Deriving Religion from Science

Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Deriving Religion from Science

Postby Joeknows » Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:01 am

OK, Joe, now show that what you're claiming is true. Start at the beginning. Let's see your evidence.


Excuse me? "How is it not true?" might be the better question. Because the ways to show that it is true are countless. Otherwise this wouldn't BE an overarching theme that reality must conform to. This is literally how the greatest minds of science will condense the theory of everything down to simply, "It's as easy as 1, 2, 3!" (Richard Feynman). You could follow and apply precisely the rules of scientific inquiry, and still never reach a solid or definite answer unless you were willing to understand what created that force that you are analyzing, how, and why. You can see countless examples of this in our Western culture, take Western medicine; it focuses almost completely on trying to fix the symptoms, and ignore the cause of it. Admittedly this is the more profitable point of view if you only care about the business side of it. Look at our western government; we attack and invade others in the name of defense (just like the Nazis did), instead of fixing the problems that encourage violence. Look at how our Western (/Prussian) education model teaches by repetition and memorization, instead of building an internally connected system of information based on what things are and how they function as a part of the whole. Look at how our dictionaries give a defined or "definite" opinion of the word based simply on what is popular, hence the first definition is often a specific quality of its use, and not the purest, most whole definition that would always fit (thus people wrongly assume that occult means evil, and that anarchy means disorder). We have to get beneath this ripple in the pond effect we are analyzing on the 5th dimension, understand that it is just a dance and array of how elements interact on the 4th dimension, understand the force that caused the ripple which was initiated in the 3rd dimension, understand the polarization of energy in the 2nd dimension that brought this initiating force to its intended consequence, and understand what this observed effect was completely at its very heart and ultimate function described by its unique information or frequency.

I already gave the most general names I could think of to describe each dimension. Another possible way to describe this tree of knowledge could be by subjects such as: 1st Algebra/Logic, 2nd Quantum Energy/Magnetism, 3rd Geometry, 4th Chemistry, 5th Physics, 6th Biology, and 7th Philosophy/Religion. All information is telling you something, but as the Observer Effect comes closest to describing, we can't just take the test results as they are. We have to build our perspective to see past our personal and often emotionally distracted "outside" view of it, to see the greater trend things naturally fall under to preserve the greater order of things. I built a solid foundation of most subjects in school, but while I find some scientists and quantum physicists are coming to the same opinions that I have reached, I came to them by learning about religions, new age stuff, humanity, and even art/fiction. As these "right-brain" leaning activities are only a part of the greater system, and tend to reflect information naturally and teach the same lessons that "left-brain," analytical activities will; if you look at enough of them and are willing to see the patterns they fall into. This is how religion and science connect, they are both describing the same thing but from a polar opposite perspective. Refusing to admit that religion is a relevant means to obtain information, is just admitting your own short sightedness and limitations. It would be appropriately, describing only from the "outside" as what it appears popularly in just its common usage, and not what the underlying symbolic information was intended/created specifically to represent.

There are many examples of how this works, listed even under the description for each dimension, so maybe you should be a little more specific about what you want to see from it, or what you don't quite understand about it? While I haven't been in the most chatty of moods lately, I feel that I owe you any possible explanation on the material that you might ask after. And I will check back semi-regularly to see what questions might turn up.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington

User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Deriving Religion from Science

Postby Doug » Sun Apr 06, 2014 3:21 am

Joeknows wrote:
DOUG wrote:OK, Joe, now show that what you're claiming is true. Start at the beginning. Let's see your evidence.


Excuse me? "How is it not true?" might be the better question.


No, that's ridiculous. You made the grand, sweeping claims about the nature of the universe. Claims are not true by default, as if they must be taken as true unless proven otherwise. That route just leads to nonsense and gullibility.

Joeknows wrote:Because the ways to show that it is true are countless.


Then show it.

Joeknows wrote:Otherwise this wouldn't BE an overarching theme that reality must conform to. This is literally how the greatest minds of science will condense the theory of everything down to simply, "It's as easy as 1, 2, 3!" (Richard Feynman). You could follow and apply precisely the rules of scientific inquiry, and still never reach a solid or definite answer unless you were willing to understand what created that force that you are analyzing, how, and why. You can see countless examples of this in our Western culture, take Western medicine...


Now you've changed the subject. Do you realize that you've changed the subject? That Western medicine does something-or-other does not show that your hypothesis about the nature of the universe is true.

You cannot plausibly argue:

1. Western medicine addresses symptoms, not causes.
2. Therefore, my hypothesis about the nature of the universe is true.

You are not providing evidence for your view by criticizing Western medicine. Can you see why that is? Can you grasp this important point?

Joeknows wrote:... it focuses almost completely on trying to fix the symptoms, and ignore the cause of it. Admittedly this is the more profitable point of view if you only care about the business side of it. Look at our western government; we attack and invade others in the name of defense (just like the Nazis did)...


You are still not addressing the issue of evidence for your view. Do you realize that you're avoiding the issue of evidence? That Western governments do something-or-other does not show that your hypothesis about the nature of the universe is true.

You cannot plausibly argue:

1. Western governments invade other countries instead of addressing the causes of violence.
2. Therefore, my hypothesis about the nature of the universe is true.

You are not providing evidence for your view by criticizing Western governments. Can you see why that is? Can you grasp this important point? Are you beginning to understand the nature of evidence?

Joeknows wrote:I already gave the most general names I could think of to describe each dimension...


Giving names to alleged forces and causes in the universe does not show that your names and descriptions of these forces and causes are correct.

You cannot plausibly argue:

1. I have a hypothesis about the forces and causes in the universe.
2. I have named the forces and causes described in my hypothesis.
3. Therefore, my hypothesis about the nature of the universe is true.

Can you see how it is that you have still not provided evidence for your view?

Joeknows wrote:There are many examples of how this works, listed even under the description for each dimension, so maybe you should be a little more specific about what you want to see from it, or what you don't quite understand about it? While I haven't been in the most chatty of moods lately, I feel that I owe you any possible explanation on the material that you might ask after. And I will check back semi-regularly to see what questions might turn up.


