Physicists find evidence universe is a giant brain

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
69,246
29,061
Colorado
I don't need faith in "daddy science" to provide comfort or serve as a surrogate for confiding in God.

Science and is as relevant as Justin Bieber, outside of what it does - which isn't as much as more the more superstitious notions of science which people put forth.
Other than evolution, please name another superstitious notion of science.
 
Oct 2019
609
44
USA
Other than evolution, please name another superstitious notion of science.
The science isn't what I'm criticizing.

It's people's superstitious ideas about science, what it is, and how it works - which is what most popular views of science marketed to people via mass media are.

Most people only "believe in science" because they're indoctrinated into it whether in K-12 education, on the media, and so forth, even when the majority of popular information on science is merely advertising or propaganda, using the popularity of "science" to sell things to people, such as Iphones and whatnot.

The popular sentiments regarding science (not the actual science itself) resembles a cargo cult. (Most mass media is only marketed to a 6th grade reading level at most anyway, so a person giving sentiments on science who has never read actual books on it, or invented any scientific theories themselves, is definitely not coming from the same position as significant scientist such as Newton or Einstein.

I think Newton or Einstein would be rolling in their graves at how "science" is perceived by and marketed to the average person.
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
69,246
29,061
Colorado
And what's the difference.

God in the Bible, doesn't exist in the sky - since it isn't a physical entity.

Unlike a god, such as Zeus.
God exists in the sky. The omniscient. omnipotent, omnipresent God of the Bible has no limitations.
 
Jun 2018
1,140
395
Toronto
Interesting, however I return to the fact that we've only begun to understand the relationships between matter, energy, space, and time. And then, there's dark matter, dark energy, and, dark gravity.

We have the incompatibility of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The idea that the universe is "all that is" is suspect. We've no idea of the internal structure of quarks or electrons. We've no idea what "nothing" is, no idea "where" the universe is, no firm idea of what quantum computing will open up.

Lord Kelvin confidently predicted in 1883 that X-rays would prove to be a hoax. Einstein opined in 1932 that nuclear energy would likely prove impossible to tap.

I can live with, "Apparently, nothing can travel faster than the maximum speed at which photons travel."

You? :)

Sure, that's why I said: the known laws of nature forbid it
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
69,246
29,061
Colorado
The science isn't what I'm criticizing.

It's people's superstitious ideas about science, what it is, and how it works - which is what most popular views of science marketed to people via mass media are.

Most people only "believe in science" because they're indoctrinated into it, even when the majority of popular information on science is merely advertising or propaganda, using the popularity of "science" to sell things to people, such as Iphones and whatnot.

The popular sentiments regarding science (not the actual science itself) resembles a cargo cult.
Please share one of people's superstitious ideas about science.
 
Oct 2019
609
44
USA
Sure, that's why I said: the known laws of nature forbid it
The known laws of nature as theorized by whom?

Not you, I presume.

Bacon and his method is only one of many, and it's arguably more limited in its scope than other methods are.
 
Jun 2018
1,140
395
Toronto
The known laws of nature as theorized by whom?

Not you, I presume.

Bacon and his method is only one of many, and it's arguably more limited in its scope than other methods are.
Einstein's theories foremost, but also every other empirically proven through experiment over and over, hard evidence, peer reviewed.

You talk about other scopes, fairy tales. Bla bla bla. He works in mysterious ways doesn't cut it for me.
 
Oct 2019
609
44
USA
Please share one of people's superstitious ideas about science.
For one, "believing" in science, whatever that means, to begin with is merely deferring to authority in Bacon's method.

Newton and Einstein 'believed' in it because they formulated the theories themselves - an "average" person (e.x. one who doesn't read books) merely believes it because they were told so in K-12 or on TV, just as they'd have been believing in Catholicism had they been born in the day and age when the Church ran the media and education.

In other cases, such as in the case of insignificant people who work in some "scientific" industry or another, it may just be a case of industry bias, or ignorance of the outside world in general. (e.x. The average "scientist" isn't a Newton or Einstein, but just a workman with a fancy title; so deferring to them on an argument of authority is almost akin to defering to blindly a "priest").

Most arguments used, such as "most/many scientists" say or believe this" are also bad, dishonest, or dowright anti-intellectual - and show basic ignorance of what science is or how it works

(e.x. Science as an industry isn't "Survivor", where legitimate science can be "voted off the island" simply because it's unpopular, or doesn't fit someone's faith-based ideology, like Secular Humanism and its philosophies such as "caring for the planet", which predated any recent scientific notions about man-made global warming - it was a faith-based notion, just as "nature worship" is in many world religions and belief systems is, and Alarmists were pushing this belief on people based on faith in their religion or philosophy, long before any scientific data was used to confirm their faith-based notions.)
 
Oct 2019
609
44
USA
Einstein's theories foremost, but also every other empirically
Stopped reading there.

You talk about other scopes, fairy tales. Bla bla bla. He works in mysterious ways doesn't cut it for me.
"Science works in mysterious was apparently".

"Emperical, peer reviewed", and all that jargon which you don't know what it means.