How can the Universe exist without Logos?

reply to post by neoholographic

So you are saying that the ability to arrange information does not mean it has control over the information?

reply to post by usertwelve


I'm saying that there isn't any need to control the arrangements that are put in place because they can't be broken.

For instance, you need Police to enforce laws for running a red light. This is because the law can be broken. Whose going to break the reason and logic inherent in Logos?

neoholographic
reply to post by usertwelve

 

I'm saying that there isn't any need to control the arrangements that are put in place because they can't be broken.

Interesting. Do you have a theory on how these arrangements manifest? Put another way, what defines Logos?

reply to post by neoholographic

These things aren't imaginary and you have been showed this. Tell me how Arthur Eddington's observation of Einsteins theories were imaginary?

He wasn’t “observing Einstein’s theories”. That is probably the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever heard. He was observing an eclipse, stars, space, light. He was observing actual real phenomena, not theory. Do you not know what observation means? Do you not know what phenomena means? Do you not know what theory means?

What was imaginary about his observation and the subsequent replication?

Nothing is imaginary about an eclipse, or that something such as light behaves a certain way. That is concrete, observable phenomena. Science describes phenomena. What is imaginary is the postulation. Because a postulation is more probable or not does not change the fact that it was, is, and always will be, a postulation.

Again, you have to be trolling because you have been showed this time and time again. You keep saying show me how this can be the case and then you're shown and then you ignore what was said.

You have ignored me, skipping over all of my arguments except one, my hyperbolic statement that “Physical laws are imaginary”. You haven’t shown me anything but how you resort to fallacy.

When gravitational waves are discovered it has nothing to do with imagination:

NOT IMAGINATION, DIRECTLY OBSERVED.

What is being “directly observed” is the image taken by the telescope. Show me the image taken of “gravitational waves” and point out those waves without the need for imagining that they are there. This is like looking at a mountain and saying “I am directly observing plate tectonics”. It is utterly meaningless.

Finding evidence to support the probability of a theory isn’t “directly observing” that theory. The theory exists here on earth in human minds, dialectic and discourse. Theories do not exist in space no matter how much you try to twist it. That is the observable facts of the matter and can be “directly observed” by opening a book or a dictionary.

Laws require a legislator and something to govern them. Other than physicists, there is no such legislator or governance or lawmaker. That is superstition. Science can only ever describe nature and how it works, not the why and the reason it works. It is a system of theories, not truths and reason whys. Theories are not discovered, but invented to explain certain observable phenomena, yet have no physical bearing on the actual phenomena save for a pencil and a piece of paper. How could they? They are theories, imagined, written down, tested, and used to predict phenomena, using—you guessed it—the human imagination.

Phenomena operate a certain way not because of some mystical constant, but simply because that’s the way they work, that is what they do, and constants (a number) and theories (numbers and words) serve only to describe the how, not the why, they work. If they fail to describe something, new descriptions, new physical laws are necessary. Constants and physical laws aren’t limiting anything; they are describing them. It is the constants and physical laws that are limited by the phenomena and realities they are meant to describe.

Since appealing to authority is the going rate around here, here’s some ubiquitous Einstein quotes on the same subject:

If you wish to learn from the theoretical physicist anything about the methods which he uses, I would give you the following piece of advice: Don't listen to his words, examine his achievements. For to the discoverer in that field, the constructions of his imagination appear so necessary and so natural that he is apt to treat them not as the creations of his thoughts but as given realities. (Einstein 1933, 5–6)

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." - Albert Einstein

"I don't believe in mathematics." - Albert Einstein

reply to post by bastion

Like I said you clearly have no idea what you're going on about if you don't consider equation manipulation a demonstration. This is further compounded by your inability to comprehend laws and constants or basic things like how these constants were measured in the first place.

Just how exactly do you think the world works if there is no underlying fabric to any of it? What do you think science is if it's not looking for patterns and numbers in nature in order to understand the processes.

I've read plenty of bizarre theories, especially on ATS, but yours really does take the biscuit.

