An Illegitimate Diatribe

[Veritatis cupitor]

Just a few things I had in mind… I'm not a big fan of Science right now. Science is supposed to make sense of non-sense. Yet much of science is just lazy "senselessness." Take this mind-candy and chew on it for a bit and maybe someone will see what I am trying to preach:
The entire universe was created from "nothing," all at once, in an instant. Evolution of the universe is just blind, unintelligent happenstance. So what I'm gathering from these examples is that complexity arises from absolutely nothing. Just like inspiration. That does not make a bit of sense! Before a person or a group of people can make sense of something, (AKA Science,) then there has to be something there to make sense of, right?
Scientists, or just inquisitive people, connect the dots of a non-sense problem and make sense of it. People used to think the Earth was flat. "What non-sense!" A scientist came along and proved the Earth was round. People used to think that the universe was geocentric. "How absurd!" Now we know it is heliocentric. People used to think, through Alchemy, one could turn lead into gold. "Really!?" Now, we can use neutron bombardment to turn lead into gold. (Yet it costs much more than the gold is worth. Science is always changing. It is always "Evolving." So, according to the laws of "Common Sense," that means that the universe is changing as well, right? What one knows today could be, and often is, proven wrong the next day.
If all science is trying to do is make sense of the world, which it does by taking examples and patterns, ideas and philosophies, putting them together into a sensible theory, testing it, and calling it Law, then isn't science just telling us what we should already know? These concepts about our universe were already there to begin with. It just took some person that was well "versed" to make it make sense to the rest of us dumb apes.
So my complaint is:
If science is to make sense of non-sense, then how come a seemingly sensible idea as The Big Bang just seems so... nonsensical? How does everything arise from nothing? "It's barbaric!" There are many people out there trying to prove that God or some omniscient being/energy/force or what have you, doesn't really exist. They argue that God is/are simply the mechanisms of nature and can be proven rationally. The kicker is that science cannot prove that God does or doesn't exist. Maybe that's why so many people believe in it. "Yeah, take that Rationalism!"
I believe that there is something "underneath the boards" of the structure of reality that science can never touch. The whole of the universe is sort of an omniscient-inter-dimensional-conscious-conglomeration of energies, floating about reality within the guise of order. Maybe we as humans already have an omniscient view of reality. In other words, we do, can, and will know everything there is to know. The secrets of the universe dwell within all of us. It just takes one of us to make sense of it.
After all, believing in God is non-sense... right?

 

[Nathanial.Dread]

You are completely misinterpreting the way science works. Science does NOT (and never has) told us what the absolute truth of anything is. Anyone who tells you otherwise isn't a scientist.

The scientific method is reductive. What it does is allow us, humanity, to look at relationships between events occurring in the universe and try to make predictions about other relationships. Some predictions come true, we take this as evidence that we're on to something and keep exploring from there, but, at no point has any scientist proven anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, everything is uncertain.

Don't look to science to answer fundamental truths about your place in the universe, that's not what it's for.

As for the whole God-thing, there is absolutely no evidence for that, scientifically speaking. Does that mean it's untrue? No, absolutely not, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but that truism works both ways: just because science leaves you unsatisfied doesn't mean that it's fundamentally flawed.

As for your belief in a fundamental architecture, that's a fairly common worldview (I subscribe to it myself, to a certain extent), but some pretty cutting edge neuroscience is starting to point the idea that God, spirituality and fundamental architecture is really just an aspect of your neural anatomy.

Thoroughly secular blessings
~ND

 

[SKA]

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. But I can agree with the senselessness of the Big Bang Theory.
Somehow I find it rationally easier, more logical to believe that the Universe had no beginning and has just
allways existed, forever transforming.

The big bang theory is largely based on the red-shift phenomenon. Bodies of mass in outerspace that are moving
away from us are seen taking on an ever more red hue(as seen through telescopes).
Things moving towards us seem to shift to blue or green. Can't recall exactly.
But because all observed stars, planets & moons have been shifting to deeper red hues over time, this led scientists
& astronomers to conclude all bodies must be moving away from eachother.