Can you see how it is that you have still not provided evidence for your view? Specifically, I would like to see if you can provide data to show that your claims are true. Pick a specific claim, and then provide evidence for that specific claim.

For example, you claim that there are 7 dimensions. Show this.
1.Define a "dimension."
2. Explain why we should think that your definition describes reality and is not just a verbal or conceptual distinction. For example, we can say there are x number of nations in the world, but a "nation" is not a distinction or reflection of nature, it is artificial. Is that what your dimensions are? If not, then show that.
3.Show that there are seven dimensions. How do you know there are not 5 or 30?

You have not even begun to show us any evidence. Can you see that now?
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."

Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Deriving Religion from Science

Postby Joeknows » Sun May 11, 2014 2:16 pm

Reply

Asking for one piece of evidence to overturn the popular expression of science, is basically saying that you don't want to understand it. It is as I've said, that you lack the will to know it (just as I once did, and many others have). But if you can only understand one thing, please let it be this concept of how an unbalanced consciousness gives rise to the only two general tendencies (or polarities) that can create a false belief of reality for anyone at an individual level. I believe that you fall into one of these two categories that 99% of humanity is suffering from, and also the very reason for ALL the wrong that is being done in the world today.



Intro

A function of energy is to have a positive and negative, and so this is how we get the energy to build our consciousness. The two ways of gaining relevant knowledge about reality, or Truth, is by either knowing solely what things are independently from anything else, or by perceiving how things connect naturally in larger systems. The most appropriate names for these opposite polarities are knowledge and wisdom, or perhaps science and philosophy in their respective practice. It is surprising that a philosophy teacher would lack the greater pattern recognition and intuitive nature associated with this right-brain mode of thought. ("philo sophia" derives from Latin: "the love of wisdom;" science derives from the root "skei" which means "to cut or split)

[sacred geometry: This is a method for describing the contained energy of any specific object. It is based on angles, and specifically the angle 90 degrees, or perfect perpendicular. When the angle of an object is generally GREATER than 90 degrees, or obtuse, then it is said to be described as having "feminine" energy, which is more rounded or smoothed out. When the angle of an object is generally LESS than 90 degrees, it is said to be described as having "masculine" energy, which is more focused and sharp. These representations of energy are reflected in this way across all forms of the universe, so it is a very helpful tool to develop and become proficient at. (also try to learn the natural qualities associated with each: yin/yang, pull/push, etc).


Scientism vs False Religion

Finding Truth is based on perception. If we could look at something from every level of perception, we would conclusively be able to come to a singular understanding of what it was of itself, and what capacity for function made it specifically that and not anything else. We don't have access to all levels of awareness to know every piece of information at hand, but ONLY from using both aspects of our consciousness, are we able to gather enough to approximate this "One perception" of what things Truly are. Truth is balanced, it is Right, like a right-angle. So in any situation that a person develops a skewed version of reality, it is caused by one of the two tendencies towards neglecting a complete and balanced consciousness.


Science and the Left Brain Trend Towards Order

The term for the imbalance that tries to let the left brain rule over the right side, has been called "scientism." It is not the pure interest of science for information's sake. It is a belief-system just like false religion, because it claims to represent the whole picture when only looking at half of the available information. We can make a "thought experiment" where an extreme case will show how the effects of analytical, left-brain thought could only create a limited picture of reality. The left brain is only focused on attaining knowledge piece by piece; determining qualities of something by very specific testing, and then compiling a catalog of the information. But the problem with this process alone, is that there is literally an infinite amount of collectable information from the universe. You could collect data for your entire lifetime, but if you didn't take a completely natural/wholistic approach, then a wiser person would have known far more from collecting far less of the same data.

Science popularly expressed as scientism, is a very rigid structure. It is something that has developed over a long time, with certain themes always as the prevalent focus to the very extent of discarding useful information that wasn't in line with the specifically intended result. The focus of science today only goes where the money tells it, or it doesn't go at all. That direction is decided by the government who is depending upon business enterprise for its survival, and only willing to risk investing in increasing business results in any scientific funded research. This means using the compiled results of testing to design a more profitable treatment, and ignoring the right brain's recognition of morality towards finding an actual cure to the disease. Not just the direction set by the money, but also the general stubbornness of people within institutions to uphold the status quo, preserve their own efforts, and maintain a unified presentation for the future. The most glaring example of upholding the falseness of tradition or popularity is in how we have accepted the notion of evolution as the most likely way that we reached this level of human complexity. It is almost globally accepted by nearly everyone, and yet the glaring fact remains that there is not a single bone in the skeletal architecture that is the same of any two species. Wouldn't there be at least one example, if this whole notion of evolution was accurate? This claiming of evolution to actually be valid information of how the world works, has caused many to mistakenly think that Darwinian "survival of the fittest" justifies making immoral choices if it can somehow benefit our immediate survival. This psychopathic idea is the very heart of business and security, and what is leading only to humanity's current self destruction.


Wisdom and the Right Brain trend towards Chaotic and Complex Expression

The term describing the imbalance that tries to let the right brain's assumptions rule over the left brain's knowledge of reality, has been called "false religion." Practically all major religions are true, because they portray some piece of this information accurately. But if you try to uphold the dogma of the religion to the extent that it keeps you from learning about reality, then it has become a false religion. [Again this is about energy, which is an "absolute" force and therefore always heading in one direction or the other.] The thought example to test the limits of right brain function alone, will demonstrate that having an "efficient motor" doesn't mean you will give it the right type or enough fuel to get far enough to retrieve any relevant wisdom. We have to develop the general ideas that we already inherently know, such as morality, by testing them against all the information we are cataloging concurrently in our left brain. Only then will we have sharpened our definitions into the most effective tools that they can be, and then taken them with skill and true bearing towards answering the questions that can benefit humanity the most.

Wisdom is often described as being a marriage of both knowledge of morality, and willingness to act to uphold it. Unlike knowledge and intellect tending to gravitate toward simplifying things to a single understanding of them, wisdom tends to gravitate towards greater complexity as it is a representation of "orderly chaos" expressed in many different situations. Wisdom cannot be known as information alone because it requires expression to show its characteristics. Wisdom is the practice of taking the most fundamental function of a single object, combining it with the basic function of another single object, and ending up with a combined function that was not represented in either of its base components. It is the old adage, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts," which is not only a popular phrase but also a real scenario for which scientists had to create the notion of "dark matter" in order to make their model fit with the rest of the information.


