# The Big Bang, not a single point in time.



## bullethead (Mar 8, 2017)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...-was-not-a-single-point-in-time/#621381ee2d9f


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 8, 2017)

_ "So we may never know for certain where the Universe came from."_

That's not good enough.  How am I supposed to live not knowing how I got here, what is my purpose and will I live forever?  

No, Sir.  That is simply not good enough

It's Turtles all the way down.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 8, 2017)

What kind of Turtles?
Lolol


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 8, 2017)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 8, 2017)

_
Turtles All the Way Down
Sturgill Simpson
I've seen Jesus play with flames in a lake of fire that I was standing in
Met the devil in Seattle and spent 9 months inside the lions den
Met Buddha yet another time and he showed me a glowing light within
But I swear that God is there every time I glare in the eyes of my best friend
Says my son it's all been done and someday yer gonna wake up old and gray
So go and try to have some fun showing warmth to everyone
You meet and greet and cheat along the way
There's a gateway in our mind that leads somewhere out there far beyond this plane
Where reptile aliens made of light cut you open and pull out all your pain
Tell me how you make illegal something that we all make in our brain
Some say you might go crazy but then again it might make you go sane
Every time I take a look inside inside that old and fabled book
I'm blinded and reminded of the pain caused by some old man in the sky
Marijuana, LSD, Psilocybin, and DMT
They all changed the way I see
But love's the only thing that ever saved my life
So don't waste your mind on nursery rhymes
Or fairy tales of blood and wine
It's turtles all the way down the line
So to each their own til' we go home
To other realms our souls must roam
To and through the myth that we all call space and time_

Songwriters: Sturgill Simpson
Turtles All the Way Down lyrics © Downtown Music Publishing


----------



## bullethead (Mar 8, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down



I remember you talking about it in the other thread.
I was being tongue in cheek to your tongue in cheek.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 8, 2017)

bullethead said:


> I remember you talking about it in the other thread.
> I was being tongue in cheek to your tongue in cheek.



No, Sir.

It's Turtles.

All the way down.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 8, 2017)

discombobulation


----------



## welderguy (Mar 8, 2017)

bullethead said:


> https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...-was-not-a-single-point-in-time/#621381ee2d9f



So, instead of calling it the big bang, y'all will have to call it the big baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang.


----------



## blondiega1 (Mar 8, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> No, Sir.
> 
> It's Turtles.
> 
> All the way down.



"See the Turtle of Enormous Girth"
"On his shell he holds the Earth."
"His thought is slow, but always kind."
"He holds us all within his mind."
"On his back all vows are made;"
"He sees the truth but mayn't aid."
"He loves the land and loves the sea,"
"And even loves a child like me."


.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 8, 2017)

blondiega1 said:


> "See the Turtle of Enormous Girth"
> "On his shell he holds the Earth."
> "His thought is slow, but always kind."
> "He holds us all within his mind."
> ...



That's what _I'm_ talkin' 'bout.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 8, 2017)

"Behold the Turtle just and fair
Controls the moves of dust and air
He promised life that's everlasting
A Turtle's gift just for the asking
With only one requirement
On bended knee you must repent
Proclaim the Turtle Sovereign Lord
Or get sent straight to He11."

Sorry.  I'm no poetry surgeon.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 9, 2017)

> The Big Bang doesn’t exist and it never existed, nor do cosmologists believe it to have existed. The Big Bang is a point in time defined by a mathematical extrapolation.



And since we allllllll know the fallacy of extrapolating using mathematics of all things............  

Talk about cutting off the limb you're standing on. Many don't have the faith to be an Atheist.    I don't have the intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 9, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> And since we allllllll know the fallacy of extrapolating using mathematics of all things............
> 
> Talk about cutting off the limb you're standing on. Many don't have the faith to be an Atheist.    I don't have the intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy.



Do you know how they calculated the time of the Big Bang?

Would you like me to tell you?

They counted back from the generations of Adam's through Noah's and Abraham's descendants, adjusting for lifespans of individuals who lived to 800-1000 years old as recorded in the Bible (plus the six days it took to make the Earth).  

That's some math right there, Y'all.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 10, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> And since we allllllll know the fallacy of extrapolating using mathematics of all things............
> 
> Talk about cutting off the limb you're standing on. Many don't have the faith to be an Atheist.    I don't have the intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy.





> I don't have the intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy


You use this "intellectual dishonesty" claim CONSTANTLY and it's obvious you don't know what it means. If you did, you wouldn't claim that "you don't have it".


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 10, 2017)

"I don't think about things I don't think about."


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 10, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> "I don't think about things I don't think about."


Its interesting how the use of logic is immediately interpreted as to be "trying destroy the belief in God".
Not much has changed.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 10, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> it's obvious you don't know what it means.



Or, faith and hypocrisy.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 10, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Its interesting how the use of logic is immediately interpreted as to be "trying destroy the belief in God".
> Not much has changed.



The Bible sets itself up as beyond the reproach of intellectual discussion.  Imagine if someone came up with a mathematical proof or a new law of Physics and told everyone that they couldn't understand it with their carnal mind.  Imagine if your doctor or mechanic told you something like that.  Well, it might work if your doctor is a witch doctor.


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 27, 2017)

One thing science has in common with religion. It is controlled by egos. I'd love to see science tagged with "Proven until further notice". Even with all its errors, I'll take it over fairy tales all week and twice on Sunday.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 27, 2017)

drippin' rock said:


> One thing science has in common with religion. It is controlled by egos. I'd love to see science tagged with "Proven until further notice". Even with all its errors, I'll take it over fairy tales all week and twice on Sunday.



