As has been pointed out in the links provided as I read this a more open mind is required for break through according to Einstein Einstein's Philosophy of Science "How, exactly, does the philosophical habit of mind provide the physicist with such “independence of judgment”? Einstein goes on to explain: Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought,” “a priori givens,” etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long commonplace concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, replaced by others if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason. (Einstein 1916, 102) " I think that a certain measured amount of integrity certainly would be needed for data to be respected in peer review however I would expand my view of scientific results to include the humanity/nature of that of every scientist and their results and as has been written scientific discovery has been influenced by the human instrument .. I do not think that is up for debate Einstein goes on to say things like "The place of philosophy in physics was a theme to which Einstein returned time and again, it being clearly an issue of deep importance to him. Sometimes he adopts a modest pose, as in this oft-quoted remark from his 1933 Spencer Lecture: If you wish to learn from the theoretical physicist anything about the methods which he uses, I would give you the following piece of advice: Don't listen to his words, examine his achievements. For to the discoverer in that field, the constructions of his imagination appear so necessary and so natural that he is apt to treat them not as the creations of his thoughts but as given realities. (Einstein 1933, 5–6)" You've said "Imagine both of us feeling the same box and you giving a one hour speech on the content of the box and its properties etc. That to me is what this discussion has become." So we are clear your stating that is your personal experience and I fully get that .. So should I alter my means of expression, use different words in order to make my experience more palatable to you ? That would undermine the nature of communication .. I know you know that
Which all comes right back to the point of fact. No matter how intricate an idea you build in your mind, if it has no basis in reality then what use is it to anyone? The "unalterable givens" are generally a showpiece of religion. As Einstein said in your quote " The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors". Errors made by flawed human thinking ! The same way we have put our Gods and other mores on pedestals, the same way some scientific concepts are put on pedestals. Now as Einstein goes on to say, scientific correction can occur "For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long commonplace concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, replaced by others if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason." One such tearing down of the pedestal in science is the Big Bang theory being torn down by String Theory. I have not seen any such tearing down of the pedestal in Religion. You only have to look for info on 'Bible revisions' to see how backward a process is involved in Religion. The inflexibility of religion in the face of damning evidence astounds me.
@R29K: IMHO, a topic such as this implies, just by the mention of the word GOD, that a certain amount of spiritual discussion would take place. To try to apply pure logic to the original question would be, In my humble opinion an exercise in futility.
If it's not logical then it's illogical, so what exactly are you applying to the question ? I think if you go through the thread you will see that logic has exhausted all the possibilities and come to a definitive conclusion.
@R29k let's be clear here I have been tagged many things in this thread or at least been put in a certain camp How can that be when my traditional beliefs have described "God" as "The Great Mystery" and is personal to the individual .. I am not here to defend "Religion" or even debate it's inflexibility under such a generalized metric .. Such matters are not my burden .. Especially for just weighing in with my personal experiences and views .. Yet escalating my points of view to a level where they are codified in a manner where I am speaking for others and then it is implied that I should defend the groups implied position when it is clear no such position has been established least of all scientifically (lot's of head scratching) moving on You said "Errors made by flawed human thinking !" In response to Einstein's words " The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors" In my reading of this he is speaking of his peers Scientists and inflexibility and challenging them to open their minds for the sake of scientific progress .. "Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought,” “a priori givens,” etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long commonplace concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, replaced by others if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason. (Einstein 1916, 102) " I think this may make it somewhat clearer his intent "The supreme task of the physicist is … the search for those most general, elementary laws from which the world picture is to be obtained through pure deduction. No logical path leads to these elementary laws; it is instead just the intuition that rests on an empathic understanding of experience. In this state of methodological uncertainty one can think that arbitrarily many, in themselves equally justified systems of theoretical principles were possible; and this opinion is, in principle, certainly correct. But the development of physics has shown that of all the conceivable theoretical constructions a single one has, at any given time, proved itself unconditionally superior to all others. No one who has really gone deeply into the subject will deny that, in practice, the world of perceptions determines the theoretical system unambiguously, even though no logical path leads from the perceptions to the basic principles of the theory. (Einstein 1918, 31; my translation) "
I would contend that "God" has not and will not be defined in this thread or any other place through linear thought so the "free will" is a great mystery ..
You are adding personal bias and corrupting the meaning. Unalterable givens is what he is speaking about in the first part. What are they, they are concepts and ideas that are fallible given time and new data, but are held up at the point of conception and validation as 'untouchable'. There are many such 'untouchables' in religion. Read the rest of the quote as it relates to scientific correction and you will see.
@R29k you said "You are adding personal bias and corrupting the meaning." As do you and any one else who reads the quote Your a funny guy .. My developing point is that there is so much of daily experience which is unmapped by science or held as superfluous ... New theories will hold fast until they don't and are replaced my yet newer ones "But the development of physics has shown that of all the conceivable theoretical constructions a single one has, at any given time, proved itself unconditionally superior to all others. No one who has really gone deeply into the subject will deny that, in practice, the world of perceptions determines the theoretical system unambiguously, even though no logical path leads from the perceptions to the basic principles of the theory."
You just lost the plot. Einsteins remark is not relegated to scientists, that is where your personal bias came in, it can apply to life in general. Example, love for parents even when they turn bad and lead the children down a ruinous path. The unalterable given for the children is that your parents are good always. Sometimes you have to question even your most highly regarded beliefs/concepts/theories/plans . Why should we not question even religion at its core, tear down the highly regarded fallacies and institute the truth ?
