not logged in
| re: NJC: Some Deep Thoughts from Insomnia | |
Posted by:  |
Klasien 10:53 am UTC 06/20/07 |
| In reply to: | re: NJC: Some Deep Thoughts from Insomnia - Venom 10:50 pm UTC 06/19/07 |
| One could argue that science is infact nothing more than another way of explaining what we do not understand, taking many things as 'a given'. Sounds an awful lot like a religion to me... K. > > > > "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: | re: Maybe Some Two Cents, That's Chump Change - Venom 10:13 pm UTC 06/22/07 |
| Next: | re: NJC: Some Deep Thoughts from Insomnia - Venom 09:38 pm UTC 06/20/07 |
| Thread: |
|