That's the assumption by all in the scientific field.  Most of their time is spent trying to disprove accepted findings.  They understand the fallibility of the entire enterprise.


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 28, 2017)

The odds of a big bang theory are improbable. Not buying it. I use to believe in coincidence but have found that everything that has happened that I have witnessed the odds of coincidence are not probable. The only thing that makes sense is a higher power. Ribozymes That happened to form by an explosion. I'm not buying it.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> The odds of a big bang theory are improbable. Not buying it. I use to believe in coincidence but have found that everything that has happened that I have witnessed the odds of coincidence are not probable. The only thing that makes sense is a higher power. Ribozymes That happened to form by an explosion. I'm not buying it.


You are not buying it because it goes against everything that you believe in so you dismiss it an hope it goes away. 
Calculate the odds of a god existing and then break it down so you can show us in detail how you come with the odds


----------



## 660griz (Mar 29, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> The odds of a big bang theory are improbable. Not buying it.



Of course you don't buy it. We wouldn't have all these thousands of gods through out history if humans could just not know something instead of making up gods for all the things they don't understand.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> The odds of a big bang theory are improbable. Not buying it. I use to believe in coincidence but have found that everything that has happened that I have witnessed the odds of coincidence are not probable. The only thing that makes sense is a higher power. Ribozymes That happened to form by an explosion. I'm not buying it.



Let's talk about the Big Bang.  What do you know about it? By that I mean, what do you think those scientists think happened; in your own words?


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 29, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Let's talk about the Big Bang.  What do you know about it? By that I mean, what do you think those scientists think happened; in your own words?



It depends on which scientists theory you read. They seem to vary. In my own words what's your point? Let me guess your gonna try to prove how little I know about the theory and how your superior knowledge of a theory should hold a higher believability. Because some scientists said it was so you believe the scientists. I will believe God. You do know an ambush shouldn't be that obvious.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 29, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> The odds of a big bang theory are improbable. Not buying it. I use to believe in coincidence but have found that everything that has happened that I have witnessed the odds of coincidence are not probable. The only thing that makes sense is a higher power. Ribozymes That happened to form by an explosion. I'm not buying it.





> The only thing that makes sense is a higher power


.
Your beliefs are a long way from just believing in a "higher power".
Its interesting that you reject the Big Bang because of the odds.
Yet you accept "God" and don't have any clue what the odds are for that. And not just any God. A very specific God out all of them. What exactly are the odds? 

Come on just admit it. One story makes you feel better than the other and it doesn't really have squat to do with odds.


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 29, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> .
> Your beliefs are a long way from just believing in a "higher power".
> Its interesting that you reject the Big Bang because of the odds.
> Yet you accept "God" and don't have any clue what the odds are for that. And not just any God. A very specific God out all of them. What exactly are the odds?
> ...


Brother Walter I told you it has more to do with my personal life experiences. I have felt and experienced and witnessed the Holy Spirit. No doubt in my mind, you and science try to figure out why millions of people are lying. The odds of all that is happening by coincidence I don't buy. P.S. I went fishing on Lanier this past weekend the spots are starting to move up. The lake is way down and I busted my winch getting the boat out. I have a new one on order. I would still love to get together and fish sometime. Maybe we could talk about how an explosion created gills to breath underwater.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 29, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Brother Walter I told you it has more to do with my personal life experiences. I have felt and experienced and witnessed the Holy Spirit. No doubt in my mind, you and science try to figure out why millions of people are lying. The odds of all that is happening by coincidence I don't buy. P.S. I went fishing on Lanier this past weekend the spots are starting to move up. The lake is way down and I busted my winch getting the boat out. I have a new one on order. I would still love to get together and fish sometime. Maybe we could talk about how an explosion created gills to breath underwater.


Breathing underwater doesn't require gills.
Just some science


----------



## red neck richie (Mar 29, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Breathing underwater doesn't require gills.
> Just some science



That is true but I was talking about creation. Breathing oxygen through organic tissue. Not man made breathing apparatus. Why not just get in a submarine?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Mar 29, 2017)

do a little studying on mitochondrial dna and get back with us on how long mankind has been on this earth


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 30, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> That is true but I was talking about creation. Breathing oxygen through organic tissue. Not man made breathing apparatus. Why not just get in a submarine?


No thanks. I get claustrophobia just thinking about it.

Speaking of creation and breathing underwater -
Its interesting that according to some beliefs "the world was created for us".
Yet +/- 70% of it is covered in water.
That we can't breath.
Kind of missed the target audience there.

By the way, I don't discuss religion or politics while I'm fishing. I think it was Griz who said "don't harsh the buzz" or something to that effect.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 31, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> It depends on which scientists theory you read. They seem to vary. In my own words what's your point? Let me guess your gonna try to prove how little I know about the theory and how your superior knowledge of a theory should hold a higher believability. Because some scientists said it was so you believe the scientists. I will believe God. You do know an ambush shouldn't be that obvious.



I'm sure you know very little about it, so do I in the technical sense.  If you're an astrophysicist my apologies.  I'm just curious to know how you interpret what the science is saying.


----------



## Israel (Apr 2, 2017)

drippin' rock said:


> One thing science has in common with religion. It is controlled by egos. I'd love to see science tagged with "Proven until further notice". Even with all its errors, I'll take it over fairy tales all week and twice on Sunday.


You mean like the struggle amongst the right, the right-er and the rightest?

It would seem there is no invitation but to that hill upon which is played "king of..."