From this they subsequently concluded that, if all bodies of mass are equally moving away from 1 central point,
then imaginatively reversing time would produce a moment where all that matter was still put in this 1 point.
Thus there must have been an explosion from this point hurling all matter into the universe. That would require
a singulairity. Quite a bizar concept if you ask me. And the theory assumes too much.

What if rewinding time we would see something else? I can imagine that, instead of seeing all matter drawn back into 1 singulairity, that matter(Planets, Moons & Stars) could follow a contraction-expansion pattern repeatedly, without ever collapsing into 1 point and forming a singulairity. Like breathing. Just another possibility.


Shulgin wrote an interresting criticism of the Big Bang theory in TIHKAL too. He mentioned that the red-shift could
be caused by something other than bodies moving away. Can't remember it exactly now, but it was quite compelling I remember.

 

[Veritatis cupitor]

Absolutely! My skewed interpretation of science in general was the point I was trying to make. This all coming from a personality that finds scientific inquiry into spiritual domains "oblique" at most. Your argument is indeed accurate. No one path to truth is truly the best. I was simply "one-track-minded" in my conception of the point I was trying to make. It is true that the method of science works to predict phenomena, information, states, or what have you, by providing experimental or quantitative evidence. But trying to force such fundamental and sociologically important aspects of human nature such as interpreting reality, God, creativity, emotions, etc. into cut-and-dry text-book commonality, seems rather disingenuous to the capability of the human psyche. I do understand that science does not prove ultimate truths. If science is one of our strongest methods for understanding the world why can't we culminate the two realms into one?
Don't get me wrong, I am not all for spirituality and religion either. Both religion and spirituality can be very duplicitous in their interpretations as well. I think the idea of God thrives on creativity. So, the basic point I was trying to make, but seemed to misconstrue, was that I like to view creativity and imagination as being the God in my spirituality. As I had tried to state with the idea of human omniscience being the driving force behind discovery. Science does a great job with synthesizing chaos with creativity to yield theory. I just feel it shouldn't dawdle off course and try to blaze paths through uncharted realms of sacred belief. Most people I speak with who are very religious and well-versed in their religion use that hope and understanding to help them through the day. The very setup of religion, however dogmatic or deceitful people may make it, still is of paramount importance in a fervently advancing civilization such as this. I think that it should be left solely to the individual for safekeeping within his own personal cosmos. Science can't explain everything, but that's what drives it. That's what keeps me going. So yes, I did misconstrue that a bit. All this to say, I think we could spend more time looking at the world through our "hearts," with feeling, instead of mathematical models or scientific theory.

 

[causmic]

I'm with you man. It's not necessarily the idea of science itself (deducive reasoning, hypothesis, experiment and analysis) but the context in which all of that is currently conducted. What is "meta" physical is rarely considered.

The problem is, scientists aren't looking outside of the box, and that's where some of most potent answers are to be found. I think if every graduating "scientist" was administered a dose of LSD as a right of passage, our world would be very different. Shake them up a bit, loosen them out of their rigid and limited thinking. If that were the case, surely the DNA double helix structure wouldn't be the only major scientific breakthrough which LSD + a scientist has given us. We would most likely be privy to many more of nature's secrets. And what if Francis Crick had never done that LSD? Would he/we have ever deduced the true nature of DNA? And what do we really owe that discovery to? The scientist, or the LSD he took?

What I find interesting about the psychedelic state is, in some cases, it gives you almost an ESP. In bringing your attention to a certain subject, you literally get information about that subject downloaded to you, from somewhere... within/without. Who knows. But wherever this information comes from, it's not as available to us in normal waking states. This seems to have been the case with Francis Crick's envisioning/discovering of the DNA double helix while on LSD.

I have experienced this sort of thing myself, and the phenomena is as real to me as anything else, but if my situation were described to a team of sober scientists, "I feel like I'm using my mind to access data that comes from somewhere outside of my normal field of perception", I would likely be deemed insane, strapped down and fed drugs as my case is explained away as some sort of "delusion", since any other considerations would undermine the entire current state of science. Considering that what I'm talking about might actually be happening, would be a troublesome road to embark down for most contemporary scientific practitioners. How would you explain that based on our current level of understanding? Well.. You wouldn't.

