[alancalverd]

AFAIK anatomy, physiology etc are all about the stuff inherently inside ourselves. Some aspects of medicine like toxicology and trauma are about stuff that should be outside but isn't.

[Kryptid]

Is there something that was not in it?

Not that we know of.

[yovav (OP)]

AFAIK anatomy, physiology etc are all about the stuff inherently inside ourselves. Some aspects of medicine like toxicology and trauma are about stuff that should be outside but isn't.

And what about our cognitive, our psychological abilities?

[yovav (OP)]

Is there something that was not in it?

Not that we know of.

So you understand the consequences?
This means that all our dispersal of our peoples on the planet is a result from there.
Can you understand what that means?
It means that our solution, the secret of our life, is also there. The knowledge of how to reach peace is there.

[Kryptid]

And what about our cognitive, our psychological abilities?

Physiology and psychology, just like alancalverd said.

So you understand the consequences?

The consequences of what? Can't you just spell things out plainly instead of phrasing them cryptically?

This means that all our dispersal of our peoples on the planet is a result from there.

From where? Africa? The Middle East?

Can you understand what that means?

Maybe if you'd quit asking us seemingly rhetorical questions and just come right out and tell us what you are talking about, we would.

It means that our solution, the secret of our life, is also there.

What is this "secret of our life" you are talking about? The essence of your posts keep sounding like you are talking about philosophy or spirituality instead of science.

The knowledge of how to reach peace is there.

How, by studying psychology? I feel that's only partly true. Some subset of people in our society are going to be violent no matter how well psychology is developed. We'd pretty much have to directly engineer our brains genetically or cybernetically in order to make ourselves a universally peaceful species. Conflict is in our nature.

[yovav (OP)]

And what about our cognitive, our psychological abilities?

Physiology and psychology, just like alancalverd said.

So you understand the consequences?

The consequences of what? Can't you just spell things out plainly instead of phrasing them cryptically?

This means that all our dispersal of our peoples on the planet is a result from there.

From where? Africa? The Middle East?

Can you understand what that means?

Maybe if you'd quit asking us seemingly rhetorical questions and just come right out and tell us what you are talking about, we would.

It means that our solution, the secret of our life, is also there.

What is this "secret of our life" you are talking about? The essence of your posts keep sounding like you are talking about philosophy or spirituality instead of science.

The knowledge of how to reach peace is there.

How, by studying psychology? I feel that's only partly true. Some subset of people in our society are going to be violent no matter how well psychology is developed. We'd pretty much have to directly engineer our brains genetically or cybernetically in order to make ourselves a universally peaceful species. Conflict is in our nature.

By the fact that all the formations of our will ties came from there. By the fact that the initial state was there and after that it was divided, into peoples, desires, opinions, hatred and love, hot and cold, all opposites.
And if you can restore the initial state.
Not in the way you are describing at the moment, but in correcting the ties in humanity, correcting the relationship between peoples. You will basically restore the initial state.
Is this a philosophy and not a science? Let's say for a moment you'm right.
Will we get to the point in time that it will turn from philosophy to science?
We still can not answer that.
Is conflict in our character?
Of our part. But if we can mix together, connect the same essences of each other with each other, we can also fix each other. And thence correct the general situation.
why?
Because we are connected in one system. A system of will, a system of thoughts in which each influences the other.
A kind of butterfly effect of intentions and thoughts.

[Kryptid]

By the fact that all the formations of our will ties came from there.

Again, where is there? You're being vague again.

And if you can restore the initial state.

This is a sentence fragment.

but in correcting the ties in humanity, correcting the relationship between peoples.

And how do you propose we do that?

Will we get to the point in time that it will turn from philosophy to science?

Trying to figure out how to make people get along would be closest to psychology in terms of science.

Is conflict in our character?

Very much so. Just watch the news once in a while.

But if we can mix together, connect the same essences of each other with each other, we can also fix each other.

There you go again with being unclear. What do you mean by "essences" and "connecting" them? This sounds like it's still in the realm of spirituality or philosophy. If not, can you please spell it out in a way that can be easily understood by everyone?