----------



## Israel (Apr 2, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> .
> Your beliefs are a long way from just believing in a "higher power".
> Its interesting that you reject the Big Bang because of the odds.
> Yet you accept "God" and don't have any clue what the odds are for that. And not just any God. A very specific God out all of them. What exactly are the odds?
> ...



I'll agree to that...if we are willing to explore "feel".


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 3, 2017)

Israel said:


> I'll agree to that...if we are willing to explore "feel".



Go on....

Tell me about "feel".


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 3, 2017)

Israel said:


> I'll agree to that...if we are willing to explore "feel".


I think "feel" would be anything that falls outside the strictly mathematical process of calculating the odds.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 3, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> I think "feel" would be anything that falls outside the strictly mathematical process of calculating the odds.



That's right.  But it could be useful to explore, nonetheless. Perhaps it will reveal something about truth.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 3, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Do you know how they calculated the time of the Big Bang?
> 
> Would you like me to tell you?
> 
> ...


----------



## Israel (Apr 4, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> That's right.  But it could be useful to explore, nonetheless. Perhaps it will reveal something about truth.



Maybe because we commonly take "feel" as an emotional response, we'd also probably agree to its more basic application in the tactile of the material, no? 
Do a warm set of flannel sheets in winter "feel" better for sleeping than a slab of steel?
But what if we use feel in its broadest application to _sense_ things? 
We might even have some agreement as to the influence of the former upon the latter, and vice versa. 
I'm hiking and _see_ a bear with cubs approaching and I _may_ feel fear.
Likewise, I was once bitten by a dog, and so now, even when I see a leashed dog...I sense an uneasiness about myself, I may even tell myself it's irrational..."it's a puppy, it's leashed, it's going the other way, half way down the block...but..."

(Now, we could add a myriad of additional things to complicate "I'm hiking with a Grizz's 45-70 and I have been waiting for this all day, and I don't care at all about leaving some cubs motherless..." And so now I _feel _hope and anticipation of a trophy.)

Which now, if introduced makes the whole matter quite different "in observation". I think this may be close to what we do with one another, introducing "but what if's".

But I am at fundament now, at least to myself, a sensing device. I can't deny it. If you will, even, a "feeling device" in that broad application. I can't deny emotional responses, nor physical, light upon cones and rods, or compressions of air upon a tympanum transferred via structures to a wire to my brain. And if I awake with a sudden pain across my chest in the night, I may be at a loss to this sensation...is it merely my straining at having lifted heavy boards that day in building the new porch...or...is it something else? 

I only know there is a _feeling of pain_, but what to "make of it", and here is where the sticky wicket is introduced...why do I even "feel" I need to make anything of it, at all? I can't deny there is a sense of compulsion to know, a _feeling_ of need to know. And those abdominal pains...is it gas, or something we would call more sinister?  A loud long CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored ensues, pains subsides...and I now take comfort at being lactose intolerant with yet a weakness toward eating three slices of cheese laden pizza at 9pm.

The really smart could say "wait! having gas does not exclude the possibility of..." But for me, replicating or intensifying my chest pain by stretching may tell me something, and a CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored may allow me to drift peacefully back off to sleep. Others may require different evidence of how they "feel" about things "I'm running for a stress test in the morning" or a CT of my abdomen".

But...is it not a sense we have (a feeling) when speaking about what we may all call "truth", all of what suffices to any particular individual must be off the table, experiences, personal knowledge, even of oneself...it must therefore, in that "sense" to a something that recognizes that sense...be able to stand alone, universal?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 4, 2017)

Israel said:


> Maybe because we commonly take "feel" as an emotional response, we'd also probably agree to its more basic application in the tactile of the material, no?
> Do a warm set of flannel sheets in winter "feel" better for sleeping than a slab of steel?
> But what if we use feel in its broadest application to _sense_ things?
> We might even have some agreement as to the influence of the former upon the latter, and vice versa.
> ...



If you're interested in Universal Truth you will need to rely on more than feelings, indeed you may need to dismiss them altogether.


----------



## Israel (Apr 4, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> If you're interested in Universal Truth you will need to rely on more than feelings, indeed you may need to dismiss them altogether.



Yes, very much...yes.
I hope you were able to see that in my fumbling. Things influence every which way...from emotions affecting seeing,  seeing affecting emotions...etc.
But...in that now realization comes also an unsettling of sorts in the "truth" sensor...how can I know truth, if I am subject to inputs affecting perspective, perspective affecting view? How, if tabula rasa is only seeming possible recourse left for "true" knowing...can this be possible?
So now...my "truth" sensor is recognized as askew...and that (I think some can relate)...becomes most troubling of all.

It, in some ways, goes back to what Drippin' expressed about religion, and science, and egos. And although I don't think if asked he would deny the also assumption "and I too, have an ego (or am an ego)" it was not explicitly stated. It seems we are more inclined to almost lean toward the assumption that everything, or at least, everyone else may present things colored to some extent by self interest...but that in some way, I am "more free" of that in my seeking. But once a man realizes this coming _to me_ is colored with ego, and is received likewise of same, like light hitting prisms, the issue of "purity"...or universality comes glaringly into play as something approaching zero possibility. 

And here is where I have found Jesus saying something most salient regarding that: "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." It's not as if Jesus were ignorant of this interplay of light among us "who has the truth?" One might even see he well understood the "next thought" of some of those who heard his bold pronouncements "how can I even begin to tell if this guy is telling the truth?"

He recommends an experiment, but it will only be an invitation to those who are convicted truth (as in concept of "God") is both knowable and also as knowable, may be _aligned to_. Here I seek to place no restriction, as I do not see any "in the Lord" against any inclined to take on the experiment. But it does demand of itself, an inward honesty...at least as regards pursuit, it cannot work any other way. 

