Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Nemra]

Just now, zurew said:

But regardless , your question doesn't interact with the original point - which is the idea that Christianity would be a necessary foundation to do any science - which is obviously a silly claim.

I didn't say that you must be a Christian in order to practice science.

1 minute ago, zurew said:

No, not necessarily because they can adapt their frames. They can redefine what they just Christianity is (this is one reason why a good chunk of them accept evolution now).

So what?

They can adapt for some things and not for other things for various reasons.

It's possible that they adapt to be considered as good scientists, regardless of whether it is true or false.

[zurew]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, it limits science. This does not mean all science stops. You can keep doing limited science for a long time into the future.

If I tell you that the speed of your car engine is artificially limited, this does not mean you can't drive it.

Again, this is a failure of basic logic.

Physics was limited by Newtonian mechanics prior to Einstein. This does not mean physics didn't make new discoveries and developments between Newton and Einstein.

There are certain metaphysical claims where its somewhat clear how they would limit the application of science -  but its in the vast majority of the cases they don't seem to be relevant at all.

For example, you can have any view you want on the metaphysics of free will - it wont change anything relevant how science is done.

You can think a traditional God created the world, you will still run the experiments, and this is also the case if you are an atheist.

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Nemra said:

I didn't say that you must be a Christian in order to practice science.

I said that (as a point to outline how silly it is to claim that one specific metaphysical stance is necessary to practice or to progress), not you -  that was my original point that you responded to (where I outlined what issue I had with Leo)

4 minutes ago, Nemra said:

So what?

They can adapt for some things and not for other things for various reasons.

It's possible that they adapt to be considered as good scientists, regardless of whether it is true or false.

Thats right "regardless whether its true or false" - thats my point. It doesn't matter what kind of metaphysical beliefs you hold (at least in the vast majority of the cases), you still need to run those experiments and you still need to make those calculations etc.

 

Edited Wednesday at 10:04 PM by zurew

[zurew]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But if anything in my metaphysics is true, it must is relevant for science.

I dont think thats true. Some of it will be relevant, but not all of it.

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, zurew said:

but its in the vast majority of the cases they don't seem to be relevant at all.

An irrelevant point since in the vast majority of cases no two facts about the universe are relevant to each other or any scientist. But they are still scientific facts.

Science is advanced by making very specific correlations between very specific truths and data.

You cannot ever know which piece of data (which truth) will be relevant to your next breakthrough discovery.

Just because you can't foresee the relevance of a truth does not mean it is irrelevant. That's just a lack of vision.

Quote

For example, you can have any view you want on the metaphysics of free will - it wont change anything relevant how science is done.

It will change science as long as the view is true. If the view is false then it won't. Although even false views can advance science.

Quote

You can think a traditional God created the world, you will still run the experiments, and this is also the case if you are an atheist.

If atheism is false (and it is) this must affect science. It's only a question of time.

If God exists (and it does) this must affect science. It's only a question of time.

Anything true affects science, since anything true is real, and science is the study of reality.

Edited Wednesday at 10:14 PM by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, zurew said:

I dont think thats true. Some of it will be relevant, but not all of it.

You are mistaken.

All truth is relevant because in the end science must predict the whole universe, which is impossible to do without knowing everything true.

If it is true that an ant on a planet on the other side of the galaxy farted 5 billion years ago, this truth must be relevant to science.

Edited Wednesday at 10:10 PM by Leo Gura

[Nemra]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

I said that (as a point to outline how silly it is to claim that one specific metaphysical stance is necessary), not you -  that was my original point that you responded to (where I outlined what issue I had with Leo)

But metaphysical assumptions must influence how one does science or anything.

4 minutes ago, zurew said:

Thats right "regardless whether its true or false" - thats my point. It doesn't matter what kind of metaphysical beliefs you hold (at least in the vast majority of the cases), you still need to run those experiments and you still need to make those calculations etc.

But someone questioned their metaphysics before.

And later, people can take that as a belief.

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

All truth is relevant because in the end science must predict the whole universe, which is impossible to do without knowing everything true.

You assert this ,but I dont think you have a supporting argument for it.

Especially when it comes to predicting things, we ignore a lot of info ( I can make predictions about how a body will move without knowing what color it has, or whether it is sentient or not or any other random thing). This is also why certain equations are so elegant. There is a fuck ton of info reduction happening there.

[zurew]

7 minutes ago, Nemra said:

But metaphysical assumptions must influence how one does science or anything.

Some of it is relevant, but the vast majority isn't.

We can run down thought experiements where two scientists run the same experiement that leads to a new discovery (even though they have a bunch of mutally exclusive metaphysical beliefs).

Edited Wednesday at 10:23 PM by zurew

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, zurew said:

You assert this ,but I dont think you have a supporting argument for it.

