Viveka wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:46 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:33 am
Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:53 pm
By the end, do you mean replaced by another collider?
PhilX
I heard Stephen Hawking argue that the collider needed for proving M-Theory would have to be equivalent to the milky-way. That and one potential meaning for M in M-Theory was "magic".
Pride goes before the fall.
The problem is not "science" it is the current "priest-class" that the scientific community has become. Their arrogance will be their downfall.
Agreed.
Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:53 pm
Viveka wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:48 pm
To me, it seems the end of the Large Hadron Collider will be the end of Quantum Physics as we know it.
By the end, do you mean replaced by another collider?
PhilX
I don't think we can make another collider that will make much difference.
They will keep having to make bigger and bigger colliders in the form of a "circle" until they realize that the physical universe is the only "real" collider.
At the end of the day modern science wants to "enframe" the universe, not understand it. It is strictly a power play based on ignorance. It is like the middle ages except where man "reached out" of himself in search of God by exclaiming a higher power modern man uses metal tables as altar's of sacrifice towards his own ego.
They say the sacrificial system is dead but both systems modern and old:
1) Still practice ritual: Ancient in forms of mediation and prayer, Modern in the form of the scientific method.
2) Both practiced animal sacrifice in attempts to gain knowledge and alleviate suffering.
3) Both build idols as extension of the natural world: Ancient in the form of "statues", Modern in the form of Social media technology. Both are rooted in stone and metal.
4) Both are systems of measurement with which to understand the nature of the world.
5) Both pray and contemplate towards altars: Ancient with a table of metal and stone, Modern with a table of metal and stone as "social media" technology.
6) Both seek to control the natural world: Ancient within the will of [the] God[s], Modern within the will of Man as God.
7) Both have hierarchies rarely question.
Both are systems of belief as their is no "full evidence" that either system entirely "works". This is considering that both contain as foundations the "axiom" as self-evidence. In this respect both are extensions of man's will. The ancients sought to work with or appease [the] God[s], the moderns seek to overcome [the] God[s].
9) The ancient's viewed everything as a Mystery. The Modern view everything as a Problem.
10) The ancient's valued circular reasoning as a form of self-reflection through which we are not only better able to understand ourselves and the world around us but maintain a median with it. The modern's value linear reason as a form of continual self-projection without self reflection. In this respect they divided both themselves and the environment around them as the "line" exists as a form of "deficiency" or "subtraction/division".
And I can go further, but I have come to learn people hate long posts.