Summary

Knowledge defines the unity of the universe, wisdom defines the expression of the universe towards greater complexity. Knowledge tells us the common information about the environment we live in. Wisdom tells us how to use the "Right" energy to get the most from any situation in our individual experience. They are two halves of the same coin, and if you want to look at the "coin" called universal understanding, then you will need to look at both sides of it to get any complete answers from your effort.

A natural and/or real expression of complexity will follow the normal dimensional flow; adding energy, direction, and then reacting based on what it is and what it comes into contact with in the environment. This may happen on just one, or many levels for each expression to give us the final result of our perceived universe. But every one of these energies, directions, or reaction of frequencies can be found and known apart from the other tendencies upon it, for any one perpetual manifestation of an object or situation in reality.

An unnatural or unreal expression of complexity won't fit into the natural flow because it is trying to work with wrong information at the very initial level. This would be like typing the wrong numbers into a calculator and expecting it to still come to an accurate answer despite building it from something completely unrelated. This only happens because we let our energy (2nd) or direction (3rd), get ahead of the process of gathering information and start narrowing the flow of information to the point that we come to erroneous conclusions about what the "heart" or fundamental capacity for something truly is at the smallest whole level it still exists at. This illusion is based on the external conditions that the object is surrounded by, and the unique (1st) internal qualities that are unchangeable as long as it manifests in reality, both coming together in a way that limits one or the other. They are intended to function completely unbounded by the other, as freedom is the most natural force in the universe. And the fullest expression of freedom within humanity is none other than consciousness itself. Is that not what being a freethinker means to you?
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington

User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Deriving Religion from Science

Postby Doug » Sun May 11, 2014 2:34 pm

Joeknows wrote:Reply
Asking for one piece of evidence to overturn the popular expression of science, is basically saying that you don't want to understand it.


I never asked for only one piece. I asked for evidence. Now you are once again going on and on about how you refuse to provide any.

Joeknows wrote: It is as I've said, that you lack the will to know it (just as I once did, and many others have). But if you can only understand one thing, please let it be this concept of how an unbalanced consciousness gives rise to the only two general tendencies (or polarities) that can create a false belief of reality for anyone at an individual level. I believe that you fall into one of these two categories that 99% of humanity is suffering from, and also the very reason for ALL the wrong that is being done in the world today.


I believe you know, deep down, that you have no evidence. Why else, after months of asking you for some, we just get the same old, tired insults and empty rhetoric?
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."

User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8168
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Deriving Religion from Science

Postby Dardedar » Sun May 11, 2014 11:20 pm

Jesus Christ, why can't these people just go to a mental asylum like they're supposed to?

Joe, your elevator doesn't go all the way to the top. Your deck is missing a bunch of the cards, and on top of this most pathetic situation, your delusion makes you think you're smarter than the average bear, when in fact, you're just completely delusional.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer

User avatar
David Franks
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:02 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: Outside Fayetteville, Arkansas

Re: Deriving Religion from Science

Postby David Franks » Mon May 12, 2014 2:24 am

Dardedar wrote:Joe,...your delusion makes you think you're smarter than the average bear, when in fact, you're just completely delusional.
Forget the average bear. He'd lose an argument with the average pickanick basket. At least it is possible to find out what is in a picnic basket. Not so with Joe's argument.
"Debating with a conservative is like cleaning up your dog's vomit: It is an inevitable consequence of your association, he isn't much help, and it makes very clear the fact that he will swallow anything."

Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Deriving Religion from Science

Postby Joeknows » Thu May 15, 2014 1:10 am

I impressed with your devotion to not trying to understand this. We are all impressed with how sure of yourself you are. But can we actually talk about something other than playing this game where you refuse to acknowledge anything? I am trying to establish some real common ground for us to actually have a discussion upon. Simple common ground ideas that are so basic that anyone could recognize that they exist.

If you don't recognize these generalities that I am talking about, you can ask for clarification, possible examples to show that it does always produce this effect, and you can provide other questions and search for any examples in reality that might disprove it. Don't just say there is no evidence. Tell me which part doesn't have evidence. Which part is dumb?

I put some time into making a sleek textbook style presentation, so that you could have the opportunity to clearly grasp this fundamental concept. It is nothing more than describing the ordering and the chaotic forces in the universe, but specifically how they apply to consciousness and our perceptions of reality.

Science is a relatively new institution on the face of the Earth. Humans have kept the most important information preserved without needing modern science's help. But it has often been "occulted" or hidden, because people would get upset when confronted with it, refuse to change what they believe, and then react violently against it. This is why secret societies were formed, because people like you reacted like animals and wouldn't even look at the information.

One of the original methods for teaching was the Trivium and Quadrivium. This format has been mirrored in our Prussian style education system, but it has been broken apart to the point where we can't use it clearly as it was meant to be. Surprisingly it has 7 pieces, just like my "dimensions." This quote describing the quadrivium from Proclus, A commentary on the first book Euclid's Elements, describes perfectly the same dynamic that I discussed in my last post. Two methods for knowing anything, and two ways to get it wrong.

"The Pythagoreans considered all mathematical science to be divided into four parts: one half they marked off as concerned with quantity, the other half with magnitude; and each of these they posited as twofold. A quantity can be considered in regard to its character by itself or in its relation to another quantity, magnitudes as either stationary or in motion."

The "character of the information itself" is this ordering force that I call Truth or reality. And this understanding "in relation to other quantities" is what I am representing as Wisdom or Nature. Do you see how this works, or do you want to ask some questions about it? I could make a study guide, if that could help you focus on finding out what these concepts mean.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington

Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Deriving Religion from Science

Postby Joeknows » Thu May 15, 2014 2:04 am

I don't want you to think I am ignoring what you write the same way that I feel you are ignoring what I am writing. Let me address some of your incredibly narrow responses that you seem to think justify ignoring how this information might fit together.