As for the Wikipedia definition of Maths, it's an amateur understanding at best. Why do you think Maths is known as the Universal Language, why it's used in the search for intelligent life and why scientists and mathematicians are of the view it would exist with or without humans.

This isn't an argument. Do you know how to form one?

Underlying fabric? I mean this is superstition at best.

It's known as the universal language because anyone can understand it. Are you really serious here? Find me a definition of math that has nothing to do with abstraction.

reply to post by Aphorism


Wow, just wow.

You said:

He wasn’t “observing Einstein’s theories”. That is probably the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever heard. He was observing an eclipse, stars, space, light. He was observing actual real phenomena, not theory. Do you not know what observation means? Do you not know what phenomena means? Do you not know what theory means?

This is pure nonsense. Of course he was observing the predictions made by Einsteins theories. Here's what Eddington did:

He and Astronomer Royal Frank Watson Dyson organized two expeditions to observe a solar eclipse in 1919 to make the first empirical test of Einstein’s theory: the measurement of the deflection of light by the sun's gravitational field. In fact, it was Dyson’s argument for the indispensability of Eddington’s expertise in this test that allowed him to escape prison during the war.
One of Eddington's photographs of the total solar eclipse of 29 May 1919, presented in his 1920 paper announcing its success, confirming Einstein's theory that light "bends"

After the war, Eddington travelled to the island of Príncipe near Africa to watch the solar eclipse of 29 May 1919. During the eclipse, he took pictures of the stars in the region around the Sun. According to the theory of general relativity, stars with light rays that passed near the Sun would appear to have been slightly shifted because their light had been curved by its gravitational field. This effect is noticeable only during eclipses, since otherwise the Sun's brightness obscures the affected stars. Eddington showed that Newtonian gravitation could be interpreted to predict half the shift predicted by Einstein.

Eddington's observations published the next year[5] confirmed Einstein's theory, and were hailed at the time as a conclusive proof of general relativity over the Newtonian model. The news was reported in newspapers all over the world as a major story. Afterward, Eddington embarked on a campaign to popularize relativity and the expedition as landmarks both in scientific development and international scientific relations.

en.wikipedia.org...

AGAIN, EDDINGTON CONFIRMED EINSTEIN'S THEORIES.

Do you understand this is how science works? These theories get observed and then the observation is replicated. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over and it's just as meaningless as the first time you said it.

You then said this:

What is being “directly observed” is the image taken by the telescope. Show me the image taken of “gravitational waves” and point out those waves without the need for imagining that they are there. This is like looking at a mountain and saying “I am directly observing plate tectonics”. It is utterly meaningless.

This is just trolling times ten. So now scientist can't use satellites to confirm theories????

That's just asinine.

Yes it was directly observed.

Should we just throw out the imaging from Hubble and Planck's satellite because you have this crazy idea that laws of physics are imaginary.

Einstein talked about mathematics and he may have been on the other side of the debate. That's a debate about whether mathematics is discovered or invented and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAWS OF PHYSICS BEING IMAGINARY.

SHOW ME WHERE EINSTEIN CALLED THE OBSERVATION AND REPLICATION OF THEORIES IMAGINARY.

Like I said, you keep repeating this same nonsense.

I SAY AGAIN, EDDINGTON MADE THE FIRST EMPIRICAL TESTS OF EINSTEIN'S THEORIES!! NOT IMAGINATION, NOT A PROPOSITION BUT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF EINSTEIN'S THEORIES.

reply to post by Aphorism


The laws of the universe exist whether we know them, well, totally, or not at all. Science is the process of trying to continually better know them.

Instead of the word law, think of the word, regularity. Is your whole problem that the universe is temporal, therefore the exact laws that govern it now, will not exist later, if the universe operates pretty regularly for hundreds of billions of years, and do you know how long a billion years is, would you say for humans who have lived maybe 100,000 years at most, can call the ways of the universe, laws?

Aphorism
reply to post by bastion

 

Like I said you clearly have no idea what you're going on about if you don't consider equation manipulation a demonstration. This is further compounded by your inability to comprehend laws and constants or basic things like how these constants were measured in the first place.

