simple gravity test disproves FE

Can you backup your claim that it is outside "the realm of science" as I have backed up that it is my right to use it for this means in my cited literature?

Yes I can. It is not testable. It is not repeatable. Therefore,  it is unscientific. And, in my opinion, it is also not real.

It was a moment that seemed like eternal enlightenment, in but a second that lasted for what seemed like forever.  I could sense truth.  I had little control over the experience.  It was much more than my senses.  I knew that the world was wrong, but this knowledge was beyond me, and greater than me.

This is a purely mental experience. Many people have these. I myself have had such experiences. (Although not to the degree you describe. And I didn't think the world was wrong.) It means nothing. Your brain cannot suddenly sense a truth for which it has no input. Sure, it can make you think that's what's happening. That's why you have to look at things critically and logically.

Yes I can. It is not testable. It is not repeatable. Therefore,  it is unscientific. And, in my opinion, it is also not real.

I disagree, it is testable and repeatable. 

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/07_11_06.html

This is a purely mental experience. Many people have these. I myself have had such experiences. (Although not to the degree you describe. And I didn't think the world was wrong.) It means nothing. Your brain cannot suddenly sense a truth for which it has no input. Sure, it can make you think that's what's happening. That's why you have to look at things critically and logically.

What it means, and its worth, is only discernible by the results it enables.  The scientific explanation for such a "mental" occurence does not invalidate its mystical worth, which can then, as cited, be lead to real life use. 

It would be narrowminded to dismiss something one doesn't understand.

Also, by stating mystical experiences mean nothing, you are basically spitting in faces of all the Religious Geniuses of the entire history of mankind.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 06, 2007, 06:28:57 PM

Discover Magazine says that science doesn't know whether or not time exists.

Where in that article tells time does not exist.

Time must exist for things to work.

Funny as ever, you are a very professional troll.

Tom says the article states that science doesn't know whether or not time exists, not that it says time doesn't exist. 

Quote from: Potentiall on October 06, 2007, 08:20:42 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 06, 2007, 06:28:57 PM

Discover Magazine says that science doesn't know whether or not time exists.

Where in that article tells time does not exist.

Time must exist for things to work.

Funny as ever, you are a very professional troll.

Tom says the article states that science doesn't know whether or not time exists, not that it says time doesn't exist. 

To me, the article says a majority of scientists say they know time exists.

I was just clarifying that he was asking the wrong question, I'll leave it to tomb to defend his claim heh.

I disagree, it is testable and repeatable. 

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/07_11_06.html

In case it slipped past you, this relates to a drug induced experience which is what you are denying happened, and what I therefore was not referring to. Notice they put "mystical" in quotes. Scientific types do not see it as mystical.

What it means, and its worth, is only discernible by the results it enables. 

Nope. Flipping a coin may help you decide whether to kick a field goal or to go for it on 4th and goal from the 1 yard line. Regardless of the outcome, there was no special meaning to the result of the coin flip. These mental experiences are based only on the input to the brain. It may by pure chance lead you to discover something that happens to be true. Or it might lead to believe something that isn't true at all. There is nothing special about the mental process. It is what it is.

The scientific explanation for such a "mental" occurence does not invalidate its mystical worth, which can then, as cited, be lead to real life use. 

The fact that there is a scientific explanation erases the possibility of the occurrence being mystical. These terms are not compatible.

It would be narrowminded to dismiss something one doesn't understand.

Except I believe I understand it.

Tom says the article states that science doesn't know whether or not time exists, not that it says time doesn't exist. 

My mistaken then, thanks.

In case it slipped past you, this relates to a drug induced experience which is what you are denying happened, and what I therefore was not referring to. Notice they put "mystical" in quotes. Scientific types do not see it as mystical.

It is repeatable, and you can test for it as they are easily definable.  As they state, it is the same experience as those mystical experiences that come up without use of the drug.   

“We’re not entering into ‘Does God exist or not exist.’ This work can’t and won’t go there.” 

That seems to imply like they are staying neutral on the issue of whether or not it is truly mystical (which doesn't actually necessarily have anything to do with God.)

Nope. Flipping a coin may help you decide whether to kick a field goal or to go for it on 4th and goal from the 1 yard line. Regardless of the outcome, there was no special meaning to the result of the coin flip. These mental experiences are based only on the input to the brain. It may by pure chance lead you to discover something that happens to be true. Or it might lead to believe something that isn't true at all. There is nothing special about the mental process. It is what it is.

I have cited sources to say otherwise by the expert and authority on the matter whose work is well reviewed and almost considered canon.  Not to be rude, but I think I'll believe William James and the field of study surrounding the matter until you come up with something more substantial than your opinion.

The fact that there is a scientific explanation erases the possibility of the occurrence being mystical. These terms are not compatible.

No, as I have cited.  That what is known as medical materialism.

I'm going to try to clarify a few things.

I'm not a religious person. If anything, I dislike religion and find that the question of whether or whether not God exists is not only irrelevent to me, but distasteful.  However, it must be recognized the impact and importance of those founding religious geniuses. Whether you believe in it or not, they have in history been some of the most influential people ever whose lives effect everyone, daily.

