There is no math in a physics constraint sharing how inanimate matter associates to cause life. Planck’s constant on what energy is, is wrong!
Explain. The first sentence is nonsensical in english, so perhaps try editing the grammar to make it more comprehensible? The second begs explanation. No scientist accepts another's argument purely on the grounds that it is stated.
A complete paradigm shift must occur in the sciences and that is what correcting energy does. The processes of how mass, energy and time “equate” and combine with the recognized existence (knowledge) can be perfected by addressing ‘light’ and all her properties (i.e.. resonance, entanglement) in time (environment)
OK. So why bother writing these short little posts that say nothing until you've published the full thing so we can actually review it? Science doesn't work in vague and clandestine suggestions. Paradigm shifts happen through solid, published and peer-reviewed data and theory, not mysterious and short posts on internet forums. No offense, but it ain't the way to get a paradigm shift going in science. Just being honest.
To comprehend what life is and how ‘each choice’ is an imposition to existence and what the ‘good’ imposition are relative to existence, then each can live with the responsibility of EXACTLY what to do and what not to you.
That's already possible, I think. We can know what to do if we are still enough in our minds to receive guidance from God- we cannot comprehend the whole of the flows of reality, but we can know what our place in it should be. It just takes effort, stillness, and sincerity.
that belief is almost like a religious believer (we simply cannot know)……. Them days are soon over!
OK. But without specifics, you really don't have a point. Your belief is also like a religious believer, and ungrounded in any detail, so why should people listen? I'm still waiting for actual information here.
did you count the tail bones? Yes or no……
Tail bones- what is the point. We have tail bones. OK. So? I was referring to the process of evolution and human genetics. Tail bones are of little interest compared to brain and language function, at least for me.
the core frame is already done but not published.
When it's published, let me know and I'll have a read. Until then, there isn't enough detail for me to really get what you're saying or to evaluate if you have any clue what you're talking about. I'm waiting for the details, as I suspect others are.
Then why you buy the updated version of software….. please…..
I only do when it would benefit me in my current environment. And it doesn't always. Blindly going on to the next thing is hardly evolution.
if knowledge did not evolve you would never have learned how to tie your shoes…
You confuse evolution with development. This is clearly separate processes and concepts in evolutionary science.
and in evolution environment governs.
Exactly. So knowledge evolving doesn't mean anything unless it is beneficial in the environment in which the knower exists.
Exactly! and since what many suggest is true does not fit with what we experience, then ‘that’ rendition or belief is ‘wrong’……
The problem is in the details of cognition and experience. I experience a different world than you. You can't know my world and I can't know yours. So what beliefs are wrong for you (i.e., inaccurate to your experience) may be right for me.
If you haven't studied human cognition and how it impacts the *how* of thought, I'd recommend doing so, with plenty of cross-cultural data. A good place to start is Berlin and Kay's work on perceptions of color cross-culturally. Ethnoscience literature offers a good bit of data and theory as well.
You exist in a cognitive space that is tied to your culture, environment, personality, genetics. Just like everyone else. And these inform how you think and process information. So when you think your ideas are right and others' ideas are wrong, you are falling prey to the same faulty assumptions everyone else is making- that you share the same basis for cognition in the first place.
Existence only operates ONE way
Proof?
and as knowledge EVOLVES we learn how to understanding what we experience.
Do we understand our experience? Or do we build an illusion that covers it up? Is coming closer to the Divine a process of learning or forgetting? Or might this depend on the context?
Knowledge evolves with the ‘creation’ of words by mankind!
Words are limiting. Just look at the nightmare of us holding this conversation.
In all seriousness, plenty of good stuff written on the limitations of language and how it affects cognition. Lots of good stuff in linguistics and also a fair bit in Confucianism, if you want to go with a philosophical side.
I'd just put forth a choice bit from Taoism:
The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.
Don’t care who you talk to on the other side; this one keeps both feet flat on the ground; truth lives in absolution; There is no 2 ways it works…. Only ONE!
Um, yeah. This tells me nothing except you are closed off to the other states of consciousness and the types of communication possible there. And that you've not thought out what it means to exist as you do in this world.
What defines your feet as separate from the ground? On the ground rather than a part of it?
As much as you do no care who I talk to, it does show a close-mindedness and limitation.
Until one sees the limitations and biases of their own cognition- until they realize that what they know is not what is- they are unable to move forward in actually engaging information. This is true in science as well as anything else. Ethnocentrism limits one's capacity to know the truth about anything, or to see anything clearly. Recognition of one's own biases and ethnocentrism is what frees one to be analytical of one's own thoughts and not just those of others.
And for it to be absolutely true, then it MUST work mathematically removing all ‘uncertainties’ and all beliefs, phenomenon, magic and omnipotence as none of them exists but only in the minds of ignorance.
Perhaps define all these things and then I'd know how to respond to this statement which is, as it is, a bunch of fluff.
How does math remove uncertainty? What does math mean and why is it valuable, and if it is not context-constrained, why not? And how is math not a language to define your own beliefs? How is it protected from the same problems that plague all other human cognition? Is that which is provable in mathematics true, or do we think it is true? Can we know the difference?
How can one remove phenomena? Perhaps you should review a definition of phenomenon?
As for magic, you don't understand it the way I do, that is clear. You must be operating off a very limited definition, but as you haven't defined anything yet, I can't respond. Except to say that there are a lot of different views on what magic is, and some are agreeable with quantum mechanics.
So far, I see a demonstrated lack of reading in quite a few fields of science combined with a lot of vague statements, neither of which inspires confidence in your theories. Perhaps demonstrating some sources, some actual details, some
substance of some sort, would help?
The more we learn of ‘what is’ the less phenomena that is retained as true.
From the dictionary:
1
plural phenomena : an observable fact or event2
plural phenomena a
: an object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition b
: a temporal or spatiotemporal object of sensory experience as distinguished from a noumenon c
: a fact or event of scientific interest susceptible to scientific description and explanation3 a
: a rare or significant fact or event
So which of these exactly will fade away by our knowing "what is"? Ar eyou saying we will know through intuition and therefore be without need of sensory/observational input? Or are you confusing your word choice?
Personally, I do think intuition yields less reliance on sensory input, but as you already dismissed mysticism, which is intuitive, as a viable way of knowing, where does that leave you in this argument?