[alancalverd]

People are collaborative and competitive. Hence families, family feuds, team games, and wars. Some people take advantage of these inherent and inherently contradictory characteristics, and become business leaders or football managers. Scum with no discernible talent for anything else, become priests or politicians.   

[yovav (OP)]

People are collaborative and competitive. Hence families, family feuds, team games, and wars. Some people take advantage of these inherent and inherently contradictory characteristics, and become business leaders or football managers. Scum with no discernible talent for anything else, become priests or politicians.   

You're right. But even that is so deterministic.
How to incorporate a scientific solution in a field that is so broad. This is a question.
And again, I do not know what the solution is, but I think we need to find the root, the root of what?
To what we are, to who we are, to the material from which we are made and from which we came.

[yovav (OP)]

By the fact that all the formations of our will ties came from there.

Again, where is there? You're being vague again.

And if you can restore the initial state.

This is a sentence fragment.

but in correcting the ties in humanity, correcting the relationship between peoples.

And how do you propose we do that?

Will we get to the point in time that it will turn from philosophy to science?

Trying to figure out how to make people get along would be closest to psychology in terms of science.

Is conflict in our character?

Very much so. Just watch the news once in a while.

But if we can mix together, connect the same essences of each other with each other, we can also fix each other.

There you go again with being unclear. What do you mean by "essences" and "connecting" them? This sounds like it's still in the realm of spirituality or philosophy. If not, can you please spell it out in a way that can be easily understood by everyone?

Lest you misunderstand, I understand and agree with you.
I'll think about how to be more precise and I'll reply to you as soon as I can at least arrange within me a clearer answer

[yor_on]

We have 'laws' in physics. Not materialistic things that you can touch but laws. You might wonder if those laws would be a 'origin', and the way we define them is that without them this universe wouldn't be what it is today. Statistics describes some of them, as the average rate of decay for something radioactive. then we have conservation laws, symmetries etc. We also have 'properties' of f.ex specific particles, as bosons and fermions.But it doesn't tell us if those laws is a result or a origin?  Well, I might lean to immaterial laws but others won't. You can take a thought as a example of something immaterial that may have great consequences for us all.

=
spelling

[alancalverd]

I think you have put the cart before the horse. Scientific laws are nothing more than a distillation of what we have observed: descriptive, not prescriptive, and mostly adequately predictive. So in fact the laws are as they are because the universe is as it is, not the other way around.

The problem is that, if we assume the laws to be equally valid for back-projection (and on a short timescale, they are) we seem to arrive at a point universe some 14,000,000,000 years ago, with no idea of what preceded it or why it decided to expand.

[yor_on]

I know Alan, but you can also think of it as why those 'laws' are in existence. Some of them are disputable as laws, some of them come together as a result of several other. But f.ex 'c' is one constant that make no sense to me other than just as a law, locally defined.

[alancalverd]

There is no why.

Why presumes an ulterior motive, and is applicable to statute law (to prevent antisocial behavior, etc).

A physical law like F = GmM/r² just describes what happens whether you drop a stone on your foot or a comet approaches a star. There is no ulterior motive, just a common observation.

[yovav (OP)]

There is no why.

Why presumes an ulterior motive, and is applicable to statute law (to prevent antisocial behavior, etc).

A physical law like F = GmM/r² just describes what happens whether you drop a stone on your foot or a comet approaches a star. There is no ulterior motive, just a common observation.

By viewer features only, do not forget this figure.

[Bored chemist]

By viewer features only, do not forget this figure.

What do you mean by that?

[yovav (OP)]

By viewer features only, do not forget this figure.

What do you mean by that?

An ant looks at a 5 meter high pit and says: Wow what an infinity hole.
The same thing we are

[alancalverd]

Part of scientific education is appreciating the difference between a billion miles and infinity.

[yovav (OP)]

Part of scientific education is appreciating the difference between a billion miles and infinity.

It requires interpretation

[alancalverd]

No. A billion miles is an engineering problem. Infinity is a mathematical problem.