Science is meaningless

[Jodistrict]

On 3/20/2021 at 3:56 PM, Boethius said:

Let me demonstrate my contention with an example:

(1) Physics tells us that water consists of a series of molecules that contain two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

(2) When I am standing at the side of a creek, bend down to the water, and cup my hands together to draw some water up to my face, there is no way in which the statement from (1) registers in my direct experience of the water that is sloshing around in my hands. In fact, in terms of direct experience I couldn't even tell that the water consists of molecules at all, let alone their precise composition. So a statement like (1) is a mere intellectual abstraction -- in terms of my direct experience you could tell me that water is H0_2 and I couldn't tell that you were lying to me.
 

If you look at the water in your hands long enough, you will notice the volume decrease and it starts to disappear until there is nothing left.  Then you ask, where did the water go?  If you divide a rock, and then divide the divisions, and divide the divisions of the divisions, is there a point where you can’t divide anymore because there are indivisible units?   Democritus used common sense reasoning applied to simple observations like this  to postulate the existence of atoms.   When we ask “why?” we go down the rabbit hole to the unseen and the unknown.

[tatsumaru]

2 hours ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

Everything you want to be meaningless will be meaningless. Everything you want to be meaningful will be meaningful.

Nonsense. Meaning arises out of harmony the same way attraction does. It's not a choice.

15 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

If you look at the water in your hands long enough, you will notice the volume decrease and it starts to disappear until there is nothing left.  Then you ask, where did the water go?  If you divide a rock, and then divide the divisions, and divide the divisions of the divisions, is there a point where you can’t divide anymore because there are indivisible units?   Democritus used common sense reasoning applied to simple observations like this  to postulate the existence of atoms.   When we ask “why?” we go down the rabbit hole to the unseen and the unknown.

There aren't really any units because the stone isn't separate from the rest of reality and isn't a static object either. When we say 1,2,3 (aka set theory) that's useful but not really representative of the soup we swim in. Poincare said "Geometry is advantageous, it's not real." so math is invented not discovered. It helps to communicate, but it's not real. There are no halves and there are no infinities. The only thing that happens as you keep dividing the so called stone (which is just a piece of the soup that's denser for reasons that are frankly not yet known to me) is that at some point it becomes too small for you to be able to deal with it. It's also possible that beyond a certain size it ceases to exist completely.

 

Edited March 22, 2021 by tatsumaru

[Rilles]

Talk about mental masturbation.

[Tammy Montevideo]

The intention of science as one of the readers has mentioned is to make sense of a world that is beyond our currently held ability to perceive reality. (We know that we have greater abilities to perceive reality than our senses and we do it through meditation and expanded awareness, and we know that we create our reality.) Throughout history, materially driven scientists have dissected and fragmented aspects of reality into manageable fractions of the whole which we are now terming; unified science. They have done this due mainly to their inability to SEE deeply and out into vast space. Certainly, there were civilizations on earth that retained these capabilities but they were lost to time and greed. What we are seeing now is a scientific community appealing to human's need to understand on a physical level until they are able or lead to understanding on the greater, absolute understanding that is experienced. Science can point us to understanding just as art, philosophy, love, any method of understanding can POINT us to the ultimate one of self-knowing. Here is a group of scientists that are appealing to the scientific, physically minded of us that needs proof and substance. They are opening our awareness, using the unfathomably beautiful aspects of science to point to consciousness... God; https://www.gaia.com/share/ckmky382500qv0jp37dv47774?language[]=en&utm_source=share

Edited March 22, 2021 by Tammy Montevideo

[Qna]

@Forestluv

On 3/21/2021 at 6:47 AM, Forestluv said:

The map is not the territory, yet a map can be quite useful when navigating.

Thought is not experience, yet thought can guide you through experience.

Thinking there is a couch behind me is not the couch behind me yet thinking about it helps me know that when I turn around there will be a couch behind me. 

So regarding enlightenment: 

You are referring to a complete and utter disconnection from thought, that you dont buy into the thought automatically but you may chose to so if you will. 

Question: who is the will that chooses to buy into or "believe" those thoughts.

To me, the decider, the will, the observer is me. How is this "me" the same as you? I just dont understand. 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Qna