False beliefs, religion & science

[pantheory]

On 7/3/2022 at 11:53 AM, Joshpantera said:

 

1) There's a raging counter argument against simplicity and parsimonious explanations. Which is that QM shows arational chaos and complexity at deeper levels. And that simpler, more parsimonious explanations have been found false already. Losing to theories more complex. My come back is to point out that the point particle conception of matter can be wrong itself, and probably is. QM is addressed to the point particle conception of matter and the standard model. If that's out, then conclusions based on the assumption of point particle conception being true are out as well. I'm holding ground there, but there, is a place of willing to lose it all! All concepts out the window as literally true. Physics of any stripe unable to work out what exactly reality actually is. Limited to only trying to describe how things work, not what they actually are. 

 

2) The other issue that's come up is what I'm calling the "monkey brain" discourse. How can we think that this Great Ape brain, one of a great many that have come along before us, and probably not the last, would have the nature of reality all figured out and buttoned up, or could even be capable of such a thing? Especially while nursing a serious handicap like not viewing reality as it actually is?

 

These are tough questions.  

 

 

 

Yes, I know this but consider that there is no accepted quantum theory or consensus version of it.  Quantum Mechanics is simply a mathematical system not related to theory. There are instead a great number of quantum theories. None can explain all the problems with quantum theory even though many of its problems are obvious.

 

http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/466-17/QuantumMechanicsWeinberg.pdf

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/tip-sheet/article/76468-the-trouble-with-quantum-physics-and-why-it-matters.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-physics.html

 

Almost every argument involving quantum mechanics is necessarily wrong because no one misunderstandings quantum mechanics IMHO. That all simpler explanations have been proven false is also a false statement.

 

“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”

 

— Richard P. Feynman

 

Monkey Brain :We are definitely smart enough to understand all,  it's just that many of the modern physic's explanations that prevail as theory, are simply wrong IMO.

 

“A new scientific truth (theory) does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”  "Science progresses (slowly) one funeral at a time."

 

-- Max Planck

 

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

Yes, I know this but consider that there is no accepted quantum theory or consensus version of it.  Quantum Mechanics is simply a mathematical system not related to theory. There are instead a great number of quantum theories. None can explain all the problems with quantum theory even though many of its problems are obvious.

 

I will shoot this sentiment back at him if he responds to my current post. 

 

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

Almost every argument involving quantum mechanics is necessarily wrong because no one misunderstandings quantum mechanics IMHO. That all simpler explanations have been proven false is also a false statement.

 

“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”

 

 

He already cited the same quote, as part of his positioning. Which isn't clear because you can't both rely on QM to negate people claiming to have the simplest explanation and the most parsimonious, and at the same time admit that QM isn't understood by anyone. I hope he'll at least concede that point. 

 

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

Monkey Brain :We are definitely smart enough to understand all,  it's just that many of the modern physic's explanations that prevail as theory, are simply wrong IMO.

 

Listen, it would be very nice to believe that we are capable of total and full understanding of the nature of reality. But how would we know while not being able to perceive reality directly as it actually is?

 

Example from philosophy:

 

The finite perspective of experience cannot have the experience of being everywhere all at once, knowing everything all at once. These are two distinct types of experience. Which is what leads to a metaphysical assertion like Analytic Idealism. Finite minds and perspective are meta-consciousness. Whereas infinite mind would have to be a phenomenal consciousness, a field of subjectivity / mentation. Which is a different perspective, that of the whole. But that's a perspective lacking in the ability for self-experience, for self-experience and examination in contemplation, and perception to take place, meta-conscious experience from a finite, center outward perspective, is necessary. 

 

This would imply that seeing reality as it actually is not possible from a finite perspective. And the complexities of infinite presence factor in. That's why evolution would favor fitness over truth. And why we "Kant" seem to perceive "The Thing in Itself." 

 

What could we understand? 