Just how exactly do you think the world works if there is no underlying fabric to any of it? What do you think science is if it's not looking for patterns and numbers in nature in order to understand the processes.

I've read plenty of bizarre theories, especially on ATS, but yours really does take the biscuit.

As for the Wikipedia definition of Maths, it's an amateur understanding at best. Why do you think Maths is known as the Universal Language, why it's used in the search for intelligent life and why scientists and mathematicians are of the view it would exist with or without humans.

This isn't an argument. Do you know how to form one?

Underlying fabric? I mean this is superstition at best.

It's known as the universal language because anyone can understand it. Are you really serious here? Find me a definition of math that has nothing to do with abstraction.

Yes. I also know Maths and Physics too, unlike yourself.

No, the underlying fabric are the fundamental forces, conservation of energy and the mathematical and physical constants that govern nature. It's the very basis of science, is well established and has nothing to do with superstition.

Precisely anyone can understand it because it exists independent of man. Figures like Pi, Phi and the like occur everywhere in nature, as do physical constants. Hence why they're used as a potential communication tool for intelligent life. While numbers like 0 have to be invented, pi and similar are discovered.

usertwelve

neoholographic
reply to post by usertwelve

 

I'm saying that there isn't any need to control the arrangements that are put in place because they can't be broken.

Interesting. Do you have a theory on how these arrangements manifest? Put another way, what defines Logos?

That's the part no one knows. Some scientists think there's a Grand Universal Theory that ties them all together in a nice neat way, others think there's a near infinite number of subatomic particles and we'll get bored long before we ever find out how and why they manifest.


reply to post by neoholographic


Yup, this is just painful now. I find it genuinely disturbing how they don't grasp how science works. It'd be interesting to hear how they think a computer and the internet was invented given that they must not believe in electro-magnetism based laws and constants or the factorisation used to send and receive info. By their logic someone would have to invent a computer before they could study the EM required to make a computer - it's complete nonsense on any level.

If they're not trolling they must have just completely confused the fact laws aren't physical objects with the fact they govern the behavior of physical objects (i.e the whole reason the subject is called physics in the first place).

reply to post by bastion

If they're not trolling they must have just completely confused the fact laws aren't physical objects with the fact they govern the behavior of physical objects (i.e the whole reason the subject is called physics in the first place).

So you feel there is a governing factor here? This is contradictory to what the OP is saying.

Well what you're calling Logo's I call programming, ie the software codes of the training DVD universe we entered to grow up more, uncover flaws, improve, and even rescue people, only to discover, there are flaws to overcome while we still try to nudge loved ones free, for its our minds that hold us here, our beliefs, and nothing is more real than beliefs that allow actions.

Its all AI, or programming. Duality type, so the big baddies were worshipping AI, or the neutral coding and giving into their avatar body suits wishes, rather than growing their spirits up.

Then came, real spirit falling in the manual, and becoming dark side.

The whole thing is infinite within, so it stretches infinitely in all diversity imaginable, and that word imagination, is important, for all that can be thought of with our minds/consciousness, thus exists, for we are of the Godspark of what is real, the Spirit.
We are mind, so perceiving something makes it real. All manners of thought are expressed in this training manual.

One can enter in for a nano second from the place we left, return, but spend a kazillion years rising and falling, and working out things, here.

In lower gravity realms which tend to be pyramid or fascist with big thugs at the top, this means Demiurge type stuff.

Higher Realms are all about infinite progression and empowerment and equality of all, so the demiurge doesnt exist or apply.

reply to post by usertwelve


I've never heard of logos before so can't really comment on them but matter can't break the laws of Physics, which seems to be what the OP is saying - just using the word logos instead of laws.

Sound can't travel faster than the speed of sound, red light has a wavelength of around 650nm, energy can neither be created nor destroyed...the laws set the constraints within which matter functions - i.e gravity caused stars and planets to form as the OP states.