If we enter the arena of seeking to know the truth (and who, we might ask...hasn't at least dipped their toe?) I am convinced even more here of "non restriction". I can offer no help, except perhaps in this single thing of recognition of a deep commonness we either do, or do not share. The recognition of our relationship to "things". 

Like words, ideas, car keys (made perhaps exquisitely clear when we cannot find them), guns (perhaps when they misfire at a ten pointer), dust (when it so cakes our computer parts to make it unbootable)...cold viruses...dogs and cats...wives...and each other. Everything is fair game so to speak unless we deny_ a relationship._ If we don't deny these, "truth" easily fits in among them. Even if we may presently have some difficulty, reluctance, loathing to say "god"...(but, by the which difficulty, reluctance, and loathing, also testify to a relationship) but do not deny us entrance to this experiment.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 5, 2017)

Israel said:


> Yes, very much...yes.
> I hope you were able to see that in my fumbling. Things influence every which way...from emotions affecting seeing,  seeing affecting emotions...etc.
> But...in that now realization comes also an unsettling of sorts in the "truth" sensor...how can I know truth, if I am subject to inputs affecting perspective, perspective affecting view? How, if tabula rasa is only seeming possible recourse left for "true" knowing...can this be possible?
> So now...my "truth" sensor is recognized as askew...and that (I think some can relate)...becomes most troubling of all.
> ...



_Part 1 Designing a Scientifically Sound Experiment

    1. Pick a specific topic. ...
    2. Isolate your variable(s). ...
    3. Make a hypothesis. ...
    4. Plan your data collection. ...
    5. Conduct your experiment methodically. ...
    6. Collect your data. ...
    7. Analyse your data and come to a conclusion._


Hypothesis: "God is"

Help me with the rest.


----------



## Israel (Apr 7, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> _Part 1 Designing a Scientifically Sound Experiment
> 
> 1. Pick a specific topic. ...
> 2. Isolate your variable(s). ...
> ...



Wow! You went right for the top. Bypassed any other notions of _things_ called truth, rightness, reality, consciousness, congruity...even "just" perception!  I am not being sarcastic at all (as writing and reading seem to leave much room for misinterpretation) and am not trying to beg off the question. Or hypothesis.

I can't help but see your invitation into "your lab" as anything other than what it is, an invitation. If I go forgetting that, that invitations are subject to revocation, I am assured that would be my first mistake. 

I can't have any "rules" to bring, even if I have found some constraints through my own experimentations, for in a greater sense I am not "coming into your lab" as much as we have some acknowledgement of partnership now...more of "joining labs" together...so that we, in hopes of more than just a pre assumption of beneficial outcome...hope that something more assured might be touched. (if we are in it just for the money, well, we might get that, but my lab has seen nothing but this, and myself, experienced nothing but this...when things like money, respect (even self respect), position, power, get mixed as reagents.) So, I just want to offer that in full disclosure before we form a joint venture.
So are we "in"...or out to each other?
Cause I have little doubt I will look like this at times. If you think you can bear that...well, no matter, we'll both find out.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 7, 2017)

Israel said:


> Wow! You went right for the top. Bypassed any other notions of _things_ called truth, rightness, reality, consciousness, congruity...even "just" perception!  I am not being sarcastic at all (as writing and reading seem to leave much room for misinterpretation) and am not trying to beg off the question. Or hypothesis.
> 
> I can't help but see your invitation into "your lab" as anything other than what it is, an invitation. If I go forgetting that, that invitations are subject to revocation, I am assured that would be my first mistake.
> 
> ...



Great! Lets see where the rabbit hole goes.


----------



## Israel (Apr 8, 2017)

We might both start, well...I can't help but start (how easily a suggestion can begin a turn to a rule!) with a confession of bias...or better...a load of biases. (I think you already know some of them?)

I have memories. Of all sorts and types...some so different in my perceptions of them, it seems I have developed a sort of filing system and a seemingly (I cannot help but resort to "seem" frequently...) good many of them come from bins labelled "good" and some from "bad". I also seem to have a tendency to be influenced...in the present by them.

If I were to believe all that my eyes and understanding tell me...they go back to certain point...or series of points as I recollect them and each has a context as an indicator of a "time line"...so that, in times past when I would bring up to a person I trusted such a memory of a thing (that person being my mother) and say "I seem to have this memory of being in a something that suddenly swung violently as I appeared to be looking up at what I now think was a car ceiling, but cradled as it were in a piece of canvas that lined my cradle...and then, the next memory was being on a shoulder holding me as a road curved around us in green grass on a sunny and warm day".

"Yes", I was told later as the recollection was shared, "our car was rear ended on an on or off ramp in the Spring." But you were(and I don't remember the  age now)...but it would have been what we might call...very young.
For whatever reason that I remember that, I don't know, and for whatever reason I can't quite divine, it seems to stand as an "earliest memory". At least to me. It's not that I have a chronology I can follow, "that was the day of my 'waking up' " and I remember anything of any particular day subsequent to that for order. But I am somehow convinced at least at whatever age that was...a thing got stored.


But now, being almost 66 years old, and of some seemingly conscious experiences in the world, I have watched a few babies being born, birthed one of my own, (well did the hands on thing, anyway) and therefore by both observation and the words of others been convinced that's how people "come into the world", I pretty well assume it was the same for me.

So, at whatever point that memory fits on my timeline of the car accident...I am pressed to believe there were probably several months...maybe even  a few years?...of which nothing I can recall entered my storage banks. 
Why do I say all this? 