 

We could understand the necessity of awareness, even to the extent of fundamental. That's within our range of conceptualizing. Or a non-aware reality where a mysterious awareness ex nihilo suddenly appears at some fixed point on a linear timeline. Those two ideas can be understood. We could understand that only one of the two options solve the hard problem of consciousness. While the other leads to paradox and problems. That's within our ability to conceive of knowing.

 

But these philosophers still don't make a claim to knowing truth in an absolute sense. 

 

Why? 

 

Because we could never know the extent of a past-eternal type of existence. Regardless of whether we call that existence awarness or unaware. Doesn't matter against the deeper issue of absolute mystery always riding at the base level of reality - underlying any ontological primitive we could put forward.  

 

This is a related article that came out recently: Can we live without searching for ultimate truths? (The Return of Metaphysics) | Essentia Foundation

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

I believe that most of the ideas are wrong that assert that humans are not smart enough. to understand everything. I think that humans can have a valid perspective understanding of anything in reality that's real. The problem is simply that some of our most cherished theories are flawed or wrong. Everything in the universe is simple and can be explained in simple language IMHO, whether we can understand its simplicity or not. If not understandable, the explanation is probably partly or completely wrong.

 

If memory serves, you have offered no reason why the universe should be simple enough for us to understand it, Pantheory.

 

If I recall correctly you've done no more that assert your belief that it is.

 

So, beyond your unsupported belief, can you give a reason why it should be?

 

A reason that is not subjective, coming from within yourself, but something objective others can test and examine for themselves?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I should point out that in Ulster, "wee" is generally used to indicate "small", though it is so ubiquitous in Ulsterish, that it could denote an object of any size, other than large.  This being so, the proposition, as I understood it, presented the opportunity to pet a small (or at least, not large) vagina.

 

Now, as a Southern Gentleman, I normally would not have entertained such boldness from a complete stranger.  However, earlier in the trip she had made it known that she really did not care for American faggots.  While I would not use such an odious term for folks who are born that way and deserve as much respect as anybody else, I certainly also did not want to be mistook for one.  Thus, I felt almost honor-bound to give her pussy a good and thorough petting.

 

This is just getting worse and worse, Prof!

 

When I was a lad we used to go round to my Grandma's to eat her faggots.

 

https://www.thespruceeats.com/classic-british-faggots-recipe-435283

 

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

If memory serves, you have offered no reason why the universe should be simple enough for us to understand it, Pantheory.

 

If I recall correctly you've done no more that assert your belief that it is.

 

So, beyond your unsupported belief, can you give a reason why it should be?

 

A reason that is not subjective, coming from within yourself, but something objective others can test and examine for themselves?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

The Pan Theory as a whole is the assertion that the universe is a very simple place. It is based upon the principle of Occam's Razor. You can skim the opening page then  go to the Book. The Pan theory simply says that it's very unlikely that anyone could ever propose a simpler science theory that cannot be disproved. Start on page 11 of the book and read to page 17. This should explain how simple the universe is, equations aside,  compared to what is presently proposed via mainstream cosmology and physics theory. These are pages of cosmogony.

 

http://www.pantheory.org/

[TheRedneckProfessor]

32 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

This is just getting worse and worse, Prof!

 

When I was a lad we used to go round to my Grandma's to eat her faggots.

 

https://www.thespruceeats.com/classic-british-faggots-recipe-435283

 

You win.

[walterpthefirst]

30 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

The Pan Theory as a whole is the assertion that the universe is a very simple place. It is based upon the principle of Occam's Razor. You can skim the opening page then  go to the Book. The Pan theory simply says that it's very unlikely that anyone could ever propose a simpler science theory that cannot be disproved. Start on page 11 of the book and read to page 17. This should explain how simple the universe is, equations aside,  compared to what is presently proposed via mainstream cosmology and physics theory.

 

http://www.pantheory.org/

 

No, I'm not going to do that Pantheory.

