MIKE, on July 17 1998 you posted at SabraNet's "Culture" Forum,
Jake, today in one of your posts you wrote: "All the combined scientists in this Forum are saying what I alone have said here in a few weeks."
I don't think so, Jake.
Well, almost...
Jake, you said basically that you adhere to the Clifford's dictum, like most people who adhere to the scientific methodology, and an article I just read says that some people think that the dictum is not always valid.
What do you mean, "basically"? Never heard of Clifford, and don't know what article you're referring to... Some people said, "the Earth is flat, center of universe." All scientists said, "no folic acid in milk, it has been proven." I said, "using a modification of a lab test, I found there is." People now say, "according to Ghitis' dictum, there is." Ghitis also said, "powder milk has no f.a. because I've proven that although it has been known that pteroylglutamic acid (pharmacological f.a.) is resistant to heat and oxidants, the natural, biological folate is not." He also proved that the several natural folates are differently susceptible to heating. So, he advised, "add pharmacological folic acid to baby powder milk. "And it is done, saving countless babies from disease and death. Ghitis also said, "vitamin C has no role in folate metabolism: I've proved it experimentally"... And so, he rung the death toll for a famous --wrong-- dictum based on a well renowned scientific publication. The "Ghitis dictum" is the one accepted now. And you know why it can be assured that the new dictum will remain unchallenged?
(Clifford's dictum: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence.")
The first experimenter did not find folate in milk, while Ghitis did find it. Positive findings are demonstrative, while negative ones are only suggestive.
What a genius! So, Mike, on what grounds of 'sufficient evidence' you tout your firm belief in a Master Mind?
Please look at these two sentences from the article:
The first: "We are hitting the boundaries of what is ever going to be testable."
Wrong! Throw away that article...
The second: "The science of the 20th century is showing us, if anything, what is unknowable using the scientific method..."
20th's century science is showing us everything that is unknowable using the scientific method on 18 July 1998 at 14:12, Haifa Time. Yesterday, with no need of experimentation, I discovered the reason for MYSTIC FEELINGS... At this very moment, I remember Santa Teresita de Avila: she is said to have levitated! And I realize that at least the feeling of levitation is part and parcel of Mystic States. Reason: the hypothalamus-dependent autonomicmanifestations of EMOTION are inhibited! Take a "Culture" Forum impostor, sever his head, and connect it to life-preserving tubes. First, he will be in a very unusual state of mind. Soon, the absence of autonomic and somatic feedback from his inexistent body will disrupt the work of the cortical neurons. He will feel disembodied (for the first time, he will be right). Then, the mystic phenomena will start 'visiting' him... (For more, see "Mystic Experiences"
The second sentence: "In mathematics and information theory, we can now GUARANTEE that there are truths out there that we cannot find."
Or your money back!
Jake, the author is even more positive about the validity of the unknown than I have been in my debates with you.
Ahh!: I am Super-positive about the opposite.
While I was saying that there are limits to what science can determine if it exists or not, he goes one step further and tells us positively that there are definitely "things" that the scientific method cannot prove. You, OTOH, said, "everything is physics", and for you, physics is limited to the world that can be researched, quantified, and analyzed in the lab. Nothing more, nothing less.
Let's see. Never say NEVER. Pythagoras said, Everything is NUMBER. He was right, because mathematics is the heart of physics. I said that everything that exists is part of physics. I did not define what belongs to the world of the existing. I said that it is not possible to submit to experimental study what can not be measured, like language, or thought. But I added that the advances of science in recent decades can and should be applied to the understanding of that realm of knowledge that I say, not too originally, belongs to Philosophy.
You could live with mathematics "in the heart of physics," provided it was the physics that you can test. When it came to math of e.g., many dimensions, time singularities," you called them "esoteric."" travel, and other
I claim that I created a NEW PHILOSOPHY which, thanks to your intellectual prodding, I renamed S-DP. I said that the advances in Neuroscience made the greatest impact in the 20th century. I implied that before the advent of Mind, Thinking, and Meta-thinking, the Universe was as if it did not exist. I said that if a tree falls in deserted woods, it would not make a noise, because that term is defined only for meta-thinking man. Also, that other animals would hear a sound, because they have ears but can not differentiate between noise and sound. And that if no animals were present, only vibrations of air and solids would occur. Have I said anything preposterous? And I believe that it is possible to present some evidence about the basis for the mystic emotional state through experiments conducted here, at this Forum.
I cannot believe in 'time travel.' Time is a dimension of energy, as space is of matter. Yet matter is concrete, you sense it, while time is abstract, it doesn't exist by itself, because it is a measurementof intervals between actions. Time doesn't 'move,' neither forward nor backward. Only the actions 'move,' one after the previous one. How can one travel in an abstraction?
Moreover, the article shows that many scientists have good reason to believe that the universe that we *think* we know, is nothing but an illusion, the Platonic shadows. Again, Jake, not exactly your teaching.
I postulate that actions occur differently, as 'measured' by 'time,' in different parts of the Universe. I postulate different 'clocks' for galaxies, stars, and planets. Here, on Earth, we define as 'universal time' the changes occurred from the big bang up until now, as measured by Earth-time clocks. Phenomena or ideas are esoteric only to those minds that haven't had the opportunity, the spare moments, and the interests I've had.
Aristotle considered the ideas of his teacher, Plato, inimical to the acquisition of knowledge. He said that the objective chair exists, while the (Platonic) IDEA, FORM, of "chairness" is a concept of man's invention. Nowadays Plato is mentioned in areas very much distinct to the ones of Aristotle, who opened the world of science starting by classification. Much knowledge existed at his time, but he was the one to organize it. Well, you are right, Aristotle resembles me more than Plato. But let me tell you, talking about them is to me just a pleasant mental exercise in thinking.
Jake, it was actually Yossi that brought to my attention the article I've referred to. Perhaps it helps him believe that as a Jewish physicist, he can live in total peace and harmony with both modern science and God. For him there is no contradiction, while apparently for you there is. God doesn't need us to prove him or disprove him. We do.
Mike, I do not understand what you mean by "We do." Need to prove or disprove His existence? What kind of childish game is that? After all my posts in "Culture" Forum, I must ask, have I sown in the wind?
And if scientists are telling us more and more that God might very well exist and that He is an integral part of the Universe - then let us hear the word.
Mike, I AM ALSO A SCIENTIST. Not a physicist, but I read, and I THINK. I listen to the world, but I believe that there are reasons for the world to hear me too. In fact, I'll publish some thoughts about THE EVOLUTION OF MATTER in order to show how those scientists are wrong in stating that science is 'proving' the existence of a Creator. Their way of thinking is not scientific.