Because...again, in observations I have seen many things directed at "babies", happening to babies, done to and with babies from the moment they hit the air. I assume the same for the me... that is me. Point being...at whatever age I can assume my own consciousness to having any measure of choice in cataloging "experience"...especially to matters of "this is true"..."that proves itself false", I am convinced a whole lot of "other stuff" was already poured in. 

That I don't have it for recall in my hard drive, still kinda indicates it's probably there somewhere in the bios. I can pick and choose on the hard drive what I will revisit (it seems)...even if they are just images...but I don't seem to be able to reach into the thing that "wakes up" the OS as primary direction. But it seems something does...and I am pretty well convinced there are probably many more "biases" in the bios that I don't know...and can't account for.

I can't even remember the first time I heard or was called "Gregory"...but somehow, in a household I came to know that when I heard that, I was convinced the people there were talking to me, or about me. 
See, I even have a bias toward that word when I hear it spoken in a room...now...anywhere...but I can't even begin to explain how or where it comes from. Even if someone says "no, that is attached to a someone else...to whom I am speaking, not you. You are not the Gregory I am talking to"...and somewhere deep inside a thing seems to faintly stir "OK, But I am the real Gregory".

So yeah, I got biases. But I don't think I know much about them.
They could affect our work. Because, like I said...the memories, and my biases in them affect me...seem to often affect me presently.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 8, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> _Part 1 Designing a Scientifically Sound Experiment
> 
> 1. Pick a specific topic. ...
> 2. Isolate your variable(s). ...
> ...


Providing we could get past #1, #2 can only be accomplished by omniscience.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 8, 2017)

gemcgrew said:


> Providing we could get past #1, #2 can only be accomplished by omniscience.



Everybody knows that any experiment will only produce a "Best as we can tell" result.  In that spirit I say we venture forth.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 8, 2017)

https://www.thoughtco.com/science-allows-belief-god-does-not-exist-248234

_"Certainty and Doubt in Science

Nothing in science is proven or disproven beyond a shadow of any possible doubt. In science, everything is provisional. Being provisional is not a weakness or a sign that a conclusion is weak. Being provisional is a smart, pragmatic tactic because we can never be sure what we'll come across when we round the next corner. This lack of absolute certainty is a window through which many religious theists try to slip their god, but that's not a valid move."_

Nevertheless I'm excited to run the experiment.  I don't want to simply  take that author's word for it.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 8, 2017)

_"What Does "God Exists" Mean?

What does it mean to exist? What would it mean if "God exists" were a meaningful proposition? For such a proposition to mean anything at all, it would have to entail that whatever "God" is, it must have some impact on the universe. In order for us to say that there is an impact on the universe, then there must be measurable and testable events which would best or only be explained by whatever this "God" is we are hypothesizing. Believers must be able to present a model of the universe in which some god is "either required, productive, or useful.""_


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 8, 2017)

https://www.thoughtco.com/argument-from-miracles-248258

Again, let's bookmark this guy's argument and start fresh with our own inquiry.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 8, 2017)

welderguy said:


> So, instead of calling it the big bang, y'all will have to call it the big baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang.



Sounds like it was more like the walkin poots my dear departed grandmother had in her early 90's.


----------



## Israel (Apr 8, 2017)

gemcgrew said:


> Providing we could get past #1, #2 can only be accomplished by omniscience.



Thanks...a little of what I was aiming for in "full disclosure".
I don't even "know" that stuff that's _in me_ much at all...so as a detector, I am...no must...be willing to acquiesce to starting from a fault.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 8, 2017)

Israel said:


> Thanks...a little of what I was aiming for in "full disclosure".
> I don't even "know" that stuff that's _in me_ much at all...so as a detector, I am...no must...be willing to acquiesce to starting from a fault.



We can adjust for our "faults" later.  Should we start by calibrating our equipment?  No.  I think we have the topic.  We need #2 (as best as we can determine).  I think you've started that process already.  

I'll keep this up, like a Post It note so we don't get sidetracked:

Part 1 Designing a Scientifically Sound Experiment

1. Pick a specific topic. ...
2. Isolate your variable(s). ...
3. Make a hypothesis. ...
4. Plan your data collection. ...
5. Conduct your experiment methodically. ...
6. Collect your data. ...
7. Analyse your data and come to a conclusion.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 8, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Everybody knows that any experiment will only produce a "Best as we can tell" result.  In that spirit I say we venture forth.


I can't. I recognize the flaws in the method, so my knowledge is greater than the experiment. I would have to limit my knowledge in some way. I would have to unknow things.


----------



## Israel (Apr 8, 2017)

gemcgrew said:


> I can't. I recognize the flaws in the method, so my knowledge is greater than the experiment. I would have to limit my knowledge in some way. I would have to unknow things.



We might still have a "lab of three" if there were any way of discovering something that could allow for, while not simultaneously hobbling investigation, admitted fault in either method or detector/interpreter/data recorder.

But, likewise we might also see...(am I understanding rightly?)...if the parameters of method for coming to a conclusion do indeed require omniscience (and I am not reluctant to agree)...what has been described in the "method" could only be rightly attributed/exercised by a being, inclined (if desiring) to perform such an experiment.
So "our" lab...might (only perhaps to this point) actually be in a greater lab. While we think we are the "experimenters"...something might be at work upon us...as part of a "greater" enterprise. 

But would it be right to say "greater experiment"? I don't believe it could be...
For, likewise, then, omniscience would obviate the need for any experimentation. 

He _could_ experiment in some sense of that word (like me holding a magnifying glass on an ant hill, saying "I am conducting an experiment")...but to what end? And to whom would it need be said? 