 

That's because someone else could apply Occam's Razor even more stringently than you do and come up with an even simpler theory of how the universe works.

 

They could do that simply by doing what you do, choosing to interpret the data in their own way.

 

And since...   

 

"Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity" (Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate)

 

...on the balance of probability they would be right and you would be wrong.

 

 

Walter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

26 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You win.

 

[pantheory]

26 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

No, I'm not going to do that Pantheory.

 

That's because someone else could apply Occam's Razor even more stringently than you do and come up with an even simpler theory of how the universe works.

 

They could do that simply by doing what you do, choosing to interpret the data in their own way.

 

And since...   

 

"Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity" (Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate)

 

...on the balance of probability they would be right and you would be wrong.

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

"That's because someone else could apply Occam's Razor even more stringently than you do and come up with an even simpler theory of how the universe works."

 

That's not even possible IMO, only a simpler theory that can be disproved, not another kind.  The most complicated part of the universe, and the opinion of most theorists, are the theories of relativity and quantum theory. The theory below explains away the errors of both via their unneeded complexity. Other mainstream complex ideas involve the theory of gravity, of magnetism, the strong and Weak forces. The links below concerning the Pan Theory explains away the perceived complexity of all.

 

"If memory serves, you have offered no reason why the universe should be simple enough for us to understand it, Pantheory. If I recall correctly you've done no more that assert your belief that it is. So, beyond your unsupported belief, can you give a reason why it should be?  A reason that is not subjective, coming from within yourself, but something objective others can test and examine for themselves?

 

The entire book The Pan Theory explains how simple the universe really is.

 

Remember this is an answer to your question, and my answers are certainly not subjective, and the related theory does away with all the major complications of the universe. And like everything else, you must read it to understand it.  I have other peer reviewed research papers of theory that can explain away Inflation, dark matter, dark energy, the expansion of space -- further simplifying the universe via theory.

 

https://papers.pantheory.org/

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

"That's because someone else could apply Occam's Razor even more stringently than you do and come up with an even simpler theory of how the universe works."

 

That's not even possible IMO, only a simpler theory that can be disproved, not another kind.  The most complicated part of the universe, and the opinion of most theorists, are the theories of relativity and quantum theory. The theory below explains away the errors of both via their unneeded complexity. Other mainstream complex ideas involve the theory of gravity, of magnetism, the strong and Weak forces. The links below concerning the Pan Theory explains away the perceived complexity of all.

 

"If memory serves, you have offered no reason why the universe should be simple enough for us to understand it, Pantheory. If I recall correctly you've done no more that assert your belief that it is. So, beyond your unsupported belief, can you give a reason why it should be?  A reason that is not subjective, coming from within yourself, but something objective others can test and examine for themselves?

 

The entire book The Pan Theory explains how simple the universe really is.

 

Remember this is an answer to your question, and my answers are certainly not subjective, and the related theory does away with all the major complications of the universe. And like everything else, you must read it to understand it.  I have other peer reviewed research papers of theory that can explain away Inflation, dark matter, dark energy, the expansion of space -- further simplifying the universe via theory.

 

https://papers.pantheory.org/

 

 

 

This is an answer to my question, Pantheory.

 

But not a definitive one, because you still rely on personal opinion.

 

"That's not even possible IMO, only a simpler theory that can be disproved, not another kind."

 

Since my default position is one of scepticism, I'm not persuaded by your opinion.

 

Call that confrontational and argumentative if you will, but I call it a fair move in the art of debating.

 

Once again, we are looking at the same data, but choosing to interpret it in different ways.

 

 

 

[pantheory]

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

This is an answer to my question, Pantheory.

 

But not a definitive one, because you still rely on personal opinion.

 

"That's not even possible IMO, only a simpler theory that can be disproved, not another kind."

 

Since my default position is one of scepticism, I'm not persuaded by your opinion.

