1
New Theories / Re: Theory on Space-time
« on: 30/09/2017 00:24:46 »
Thank you for your response but you have raised another issue that is not defined. Consciousness, which is the consequence of perception. Perception needs definition, which I have done in a so far 24 Chapter book I have more than half written. Structure is there but need to flesh out understandings in discussion pieces. I found that trying to define perception, I was forced into the need to address the issue of the existence of Time and its origins, although this was not the initial intent of my tome. My thoughts on this was what has lead me to this Naked Science blog. Back to your point. If you do not perceive, you would not have consciousness, or even awareness which precedes it. Consiousness is the consequence of Universal and cognitive structures of the perceiving entity. This then introduces the concept of "pelop" ... viz the Perceiving Entity's Limits Of Perception. All of these things need definition from an originating basis of Postulates and Corollaries which are, in mathematical terms, trivial and incontrovertible which is why I turned my thoughts to originating definitions (see my post in this blog "How justified is your understanding of the foundations of the Universe?") which is one of my attempts to do just that. My goal is self-consistency of structure of these postulates and corollaries. Please note the word 'goal', hence the fact that the first edition of my book is not yet completed. Within this self-consistent work is the expectation that application of independent verification methods for what we compare to the Universal properties is the way we validate perceptions as Universally consistent (Universally being the adjective I am using to relate anything to the Universal structures and processes, not human agreed perceptions). I lack your confidence of the non-existence of God or Gods. Without evidence, I cannot either confirm or deny the existence of God(s) without an agreed definition of what a God actually is. Something that has caused wars and conflict throughout the anthropocene without resolving that definition, and which is still bringing out species to the brink of extinction by our own hands. So I am not a theist, atheist or any other related believer without the evidence to prove, or otherwise, that what is believed in has transitioned from a belief to a matter of fact by means of matching its reproducible validity to those incontrovertible processes of the Universe through application of independent methods of verification. Please note that I have said method(s), since others are needed due to the nature of the perceiving entities. Hope this gives you something to ponder. I will always welcome constructive comments to both inform me and maybe amend what stage of Universal understanding I have gained so far. Any comments on my other topic in this New Theories blog "How justified is your understanding of the foundations of the Universe?" would be appreciated. Thank you for your time to reply.
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE: Whilst typing this response, I have noted you have added more. Having read your work, I would like you to consider my suggestion that you are doing what most scientists are currently devoted to... utilising our mathematical language and its surrounding structures to describe and justify what we perceive by increasingly try to add to this body of work. With respect, you are describing processes based on current perceptions and scientific lines of enquiry, not origins for those processes. Nothing I will say will contradict anything that has been established scientifically as relationships that are validated by a process of scientific method and peer-review. We absolutely need these current efforts to continue. But so do we need to consider the establishment of the next generation of ideations required for investigating our Universe underpinning our next human advances (limiting comments to humans here), which needs alternate ideas or threads of ideas to achieve this goal. Please refer to my response to Psreddy above, especially noting that no change in understanding or technological advancement (as we humans call it) has come from thinking the same. Sometimes we have to examine the seemingly absurd to arrive at the next leap of understanding our Universe. How many scientists in the past have been crucified, literally, for trying to demonstrate something we now recognise as fact i.e. actually matching wha is happening in the Universe?
Please accept my apologies for any typos.
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE: Whilst typing this response, I have noted you have added more. Having read your work, I would like you to consider my suggestion that you are doing what most scientists are currently devoted to... utilising our mathematical language and its surrounding structures to describe and justify what we perceive by increasingly try to add to this body of work. With respect, you are describing processes based on current perceptions and scientific lines of enquiry, not origins for those processes. Nothing I will say will contradict anything that has been established scientifically as relationships that are validated by a process of scientific method and peer-review. We absolutely need these current efforts to continue. But so do we need to consider the establishment of the next generation of ideations required for investigating our Universe underpinning our next human advances (limiting comments to humans here), which needs alternate ideas or threads of ideas to achieve this goal. Please refer to my response to Psreddy above, especially noting that no change in understanding or technological advancement (as we humans call it) has come from thinking the same. Sometimes we have to examine the seemingly absurd to arrive at the next leap of understanding our Universe. How many scientists in the past have been crucified, literally, for trying to demonstrate something we now recognise as fact i.e. actually matching wha is happening in the Universe?
Please accept my apologies for any typos.
The following users thanked this post: pasala