There are artistic geniuses, and scientific geniuses, and musicial geniuses.  Why not the religious genius?  These have had more effect (when you get right down to it) on human belief, science, and life as we know it - ignoring whether or not they are truly in touch with something "more" such as a God. 

Logic itself is by nature not empirical and is outside the realm of science.  At the very least, it was this way originally.  And yet the whole of science itself is based on logic.  Accepting logic as a matter of fact, we have proven it.  This seems circular, but obviously it is not.  The worth, truth, and reason of logic (a completely non-physical study) comes from its fruits, not only in science but also in everyday life.  What was once just random input into our brain has become something much more and shown us fundamental truths about the universe, humans, and life.

You are basically asking me to ignore a deeply life altering experience based on your word alone thus ignoring the whole of literature on the subject.  I'm sorry, that just isn't reasonable.

Ok, I'm done with the religious debate. It doesn't matter how many sources you cite. Religion is not science.

You are basically asking me to ignore a deeply life altering experience based on your word alone thus ignoring the whole of literature on the subject.  I'm sorry, that just isn't reasonable.

You do whatever you want Username. I'm sorry that you were the victim of this experience that  left you questioning one of the world's most basic truths. This was not your fault. But ignoring (yes that is what you are doing) the massive amounts of evidence that has been presented to you on this board, this is your fault. Even if everything you have said here is true, you must have very serious doubts about the validity of your life altering experience. But you apparently won't even concede that much. And that is not fair to us.

Religion is not mysticism, nor vice versa.

The sources I cited, however, were not religious sources, but were actually written by a psychologist and are in that field.  Is psychology no longer a science?  Did I miss a memo?  Perhaps we should throw all the social and behavior sciences out the window while we are at it.  I mean really, who needs them?

I do not ignore the facts presented to me.  I take them into account and alter my beliefs as necessary.   If anyone is ignoring facts, it is you ignoring the body of science and philosophy behind what we are talking about, as well as my arguments to reinforce them.

That said, its your option to not continue this debate.  I have shown it is testable.  I have shown it is repeatable.  I have shown scientific literature and studies as well as philosophical studies concerning mysticism.  I have drawn parallels in making the assumption I made with the foundation of science itself and its very backbone of logic.  I think its fair to say that I have shown its scientific merit and worthiness as well as its everyday benefits.  I would be happy to end the conversation here, as I feel I have supported my side  well and documented in science, in philosophy, and in everyday life its worth.

I appreciate you discussing it this far, but I understand if you do not wish to discuss it for whatever ties you think it may have with 'religion.' 

Have I doubted my experience?  Sure, I have had second thoughts now and then.  However, having experienced such a powerful timeless event, in the end I know that the fruits of my work will be the true measure of its validity, not the path there.  When the day comes when the two can no longer be reconciled, then I will concede.  Until then, I will continue down my path.

Discover Magazine says that science doesn't know whether or not time exists.

Tom, if you had actually read that article--or had the intellectual integrity and honesty to represent it correctly--you would not have made such an unconscionably, wildly inaccurate assertion.

The article talks about how at the smallest time scales thought to exist--akin to a "Plank Scale" for time--it probably wouldn't look anything like what we think time is.  If you recall from your expert science education through Discover Magazine, at Plank Scales and beyond, it's not even clear that matter or space itself exists.  In quantum theory, existence itself may be furiously frothing and bubbling in and out of existence.  Everything is weird in quantum mechanics--and some scientists (Einstein among them) don't really trust it and think it's a bunch of mathematical conveniences.  Their biggest problem with it (including String theory)?  It too often doesn't make testable predictions.  Not all quantum theory of course.  A great deal of practical technology has resulted from quantum theory (your CPU even takes quantum tunneling into consideration), but definitely the very bleeding edge of theoretical quantum theory is "out there".  In my mind, string theory is nothing more than a religion.  A religion of Beautiful Math and nothing more.  Once it makes testable predictions, then I'll pay attention.

Anyway back to the article--it notes that in quantum mechanics, time is not a factor in equations, and the formulas work the same way whether time is running backward, forward, or not at all (which is another fancy way of repeating that time is not in the equations).

It goes on to talk about other things but these two concepts (or maybe just the headling and introduction) seem to be what you latched onto, twisted, and puked out.

If you want to make a mockery of your own beliefs, fine.  But I'll be goddamned if I sit by while you purposely misrepresent the honest, hard work of real scientists.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 06, 2007, 06:28:57 PM

Discover Magazine says that science doesn't know whether or not time exists.

Tom, if you had actually read that article--or had the intellectual integrity and honesty to represent it correctly--you would not have made such an unconscionably, wildly inaccurate assertion.