 

Call that confrontational and argumentative if you will, but I call it a fair move in the art of debating.

 

Once again, we are looking at the same data, but choosing to interpret it in different ways.

 

 

 

 

The only opinion I expressed in my last porting was  that no one has ever put together a simpler theory in cosmology and modern physic than the Pan Theory -- regarding a "simple" universe.  This option is unrelated to the theories themselves. Many have been published in peer reviewed journals.

 

The Pan Theory says there's only one very simple particle that makes up the entire universe. The particle is called a Pan. The whole universe including us is made up of this particle and nothing else has a separate existence. . It is the smallest particle that makes up all larger particles of matter.  The theory states that Quarks and gluons are not real particles, and that the Higgs' particle lasts only a few quadrillionths of  a second and has no consequence.

 

Here's a synopsis of it.

The Pan Theory

The Pan Theory was proposed in the early 1960s by Forrest Noble as being a "simpler" cosmology and a completely different model of modern physics, claiming that observation and Occam's Razor were its primary development principles. The theory proposes a model of pushing gravity with its own gravity equations, and its own formulas to calculate distances, brightnesses, and time dilation. This model proposes that dark energy and non-baryonic dark matter do not exist, as well as proposing a "simple" beginning to the universe without a Big Bang or Inflation. It is a mechanical “Theory of Everything", proposing to be able to unify all of physics under a single all-encompassing theory. Galactic redshifts are explained by a diminution of matter process rather than by the expansion of space. Space would appear to be expanding but instead matter would be very slowly getting smaller, a type of scale-changing theory. New matter would be steadily created from the matter decrement, maintaining a constant density of matter and a steady-state condition conserving matter and energy. The universe accordingly would be far older but not infinite in size or age. It is also an aether theory, a single fundamental particle theory and a single matter-innate physical-force theory. A related scientific peer-reviewed paper has been published along with many more publishing since  2014.

[walterpthefirst]

Pantheory,

 

 

I have decided to let the JWST and other forthcoming sources of cosmological data determine whether or not I will hold to any particular cosmological model or not.

 

This in keeping with my wait-and-see approach.

 

Therefore I withdraw the question I put to you 19 hours ago, asking you why the universe should be simple enough to understand.

 

Thank you for attempting to answer that question.

 

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

On 7/4/2022 at 11:01 AM, walterpthefirst said:

Pantheory,

 

 

I have decided to let the JWST and other forthcoming sources of cosmological data determine whether or not I will hold to any particular cosmological model or not.

 

This in keeping with my wait-and-see approach.

 

Therefore I withdraw the question I put to you 19 hours ago, asking you why the universe should be simple enough to understand.

 

Thank you for attempting to answer that question.

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

After asking your questions, thanks if you tried to read any of my links, or understand any of my answers and explanations to your question.

[walterpthefirst]

10 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Thanks if you tried to read any of my links, and thanks if you attempted to understand any of my explanations.

 

I didn't try and I didn't attempt, Pantheory.

 

I simply chose to go with more and better data when it comes in, as per my wait-and-see policy.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

On 7/5/2022 at 10:03 AM, walterpthefirst said:

 

I didn't try and I didn't attempt, Pantheory.

 

I simply chose to go with more and better data when it comes in, as per my wait-and-see policy.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

That's fine, but you asked me questions concerning the  simplicity of my own cosmology, then decided not to acknowledge my answers.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, pantheory said:

 

That's fine, but you asked me questions concerning the  simplicity of my own theory, then decided not to respond.

 

That's right.

 

When I saw what you were presenting I decided to let the issue of cosmic simplicity be decided by more and better data from the likes of the JWST.

 

If Population III stars, the Cosmic Dark Ages and unevolved proto-galaxies are discovered then that will settle the issue.

 

The universe won't be the simple place that you claim it is.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

9 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

That's right.