Now you've changed the subject. Do you realize that you've changed the subject? That Western medicine does something-or-other does not show that your hypothesis about the nature of the universe is true.
You cannot plausibly argue:
1. Western medicine addresses symptoms, not causes.
2. Therefore, my hypothesis about the nature of the universe is true.
You are not providing evidence for your view by criticizing Western medicine. Can you see why that is? Can you grasp this important point?

re: Are you going to say that I am changing the subject every time I try to show how an example of how a process works in reality? I was specifically talking about one of the two forces of polarity, which combine to represent this "nature of the universe" header that you are throwing around with obviously no clue of what it means. And only because you refuse to try... (sigh)

You cannot plausibly argue:
1. Western governments invade other countries instead of addressing the causes of violence.
2. Therefore, my hypothesis about the nature of the universe is true.

I'm not making this argument, I am explaining a process. How a cause introduced will always create an effect that is related. You are really going off into a paranoid delusion of my argument, just to try to prove it wrong. Maybe you should actually give me the benefit of the doubt, and try to understand it as if it could actually represent something meaningful? At least BEFORE assuming that my examples of a process are supposed to be proof of something that you don't even want to understand?

1.Define a "dimension."
2. Explain why we should think that your definition describes reality and is not just a verbal or conceptual distinction. For example, we can say there are x number of nations in the world, but a "nation" is not a distinction or reflection of nature, it is artificial. Is that what your dimensions are? If not, then show that.
3.Show that there are seven dimensions. How do you know there are not 5 or 30?


re: 1. Define information. It's tough, because it's so big. It's like that, because it is so general. But it fundamentally describes "force." The force of information is the most rigid, because there is only 1 Truth/reality that all eventualities are connected to. The force of nature is the most complex process that is still understandably working towards the same purpose which also doesn't change. All the forces in between are things that we can either control or recognize as a Law of nature.

2. Purity of function and wholeness of definition. I have dedicated myself to purifying information before it naturally fell into a logical order that I have deciphered, and found lacking a very full description in any (even occult) format of its expression. If you haven't developed a wholeness of perspective to your definitions, then you will probably only think of personal expressions, instead of the root function that exists in every proper usage of that term.

3. 7 is the last prime number before we start repeating digits to make higher numbers (All numbers 10 and above are made by combinations of the numerals 1 through 9). To represent both an odd (or chaotic) force, and also the highest number that doesn't break down into something else; it is a very appropriate and literally perfect metaphor. I found this description that represents the 3 faculties of consciousness (thoughts/emotions/actions) each with a specific number 1-7 that represented how far in your progression as a true human being. This information came directly from Satanists or possible masonic teachings, because it shows how "666" is an "incompletion" or failure at all 3 levels that we can control ourselves on. I only wanted to describe consciousness at each of these levels, but due to the holographic nature of the universe I had to learn that it also applied to all systems, and not just human consciousness. And so the chart made itself, I only let it come together as naturally as I could allow it.

Giving names to alleged forces and causes in the universe does not show that your names and descriptions of these forces and causes are correct.

re: This is the best thing I've ever heard you say. And this itself is what will prove the information true. My names don't matter, your names don't matter; all that matters is whether it effectively describes what is happening, and should be judged only on those qualities. And the only way to judge this effectively is by use of pure terminology, what the word means at its most complete function, including the derivation showing the intention it was originally created with. If we don't honor these things, we are trying to uphold relativism through subjectivity instead of objectively seeing the common pieces of our shared reality.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington

User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Deriving Religion from Science

Postby Doug » Thu May 15, 2014 2:48 am

DOUG wrote:Giving names to alleged forces and causes in the universe does not show that your names and descriptions of these forces and causes are correct.

Joeknows wrote:re: This is the best thing I've ever heard you say. And this itself is what will prove the information true. My names don't matter, your names don't matter; all that matters is whether it effectively describes what is happening, and should be judged only on those qualities. And the only way to judge this effectively is by use of pure terminology...
[emphasis added]

No. You can't really be that deluded. Re-read what you wrote. Collapse from embarrassment. Go get help.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."

User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Deriving Religion from Science

Postby Savonarola » Thu May 15, 2014 7:01 am

There's plenty of Joestrology here to rib on (even about just this #3 claim!), but this one's quick and simple:
Joeknows wrote:3. 7 is the last prime number before we start repeating digits to make higher numbers (All numbers 10 and above are made by combinations of the numerals 1 through 9). To represent both an odd (or chaotic) force, and also the highest number that doesn't break down into something else; it is a very appropriate and literally perfect metaphor.
But 7 is "the last prime number before we start repeating digits" only if we're working in base 8, base 9, base 10, or base 11. If we instead work in base 12, then 11 -- a prime number -- would be represented by a single digit. We often design systems that work in base 16; then, a single character represents 11 (not to mention 13, another prime number). Or, try base 2, where seven is represented by 111.
The fact that we usually work with base 10 is entirely arbitrary, probably mainly a result of our having ten fingers. Even if there is some historical significance to our use of base 10, to argue that the universe's reality is determined by our counting system is beyond ridiculous.

Here's a further example: Let's count as high as we can before repeating a character as it was done a long time ago in what is now southern Europe:
I
II
Oops. Didn't quite make it to VII, which also has a repeat.

Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Deriving Religion from Science

Postby Joeknows » Tue May 20, 2014 7:14 pm

No. You can't really be that deluded. Re-read what you wrote. Collapse from embarrassment. Go get help.


I'm not that deluded. Reread what I wrote from a less-limited perspective and you will easily see what I meant.

You honestly think that I am going to prove you wrong by the expression of a fallacy? How could anyone have the wherewithal to even want to discuss these topics logically if they were actually that misguided? I am NOT misguided like that, and again this is just like everything you represent, it describes the effect instead of the cause. No, I will not prove you wrong with a fallacy. I will prove you wrong with the process that uncovers fallacies. If you think only looking at one tiny example can prove how the whole of creation works, you are severely misguided. So I don't understand why you think you can keep asking for the single "expression" to back this up, while completely abandoning trying to understand the "process" that always leads to that expression.