EDIT: Just realised the OP is the same guy I'm in agreement with in recent pages - no it doesn't contradict what he's saying at all, however my use of the word govern could be misinterpreted - the laws set the boundaries within which everything must act, it's impossible to break laws and they are applied equally in all places at all times, they're not to be confused with human style laws which require police/judges/prisons etc...

reply to post by bastion

the laws set the boundaries within which everything must act.

That's called legislation. You are indeed in contradiction to the OP.

usertwelve
reply to post by neoholographic

 

So you are saying that the ability to arrange information does not mean it has control over the information?

Hmm. Interesting point you have raised. Allow me to ask you a question: if there were no order whatsoever, anywhere in the universe, what would you imagine the universe to look like? What would you imagine existence to consist of in such a condition?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Allow me to ask you a question: if there were no order whatsoever, anywhere in the universe, what would you imagine the universe to look like? What would you imagine existence to consist of in such a condition?

My best guess would be there would be only space and energy. Maybe not even space, just pure energy without form.

reply to post by neoholographic

This is pure nonsense. Of course he was observing the predictions made by Einsteins theories. Here's what Eddington did:

You said “directly observed Einstein’s theory”, now you’re changing it to predictions. Nonetheless, where are theories and predictions made? Somewhere outside of the imagination?

AGAIN, EDDINGTON CONFIRMED EINSTEIN'S THEORIES.

Do you understand this is how science works? These theories get observed and then the observation is replicated. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over and it's just as meaningless as the first time you said it.

Did I say he didn’t confirm Einsteins theories? No.

Did you first say “EDDINGTON CONFIRMED EINSTEIN’s THEORIES”? No. You didn’t. There is no “again” because this is the first time you’ve said it. If you must resort to blatant dishonesty, continue to do so. It doesn’t reflect on my arguments, but yours.

I said theories are “directly observed” by opening a book.You are saying theories are observed and this is how science works. Look up at the stars and tell me how many theories you observe.

This is just trolling times ten. So now scientist can't use satellites to confirm theories????

That's just asinine.

Once again, did I say that? No. I was pointing out the difference between direct and indirect observation. You can tell by the quotes I put around “direct observation”, which you seem to not understand. I’m not going to teach you the difference.

Yes it was directly observed.

Should we just throw out the imaging from Hubble and Planck's satellite because you have this crazy idea that laws of physics are imaginary.

I never said that nor implied it. Have you thrown all conversation skills out the window?

Show me the image of gravitational waves taken by Bicep2, and explain how that is a “direct observation” of gravitational waves. What you are proposing is that we can look at foot prints in sand and saying that is a “direct observation” of a human being. Sorry, but that’s not the way it works.

Einstein talked about mathematics and he may have been on the other side of the debate. That's a debate about whether mathematics is discovered or invented and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAWS OF PHYSICS BEING IMAGINARY.

SHOW ME WHERE EINSTEIN CALLED THE OBSERVATION AND REPLICATION OF THEORIES IMAGINARY.

Show me where I said observation and replication of theories are imaginary. Correct, I didn’t. The uppercase just makes it more hilarious. More blatant dishonesty to hide behind I suppose. I explicitely stated that “the laws of physics are imaginary”, which is my only argument you are willing to take on.

This is not a debate about whether mathematics was discovered or created, nor is that what Einstein was talking about.

This is the second time I posted this—maybe you’ll read it this time, hopefully out loud to help—and this is about THEORETICAL PHYSICS, which is up to you to prove has nothing to do with mathematics.

Here’s the Einstein quote:

If you wish to learn from the theoretical physicist anything about the methods which he uses, I would give you the following piece of advice: Don't listen to his words, examine his achievements. For to the discoverer in that field, the constructions of his imagination appear so necessary and so natural that he is apt to treat them not as the creations of his thoughts but as given realities.

It sounds like he’s talking about you.

Like I said, you keep repeating this same nonsense.

I SAY AGAIN, EDDINGTON MADE THE FIRST EMPIRICAL TESTS OF EINSTEIN'S THEORIES!! NOT IMAGINATION, NOT A PROPOSITION BUT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF EINSTEIN'S THEORIES.

You “say again”? That’s not what you nor I said. Another lie. You’re building an argument on your own lies.