(As that infantile statement is now both viewed as lie and even in my own examining is seen to have been serving something else than "gathering info"...about ants. It was plainly an exposition of info...about me.)


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 8, 2017)

gemcgrew said:


> I can't. I recognize the flaws in the method, so my knowledge is greater than the experiment. I would have to limit my knowledge in some way. I would have to unknow things.




If you mean that you know that you'll never have complete information that's no reason not to investigate....to the best of your ability.

Maybe we can start on a theory that might be easier to examine.  Like a practice run.

Theory: "There is a God in my oak tree".

Can we run that experiment?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 8, 2017)

Israel said:


> We might still have a "lab of three" if there were any way of discovering something that could allow for, while not simultaneously hobbling investigation, admitted fault in either method or detector/interpreter/data recorder.
> 
> But, likewise we might also see...(am I understanding rightly?)...if the parameters of method for coming to a conclusion do indeed require omniscience (and I am not reluctant to agree)...what has been described in the "method" could only be rightly attributed/exercised by a being, inclined (if desiring) to perform such an experiment.
> So "our" lab...might (only perhaps to this point) actually be in a greater lab. While we think we are the "experimenters"...something might be at work upon us...as part of a "greater" enterprise.
> ...



To come to the absolute truth would require omniscience.  Check.  

Let's mark that off as a variable that we can all agree on.  I think we can still run the experiment and see what we can discover to the best of our woefully insignificant understanding.

Let's also agree that omniscience would negate the need for experimentation.


----------



## Israel (Apr 9, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> If you mean that you know that you'll never have complete information that's no reason not to investigate....to the best of your ability.
> 
> Maybe we can start on a theory that might be easier to examine.  Like a practice run.
> 
> ...





ambush80 said:


> To come to the absolute truth would require omniscience.  Check.
> 
> Let's mark that off as a variable that we can all agree on.  I think we can still run the experiment and see what we can discover to the best of our woefully insignificant understanding.
> 
> Let's also agree that omniscience would negate the need for experimentation.




Might we not run into the same issue?

If we have agreed that omniscience is a real thing...even if we have no understanding of it, no perception of "how" that would appear to us (and as importantly...perhaps ...the effects that would have upon any of us...) but in word and concept it is now a (to us) real thing that has been logically introduced (even as manifest defect in our method of pursuit...or at least one that if recognized we find we have no way to account for) ...what's happening here?
If we start out saying "a thing can be known", do we all agree (I think we might...even _must_ assume that is the only basis for investigation according to the method proposed we might call "scientific") must it not then follow that "if any single thing can be truly known...there likewise exists a state of knowing all things" For if one thing can be known...can two...be known? Three...etc...?  And thence ...unto all things?

Is this a correct question?

For what if we answer the question this way?
"No"

"Not even one thing can be known."

Then...how could we _know_ that? Even state that? 
Isn't that a logical fallacy?


To us then, this matter of "omniscience" has been thrust upon us as more than mere notion...it is assumed to us...even in the method we may have once thought of some utility. Is this a valid/true understanding of where we find ourselves?
If we start from claiming we know anything (in hope of progress) we are  immediately hamstrung by not knowing everything.
If we claim we know nothing..."I know nothing can be known"...we are liars?

I am not proposing an end, but have we come to a place of something? Not something necessarily (or even provable by previous method) we might all even agree to...but being made aware (are we?) of, for want of better words we might call "states of being"?

Am I hearing us rightly?

The liar then becomes self negating in any claim.
But is there allowance to "know a thing" while  simultaneously embracing the _knowing of not knowing all_ might also include that_ in_ the "knowing of all" what is presently perceived as knowing is entirely _all of not knowing?_ For even what appears as knowing, when in the light of the "knowing of all", might be shown to be something other? We might agree it may not _have to be_ so...but does it not at least, include that?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2017)

Israel said:


> Might we not run into the same issue?
> 
> If we have agreed that omniscience is a real thing...even if we have no understanding of it, no perception of "how" that would appear to us (and as importantly...perhaps ...the effects that would have upon any of us...) but in word and concept it is now a (to us) real thing that has been logically introduced (even as manifest defect in our method of pursuit...or at least one that if recognized we find we have no way to account for) ...what's happening here?
> If we start out saying "a thing can be known", do we all agree (I think we might...even _must_ assume that is the only basis for investigation according to the method proposed we might call "scientific") must it not then follow that "if any single thing can be truly known...there likewise exists a state of knowing all things" For if one thing can be known...can two...be known? Three...etc...?  And thence ...unto all things?
> ...




You just totally ignored the part where I said "We'll do the best we can with what we've got".

We can state things like "gravity works like this" while fully understanding that it might not work that way in some multiverse or in Heaven.  At that point we can run experiments.


----------



## Israel (Apr 10, 2017)

OK.
We've already come up hard against omniscience in some manner and some degree...or me at least. 

But, have I given you a fair explanation in regards to it? The: "If any one thing can be known..."? Even if you don't accept it to yourself, do you concede the process?
Because we may have to go back a step (or two or 100)...at this point I am not sure. I don't know what we'll find in our exploration of this other thing, now likewise provoked.
For even if we do not agree to omniscience existing _in reality_ but only as word describing _concept_ (and who is to say concepts are not as real as anything else?...for by "concept" the twin towers were built...and by concept they came down...) 

So this I also find in our discussion of "what's on the table". Is consciousness a real thing? And all the things that accrue to it, thought, right perception (although that matter of _right_ in perception is surely up for grabs)...but just perception? Even _concept_. On what basis do we assume these things, if we do, to be real?


