Paolo wrote:I am fully aware that time is not linear – that is demonstrable with two atomic clocks and a fast plane. There is good evidence that time is non-linear. However, this does not mean that “all happens at the same time and yet each point in time is unique” – that is something you are assuming with no evidence, from something for which there is evidence - in logic we’d call this a non sequitur, meaning that it does not follow. Herein lies the problem with arguing from a subjective perspective – there is nothing that supports the argument apart from your opinion/imagination, which is of limited validity when applied to the wider world outside of your own experience.
Again, what you are referring to is the physical aspect of time. What I am referring to is an esoteric, metaphysical aspect of time wherein all that has to happen, all that has happened, all that is happening is all in the same moment. There is no time than now, and there is no place than here. Now, I don't expect you to even read out what I wrote. Because that is your choice, and you are perfectly right as you choose to be.
The reference to validity and all is irrelevant right now. Both of us know that neither can you "prove" your opinion is valid nor can I do that. And if you'd strictly go by current logic, then there is nothing like more valid or less valid. Our logic deals with 0 and 1. it has no place for subjectivity. And you'd already be aware of that so I won't expect to find your post that this particular argument seems more valid than that.
Let me correct your misinterpretation, I do not claim them as "evidence".
You’re not really correcting my misinterpretation here, since I didn’t suggest that you do claim anything as evidence. What I say is that you rely entirely on your imagination, without bothering to check any evidence.
Evidence of what, Paolo? Chance? Chance is not evidence...it is a pseudo to mean "we don't know how or why it happened". We'll again go back into that discussion of why that scientific process can be manipulated to suit the manipulator. I'll choose a different null hypothesis and you choose a different null hypothesis and we both can basically close shop for the rest of the life of the universe....no one will be able to disprove us.
I want you to consider this: there are objective phenomenon and there are subjective phenomenon. I have not disagreed with you on any objective phenomenon...in case I have and you have corrected me I have said 'my bad and thanks for making me learn'. Now on subjective phenomenon, my first question to you: do you agree that subjective phenomenon require subjective criteria/basis of understanding (yes knowing underlying physical effects helps but the core of the subjectivity in the phenomenon needs subjective inference). Ex - to appreciate the beauty of a rainbow, you need to invoke that part of your being which resonates with the natural beauty of a rainbow (you may be aware that there are 7 colors that form and they are of so and so frequencies and may detect that the yellow band is slightly thinner than the other). However once you start getting into such analyzing you would have lost the moment.
That's the key here. See I believe that the universe lies in the mind of the perceiver. And a concept like this, an entity so subjective basically loses its intrigue, its character, its magnetism if we try to explain it in objective ways.
You can believe what you like, but without something to support your beliefs your ideas are not of much value to the wider world. Science is valuable and powerful precisely because it attempts to draw objective conclusions with broad applicability.
That statement is arising out of a misunderstanding. I am not out here to tell you or the scientific community what I think is right...that what I believe in is the "truth"...if you noticed very often I say that I don't believe in any finality..everything changes in time, space, perspective, and context. So what I believe today may change tomorrow and change back to what it is today..who knows? I am aware and I openly welcome this amazing quality of change. Change is eternal and I love it.
My opinion is that science has restricted itself by limiting itself to objective, physical, materialistic stuff only. What you may not realize is that the real thinkers who are at the fore front of discovering things and showing to the rest of us how things work rarely restrict themselves to the very narrow rules of science. Every theory arises as a fantasy in a way, and seems totally ridiculous to the ppl around until the time when the linear logic is established.
I don't think you are advocating that science should do away with the creative/imaginative faculty in its pursuit of the truth. However, if you are, then may I know why?
You see our universe is deliberately relative. There are no absolutes in our universe. Absolutes have no purpose in the larger scheme of things.
What about absolute zero? There’s a universal absolute for you. You seem to be conflating the universe that we inhabit with the universe as you perceive it. The two are utterly different things.
Fair enough. I was speaking from my perspective of the universe being more than just the physical thing that you and I perceive with out bodies.
Paolo wrote: Your concept of the universe is deliberately subjective, possibly because you value subjectivity and feel that objectivity is unobtainable and undesirable because it cheapens individual experience.
That makes me feel that you haven't observed my posts in the forum and what I generally opine. I believe that we humans have 2 main faculties...could be polarities of the same thing: rationality and creativity. When I was growing up I was a very highly rational person...you know there was this test developed based on 25 questions...I had something like 18 answers showing my inclination towards logic. This is during school days. I would over-analyze which would affect my ability to learn to play the guitar. My friends would tell me 'just dont play the scales try to say something man'. I am like say something???? Now that experience taught me the value of being creative...the moment I felt music inside me I was able to produce it on the guitar. So I've seen both sides yielding benefits for me even before I finished my college. When I did my MBA the big topic of debate was "is management an art or a science"....I learned the ways and nuances of society. But to my benefit in the last 7-8 yrs I have opened up myself quite a lot, introspective even and I have realized the choice is ours....the world will more often than not present things as if you have to choose this OR that. I learned to let go of that psychological inertia and make it this AND that.