I’m not repeating nonsense. I articulated my whole argument as many ways as I can. What is nonsense and asinine is your apparent refusal to address any of my arguments.

reply to post by bastion

Yes. I also know Maths and Physics too, unlike yourself.

No, the underlying fabric are the fundamental forces, conservation of energy and the mathematical and physical constants that govern nature. It's the very basis of science, is well established and has nothing to do with superstition.

Precisely anyone can understand it because it exists independent of man. Figures like Pi, Phi and the like occur everywhere in nature, as do physical constants. Hence why they're used as a potential communication tool for intelligent life. While numbers like 0 have to be invented, pi and similar are discovered.

Nothing governs nature but nature. You have devolved into mathematical superstition. Nature does not bend to your equations, nor are they governed by them.

A supposed expert in maths and physics is telling me numbers exist outside of the human mind. Well done.

reply to post by Aphorism


What's your point? Math is impractical or unstable because its a translating and not a raw expression? If anything, the models from which we have taken our mathematical studies are translations in themselves. But they are examples of math in its active operations all around us, giving us plenty of examples of what works in theory and what works in practice. So I don't understand your issue with math.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

math in its active operations all around us

Math is the language we use to describe the things we observe. As an object moves through space for example, there are no calculations being executed. We as humans use math to describe its movement and predict it's behavior. That language would not exist had we not imagined it.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

What's your point? Math is impractical or unstable because its a translating and not a raw expression? If anything, the models from which we have taken our mathematical studies are translations in themselves. But they are examples of math in its active operations all around us, giving us plenty of examples of what works in theory and what works in practice. So I don't understand your issue with math.

I don't have an issue with math. I have an issue when it is made out to be something it is not.

reply to post by Aphorism


This isn't even funny anymore. You said:

You said “directly observed Einstein’s theory”, now you’re changing it to predictions. Nonetheless, where are theories and predictions made? Somewhere outside of the imagination?

Changing it to predictions? You do know Einsteins theories are built on predictions? What in the world are you talking about? When it says Eddington confirmed Einsteins theories, it's talking about the predictions.

Predictions aren't imagination. What in the world are you talking about? These predictions are built on mathematics and then confirmed by observation and replication.

It's sad that you keep trying to argue this same point like you're going to overturn the scientific method and make scientific laws imaginary.

I have to think you're just trolling because nobody in their right mind would call the laws of physics imaginary.

These are things you learn in an 8th grade Science class.

Again, predictions aren't made in the imagination. They're made by mathematics. No matter how much Einstein sat and imagined up theories they would be nothing without mathematical predictions that can be observed and replicated. You do know when we say predictions we're not talking about Sylvia Browne?

You said:

I said theories are “directly observed” by opening a book.You are saying theories are observed and this is how science works. Look up at the stars and tell me how many theories you observe.

Again, what does this mean? This is just incoherent. Are you trying to say these things aren't directly observed? Are you joking? Have you ever heard of Hubble or Planck's satellite? I don't understand any of this gibberish. Are you honestly saying none of the predictions that these theories make are never directly observed? Again, the fact that you think you're going to turn science into something imaginary is just ridiculous. Are you saying scientific theories are never directly observed?????

Listen to this nonsense!!!

Show me the image of gravitational waves taken by Bicep2, and explain how that is a “direct observation” of gravitational waves. What you are proposing is that we can look at foot prints in sand and saying that is a “direct observation” of a human being. Sorry, but that’s not the way it works.

Yes, it's direct observation. Have you read a science book in the last 50 years? Have you ever heard of Hubble? Have you ever seen a map of the cosmic microwave background? Are you saying we can't use satellite imaging to directly observe predictions that theories make? I mean the fact that you're even saying this is asinine and I wonder am I even worse for even debating you on something so silly and that's just 8th grade science.

Again, this is from the discovery of gravitational waves and I will give you a tutorial on what you learn in 8th grade science class.