It must be true because Omniscience is true.

The only way to predict and manipulate the entire Universe is to be God. That's what God is. God requires complete awareness of every truth in existence. This awareness grants Omnipotence.

You are failing to grasp that science actually seeks God, which is Omniscience, Omnipotence, Truth.

Without realizing God science can never reach it's ultimate goal.

This is why my metaphysics is so powerful and fundamental. My metaphysics is the only thing capable of explaining all of reality and the entire function of science.

Science seeks Omnipotence without understanding that it's doing so. And science does not understand that Omnipotence requires Omniscience, which requires Truth. 

If you miss even on ounce of Truth you cannot have Omniscience and Omnipotence.

I know these things because I realized God. Science has not. Anyone who hasn't realized God will not know these things. I understand every epistemic and ontolgical error of science and how much this holds back science. Science does not know this. That is the difference.

Edited Wednesday at 10:28 PM by Leo Gura

[gengar]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Do you comprehend that to reach the level of understanding that I reached I had to be ruthless with dismissing all of these typical materialists, scientistic talking-points? To me what you're doing is not serious. It does not lead to profound levels of understanding of reality.

You've dismissed many of my non-materialist takes as well, especially ones that were more critical of you.
I agree that this dude basically has no idea of what he's talking about, but the idea that you often evade points and criticisms when it comes to metaphysics is not entirely unfounded.

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It must be true because Omniscience is true.

The only way to predict and manipulate the entire Universe is to be God.

That is compatible with not all facts being relevant to the manipulation of the Universe.

 

4 minutes ago, gengar said:

I agree that this dude basically has no idea of what he's talking about

Right, will wait on you pointing out the wrong things I said, and if you cant I will take it that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Just like you had no arguments to establish Solipsism in the other thread and made a bunch of points that were compatible with non-solipsism as well.

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, gengar said:

but the idea that you often evade points and criticisms when it comes to metaphysics is not entirely unfounded.

I fully admit that I refuse to answer points that I find unworthy of my attention.

Whether you understand or agree with my refusal to address certain points is beside the point.

I answer stuff that I deem of value answering. Obviously this is a subjective decision.

What may appear an evasion to you may just be me prioritizing my time.

I am actually very diligent in answering serious questions. I am very rarely asked serious questions. Mostly I am asked low quality stuff which I have little desire to answer. I especially do not enagage with people who try to debunk my work. If I see that you are trying to debunk my work then I just see that as a waste of your and my time.

I do not engage in debunking nor debate. This does not mean you cannot be skeptical of my ideas. Be as skeptical as you like, but don't expect me to waste my time assuaging your concerns. That is a you activity, not a me activity.

Edited Wednesday at 10:40 PM by Leo Gura

[Nemra]

11 minutes ago, zurew said:

Some of it is relevant, but the vast majority isn't.

We can run down thought experiments where two scientists run the same experiment that leads to a new discovery (even though they have a bunch of mutually exclusive metaphysical beliefs).

That's possible.

However, other scientists with different metaphysical assumptions may view that new discovery as an error.

Furthermore, what are the reasons for conducting those experiments?

[Joshe]

A sort of complete, universal, scientific wiki could be useful as a reference but the vast majority of it would need to be excluded from nearly every endeavor except for riding high on the beauty of knowledge itself.

The best designs have clearly defined, purposeful constraints that intentionally exclude all that is superfluous. This is why science can make progress without knowing the whole. Different endeavors require different knowledge sets. Farting ants may be fundamental to worm hole travel but not submarine design. In other words, metaphysics MIGHT be instrumental to next-level science, but so far, a lot has been accomplished without it. 

[Starlight321]

@zurew I'd take leo serious. Right now after 5-6 years of work I'm starting to understand things about reality and when I watch his 5-7 years old episodes I realise that he understood it and was talking about it years ago. He's been doing understanding and getting conscious of things for years day after day.

[zurew]

5 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Furthermore, what are the reasons for conducting those experiments?

Im not sure what you are trying to ask there.

"What is the reason to run the experiment that leads to a discovery" or do you try to ask "What is the reason to run thought experiements ?"

 

[Daniel Balan]

@Leo Gura I've never understood people who try to debunk the work of others! I think that if you don't agree with someones work, just don't follow it and ignore it! If you wanna buy a house and you don't like it, just ignore it and go find a house that you like! You don't spend time and energy trying to show to the whole world how bad that house is! 

[Leo Gura]

There is not one superfluous thing in existence.

Science operates under the false idea that some parts of reality are irrelevant. This is a fundamental error which comes from wrong metaphysics.

[zurew]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Science operates under the false idea that some parts of reality are irrelevant.

They are irrelevant with respect to specific goals.

Want to check how far you can throw a ball? The variable "Are you a Christian" wont be there and wont hold any weight.