So you see, as I stand today, I have neither less affection for logic nor for creativity. I try to not to balance the two but to remove the need for balancing...to extend both to their maximums that I know of at that point in time.
What you see is this: and I am being very honest about this...not sure if people will like me for it, but I a not sure if many would be honest to admit it if they did it. I live a process of continuous wisdom gaining. How do I do that? I can go to a theological society and talk subjective stuff there, or come to a forum like this and talk only objective stuff like a = 3b + 4ac - 2f. it does not help. Unless I put myself in vulnerable situations how will I know what works for me
So I become the subjective debater in a forum like this and an objective debater in a subjective forum. At the end of the day the more you scrutinize yourself the more conviction you'd have in your beliefs.
Paolo wrote: But that is not the real physical universe – however much you tie yourself in knots denying physical and objective realities they do exist,
I am not denying that at all...I dont know why you'd think so. Again, psychological inertia, Paolo...just coz I am arguing in a particular way, you are associating some of the characteristics that you might have encountered with someone else who argued similarly and extending it to me. Please dont do that.
Paolo wrote: which is why people starve to death and bullets can’t be stopped with the power of the mind.
unnecessary, don't you think?
Imagining things is not so easy...trust me, it is way way harder than you think. The problem we are facing here is that, you are viewing my argument from your safe-zone which is physical and I am viewing my argument from the non-physical zone. Hence the aspect of testing and all comes in.
Trust me I know how hard imagining things is. I’m not sure what you mean by a physical ‘safe-zone’ the non-physical seems a far safer zone to be making opinions from, since those opinions can’t be refuted, because they can’t be tested. The non-physical zone is a wonderful realm of fantasy where ideas can be moulded without the constraints imposed by physics or reality.
See again you are viewing this as a right-wrong debate when it clearly is not. It is a discussion on what opinions we have. The participants need not have to prove why they believe what they believe. Because each one's belief would be no closer or no farer from the truth. Why? Because the topic of contention is subjective.
You know you could try this, instead of trying to find faulty logic in my arguments, first accept that I have not chosen to provide any logic here. This will ensure that you dont waste your time in finding faults when I myself am telling you they are faulty. Once that is clear in the mind, ask yourself if you'd like to understand my perspective and by stepping into my shoes and viewing the universe would it give you anything new: maybe horrible, maybe pleasant, maybe normal (this is what I do when I first read your posts...it helps me become better at how to construct a logical argument, and of course helps me to catch some weak points like the 20 coins game ;-) )
Why not, sometimes, just allow your mind to open to a different possibility and you will see what seems impossible may actually common place.
I actually do this, it’s called imagination. The hard part is drawing the line between imagination and fantasy, which is something that happens by testing the imagined concepts against reality. Fantasy has a place in our conceptual universe (where it can be enjoyable) but it’s a poor feature of the real world, where it can often cause harm.
I used to think the same way until I was shown and later demonstrably learned the power of fantasy in breaking a person's psychological inertia and barriers. There are many Principles of Fantasy..Scientific Fantasy...lol. That's the key I think...our minds are so full of possibilities and capabilities the only thing that stops us from achieving things is we ourselves, that too our learned responses thru childhood, etc.
Because that is exactly the process of how we have learned our sciences in the last 2-3 centuries.
Yes, it’s called trial and error. If you can’t try it to find out whether you’re in error, then it’s not science.
And Trial and Error methodology has been shown to be the least efficient way of creating/inventing/innovating things.
The limitations of logic and the scientific process are there to whittle down the likely possibilities to make it more likely that we hit upon an accurate understanding.
Nirvanam wrote:I have a different opinion here...I think that it would be beneficial for humanity if our scientific and logical tools are "enablers" rather than "controllers". Controllers limit us whereas Enablers help us express the infinity in our unique ways.
Our scientific and logical tools are indeed enablers – they enable us to recognise bullshit and reject it, that’s what makes them so valuable.
And whose bullshit is it? Again, on subjective aspect of life everything is bullshit to one or the other person, AND yet they each of those piles would be chocolate cakes to few others. At the end of the day, the Law of Conservation of Chocolate Cake (or Bullshit) holds true. ....lol
Paolo, please don't try to show that you are right, I am wrong, or I am right, you are wrong. Why not just understand each others' perspectives and let them be. Why get defensive? (I thought u were but if you weren't then my apologies for mentioning it)