Please join me with Yen, MJ, MRMagic in the spiritual sanctuary thread (A safe haven for a cooperative discussion) It is so obvious these guys are just messing with everyone and being vampires of our energy and MDL ...lol Let those born of the flesh be flesh and those born of the spirit be spirit The bully want's attention and if you don't give it to him he goes away, if he comes back stun gun him ...lol
Hehe, I think 'the spiritual people' don't exist, it's just a grouping in someone's mind. However, I would say that even though organized religion hasn't exactly been a walk in the park, I would find it impossible to put Francesco of Assisi in the same camp as any pope or pastor (even though his humility would not mind anyone doing that)! So there is that, plus I think that someone with an interest in 'spiritual matters' (to use any moniker) may not see any great merit in the ways of organized religion, although they might understand and respect, say, Jesus, or St. Francis. I understand it is convenient to just say 'religion' and then say how it doesn't hold up to science or its methods, but again the root of the religious idea is personal experience. So the fact that the discussion often returns to the ideas of consciousness, mystical/spiritual experiences, etc., is only apt and rather inevitable. It all to easily becomes a matter of 'numbers'; the Catholic Church has 500 million followers but a small group of Christian monks in the Egyptian desert is few in numbers, so 'religion' is the Catholic Church. Well, no. It is what it is to each person, and each person alone. As with music or art, you can imitate pre-chewed ways and methods, but to become good and deep you have to practice and it has to come out of you and you alone. Spirituality is creative by definition. Stevie Ray Vaughn doesn't kill on guitar because he followed a 6th grade music book. It is because he played his living heart and soul out. So it is with St. Francis and other greats. So there is no static thing called 'religion', it is only a loose description that often denotes no more in people's minds than what is known as organized religion. Often not even the religious impulse or the basic religiosity of man (something several scientists have actually spoken about as existing in all of us) is duly considered. So you cannot discuss about religion without analyzing what it means first, regardless of whatever some big church is doing in its name. So that entire, immeasurable human experience is going on, but we are asked to 'just stick to the facts' Well, sorry, I can't run on one cylinder when I have 7 other ones. You get the whole package or you're not getting it. In other words, no one is going to excuse him/herself for their existence, whether it fits into your tiny boxes or not.
Ok well if spiritual people don't exist, then like I said before neither do atheists...lol Just pretenders who secretly know energy is real but who keep it secret to use for themselves against others like Sith lord So in the historical cycle indeed are there those with intuition that science can't describe an whole system and so it's not really about partial definition but who actually is closer to understandings and is it? Partial science people Spiritual people Do you just want to beat these guys in debate competition cause that's a seduction of the dark side If you do have true spirtual beliefs, not just greater than above average logic, then perhaps it is time to show them now Hate to see you turn to the dark side Para
I am open to the possibility that I misplaced the plot however I do know where your opinion/speculation begins and that my true nature is uninterrupted by it You said "Einsteins remark is not relegated to scientists, that is where your personal bias came in, it can apply to life in general." then by your logic "it can apply to life in general." is where your personal bias came in .. I have no objection to questioning the foundations of religion however an approach which would dismiss the enduring nature of truth as part of it's membership would be for me an inescapable loss and not my way ..
I was not replying to you, timesurfer Some pages ago someone kept typifying certain people here as 'spiritual' so my point was to say such a 'group' does not exist, especially since the way we conceive of things in our individual consciousnesses is, well, so individual Of course, this applies to me too when I say the word 'scientist' about someone. However, what I'm finding more and more is that the people who put themselves in the rational and/or scientific camp, are often not as scientifically enlightened as they like to think. For example, one person who presented himself as scientific went on to say that there can be no such thing as phenomenon that act faster than light, thereby revealing that he probably thought science was relativity theory only, and was not aware of quantum mechanics. Etc. The cutting edge of science right now in many cases would sound as outlandish (if not more so) than the 'spiritual' posts in this thread would to them!
Lower case t please I edited my post for more fun by the way Well now that we aren't at odds what will these partial science atheist types have to feed on now? Think about their state of mind not so much what they give you to work with. a sith lord will never give you enough to defeat him. God is inside you and that part of yourself will indeed set you free, but perhaps not the group as God as the historical cycle/Matrix still feeds off the masses We are at the end of this cycle and I'm a direct witness to it's dissolving and a new world being born, a world in sync with it's origins and God Save yourself ...lol Do I have to post something super duper profound to get us into the MDL sanctuary?
But it still says I went to the dark side It's OK, science in general now believes that the vast majority of what the universe is made out of is dark matter and dark energy Sanctuary? Sounds like something out of Logan's Run What I like about you (and admire) is you just put it all out there. Some of these 'rational' folks are so careful in how they talk, they never reveal one iota about themselves and listening to them is like listening to some dry text book about 'facts'.
Uh it said I'd hate to see you go to dark side OMG your so giving me s**t But in not taking it personal, Logans run would be perfect example of historical cycle madness I think you and I might be only guys here that remember that movie That movie is rad... p.s. Ok lets talk about dark matter? And for that matter...lol...let's talk about genetics if we're going to go into matters of light and dark energy Is there a light code or a comprehensive cosmic genetics that all life is made of and is it associated with the I-ching 64 codons? Oops we're starting to pop into the the other thread now ...lol