is completely wrong and contradicted by a growing mountain of evidence. In fact, in recent years one hears more and more talk about a “crisis of cosmology.”

I am talking now to one of the most well-known, outspoken critics of the Big Bang, the American physicist Eric J Lerner." [my emphasis] - Asia Times, Nov 9, 2020

I believe that the Big Bang theory is fairly accurate, but not the foundational theories, and that this article is an example of that.