This "only looking at effects" instead of causes is the specific reason why you can't connect the information you have learned with what others have accumulated. It is why the outcome based education system is failing at the process of education itself. Look at how it is encouraged to develop very specialized groups with their own terminology and processes that isn't connected or even shared very freely with other fields of research and development. This creates a highly focused and goal oriented direction, to the point of working just to be working. It doesn't educate people to benefit from that education. It educates people to become like a machine, efficiently processing the command that they were given, and knowing nothing more. Science as it is practiced today is an incredibly weak institution, that relies on limiting the amount of information available so that it doesn't contradict the hierarchy that has already been established and set in motion.

The people that write the textbook on the information you are told to memorize, and told to make your students memorize; they think you are an idiot that doesn't deserve to see the greater picture. They would rather keep you in the dark and working like a slave, a beast, a cog in a machine that only rotates one way. I agree with them, that you are an idiot, or specifically lacking a coherent picture of the information at hand. But unlike the people higher up in the "scientism" hierarchy, I actually think that you can be taught how things fundamentally work in reality. But if you can only muster both an unconnected and complicating view of things, then I don't understand why you are still trying to be in the conversation. Because this isn't for you.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington

Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Deriving Religion from Science

Postby Joeknows » Tue May 20, 2014 9:14 pm

You're still fighting to prove my information wrong on the face of it, maybe because that's the only area you can operate on. But if you actually consider whether these ideas accurately and relevantly reflect the world instead of attacking their presentation, you might do better for yourself. Your group attacks religions for believing in a literal interpretation of religious texts; things that defy science as we know it. But you adopt the exact same mindset and only take the information I present literally, instead of giving its function a chance to prove itself. And understanding on a greater sense, what these examples and ideas can and DO mean.

There just isn't a numerical system that doesn't work around the number 10. And that is only because 0-9 can be used to represent any greater number. To use anything greater would be writing an equation that hasn't been simplified, like [(12+(-11)]. Why would you write something with unneeded complexity, when you could represent it in the simplest way possible? (basically the whole point I have been trying to make in all this) Just to look at things from all sides (give it a try sometime, though it might hurt the first time), lets look at what happens when we oversimplify it to something like computer language, a base 2 system. Sure it functions faster and gets the job done. But everything it processes is only a symbolic representation of real information. And that real information is only meaningful to us when we put it back in the base 10 system where it works most efficiently. (Remember, this is what we are judging things on. Not preference or feelings or popularity, but pure functionality in itself.)

In roman numerals, you can see the same pattern. The letter that determines the value is always a multiple of 5. The "V" is 5, the "X" is 10, the "C" is a hundred, then thousands, and millions (notice that a new letter represents multiples of 10. And "5" was the only letter derived that wasn't a whole multiple of 10, the rest conform). This is mostly adding unneeded complexity, just like the base 2 system did. Because a number like "4" is represented by something closer to an equation: "IV" = "(-1+5)" Just writing "4" conveys the same amount information with less processing needed to understand it, and that is what science is supposed to do, generate the simplest definition that describes its function as completely as possible.

But thanks to your highly specialized and outcome based fields of science, you have created definitions that only reflect the field in which you are working with it in. This process generates excessively complicated definitions and uses of the subject matter. Just like number systems that are greater or lesser than base 10, it unduly complicates the information. And if we waste our time looking at things that aren't relevant, we will probably give up at trying to connect it to anything that could benefit us before we ever see the information to convince us otherwise.

Just like dougy did, you also have tried to disprove information based on notions of a popular expression, rather than an actual cause that can be known. You are trying to say that the roman numeral character "2" has already repeated itself, so my theory that these numbers 0-9 are unique to themselves isn't accurate in all cases. But roman numerals are based on "sets of 5" just like earlier counting methods. But the roman numeral "2" isn't comprised of "I" and "I," it is comprised of a single symbol "II." If you break the symbol apart, it doesn't represent "2" anymore. But as I've shown, this isn't a sole numeral, it basically another complication of an idea. Like using (1+1) all the time instead of just letting it be "2." You are trying to prove me wrong AND base your argument on how you were taught to count numerically," instead of using specifically the information of what the numbers represent, to base any theory upon. This isn't about how your mommy taught you to add jelly beans, this is numerals that only represent specific information, and can be seen to manifest in only one way across all systems of reality. If you want to play "counting games," go do that on your own time. Until then, keep your arguments to real information, because I know I will.

The fact that we usually work with base 10 is entirely arbitrary, probably mainly a result of our having ten fingers. Even if there is some historical significance to our use of base 10, to argue that the universe's reality is determined by our counting system is beyond ridiculous.


Re: You are right, and you are wrong. Let me show you specifically which and how. Yes! We have 10 fingers, does it get ANY more natural than that? You think it was an accident that we have 10 fingers and that 10 is also the simplest base for adding and comparing information? No, the universe's reality is NOT determined by our counting system, it is determined by simplicity. And that is why this base 10 system has so naturally sprung up in all systems of the Earth. Because it represents a "whole" number counting system (even if it is used in even imaginary ways). This "wholeness" is what all religions have been mistaking for "holiness." And this process of a WHOLE approach to understanding information, is the only one without the undue complexities that will always eventually lead you astray from the truth.

I can completely understand how what you see would lead you to believe as you do. But you are gonna have to dig yourself back out of the excess complexity that you have created for yourself, and try to understand things in the most whole manner that you can attain. And that isn't a process of gathering more data. It's a process of refining the tools that give us any data. Because you can't seem to even imagine what I am talking about when I explain something, because your own personal beliefs or convictions keep getting in the way of my words. You aren't even willing to consider the positive function of these processes without condemning the tiniest flaw, that only turns out be a limitation of your own perspective.