Here's a side note. I'm afraid, though that is hardly the right word...yet there is a something in me arguing for explanation against being misunderstood. I do not regard what "man knows" (even as discovered by a thing called _science_, or scientific method) in an obscene light. Though the limits of it may be perceived differently between us, or among us...all...personally, I find a pointing toward a something. As I was thinking of "us"...our relating, our discussions...and now our "years" in some way together the other day...my mind wandered to some of the "things" discovered...for want of a better word...by _science_. I thought of light as I "looked" at a leaf. I thought of touching.

_Science_ tells me that on one level (might I say...state of being?) that what I might have concluded intuitively about touching...on a certain level is quite different than all my inferences. Were I to press myself "with all my might" the space between what I think is my matter and the matter of my wife...are vast. I get (what I think) is a sensation of touch, tells me we have "touched"...but on that certain level my perceptions (that previously led to conceptions) of what touch is, are shattered. We haven't...in any way, as thought previously...touched.
Now, that does not negate the sensation...it simply informs it. "what we experience as touch is really...blah blah blah...and that is why we get the _feeling_ of touching."


Likewise with light. On one level I previously inferred a certain relationship of green to leaf. That somehow _true substance_ of leaf and greenness were all of _one_. But "science" tells me that the green I see, and previously inferred as to somehow true substance of leaf...is actually the "part" of light not absorbed...by said leaf. The substance of leaf is not in greenness at all (in that sense) but of substance that "likes" (oh, how silly!)...all light...except green. 

Now, again...science says...or perhaps does not say..."No, you are not wrong to perceive that leaf as green, because blah blah blah...is how light...works" Even to and in...your eyes!
But how much previous inference of substance and "true" nature is cracked, there..._busted_ there. 

This is to not even mention that all depends upon "the light" in which a thing is viewed...what is true light? When the sun is setting on certain days, a piece of white paper...(is it really...white?) suddenly takes on a golden hue. "well, in that _light_ it would because...blah blah blah..."


We have been proceeding from a premise presented by one of us..."God is"...it matters not which of us...at all. In that I believe I have been as honest as one said to "do the best with what we've got". This does not mean I am being honest, at all...merely subscribing to a concept, that at least, to this point, I don't "feel"...sense, (and you may remember I didn't disagree with believing in "a" god...because of feelings that may have in one "sense" added impetus to our labors) an incursion against.

You can tell me, are surely free to tell me ( I also am not ready to abrogate "no restriction") that absolutely all, and I repeat, all, of my inferences through perceptions...are wrong. After all, it _seems_ it is only you and I are left here...and without a hand to tip a balance for either of us...who could show themselves..."more right"? But why might that be of any import at all?

But then I would have to add.."science"...if anything (to me, by my perceptions...and yes...even leading to inferences) seems always to be telling me "nothing really is...as it seems".
And so, regardless...it points me. Also.


"God is..." was the premise. Perhaps in all of _seems_ there is nothing more argued against. And this by what structures itself according to certain laws of "knowing" what is true, verifiable, repeatable. All the while (perhaps) oblivious that the in the assumption of laws it proceeds by, that of saying "the known can be further known"...the assumption of knowing anything at all also operates according to a law...a principle...."it will only know what it is allowed...to know".

"What is true light?"

In a certain light we may both be considered (I may be presumptuous) relatively...smart men. By a certain metric, we might even be able to show it. But, put us both in a room with a particular savant and ask all of us "what day was October 12 1604"...and two of us may find a fellowship of ignorance.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 10, 2017)

Israel said:


> OK.
> We've already come up hard against omniscience in some manner and some degree...or me at least.
> 
> But, have I given you a fair explanation in regards to it? The: "If any one thing can be known..."? Even if you don't accept it to yourself, do you concede the process?
> ...



I'm gathering that you won't be able to talk about "green" in terms of wavelength alone, but want to talk about green in terms of "the traffic light I ran through that August afternoon in my youth while distracted by my lover.  The transgression resulting in me striking down a child with my Honda....also, green. In this regard, truly, what is green to me?" 

Fine.

But I don't think we can do science that way.


----------



## Israel (Apr 12, 2017)

LOL...I think I remember rightly you wanting to "talk like we are in a boat fishing". It's not like I've never been fishing, nor that I've never been accompanied, so I think maybe I kinda get that. 
The kinda friends I've known in the past, and those I particularly call to mind in that situation are hardly recalled as having any reluctance to the kind of discussion that would ensue from; "hey, have you ever wondered if what I see as _green_, is seen as (what I call) _red_ by you?"

It's almost like the time I was fishing with my brother and sister on a party boat outta Sheepshead Bay...even a guy I never spoke to helped me see something.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2017)

Israel said:


> LOL...I think I remember rightly you wanting to "talk like we are in a boat fishing". It's not like I've never been fishing, nor that I've never been accompanied, so I think maybe I kinda get that.
> The kinda friends I've known in the past, and those I particularly call to mind in that situation are hardly recalled as having any reluctance to the kind of discussion that would ensue from; "hey, have you ever wondered if what I see as _green_, is seen as (what I call) _red_ by you?"
> 
> It's almost like the time I was fishing with my brother and sister on a party boat outta Sheepshead Bay...even a guy I never spoke to helped me see something.



So you get it.  We need a way to talk about green that we can both agree on like wavelength.


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 12, 2017)

Not agreeing on the color green sums up the entirety of human debate does it not?


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 12, 2017)

At least on this forum...


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2017)

drippin' rock said:


> At least on this forum...



Yes.  Isreal suggested that we can find out about something by running an experiment. I took him at his word.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 12, 2017)

drippin' rock said:


> Not agreeing on the color green sums up the entirety of human debate does it not?