 

When I saw what you were presenting I decided to let the issue of cosmic simplicity be decided by more and better data from the likes of the JWST.

 

If Population III stars, the Cosmic Dark Ages and unevolved proto-galaxies are discovered then that will settle the issue.

 

The universe won't be the simple place that you claim it is.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

If that is what's observed at the greatest distances and nothing else, then the Pan Theory and all other steady state cosmologies will have been been proven wrong. But at the greatest observable distances if they instead observe some  very large, red, old appearing galaxies, or even a galaxy cluster or more, then the Big Bang model will generally have been proven wrong. A few unevolved galaxies would simply be young galaxies expected by all cosmologies. There may be claims of seeing the cosmic dark ages and/or the Period of re-ionization by one group or another -- that will be disputed in time-- I would expect.

[walterpthefirst]

12 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

If that is what's observed at the greatest distances and nothing else, then the Pan Theory and all other steady state cosmologies will have been been proven wrong. But at the greatest observable distances if they instead observe some  very large, red, old appearing galaxies, or even a galaxy cluster or more, then the Big Bang model will generally have been proven wrong. A few unevolved galaxies would simply be young galaxies expected by all cosmologies. There may be claims of seeing the cosmic dark ages and/or the Period of re-ionization by one group or another -- that will be disputed in time-- I would expect.

 

Then we will just have to wait.

[duderonomy]

On 3/6/2022 at 5:58 PM, pantheory said:

The false beliefs of religion are obvious to nearly all of us here, while the false beliefs of science are generally unknown to nearly all of us.

 

That's quite a statement to make as an opening. Do you have proof to show that your statement is true? 

[pantheory]

13 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

That's quite a statement to make as an opening. Do you have proof to show that your statement is true?

 

The problem is that "the false beliefs of science" would not exist if they could easily be proven wrong. Most of the false beliefs in science that I believe exist are in the field of modern-day physics. examples being quantum physics, and particle physics, Maybe an example of wrong theory would be that there is no accepted theory of quantum physics, while there are dozens of such theories offered.

 

https://shorts.quantumlah.org/quantum-theories

[midniterider]

P: The problem is that "the false beliefs of science" would not exist if they could easily be proven wrong.

 

How do we know if it's a false belief of science if it hasn't been proven wrong? Why do we think it's a false belief?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Hi guys!  

 

I'm not going to take any part in this discussion except to point that since the words 'proof' and 'proven' have been used in connection with science...

 

...these links may be relevant.

 

https://theconversation.com/wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none-30570

http://ds-wordpress.haverford.edu/psych2015/projects/chapter/scientific-proof/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/?sh=2a5b8dc92fb1

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/12/14/theres-no-such-thing-as-proof-in-the-scientific-world-theres-only-evidence/?sh=7a5c086d5392

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

 

I leave it up to you to embrace, reject or discuss them.

 

Please carry on.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

Ok Walter...have a good day.

[duderonomy]

On 7/21/2022 at 12:12 PM, pantheory said:

 

The problem is that "the false beliefs of science" would not exist if they could easily be proven wrong. Most of the false beliefs in science that I believe exist are in the field of modern-day physics. examples being quantum physics, and particle physics, Maybe an example of wrong theory would be that there is no accepted theory of quantum physics, while there are dozens of such theories offered.

 

https://shorts.quantumlah.org/quantum-theories

 

There have been quite a few beliefs of science that have been proven wrong over the years, or are we still drilling holes in the heads of the blind to let the demons out? 

 

 

[pantheory]

13 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

There have been quite a few beliefs of science that have been proven wrong over the years, or are we still drilling holes in the heads of the blind to let the demons out? 

 

 

 

Yes, science is a method not a collection of theories. Mainstream theories of science are simply the prevailing opinions of the majority concerning validity. As you stated, science theories change all of the time based upon new or mounting evidence against them. There are a great many very good theories of mainstream science but not many of them lie in the area of modern physics IMHO.