Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Leo Gura]

If it was a car mechanic's job to understand the universe, then it would apply to them too.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that science's job is to understand nature, but then act arrogant when science fails at it own game.

Science is not failing on my terms, it is failing on its own terms.

Edited 22 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Elliott]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If it was car mechanic's job to understand the universe, then it would apply to them too.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that science's job is to understand nature, but then act arrogant when science fails at it own game.

Science is just studying, it explicitly says 'we, science, do not understand the universe'. Most scientists work on practical everyday things. Some scientists study astronomy, some physics.

Edited 22 hours ago by Elliott

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Science is just studying, it explicitly says 'we, science, do not understand the universe'.

That is BS.

Science vehemently denies the things I say.

Science is far more arrogant than you portray it. But once I back it into a corner it pleads: "we don't understand the universe."

If you don't understand the universe then stop denying what I say.

Edited 22 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Elliott]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That is BS.

Science vehemently denies the things I say.

Science is far more arrogant than you portray it.

What exactly are you suggesting they deny?

 

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Elliott said:

What exactly are you suggesting they deny?

That the universe and science are hallucinations inside the supernatural Mind of God.

[Elliott]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That the universe and science are hallucinations inside the supernatural Mind of God.

Where has anyone that really represents science denied that?

Edited 22 hours ago by Elliott

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Where has anyone that really represents science denied that?

Of course they will deny it.

Edited 21 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Elliott]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course they will dney it.

Sagan's statement

 

Carl's first statement here

 

 

 

 

Edited 21 hours ago by Elliott

[Hojo]

56 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Where has anyone that really represents science denied that?

If they didn't deny it they would have to admit they aren't doing science. Science takes 2 people. You cant prove science with solipsism.

Without 2 people the single 1 person can't verify what they are saying is measuring Is true.

Sciece cant be real according to science.

Edited 21 hours ago by Hojo

[Elliott]

11 minutes ago, Hojo said:

If they didn't deny it they would have to admit they aren't doing science. Science takes 2 people. You cant prove science with solipsism.

Without 2 people the single 1 person can't verify what they are saying is measuring Is true.

Sciece cant be real according to science.

The only way science would deny it is if they have competing evidence that disproves it, I just posted the top scientist on creation that said " we don't know. Did someone create it, who?" "Hopefully kids grow up asking questions we don't have answers to, we need more scientists."

Edited 21 hours ago by Elliott

[Hojo]

@Elliott kids did grow up and ask these questions and they made up science which is wrong. Now the kids that grew up are saying science is wrong and they deny it.

Edited 21 hours ago by Hojo

[Elliott]

3 minutes ago, Hojo said:

@Elliott kids did grow up and ask these questions and they made up science which is wrong. Now the kids that grew up are saying science is wrong and they deny it.

Mmmmmkayyyy

Edited 21 hours ago by Elliott

[Davino]

I'd like to give another perspective on the tech industry and billionaires. Leo your posts are spot on, but I'd like to give an insiders perspective. I work daily with CIOs of multimillion dollar businesses and the truth is they are trapped inside a ruthless system that forces all that profit obsession onto them. Executives are extremely stressed and overworked, their head is on the line for constantly delivering results, competence is extremely fierce and not playing the game leads to losing the job, losing your friends, the company closing and all your team and employees being fired out.

I understand the fixation to point at names to this selfishness and corruption, but honestly it's more about the system. No individual changes of the tech oligarchs is going to substantially change the system, they are rats inside the system, the best rats with golden chains. A better framework in my mind is understanding why they are forced to behave like that, why the stock market, capitalist system and game theory is engineered to create this situation. The problem is not that X people fill that role, the true problem is that the system creates vacants to be filled as those roles, people are irrelevant if it weren't Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos, it would be other people, it's the law of the current system that creates a strong global inertia towards that.

In my opinion, this is generally a more wise understanding of the situation, by grasping the whole system you realize how all the companies and C-level executives operate.

[Davino]

Another note that I had on my mind, in one of your posts about science you touched upon the concept of discrete. I'd touch on that on the book, because in my understanding, discrete objects are a fabrication upon reality.

In telecommunications engineering there are two types of signal processing, one which is continuous signals and others which are discrete. Truly all signals must be constant (meaning to always exist as they are transmitted, there cannot be any jump). Coding things into 0 and 1, happens because it's extremely convenient for technology, all equations are easier (not like with continuous waves which you get into integrals and infinity problems, as well as physical limitations of transmission).

My point beyond this technical example is that this problem of creating discrete objects is an extremely useful construction of engineering but it has no metaphysical grounds, it's a way to interpret reality due to convenience but you cannot create the limit of anything apart from anything other.

Hammering on the deconstruction of discrete things is of profound value for science to understand. It destroys as well the atomistic philosophy and the independence of self as some discrete object in reality. It's a powerful epistemic assumption at the root of all mathematics and science. All numbers are but a discreet illusion and a limit to true understanding. This understanding should be the metaphysical ground in which mathematics and science should rest.

Edited 4 hours ago by Davino

[vibv]

https://actualized.org/insights/work-is-not-happiness

There are things worth suffering for.

[LordFall]

21 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

No, I didn't say that.

The method is not great.

How would you improve the scientific method? 

@Davino Yes we need to lower the competition of society as a whole. You shouldn't have to sacrifice everything to succeed at a high level. It's too life or death at the moment. The capitalistic crows is so used to that if you tell them we should provide for poor people a bit more they think we will end up living in a big field and soviet communism will comeback next week. 

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall