uwot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm
ken wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:26 am...are you really that stupid or ignorant enough NOT to be able to recognize that I am NOT yet able to communicate properly?
I have noticed. It's not the communication that is an issue, it is that you are not able or willing to learn.
Maybe I am learning. I am just NOT learning what you want Me to learn. Just because I am NOT copying what you want Me to does NOT mean that I am not able to nor not willing to learn.
If you were to tell Me that what you have to "teach" fits together as a puzzle to form a perfect picture of ALL-THERE-IS, then I will start learning what it is that you want to teach. But until then you have only shown that there are some things that still puzzle you a lot, AND those pieces of what you do know now do NOT fit together to form one unifying picture.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pmYou do not understand that there are different elements to a theory in physics.
Are you absolutely sure of this?
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pmAs a result, you keep mixing them up and making a fool of yourself. Here again are the different components:
1. The empirical data.
2. The mathematical analysis.
3. The metaphysical hypothesis.
Would you like to share those alleged "examples" of where I KEEP mixing them up?
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pmA standard example is swans.
1. A bunch of scientists see a swan. It is white. They see another. It too is white. A third white swan is spotted and the scientists suspect there is a pattern. So:
2. They start counting white swans. A simple mathematical analysis shows that
x swans are white; non-white swans=0. So:
3. The scientists hypothesise that
all swans are white.
To Me, it is a highly stupid thing to assume that ALL swans are white, just like to ASSUME any thing is a really stupid thing to do. And what is even a more stupid thing to do is to BELIEVE any thing.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pmAnd that is the VERY reason WHY I ask the question, WHY make a hypothesis, or theory, when it COULD BE WRONG?
I also ask, WHY not just look at
what IS, instead?
WHY not just remain open always?
To hypothesis is just to presume or assume some thing, which may or may NOT even be true in the beginning.
Science is meant to be about studying,
what IS. Making up theories or hypothesize about what COULD BE is just a form of making up assumptions, of which only certain human beings do.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pmA standard explanation of which is:
1. The observations are just the observations. They are not 'true' beyond
any doubt. As Descartes pointed out, we could be dreaming, hallucinating or being deceived by an evil daemon. Which is why large numbers of observations are needed, by different observers.
Did you, and/or others, REALLY need another human being to tell you this BEFORE you KNEW it?
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm2. The mathematical analysis either is commensurate with the observations or it isn't.
3. The main objection is the 'problem of induction'. No amount of white swans will ever prove that all swans are white.
SO, WHY would some one hypothesize or ASSUME that ALL swans are white? That IS a rather ridiculous and stupid thing to do, is it not?
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pmken wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:26 amI am the least educated one, 'educated' from your definition of 'educate', and I obviously NOT worthy of being listened to.
I don't personally like the term 'educated', because of the elitist connotations, but I have read, been taught and examined a lot and there's a bunch of letters I am entitled to put after my name. One thing an 'education' gives you is a sense of humility,
When you use the term 'you' here, are you referring to Me, to you, to other people, or to ALL people?
Is this sense of "humility", which is supposedly given, given to ALL people, with and through 'education'? And, how much 'education' does a person need before they are supposedly given this "humility"? At what age is this "humility" received?
Also, remember we are using the word 'educated', from your definition of the word here, and NOT from My definition of the word.
I have also observed an "education system" where humility is NOT instilled at all and where praise is given to some while ridicule, disillusionment, and discouragement is given to others.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm because what you discover is that the ideas you have, which you are convinced could only occur to a genius,
Were you convinced that the ideas you had could only occur to a genius?
If so, I find that extremely funny that ANY human being could even begin to think that they are some sort of genius, more so than another. The very reason why EVERY human being has all the thoughts and ideas that they have is the exact same for ALL of them.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pmare old hat and have probably been soundly refuted; as Cicero said: "There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it."
Is that what 'YOU' discovered?
Did you NEED to learn that from an "education system"?
Are you saying that really nothing new will ever be discovered, found, learned, nor understood.