This is why I feel, that as educators, you are severely lacking a true education. I have only recently discovered this Trivium and Quadrivium method that existed long before the industry of scientism in the Western world. But it goes much further than your system towards connecting information in a useful way. My "7 dimensions" (I am realizing now) are only an example of the expression of this trivium and quadrivium process for learning. Looking at these 7 intelligently ordered subjects, shows both how learning works, and how processes of all things work. As humans we get so full of our own ego that we want to believe that simply by existing we are the pinnacle of all species and human efforts on this planet. But it just isn't true. People like you, and the institutions they try to uphold, have only been polluting the information to the point that nobody else can use it. (And the only way to gain this knowledge is by paying for it at universities, another way to control by limitation, exactly like business does.) Your science isn't a system for understanding anything, it is a business with its own goals. So why do you think that some business is going to tell you the truth about things? What makes you think that you would be right to take them at their word without being certain for yourself? And how does being a robot that memorized a narrow range of usable information make you a "Freethinker" as people like Tolstoy described it?
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington

User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Deriving Religion from Science

Postby Savonarola » Tue May 20, 2014 10:40 pm

Earlier, Savonarola wrote:The fact that we usually work with base 10 is entirely arbitrary, probably mainly a result of our having ten fingers. Even if there is some historical significance to our use of base 10, to argue that the universe's reality is determined by our counting system is beyond ridiculous.
Joeknows wrote:You think it was an accident that we have 10 fingers and that 10 is also the simplest base for adding and comparing information?
But 10 isn't the simplest base. The different bases work exactly the same way and differ only in how many symbols are used. (In that respect, base 2 is the simplest, but I don't think that's what you mean.)

Doing the universe's math in base 8 (or 2, or 4, or 13) is no different than doing the universe's math in base 10. Base 7 is just as simple, but you don't think so only because you're not used to it. There is no actual difference when it comes to the math.

I'm going to say that again: There is no actual difference when it comes to the math.

Once again, you're just wrong. It is literally possible to prove you wrong using math here. You can't argue with math. Math is the ONLY thing we can know for absolute certain.

But we can be pretty sure that you're just making this shit up as you go along. First, you said,
Joeknows wrote:Because a number like "4" is represented by something closer to an equation: "IV" = "(-1+5)"
... meaning that you recognize that a two-digit Roman numeral is composed of two separate components. But then you say,
Joeknows wrote: But the roman numeral "2" isn't comprised of "I" and "I," it is comprised of a single symbol "II."
... meaning that a combination of two digits doesn't count as separate components. You still can't agree with even yourself.

No one takes you seriously. If you can't tell why no one takes you seriously after seeing these very simple examples of you being (1) blatantly wrong and (2) self-contradictory, then you should seek help from a mental health professional.

Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Deriving Religion from Science

Postby Joeknows » Sun May 25, 2014 4:41 pm

meaning that a combination of two digits doesn't count as separate components. You still can't agree with even yourself.


Yes numerology IS a complexity, that involves numbers representing pieces that can be added each as whole number representatives until they are at 0-9. But we aren't talking about numerology here, we are talking about base number systems. Yes, base 2 is simpler on it's own than base 10; but did you read about how complex it is to use? Because I explained it thoroughly with examples, and your legitimate questions have been extremely rare. (The base # question wasn't bad, and Doug had some decent philosophical questions about my 7 dimension/Truths) If you don't have the perspective to understand what I am talking about, I agree it could look exactly like I am contradicting myself. But that comes from a lack on your part, and I'm asking you to let me show you that by what I wish to convey. And that requires effort on your part to grasp both the specific and the totality of each individual building block of information.

Doing the universe's math in base 8 (or 2, or 4, or 13) is no different than doing the universe's math in base 10. Base 7 is just as simple, but you don't think so only because you're not used to it. There is no actual difference when it comes to the math.


10 IS the simplest way to represent any information. It doesn't really matter what we set as an equivalent to "1" for any counting system, it would naturally be found to restart and base itself around 10 if it was put into practice. Just as the universe is all made of the same fundamental matter, everything is bound by these same Laws, and aligning anything with the flow of these Laws will allow it to come into being with less work required to manifest it. So it's a Truer evolution, you might say. But it's also survival, of course the best method is going to beat out the rest eventually.

The only other value approximation concepts are acceleration (multiplication, logs, exponents, and the Fibonacci/fractal sequence that mimics how numerology works). So this 0-9 or base 10 is the best connection we can get with reality. It is the simplest way to convey complete information in function, and not only that, it represents a ton of super deep insights just by how the sole way that the individual information about each numeral works with the whole. Numerology might be the most artistic version of these, but the fact is that it functions superbly once you've actually built a firmer foundation of the concepts.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington

Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Deriving Religion from Science

Postby Joeknows » Sun May 25, 2014 4:45 pm

How to cut with Science (An Introduction to Perspectives)

Science comes from skiere, "to cut." (Like where we get the word: schism). But if we don't use it to "cut" perfectly, then we won't get perfect answers with which to make a completely relevant understanding from it. The way specifically that we have to cut is represented by the number 10. (Nearly every judged event is determined by a score out of "perfect ten," which is only a simplified version of 100%, or representing the idea of how close you came to achieving a full or perfect performance.) Scientism today has just been happy to be cutting as much as possible and congratulating themselves for it. But it has only resulted in the splintered functionality that our educational system has created.

"This porridge is too cold!"

If we cut too small, it will be less than a whole object, so our answer won't be relevant to the whole or larger picture. This might give us a lot more specific data, but increasing on this trend only produces data that is less functional, and inherently untrue/incomplete to describe it with. An example of this would be killing a bug so that you can put it on a slide and look at it under a microscope. Doing this will tell you far more about what the fly is as an individual object, but it won't tell you anything about how it's function was intended to connect perfectly into a greater system. Therefore, all the things that we can learn from killing it, are actually irrelevant and were a waste of time, because we can't put them into use as effectively as knowledge about something's pure function as it relates to the whole. This is just a "sickness" that results from left-brain imbalance. In numerology, this has been represented by the number "9" which symbolically means that you haven't put enough effort/willpower to get there. And just to put it into perspective mechanically, if you look at walking up a set of stairs, you won't be able to stand on the next step until you've actually reached it; so 9/10 might as well be zero for all the good it does us.

This porridge is too hot!"