Thus, it appears we need a better understanding to base our experiences off, because what we think we know just isn't cutting it anymore.

LSD + scientists is the ticket, I'm sure of it :lol:

 

[joedirt]

The problem is, scientists aren't looking outside of the box, and that's where some of most potent answers are to be found. I think if every graduating "scientist" was administered a dose of LSD as a right of passage, our world would be very different. Shake them up a bit, loosen them out of their rigid and limited thinking.

LOL I can assure you PLENTY of graduating scientist have indeed tried LSD and other psychedelics.

Consider this: Your world is already different because of it.

Peace

 

[jamie]

"You are completely misinterpreting the way science works. Science does NOT (and never has) told us what the absolute truth of anything is. Anyone who tells you otherwise isn't a scientist."

The problem is that in reality that sounds like something I would expect to read off the back of a cereal box..it never means much. It is nice to hear but too often it is said as some kind of reply after a bunch of "scientists" have done what many people claim science does not do.

Many of these people do redicule and downplay others as if they themselves do somehow have the absolute truth..reguardless of weather or not they use that term. Their actions speak it and so many have the clarity to see it. Egotistical people come from all corners.."science" included.

 

[joedirt]

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. But I can agree with the senselessness of the Big Bang Theory.
Somehow I find it rationally easier, more logical to believe that the Universe had no beginning and has just
allways existed, forever transforming.

The big bang theory is largely based on the red-shift phenomenon. Bodies of mass in outerspace that are moving
away from us are seen taking on an ever more red hue(as seen through telescopes).
Things moving towards us seem to shift to blue or green. Can't recall exactly.
But because all observed stars, planets & moons have been shifting to deeper red hues over time, this led scientists
& astronomers to conclude all bodies must be moving away from eachother.

From this they subsequently concluded that, if all bodies of mass are equally moving away from 1 central point,
then imaginatively reversing time would produce a moment where all that matter was still put in this 1 point.
Thus there must have been an explosion from this point hurling all matter into the universe. That would require
a singulairity. Quite a bizar concept if you ask me. And the theory assumes too much.

What if rewinding time we would see something else? I can imagine that, instead of seeing all matter drawn back into 1 singulairity, that matter(Planets, Moons & Stars) could follow a contraction-expansion pattern repeatedly, without ever collapsing into 1 point and forming a singulairity. Like breathing. Just another possibility.


Shulgin wrote an interresting criticism of the Big Bang theory in TIHKAL too. He mentioned that the red-shift could
be caused by something other than bodies moving away. Can't remember it exactly now, but it was quite compelling I remember.

I think you you guy's are grossly underestimating the supporting evidence for the big bang theory. Also the big bang theory doesn't preclude a contracting and collapsing model or M-theory or any other higher level theories as they are all based off the VAST amount of supporting evidence for the big bang theory..and yeah I think everyone understands we have a LOT more to understand.

The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory and is widely accepted within the scientific community. It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram for Type Ia supernovae.[12] The core ideas of the Big Bang—the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, and the formation of galaxies—are derived from these and other observations that are independent of any cosmological model. As the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, it is inferred that everything was closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures,[13][14][15] and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment in such conditions, resulting in further development of the model. On the other hand, these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.

As for the comments others made about not believing things can literally come from nothing then I offer the most simple of challenges that anyone can run at anytime and at any place.

I challenge you to close your eye's and find the source of a thought. Do it for awhile. I've been doing it for a couple of decades now. If thoughts can literally emerge out of nothing then I see no reason why space can't as well. What many people fail to realize is that the big bang theory is essentially creationism. It's not like there was a bang and shit filled into space..not at all. :!: It's like there was a bang and space started creating itself. :shock: The latter understanding is far more profound and far more accurate.