I find it extremely hilarious what so called "teachers", "teach" their "students". When ever "students" stump their "teachers" with wonderful clarifying questions, the "students" are usually fed absolute rubbish like, "There are some things we are not meant to know", "That has been thought of before AND refuted". About the only thing that is being taught is, "I have NO idea, leave me alone".
By the way who was the so called "philosopher" who said that before that person did?
Also, I see that what you learned, was, that your ideas are old hat and have probably already been soundly refuted, and not 'humility' at all. You discovering that you are NOT the genius that you once thought you were is not really you being given humility, but a lesson in truth instead.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pmThe chances are that if we ever hear what your big idea is, one or other of us will be able to tell you who thought it first, and what the objections are.
What are you basing this insightful knowledge on? Is it solely because you heard or read what ONE person said or wrote previously? Was it because your ideas were soundly refuted? Is it because of both, and/or more?
What 'chances' are you giving?
Can you, and/or others, name the philosopher/s who have said that 'the Mind is God'?
ken wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:26 amAre you, ONCE AGAIN, only finding, and only looking for, the so called "evidence" of what you BELIEVE is already true?
It's called confirmation bias. Not only am I not guilty of it now, there is nothing I have said in 65 pages that implies I ever have been.[/quote]
Are you absolutely sure of this?
Do you believe some things are true, but which have NOT yet been proven true?
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pmThe irony is that by making such unfounded assertions, you are demonstrating your own confirmation bias.
And what do you propose My confirmation bias is, exactly?
By the way why do you say they are "unfounded assertions"?
What do you propose are the assertions I have made and are yet unfounded?
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pmken wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:26 amYou already have your suspicions of what the actual facts and truths are, so you will naturally ONLY LOOK FOR that which will support your already held view of things.
QED.
Any examples?
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pmken wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:26 amPeople here do NOT want to look for and find Universal Truths, that is because from what they propose, they already KNOW what the truth is.
No. They just know the difference between 1,2 and 3.
1. Some people in this thread do NOT want to look for and find Universal Truths,
2. Because they already KNOW that human beings age at a slower rate the faster they travel compared to a faster moving human being.
3. Even though this have NEVER been proven as FACT.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pmken wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:26 amTo some people an object traveling at a fraction below the speed of light takes roughly 70 days to travel a distance of over four light years, and THAT IS TRUE, they propose.
A day is simply the Earth spinning once on its axis. That period is divided up into hours, minutes and seconds; the last of which is defined as "the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom".
If you think that is a FIXED figure, then you have a lot to learn.
Do you really think or believe that a human made clock accurately measures 'time' or some thing else?
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm To someone travelling 4 light years, "70 days" has no meaning, because they are not on a spinning planet. But if they happen to have a clock which had been synchronised with one on Earth when they left, they will discover on their return that there will have been fewer "periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" recorded by their clock, than the one that remained on Earth. Physicists are confident of this because:
1. That is exactly what has been observed in clocks that are moving relative to the Earth.
That is NOT exactly what has been observed to some one traveling four light years. That is ONLY what has been observed on a minuscule plane flight around earth.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm2. The amount they do so is commensurate with the mathematical analysis.
The "mathematical analysis" also agreed that there were also no non-white swans.
Are ALL swans white?
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm3. Both the above are exactly what the hypothesis predicts.
Just some times the "results" are exactly what the hypothesis predicted, BECAUSE of unconscious biases AND confirmation bias.
Also, just because the "results" exactly match the prediction, that in of itself does NOT mean that that is the end of it. For your information some new OR newer knowledge might just be forth coming which will show and highlight the before not noticed nor seen discrepancies and inconsistencies.
Because one or two clocks APPEAR to have shown slower readings than another, under some circumstances, that does NOT mean that the exact same readings or results will be found under ALL circumstances.
Also, your 1, 2, and 3, examples of theories in physics are in differing sequences between your swan example and your relativity example. So, is it really Me who is mixing them, and, making a fool of My self here?