not logged in
| re: NJC: Some Deep Thoughts from Insomnia | |
Posted by:  |
Venom 10:50 pm UTC 06/19/07 |
| In reply to: | re: NJC: Some Deep Thoughts from Insomnia - elton22 07:53 pm UTC 06/19/07 |
> "Science and the rules of science are relative to only the > rules we were given of what we know." > > >>What does this actually mean? It means science is only only a small framework of, easy-to-understand concepts that our mind can even comprehend. Now I am asking the origin of what lies beyond that framework. What dictates the force that things should work the way they do for that framework to even work. Nobody knows because it is beyond our minds to comprehend. > > "Where did gravity get it's rules? What set the rules to > dictate how gravity should work?" > >But we can't know. Exactly. > > "Simple. It is an eternal state." > > >>Not sure what you mean by this. It means there is no thinkable way that nothingness ever existed. Because nothingness itself would be something that existed itself. It's a paradox. > > "If you study science deep enough and long enough it will > force you to believe in the unnatural." > > >>This is pure toss. Science is purely an agreement. We agree to use logic and maths and so on to reach conclusions. If it pure toss then why do things exist? Why does matter exist? Because of energy, I know, but what what was the cause that energy should exist. It is even theorized to have created the big bang, but things don't just pop out of nothing. That would be un-scientific. Uh oh. Unnatural lol As the definition of unnatural is "Not explainable by current science." >Certainly, they are not necessary and are also 'invented', >but they serve a purpose within a certain framework. Science >is not a method of discovery as such, but of interpretation >into logical format. So nobody invented G= mm/(r)2, it is >not an intgeral feature of gravity but within the scientific >framework it is a way of describing it. Yes, but that statement goes past the point of my questions of thinking what drives the framework and why it exists. Use science to explain it. It can't be done. > You seem to have hit upon the fact that science is not > absolute, but you have then jumped to the conclusion that > it is totally relative. Yes, it is relative to our human minds. We can only grasp a small part of it. It's only a small part of something we ourselves may never in existence ever begin to comprehend. Our brains are not smart enough, or there may be no absolute answer. > semi-absolutes within the context of an overall > relativity, so long as everyone you are working with > agrees to the system. The later statement was referring to relativity to the abilities of our mind in comprehension. Your talking about the relativity of the scientific rules again. Of course there is semi-absoluteness in science if we ourselves declare the rules, but our minds know better than that. Again, my questions are to explain why the forces of the rules themselves even exist. Their origin. Which runs into words "Nobody knows". I think nobody may ever know. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | Just One Itsy Bitsy Comment, Really - pidunk 09:00 pm UTC 06/22/07 |
| Next: | re: NJC: Some Deep Thoughts from Insomnia - elton22 10:53 pm UTC 06/20/07 |
| Thread: |
|