Science speaks loud and clear to the masses via osmosis … ergo …if “it” isn’t proven by science … it isn’t real/true.
I can give you a vague idea of that but neither know exactly nor have anything to prove that.
That is simple to answer.
You are slightly misunderstanding the issue here. It is not about energy only but the sum of energy and mass. As both are interchangeable thus their total sum always stand constant, though their ratio in that sum changes.
When lights hits any object, it either increases the mass of that object or energy in the form of heat.
Because, as we know that we or any other force can neither create or destroy anything, but merely change its ratio of mass and energy.
with love,
sanjay
That is true. In a sense, universe is not infinite.
But, the thing here to understand is that the total sum of the all the ingredients is finite. But, being interchangeable, the ratio its ingredients in that grand total always kept changing. And, space ( or expanding quality ) is also one those ingredients. Thus, even if the universe is expanding ( which i do not think is true), it does not mean that is not finite.
with love,
sanjay
This is what Wikipedia says about “scientific realism”:
It is not expectable to get a proper definition for “reality” from science - especially because of the fact that science itself is more idealistic than realistic (see above: “ideal science”).
Science cannot prove anything only disprove it and it also has nothing to say about whether or not anything is real
What branch of knowledge decides what is real and what is the reasoning behind the decision?
That would be philosophy as determining reality is an ontological matter not a scientific one
But philosophy doesn’t do any experimental testing, so all sorts of strange philosophical concepts stay around for a long time.
How do you refute solipsism? By kicking a rock.
I think that’s why science and the scietific method is more reliable and closer to the truth - it seeks feedback from ‘reality’.
A very good question. If science strikes out, then philosophy seems next up to bat. But even that can strike out as history proves. What about one’s own personal experiences?
Example: It is not possible that a physical experiment explains what physics “is”. This was what Heidegger meant when he said: “Die Wissenschaft denkt nicht” (“the science does not think”).
So philosophy (especially its ontology) has to say what physics “is” and what reality “is”.
It is human beings who decide what is real.
Many do so by employing what we call intelligence.
But no human is under obligation to employ intelligence in order to decide what is real.
They can do so any way they want.
The only restriction is fate itself.
Every “branch of knowledge” studies what is real.
There is no “branch of knowledge” that does not study what is real.
The main difference is in their METHODOLOGY.
Some fields rely on intelligence (e.g. science, philosophy, etc) others on faith (e.g. religion, pseudo-science, pseudo-philosophy, etc.)
S57 is a parrot so it’s no wonder he’s so confused.
Really? So science cannot test its predictions? It cannot say something like “tomorrow will rain” and then test that claim by observing whether it rains or not the following day? It appears to me that science can both prove and disprove its predictions. What science cannot prove, and can only disprove, is an infinite series of predictions. This is because you can only prove what is finite. In order to prove an infinite series of predictions you need to run an infinite number of tests which means these tests can never be completed. And this does not apply only to science. It applies to any kind of study in general. In other words, nothing can prove an infinite series of predictions.
Really?
We’re not talking about individual human beings deciding what is real because then the schizophrenic says that his hallucinations are real.
What is objectively real for everybody?
A “branch of knowledge” can potentially makes up some nonsense and claim that it is ‘real’ or a true interpretation of reality. Intelligence allows you to do that more effectively than stupidity or ignorance. Intelligence can weave together a plausible explanation which is hard to dispute.
It would be nice if real philosophy came with a convenient label “Philosophy” attached and the nonsense philosophy came with the label “Pseudo-philosophy”. That would make life so much simpler.
That’s exactly what we’re doing. It’s only sentient beings who have the ability to decide what is real and what is not. Noone and nothing else.
I’ve notived that most people find it difficult to OWN their opinions. They cannot simply say “this is just my opinion”. They have to delude themselves into thinking it’s something more than that.
They interpret the statement “truth is independent from what we think” too literally.
Naturally, since they are parrots.
Schizophrenics have their opinion(s).
I have my mine.
Schizophrenics think their hallucinations are real.
I think they are not.
Schizophrenics think I am crazy.
I think that schizophrenics are crazy.
And so on.
That’s a meaningless question.
What does it mean for something to be “objectively real for everybody”?
I am sure you can’t answer that.
There is only consensus between people.
Or more precisely, only similarities between people.
Yes. What I meant by intelligence is intelligence proper.
It would.
If everything is just “my opinion” then there is no common ground and it’s literally impossible to interact with the world or other people.
It’s not just a personal opinion. It’s stuff outside of your head. It’s going to be interpreted the same way by people who have functioning biology.
Ah, ‘proper’ intelligence as opposed to intelligence. Whatever that means.
Even inter-subjectivity requires a common (objective) ground before inter-subjective agreements can arise.
No. What that means, and by that I mean that our opinions are merely our opinions, is that there is no guarantee that there is a common ground between you and every other person that you encounter.
That does not mean – it does not imply – that there is no common ground between you and every other person.
In other words, if people don’t think the way you do, and by think I mean make assumptions regarding the unknown, and if they are unwilling to change how they think, then it is impossible to make any kind of agreement with them.
You can speak meaningfully only about that which is within your experience.
Speaking about things that are outside of your experience is meaningless.
I am still waiting for you to explain to me what it means for something to be “objectively true for everyone”.
I wish you a lot of luck with that.
I don’t think that religious people, pseudo-scientists and pseudo-philosophers are truly intelligent. They aren’t exactly without intelligence but what they have is not real intelligence. It’s a degenerate form. These people think in a very backward manner. They start with a conclusion (something they consider to be unquestionable) and then they seek evidence that supports it. That’s not how people who are genuinely intelligent think.
You realize that everyone is alive on this planet and so they have that experience in common.
You’re saying that only produces opinions and not objective truth??
I am still waiting for you to explain to me what it means for something to be “objectively true for everyone”.
I am afraid you will do the exact same thing James would do i.e. you would give me a sequence of words that you feel mean something but that in reality mean nothing.
If your words have no reference to something you have previously experienced then they are only that – words – which means they are empty, meaningless.
How can I do that when you will respond that what I wrote means nothing?
See. Exactly this response.
I wrote some words in order to advance the discussion but you ignored it.
I wrote that we have a set of common experiences because we are humans living on this planet. Everyone has experienced that.