If we cut too big, we end up with more than we can work with competently and still make sense of it. We are sure that it is relevant to other things, but we get less specific results as this trend increases. This is most commonly done in religion or people with a right-brain imbalance. Most practitioners of religion uphold that there is a greater force that rewards our good behavior, but they let that understanding of how complex systems work together, outweigh any specific information that could give it a more substantial basis. In numerology this right imbalance is depicted symbolically by the number "11." This number signifies redundancy, such as when you divide by a number that creates a decimal 0.11111111...etc to infinity. The willpower isn't lacking in an individual under this state, but the basis of logical information is incredibly weak. This is most likely because they have chosen to only look in a specific area, at the cost of their attention towards other areas.

"This porridge is just right!"

Ten is just perfect. It represents the balance between 1.0 (specifics) and 100% (or its whole). It is is the simplest way to show that the components of something can be divided equally but still work towards the same function; such as the 5 fingers on each of our hands, or even the symtery across the physical body and how our brain is literally organized as well. (We will see later that division, or polarity is only a way to create energy towards something. This is the second Truth that all things must abide by to exist.)

We can also be in an imbalance of both sides, and this tendency happens to give us a false sense of balance. But there are usually noticeable areas where one side will express dominance and start trying to rule over the other side. Science has also been referred to as "sense" since it is our sense that provide us this cataloguing of information to know anything from (con-science: with/common sense, or the sense that is with/common to humans, namely higher thought). It is a process of self work, because the perception of these senses needs to be refined under the light of truth. We all experience the same reality, but you can't make sense of it without devoting some time to purifying the 3 parts of your consciousness, the only 3 things we can control in this life: our thoughts, emotions, and actions.

Trivium (3) is Religion

This control over your consciousness has been symbolically referred to by the trinity expressed in Christianity, or earlier by the name "trivium." What are religions truly meant to be, other than a method to purify and better oneself by its intended wisdom? And the only path or function for that to exist upon is literally human conscoiusness. And this creates the process for determining what is "Right" between what you know and how you feel.

Quadrivium (4) is Science

The opposite side of this represents how scienctific understanding of things outside of ourselves can be known, and that process is the "quadrivium." The quadrivium was classically represented by the subjects arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy; in that respective order. But the intention wasn't to make someone a good musician; these subjects are symbolic for the only 4 methods of looking at real information. Arithmetic represents understanding information inherent to the object alone, Geometry represents understanding the properties of objects in a combined structure, Music represents understanding about how a single (wave) expression or function works, and astronomy represents understanding how multiple expressions and functions work together.

The closest we come to connecting these 4 pieces is in the particle/wave theory to represent how light operates. But light is the fundamental energy that all things are endowed with, just like God. The earth would be a cold dead place with nothing happening or changing if it wasn't receiving the light from the sun. For anything to undergo change, it requires this energy that initially comes from light. So this process of direction or "directing" could be called the 3rd Truth, which is inherently based upon light. (If this is starting to look like e=m(c)^2, it's because other people have gotten this far in realizing how reality functions.) So, for anything to "generate" a force, even such as the force of "learning," we have to arrange it according to this 3rd truth, or 3rd dimensional consideration; by its unique defining element, its available energy, and its specific directing of that "light" energy towards doing work. This is how gaining the trivium will create a force inside you, to allow you know not just some, but ALL of the quadrivium that you could ever wish for. Effectively removing the boundaries for humanity, but it has to be inspired to be accepted by each individual. Because the 4th Truth, everything that happens is in the present moment and bound to it's 4 (quadrivial) Laws. So if we want to understand the function of the universe, we are going to have to stop giving credit and giving importance to the past or the future; those are both a conception that varies between individual people. The only thing that does not vary, and is perfectly the same for everyone is the present moment, which some might just refer to as the Reality we share.

You and your institutions should be institutionalized...

Nearly everyone seems to suffer from the right-brain imbalance that will cause religious minded people to ignore specific information at the cost of complex information that we are assuming we already know. We set up our schools to mimic the complex expression of this trivium and quadrivium process, but we lose the specific basis that it was intended to give; to connect information and not segregate or keep it out of use. Partly due to a greater acceptance in the idea of evolution, we think that by simply existing/perpetuating we are the pinnacle of all scientific endeavors that humanity has been continuously building towards. But that doesn't mean we are more enlightened, it just means that we didn't do that work that they did, and so we understand incredibly less. It means that we need to put in AS MUCH effort as they did to understand what they even meant and how they realized it. Until then we will continue to devolve ourselves into a condition so terrible that we will have no choice but to either learn these Universal Truths or die by the consequence it creates for you in reality.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington

User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Deriving Religion from Science

Postby Savonarola » Mon May 26, 2014 3:20 pm

Joeknows wrote:
Savonarola wrote:You still can't agree with even yourself.
Yes numerology IS a complexity
Saying that it's complex doesn't negate the fact that your reasoning is self-contradictory. A self-contradictory system cannot be true.

Joeknows wrote:10 IS the simplest way to represent any information.
No, it's not.

I can represent in base 2 any value you choose that you can represent in base 10.

I can represent in base 3 any value you choose that you can represent in base 10.

I can represent in base 4 any value you choose that you can represent in base 10.

I can represent in base 8 any value you choose that you can represent in base 10.

I can represent in base 16 any value you choose that you can represent in base 10.

And on and on.

In fact, I can represent in base 2 any value you choose that you can represent in base 8.

In fact, I can represent in base 3 any value you choose that you can represent in base 4.

Because it really doesn't matter. The only reason you think that base 10 is easiest is because you happen to be familiar with it.

Here's a number in base 16:
20140525
Represent that in base 10, because base 10 is so much easier.

Or I can take another approach. Please prove your statement that:
Joeknows wrote:10 IS the simplest way to represent any information.
Merely asserting this as fact does not support your point. If you cannot prove this, then you have failed to support your argument.

User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Deriving Religion from Science

Postby Doug » Mon May 26, 2014 11:57 pm

Savonarola wrote:Please prove your statement that:
Joeknows wrote:10 IS the simplest way to represent any information.
Merely asserting this as fact does not support your point. If you cannot prove this, then you have failed to support your argument.


Joe has repeatedly insisted that he will NOT support his assertions with evidence. (See earlier posts above.) Which is why I've given up on him.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."

