0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/11/2013 21:14:41In short : Science should restrict itself only to what it can be testable, empirical , observable (instead of assuming that everything is material physical , the latter that's just a materialist belief assumption thus) ....also in the sense that telepathy , for example , can be testable, observable , verifiable, faslifiable ...scientifically ,as Sheldrake tries to do .Gotta go, try to re-read my words you still do not get yet fully .Thanks, appreciate indeed CheersScience DOES restrict itself to what is testable and observable.. This is why you dont see whta others are saying as you all are saying the same thing.. Except DQ is yammering on about how science cant explain somethings.. WELL let me ask you .. what is the definition of Theology or even Psychology, these are sciences based upon the unseen, the immaterial and based upon the beliefs and reactions of their subjects.
In short : Science should restrict itself only to what it can be testable, empirical , observable (instead of assuming that everything is material physical , the latter that's just a materialist belief assumption thus) ....also in the sense that telepathy , for example , can be testable, observable , verifiable, faslifiable ...scientifically ,as Sheldrake tries to do .Gotta go, try to re-read my words you still do not get yet fully .Thanks, appreciate indeed Cheers
These are the sciences that tranverse materialism, they bridge the gap between the measurable and the immeasurable.
Science will try to observe what it can, even if its non material, non physical
.. If it cant observe it, then there is no interest in looking at it, (such as existence of god) Science has never once tried to disprove the existence of any god. Science has just looked at things and found explanations for it. So say you talk about something non material, non physical such as a new religion.. if it cannot be observed even theology cannot look at it as there is nothing to look at
Science will never close its door to new forces or experiences, as the whole idea of science is to find these and explain them. And STILL it agrees that things are not fully explained.
You talk about realms and jurisdiction as if you are putting boundaries in the universe for some reason. The boundaries either already exist.. or they do not.. both ways science is needed to find them or to prove them not there.. there is nothing (and really should be nothing) inhibiting investigation. You mention telepathy a few times in previous threads.. you surely must know that the best 'so-called' telepaths in the world have explained its no so much reading the mind, as reading the person.. its all about body language and 'tells' no reading of the mind at all. This came from those who practise it, and make money from it.. any belief otherwise to me seems inherently concerning.
i have to remind you of the fact that science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry
Quotei have to remind you of the fact that science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistryNothing to do with science
. Reality IS just physics and chemistry
. And since chemistry is just physics applied to molecules, and since physics is just a trivial particularisation of mathematics, reality is just applied maths. Which is why the universe behaves so predictably.
If you don't believe that the universe in general and human behaviour in particular is predictable, read DQ's next post, and compare it with any of his others. There will not be one original thought in it.
Has science ever proved that materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true ", ever ?
فليت شعري عن النمر بن تولبٍ العكلي،
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/11/2013 20:54:04فليت شعري عن النمر بن تولبٍ العكلي، Here's a rough translation: "Help, I'm being tortured by Ali Baba in a burning flying carpet factory".
Hang on Don, thanks to your encoded GPS location the drones cavalry on on the way. You won't die alone.
QuoteHas science ever proved that materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true ", ever ? Science is about disproof, not proof. AFAIK there has been no disproof of my statement.
To the Mod who wrote the following :[Mod: Please keep your posts in English.What I saw was a mix of Chinese and Arabic.Did you read what you were posting?]
Wait... you talk of science 'reducing' things..If it can be reduced to physics and chemistry then it is materialistic, if it cant.. then feel free to use it for what ever means you wish to do.. worship it maybe?Why should physics and chemistry not try to reduce what it can observe and test, to try and understand the why of things.You words are starting to gain the aroma of antiscience, which similar to aetheism is the sign of deep rooted confusion. What do you gain from this belief? Other than to restrict and subjugate the development of technology and understanding. Its a very selfish view that just because you can't understand something, that no one else can and they shouldn't even try.
Like I said, you can't challenge me on time because I am the ''master'' on time and space and if Einstein was here today he would concede to me.
All i was saying is that reality as a whole is not just material physical , as modern science assumes it to be, thanks to materialism : not everything can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry , or just by the laws of physics ,or just by cause and effect .....: see the modern maths of chaos ,for example .
I did specify what it was i was posting = just Arabic high poetry , there was no Chinese in it .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/11/2013 18:31:46I did specify what it was i was posting = just Arabic high poetry , there was no Chinese in it .Your machine doubtless displays them correctly, but on mine two of the Arabic letters have been replaced with squares with hex values in them (E825 and E828) in the way that often happens with Chinese (until you ask your machine to load the kit that displays them properly) - I expect that's where the "Chinese" comes in.