BTW Scientists are humans. There are roughly 5.8 Million scientists in the world. If we can understand why we shouldn't judge all Muslims based on terrorists then surely we can understand why it's wrong to judge all scientists based on the ramblings of a few (un)popular ones like Dawkins.


Science is not a thing. It's a process.

 

[Nathanial.Dread]

I'm with you man. It's not necessarily the idea of science itself (deducive reasoning, hypothesis, experiment and analysis) but the context in which all of that is currently conducted. What is "meta" physical is rarely considered.

The problem is, scientists aren't looking outside of the box, and that's where some of most potent answers are to be found. I think if every graduating "scientist" was administered a dose of LSD as a right of passage, our world would be very different. Shake them up a bit, loosen them out of their rigid and limited thinking. If that were the case, surely the DNA double helix structure wouldn't be the only major scientific breakthrough which LSD + a scientist has given us. We would most likely be privy to many more of nature's secrets. And what if Francis Crick had never done that LSD? Would he/we have ever deduced the true nature of DNA? And what do we really owe that discovery to? The scientist, or the LSD he took?

What I find interesting about the psychedelic state is, in some cases, it gives you almost an ESP. In bringing your attention to a certain subject, you literally get information about that subject downloaded to you, from somewhere... within/without. Who knows. But wherever this information comes from, it's not as available to us in normal waking states. This seems to have been the case with Francis Crick's envisioning/discovering of the DNA double helix while on LSD.

I have experienced this sort of thing myself, and the phenomena is as real to me as anything else, but if my situation were described to a team of sober scientists, "I feel like I'm using my mind to access data that comes from somewhere outside of my normal field of perception", I would likely be deemed insane, strapped down and fed drugs as my case is explained away as some sort of "delusion", since any other considerations would undermine the entire current state of science. Considering that what I'm talking about might actually be happening, would be a troublesome road to embark down for most contemporary scientific practitioners. How would you explain that based on our current level of understanding? Well.. You wouldn't.

Thus, it appears we need a better understanding to base our experiences off, because what we think we know just isn't cutting it anymore.

LSD + scientists is the ticket, I'm sure of it :lol:

I really don't like the messianic attitude some psychedelic users take towards their drugs of choice. These experiences can be spiritual, awe-inspiring, creative and profound for those of us who use them that way. They can also be just a mundane way to get high if that's what you use them for. Saying: "everyone should take this drug because it worked for me and will certainly work the same way for you," is, in my mind, akin to saying: "everyone should go to Church and believe in God and Jesus because it makes me feel better."

See the problem?

It is possible to think creatively without the aid of hallucinogens. Would Crick have divined the double-helix structure of DNA without LSD? Maybe not. Would someone else with access to more technology, or just a different way of thinking about it ultimately gotten there? Almost certainly.

Plenty of fantastic discoveries happened sans-psychedelics: Newton created calculus, which in my mind is EXTREMELY psychedelic while sober (unless you could mercury fumes from the alchemy, of course). Einstein did relatively (another highly psychedelic theory), and Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem, all without psychedelic help.

Yeah, we all hear the big stories of Crick and Jobs, but plenty of people can be really creative without them, and plenty of regular users never amount to anything particularly special.

Let those who want it seek it out, and let those who don't give it a miss. That seems have worked well for most of human history.

Blessings
~ND

 

[Creo]

The problem is, scientists aren't looking outside of the box

Anyone who looks at the counter intuitive nature of even established physics (never mind stuff like string theory) would be hard pressed to agree with this statement. If these theories are not examples of thinking outside the box then what is?

This seems to have been the case with Francis Crick's envisioning/discovering of the DNA double helix while on LSD

There is no evidence that Francis Crick had taken LSD at the time he and Jim Watson elucidated the structure of DNA, that came much later in his life.

Shulgin wrote an interresting criticism of the Big Bang theory in TIHKAL too. He mentioned that the red-shift could be caused by something other than bodies moving away. Can't remember it exactly now, but it was quite compelling I remember.

The big bang theory explains a lot more than just Hubble's Law. For example, the cosmic background radiation, the distribution of galaxies, big bang nucleosynthesis and the accelerating expansion of the universe.