User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8168
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Deriving Religion from Science

Postby Dardedar » Wed May 28, 2014 2:01 pm

So glad you guys have the patience to read that crap.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer

Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Deriving Religion from Science

Postby Joeknows » Thu May 29, 2014 4:12 pm

Saying that it's complex doesn't negate the fact that your reasoning is self-contradictory. A self-contradictory system cannot be true.


Of course it doesn't Savvy. I didn't say that. I said that these relate to different ways that we are looking at them. Different "perspectives" is what it was referred to, and I wrote a whole textbook style report on it. It's sad that you didn't read it. And I wish we could get the basics down before over-examining any one thing. Otherwise we might derive any unreal thing from our effort, and be able to back it up with evidence that seems right on its surface. But only from being able to look at "complete things in a specific way," and "specific things in a complete way," will we ever get accurate results where the full function justifies its specific basis.

Here is an example of how something can be true at one level and not at a different perspective. Such as that "water always spirals clockwise." You could journey all over half of the Earth and be pretty certain of this idea. But if you zoom your perspective of results to the whole planet, then we see that it spirals BOTH ways. Is the Earth contradicting itself? By your logic it is. But it is simply an example of how energy works, by the dynamic of "polarity." Things don't simply exist on their own, they also exist in a way that is connected to other things. This is the purest function that this ancient knowledge contained in the Quadrivium has been preserved to describe. And it is the reason why you can't see the basis in what I am describing, because you are lacking part of the information with which to base your accurate judgement upon. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and if you ever refuse to move forward with it, you will always end up in the wrong.

Actually LOOK at what these numbers represent, and how they are used. We can't just look at them based on a "whole" counting system, or more specifically a memorized order that was part of our basic "grammar"(according to the very first part of the the learning process by the trivium: memorizing and mimicking a function before we actually know specifically what these things mean). Any "base" set is telling you that it operates specifically within that set. What that "set" does or describes tells us the limit of what the function of the numbers can do. Here is a practical "base 2" model put into function in the real world: a litmus test. Things in this world can only be made of acid or base (because of how all energy works; polarity). So when we conduct the litmus test, we can only get 2 possible results: "it is an acid, or it is a base." We could look at this from a "quantum" model perspective to demonstrate how a "base 4" system operates. If we were to increase the parameters of this litmus test, we could also increase the results. Testing a possible substance could result in the 4 possible results: acid, base, both, and neither. If we are only looking for a base or acid, then the "base 2" system is more functional. But if we are looking for possible neutral or combined systems, then we need to step up to the "base 4" system to get any answers that we could use for our more complicated development of information.

These are natural uses of "base" systems smaller than 10. But as you can see, they can't tell you very much about anything other than the basics. As we increase the complexity of the base, we can describe more things, as is obviously shown here. But through logic we can understand that "in practice" using a very complicated base system, such as "base 999" is going to be the most excruciating process when you actually try to put that system into use. So there has to be a place of balance between these, as the trend shows us. I am saying that this natural trend has already given us the answer, "10." I was considering that the alphabet might be the simplest "base" to convey information, but we haven't unified our languages as a world yet and determined which is the best. And in the meantime, EVERYONE has agreed that base 10 is the best way to go. Look at it as survival of the "fittest" if you must. Every human knowledge based system operates according to this exacting way to quantify things. If you think it is just a coincidence, then you are ignoring information in order to protect your paradigms. But that's what scientists are best at.

Merely asserting this as fact does not support your point. If you cannot prove this, then you have failed to support your argument.


Of course it doesn't mean that. And of course I HAVE supported it. You are like a child, expecting me to do everything for you. If it doesn't work, then it won't. And if it does work, then it will. But don't get upset at me for suggesting it. It really seems clear that your education has left you without the "tools" to compare anything across your defined boundaries of specific subjects. You have been working so hard to carve out a spot for them, that you haven't looked over your shoulder and seen that they blew away with the wind. So I'm here like Jesus entering the temple that has now been taken over by thieves and sinners, trying to figure out why you claim to represent freethinking but choose to preserve such a limited way of considering it.
Last edited by Joeknows on Thu May 29, 2014 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington

Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Deriving Religion from Science

Postby Joeknows » Thu May 29, 2014 4:16 pm

So glad you guys have the patience to read that crap.

It almost seems like it, doesn't Dardedar? But just writing a whole lot of the same thing, doesn't make it more true. And from my perspective it seems more like they actually AREN'T reading the posts, which is most of the problem to begin with. (Lack of will, and belief in what is popular simply to maintain instead of understand.)

I am truly appreciative of you to make such a bold comment, professing your inability to understand something as basic as the learning process. Because if we can't develop a common grammar and logical basis for the things that we can know in this world, then you will just keep spinning around in circles instead of getting anywhere. And I've pretty much covered most of the basics for anyone using most of their consciousness to put the rest together. So if you want to be done with having a conversation that actually CAN get to any basis of reality, I agree. You ARE out of your league, and you don't even wish to make the small steps to see if there "really IS something" as I tried to describe it. I'm content either way. You have proved yourself the very opposite of "freethinkers" extraordinarily well for yourself. It is a shame, because I had hoped you could comprehend this enough to find the True basis that 99% of people today are missing, and then together face church and religious leaders together and a more well defined understanding of what this reality PROVES ITSELF to be. If anyone is willing to just look at it, sadly no one will. (and another one bites the dust....)


Joe has repeatedly insisted that he will NOT support his assertions with evidence


For you to even assume this is simply ludicrous. But it conveniently attacks my character while absolving you of any work to hear what I am saying. Nice argument technique, but it turns out to be just another excuse for you not to go that distance to know it. I have given SO many examples, and tried to break them down according to these Laws of function. If you haven't looked at it yet, maybe you really shouldn't look at it. It's not for you, apparently. I think you should enjoy what you think is right, it is probably the best you can do anyways. Call yourself a "teacher" or a "leader" if you like. I certainly wouldn't, and I know quite a few people that actually HAVE devoted effort to know this that would agree with your lack of qualification to direct anything other than yourself. And that is giving you way more credit than you deserve.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest