Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
the universal woo
#1
There exists and underlying problem at the very fact that that a universe exists at all..much less the fine details of life and evolution.

Credible scientists postulate that we might be hallucinating reality.
Less credible ones (to me) postulate that we exist within a Matrix style virtual reality.

Never mind that.

Let's focus on the elemental and universal problem at the beginning.
We don't like to go there.

Small wonder.

It's "woo city".

You think it's all nuts and bolts?

Time to think harder.

We have woo-masters calling the shots.

Small wonder in this particular universe, because we're all equal in that we cab't think past this paper bag we find ourselves together in. It.
Reply
#2
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dancing_Wu_Li_Masters
I like it hot and sticky - Di Wundrin
Reply
#3
if we are brains in a tub... everything referred to by us is real only in that electronic state... as there is no external world... and if there is no external world... well, what the fuck are you talking about... it's self refuting.
the more you drive the dumber you get
Reply
#4
President Bush is the coolest president ever.
Reply
#5
(08-21-2018, 06:14 PM)stanky Wrote:  There exists and underlying problem at the very fact that that a universe exists at all..much less the fine details of life and evolution.

Just follow the Great Green Arkelseizure theory of the Jatravartid people.

The universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.

Makes as much sense as any, and as Slartibartfast once said "Who cares? What would be gained by knowing as opposed to not knowing?"
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#6
I reckon we all overthink the details of Universal origins and things quantum.

My amateur advice is to step back a bit and first gain some understanding of our own intellectual limitations.

The assumption that because humans happen to be the dominant species at this blink of time does NOT indicate that we have the mental capacity to understand absolutely everything.

How can we gauge if our intelligence is adequate to the task of 'understanding' the universe?

By which comparison??

e.g.

There are smart dogs and dumb dogs but as was illustrated by a "dog psychologist" the reason a dog is loyal is not because it loves you on the human emotional scale, but on the dog scale. 
It's because he has allotted you position as leader of his pack and indicates his loyalty with doggy versions of respectful affectionate gestures.   He's 'fawning,' as the pack licks and wriggles to cement their loyalty to the Alpha wolf.

To a human, going out to buy dog food at the supermarket is a trivial activity.  But when you put it in the dog's bowl it indicates to the dog that you are a mighty hunter who can provide food for the pack that it can't.

That doesn't make the dog stupid!.  It merely indicates that it's intellect can't encompass the amount of data that ours can.

It simply doesn't know that we have devised unnatural hunting talents that involve money.

It understands rewards, but only tangible edible or playful rewards, financial reward is a concept it simply can't understand. 

What it sees is all the data it needs to provide proof.   That doesn't make the dog a believer in woo, or that you are god.  It just means that it's circuitry isn't wired for rocket science.

The reason 'woo' and legend and religion became part of our psyche is that they afforded the only analogies that explained in understandable terms the otherwise unknowable phenomena that we were seeing.

We, like the dog, jumped to the only conclusions we could make according to our brain's powers of understanding at the time. 

We wanted to know what was involved in getting that food into the bowl.  Too desperately perhaps,  so we could make up crap about it being manna from heaven, or go crazy over not being able to figure it out one way or other.

As we've evolved we've devised some tools for sorting out some of the mysteries, but how do we know how far along the track to absolute understanding we are?  

When can we be sure that we've overcome the Rumsfeld theory?  How can we ever be sure that there's nothing out there that we don't know is out there?

How can we know that what we aren't even aware exists isn't the key that changes the entire rules by which we've categorised what we do know?

Are we the dog who draws the logical assumption that we know how the food gets in that bowl?

All the crap about multiple universes and matrix hallucinations and creationism and gods and rainbow serpents is unnecessary avoidance of facing the fact that we may not be smart enough to ever figure it out.

And does that matter??  and if so why??  Are we, and science, driven by our need to feel that we're in charge??

Of what?? 
The quest for knowledge is a never failing enjoyment,  but our knowledge dies with us.  Individually and as a species.  Other than for a few scars on a 3rd rate planet in the boondocks the universe will never notice we ever existed at all.

It has no effect whatever on the universe that we are trying to figure out how it operates.   It's pure human navel gazing.  
We're just smart pooches at best,  we're kidding ourselves that who ever wins these silly arguments isn't getting it all wrong for all the right logical reasons.   Dogs do it all the time.

Like physics itself, there's a line where the rules change.  A boundary to where it all makes sense.  Like the gap between physics and the quantum version ...  they both exist but we're not able to grasp how both do that without seeming to have any rules connecting them.  

... and I've about run out of analogies ..  the point being, this is not about physics/science/proofs/data etc, but about our capability of understanding our intellectual limitations and accepting that 'unknown' is not a personal insult to us as the human race.  

The universe doesn't give a shit about what we call the stuff it does.  It just does it. 
Enjoy the ride and the scenery.
Reply
#7
We are pattern seekers, and we are social. We like to tell each other stories about the patterns we think we've found. Then we invented the scientific method, a way to test those patterns we think we see to tell if there's an ounce of validity to them. It works very well indeed. I feel that, given sufficient time, we will answer these questions.
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#8
No arguments with that Sparky.  We'll find the answers, when we're smart enough to do it.  
The one advantage we have over the pooches is curiosity enough to look further than what seems to be the definitive answer.  We don't settle for the easy answers.  (Or most of us don't)

I'm all for sticking to the hard facts of science when we have them available.  They are the anchoring point but the leash shouldn't be too short to allow us to wander around and sniff the surroundings.

  I'm not averse to wondering if there's other stuff out there beyond our spectrum of observation.  
Damned if I can see the harm in that.   Damned if I can see why it's termed 'woo' either.

Leaping to the assumption that anyone who posits a whimsical fantasy that the rainbow serpent was shitting suns along it's path through the sky is just stupid is a bit skewed. 

They're just a bit ignorant that's all.  They may also be intellectually lazy, or further back on the IQ evolution scale, or just overly imaginative, then again they could just be pulling your wick.   Scientific pundits are easy prey to stir.  just sayin'. Blush Angel

 
Like straight physics and the quantum variety, there's a difference in straight IQ and the way the human mind processes what it sees.  They are separate fields of study each relevant but one harder to get our heads around than the other.

Scientists are trying to find where Newtonian fits with Quantum and no one calls woo on them for looking wherever they can between them to find where the seemingly different rules applying to each might overlap.  

It's the best indication yet to us that our species intellect is  just insufficiently equipped for finding that connection yet. 
At least we know there is one, has to be right?   We're a tad ahead of the pooches in that.
We're not smart enough yet to figure out the money aspect,  but failed attempts are the foundations that eventual factual data is tested against.


It's not shameful to have a theory fail, and it's not even close to proving that one or other set of universal rules must be 'woo'.
 
Looking between what we know, and what we want/need to know about their connections,  means we have to leave the one way path of proven fact to ever find the bits that are missing. 

As long as we're careful to always remain firmly hitched to that anchor point of facts, and not attaching ourselves to pieces of floating debris we shouldn't be doing our intellect any harm in wondering where the debris is coming from.

Bugger you Stanky!  You get me off on these flights of verbosity and I always end up in analogy knots and/or an argument.  siiiigh.
Reply
#9
Jesus, Di.

Glad you don't smoke pot.
Reply
#10
(08-22-2018, 08:08 AM)stanky Wrote:  Jesus, Di.

Glad you don't smoke pot.

But imagine if we could get folks to smoke it in the White House, Congress, Supreme Court, Parliaments, U.N., Churches, Temples, Mosques, and so on...
I like it hot and sticky - Di Wundrin
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)