 

[jamie]

"I challenge you to close your eye's and find the source of a thought. Do it for awhile. I've been doing it for a couple of decades now. If thoughts can literally emerge out of nothing then I see no reason why space can't as well."

just becasue you cant figure out where your thoughts come from does not mean they come from nothing..why would you assume that? I would assume that consciousness is just non-local or something and that I am a receiver for thoughts before I assumed that thoughts come from nowhwere. That doesnt even make sense..not that anything really makes any sense anyway so maybe everything does come from nothing. I am sure there was a time when people didnt know where starlight comes from or why water falls from clouds either.

I dont have anything against the idea that the multiverse or something came from nothing..but you are still naming it a nothing so then you have to define what nothing really even is. Simply saying that nothing is an absence of anything does not cut it for me, that would be way too easy.

I dont think that our common concept of "nothing" even exists in reality..and that is different from me saying that something cant come from nothing..all I am saying is that I find the people who make that claim have highly shady and suspiscious concepts of what nothing is to me and so the whole thing sounds kind of flaky.

Our concept of such a thing like "nothing" is likely to be so bounf up and confined to the limits of our own perception that trying to assume we can propery define nothing seems arbitrary.

I think nothing IS something.

 

[joedirt]

just becasue you cant figure out where your thoughts come from does not mean they come from nothing..why would you assume that? I would assume that consciousness is just non-local or something and that I am a receiver for thoughts before I assumed that thoughts come from nowhwere. That doesnt even make sense..not that anything really makes any sense anyway so maybe everything does come from nothing. I am sure there was a time when people didnt know where starlight comes from or why water falls from clouds either.

What can you directly observe?
How long can you hold the perfect silence?
Did you give that though permission to arise?
Was it you?

Hey Jamie, again where exactly did that though come from! LOL

BTW The fact that awareness is non-local is a self evident FACT to me. It's everywhere. It's the source of the void. Pure raw untainted awareness is in essence nothing. It's not a thing, it's not an object, it doesn't have a location or coordinates. AKA: nothing. What is present awareness if not nothing?

Without present awareness can thoughts exists? If thoughts have a foundation that can only be described as nothing then can we claim thoughts as a thing either? Thoughts are not objects, they don't come form objects, though they can often times be about objects. Thoughts come from nothing as well.

 

[Creo]

I dont think that our common concept of "nothing" even exists in reality.

This is really good intuition.

In modern physics there is no such thing as empty space. Instead, what you have is something called the vacuum state, which is the state of lowest possible energy. But this state of lowest possible energy can't be zero due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So even completely 'empty' space isn't really empty.

 

[Veritatis cupitor]

As for something out of nothing, there is something there if there is nothing there. I like the way one of my favorite songs by Donovan puts it: "First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is." The point I'm trying to get at is that there is no Big Bang, there is no Primordial Soup, there is no boiling of the surface without a "mind" to piece it together. Creation of all our Universe comes from within our psyche. Like the old Parable: "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" One cannot make sense of anything unless one is conscious. If we want to figure out the source of it all, we have to do as the scientists do and boil it all down to its most simple parts. With perception comes reality. With reality comes perception. These concepts go hand in hand as an apparent dualism, a catch 22. We can attach terms to anything we want, to articulate to the masses our ideas, but that's common sense. What I want to know is if reality goes in hand with perception, (You can't have one without the other) and our perception dictates our reality, (And Vice Versa) then the source is obviously ourselves. Like seeing the forest for the trees and the trees for the forest. If that's the case then the entirety of the cosmos is in a constant, pendulous, back-and-forth, ebbing and flowing between our conscious interpretations of the cosmos, (which are constantly evolving or changing) and the cosmological "clockwork," (which is changing as well) that dictates our perception. SO, seeing as how all things in life seem to go hand in hand, it is insensible to assume something, (Like an Idea) can appear and assimilate from nothing. Obviously we can all piece things together to make a sensible concept, but what about creativity and "novel" ideas? If something entirely new comes out of two things, (Reality and Interpretation of said Reality) then how come I can't put two Oranges together and get an apple?