The article talks about how at the smallest time scales thought to exist--akin to a "Plank Scale" for time--it probably wouldn't look anything like what we think time is.  If you recall from your expert science education through Discover Magazine, at Plank Scales and beyond, it's not even clear that matter or space itself exists.  In quantum theory, existence itself may be furiously frothing and bubbling in and out of existence.  Everything is weird in quantum mechanics--and some scientists (Einstein among them) don't really trust it and think it's a bunch of mathematical conveniences.  Their biggest problem with it (including String theory)?  It too often doesn't make testable predictions.  Not all quantum theory of course.  A great deal of practical technology has resulted from quantum theory (your CPU even takes quantum tunneling into consideration), but definitely the very bleeding edge of theoretical quantum theory is "out there".  In my mind, string theory is nothing more than a religion.  A religion of Beautiful Math and nothing more.  Once it makes testable predictions, then I'll pay attention.

Anyway back to the article--it notes that in quantum mechanics, time is not a factor in equations, and the formulas work the same way whether time is running backward, forward, or not at all (which is another fancy way of repeating that time is not in the equations).

It goes on to talk about other things but these two concepts (or maybe just the headling and introduction) seem to be what you latched onto, twisted, and puked out.

If you want to make a mockery of your own beliefs, fine.  But I'll be goddamned if I sit by while you purposely misrepresent the honest, hard work of real scientists.

Hear! Hear!

Want to look through my underwear drawer too?

Yes.

It goes on to talk about other things but these two concepts (or maybe just the headling and introduction) seem to be what you latched onto, twisted, and puked out.

Are you trying to claim that Quantum Mechanics is not part of science?

Are you telling me that the quantum world plays no part in our reality?

Are you trying to claim that Quantum Mechanics is not part of science?

Are you telling me that the quantum world plays no part in our reality?

Show me where I said, or even hinted at that quantum mechanics is "not part of science".  And Tom, try to excercise your flabby integrity muscle, and remember that "context" is key.  I know you don't care about being honest--your asessment of the article itself is key. 

But there is really no use in engaging in "rational" debating with someone who will do anything to win, including purposely lying, misrepresenting, and distorting others' arguments, or a magazine article.  Especially when they are stupid enough to do it with something so verifiable (e.g. anyone can read the article or my original text just a few messages above). 

I make a fair amount of baseless personal insults in the name of obviously opinionated sparring.  But what I am about to say is neither baseless, nor opinion (look at the evidence), nor do I make it lightly: You, Tom, purposely misrepresent ideas at the lowest possible form of intellectual dishonesty.  You are a liar.  You are untrustworthy.

In my mind, string theory is nothing more than a religion.  A religion of Beautiful Math and nothing more.  Once it makes testable predictions, then I'll pay attention.

Bear in mind that String theory, Brane theory et al are actually attempts to consolidate current theory. IOW they are influenced by, and attempt to explain  experimental observations. IMO that's an important distinction that you should be taking into consideration.

Quote from: bubbles on October 07, 2007, 10:01:12 PM

In my mind, string theory is nothing more than a religion.  A religion of Beautiful Math and nothing more.  Once it makes testable predictions, then I'll pay attention.

Bear in mind...

AAAAAARGHH! THE TEETH, THE HAIR, THE CLAWS, NOOOOOOOOOO! *RAWR!*

Quote from: bubbles on October 07, 2007, 10:01:12 PM

In my mind, string theory is nothing more than a religion.  A religion of Beautiful Math and nothing more.  Once it makes testable predictions, then I'll pay attention.

Bear in mind that String theory, Brane theory et al are actually attempts to consolidate current theory. IOW they are influenced by, and attempt to explain  experimental observations. IMO that's an important distinction that you should be taking into consideration.

I agree with that assessment.  Those first two sentences you quoted were a personal opinion (annotated as such) about specifically the flaws of string theory.  I've heard countless theoretical physicists say about the same thing (well maybe they are countable I don't know).  I heard somone get into it with Tom Green on the radio a while back, a real knock-down drag-out.  It got personal--though true to form they attacked each others' ideas, the each others' meatball-filled skulls.  It basically came down to, "Tom , you show me a testable prediction and I won't call it a religion".  I'm not suggesting that string theorists should stop, or that what they are working on has no merit--I believe it very much has merit.  Let's see where it goes.  I do, however, also believe that string theory is grossly and abusively monopolizing university science money that needs to go to other pursuits for the same answers, and it has become an elitist clique of the most super-Aspberger's braniacs around, locking themselves inside for weeks at a time without sunlight or other people, dealing with nothing more than fantastic forumlas.  If you want prestige and research money in that field, string theory is your only choice (that is loosening up though I should acknowledge).

And while they are still scientists (some of them anyway--there are clearly some church leaders in the mix) and are still interested in making testable predictions, to date not a single one has emerged.

Besides--if only two people in the world can understand the math of the Answer To The Universe, then what difference would it make?  I'm with Einstein: the answer to the universe surely must be stunningly beautiful not only in elegance, but simplicity.

I agree, the argument is strong that String Theory is not falsifiable.  However I disagree with the use of the word religion.  It is, however, strongly faith based which I assume is what you meant.

I agree, the argument is strong that String Theory is not falsifiable.  However I disagree with the use of the word religion.  It is, however, strongly faith based which I assume is what you meant.

Yes that's right.  And I understand your point--I can see how you'd take my use of "religion" to mean something other than what I meant.  I probably use the term more loosely than the average English speaker, and assume everyone knows what I'm talking about.  I think of anything unfalsifiable as a "religion".