Cosmic microwave background, or CMB, is a well-known artifact of the Big Bang. Considered to be the “echo” of the creation of the Universe, these slight temperature fluctuations observed at the furthest-most edge of the observable universe has been studied extensively by space-borne telescopes such as NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and Europe’s Planck observatory. These observatories specifically measure the slight temperature perturbations (known as anisotropies) in the CMB to reveal information about the conditions just after the Big Bang and even the age of the Universe.

Again, nothing imaginary. This is pretty much self explanatory and if you don't understand satellite imaging and how these satellites work, I suggest you read up on it. I keep saying your post have nothing to do with this thread. If you're trying to overturn science by saying scientist can't directly observe these things, then we just need to throw out the billions of dollars spent.

Here's what some of the Scientist said that worked on Bicep2.

“This has been like looking for a needle in a haystack, but instead we found a crowbar,” said BICEP2 project collaborator Clem Pryke, of the University of Minnesota.

“The implications for this detection stagger the mind,” said project co-leader Jamie Bock, physicist at Caltech and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). “We are measuring a signal that comes from the dawn of time.”

Again, what are you talking about? You do know how satellites work and why we can measure these signals? Do you know what satellite imaging is and where satellite imaging comes from? These satellites aren't looking at imagination or propositions.

Here's more:

Located in the arid atmospheric conditions of Antarctica, BICEP2 has a very clear view of the cosmos. The instrument has the ability of measuring the polarization of the weak signal from the CMB radiation. On Earth, sunlight can become polarized if it reflects off a mirror or when filtered by polarized sunglasses (thus reducing the glare). The radiation from the ancient CMB can also become polarized and gravitational waves have the ability to manipulate the polarization of the incoming radiation. The specific type of polarization, known as ‘B-mode polarization,’ is what BICEP2 has been looking for. And now, with a high degree of certainty, astronomers have found it.

BICEP2 HAS A VEARY CLEAR VIEW OF THE COSMOS!

NOT AN INDIRECT VIEW, NOT IMAGINATION, NOT PROPOSITIONS.

Here's more from the Scientist who worked on the project.

“The swirly B-mode pattern of polarization is a unique signature of gravitational waves,” said Chao-Lin Kuo, of Stanford University and the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, co-leader of the project. “This is the first direct image of gravitational waves across the primordial sky.”

THIS IS THE FIRST DIRECT IMAGE!!

NOT INDIRECT, NOT IMAGINATION, NOT PROPOSITIONS.

Again, you have to read science books if you don't understand that these Scientist are directly measuring signals and temperatures from the very early universe. Like I said this is High School Science. I remembering learning about Hubble in Science class. This isn't magic or imagination. This is DIRECT OBSERVATION.

What is the cosmic microwave background?

Is it imaginary? Is it a Sylvia Browne prediction? Is it a proposition?

OF COURSE NOT.

After the Big Bang, the Universe was a hot, dense plasma which began to expand and cool. When the temperature cooled enough (380,000 years after the big bang), electrons could combine with protons to form hydrogen atoms. The photons which comprise the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) were emitted as a biproduct of this process, and these same photons are still traveling through the Universe today. Because the CMB is the oldest light in the Universe, it is an extremely powerful tool that we can use to probe the nature of the Universe at very early times. Precision measurements of the CMB in the last few decades, have shown remarkable agreement with the Standard Model of Cosmology, corroborating the hot Big Bang model. Recent measurements of the CMB have revealed a few features that are surprising in the context of a hot Big Bang model. The entire observable Universe was suprisingly homogeneous (to one part in 100,000) at the time of last scattering, but we expected that only portions of the Universe that were in causal contact with each other (ie. closer than the size of the horizon) would be homogoneneous. Moreover, the geometry of space was found to be extremely flat, a suprising result given that the Universe can only be flatter in the early Universe than it is today.

DOES ANY OF THIS SOUND IMAGINARY???

Are Scientist observing the universe at very early times or are they just imagining it???

Like I said, I'm wondering are you serious or are you just trolling. How can someone not know these things that claims to be curious about science in any way??

These are just basics. Every kid who takes Science in High School knows this and that's why I'm not sure if you're really serious.