We can all know green in the same way unless your spectrometer is broken.


----------



## Israel (Apr 13, 2017)

drippin' rock said:


> Not agreeing on the color green sums up the entirety of human debate does it not?





> We can all know green in the same way unless your spectrometer is broken.



We could probably camp out in the clearing made in those statements.

Drippin' had said something previously that also engaged me...about egos. "Religious folk have egos, scientists have egos..." And then he stated that basically, for his money, he wasn't going to invest in what he called "fairy tales". 

He didn't specifically deny he himself "had" or was an ego (also)...but the implication was to me..."I can step outside and see those "egos" at work, and now...I judge between them..." For whatever reason (which I surely can't deny him) he assigned one to a something (more preferable) and the other to the promulgation of fairy tales. He, you (Ambush), and I...are not denied our egos.

"Our way" of seeing things. And yes, we do often...and are...given to speaking of them. You also now (Ambush) propose there is a way of knowing the absolute truth about green...unless your spectrometer is broken.

How much could be explored there... the "truth" can be known about a thing...(though even with my less than informed scientific mind there is much more to light than simply knowing it "has" a wavelength)...but this is not even much to talk about in the face of the possibility of a broken spectrometer.

Who decides, can anything decide...whose spectrometer is both correct (if any_ indeed are_) ...and from there, decide whose is broken?
We haven't even begun to explore in any exchange (at least to my knowledge) a definition of terms of this thing we may have assumed in any form of hypothesis that "God is".


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 13, 2017)

Israel said:


> We could probably camp out in the clearing made in those statements.
> 
> Drippin' had said something previously that also engaged me...about egos. "Religious folk have egos, scientists have egos..." And then he stated that basically, for his money, he wasn't going to invest in what he called "fairy tales".
> 
> ...



Life is messy.  I could use all my fingers and toes to count the number of times my ego rears its head on a daily basis. I try to be aware of that, hoping that eventually I will learn to be more.  

Once we decide to believe in a thing, ego steps in to make us grasp that idea a little harder. Is that bad?  I don't know. We are all driven to be a part of a group. We want to know that what we have chosen to believe is validated by others.  I am guilty as well.  Because my ideas run roughly parallel to folks like Ambush, Bullet, and Walt, I find myself paying closer attention to what they post. 

Yes, I believe most of the worlds religions are fairy tales. I have not seen or experienced anything YET in my life to suggest otherwise. 

The color green is the color green. If someone needs to discuss and debate that, I check out. 

Maybe I misunderstand, but "what God is" has been covered here countless times, from both sides of the isle.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 13, 2017)

Israel said:


> Who decides, can anything decide...whose spectrometer is both correct (if any_ indeed are_) ...and from there, decide whose is broken?



There is a reference standard.
Look at the calibration date.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2017)

drippin' rock said:


> Life is messy.  I could use all my fingers and toes to count the number of times my ego rears its head on a daily basis. I try to be aware of that, hoping that eventually I will learn to be more.
> 
> Once we decide to believe in a thing, ego steps in to make us grasp that idea a little harder. Is that bad?  I don't know. We are all driven to be a part of a group. We want to know that what we have chosen to believe is validated by others.  I am guilty as well.  Because my ideas run roughly parallel to folks like Ambush, Bullet, and Walt, I find myself paying closer attention to what they post.
> 
> ...



Would you call the desire to confirm or disprove one's beliefs a function of ego?  I'm trying to find out if some things are true.  It seems to me that in order to do that, I have to try to disengage my ego (the self- esteem and self-importance part).  Isreal claims that he knows something about what's true and that it can be confirmed by experiment.  This particular thing is a great curiosity to me mostly because other so many other people think it true, many of whom seem to be quite thoughtful.

I agree with you that if we can't agree on what green is then we probably can't continue.


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 13, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Would you call the desire to confirm or disprove one's beliefs a function of ego?  I'm trying to find out if some things are true.  It seems to me that in order to do that, I have to try to disengage my ego (the self- esteem and self-importance part).  Isreal claims that he knows something about what's true and that it can be confirmed by experiment.  This particular thing is a great curiosity to me mostly because other so many other people think it true, many of whom seem to be quite thoughtful.
> 
> I agree with you that if we can't agree on what green is then we probably can't continue.



I think the desire to fit into a group can be distilled down to a function of survival.  As can everything we do.  Of course survival is much easier today than say 200 years ago. Where does ego fit into all that?  I'm not sure. I agree you have to "let yourself go" sometimes to see things in a different way. It has been suggested that the Sphinx predates the pyramids by as much as 10,000 years because the wear suggests years of rain damage. It has been 10,000 years since that area rained enough for that kind of damage. Sounds plausible to me, but I'm not an Egyptologist that built a career around one theory.   You find that kind of ego across many of the scientific disciplines. Someone comes along with a new theory that threatens your life's body of work, you tend to fight against it. 

What truth are you looking for?  I know the color green has been a metaphor up until now in this conversation, but I would call it a truth. Green is green.  A universal truth.   Christians say the Word is the truth. That might make them feel good, but that is not a universal truth. It's a truth to their group. 

I haven't read this entire thread, so if this takes things the wrong direction, my apologies. I'm just throwing things out I think of from time to time.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2017)

drippin' rock said:


> I think the desire to fit into a group can be distilled down to a function of survival.  As can everything we do.  Of course survival is much easier today than say 200 years ago. Where does ego fit into all that?  I'm not sure. I agree you have to "let yourself go" sometimes to see things in a different way. It has been suggested that the Sphinx predates the pyramids by as much as 10,000 years because the wear suggests years of rain damage. It has been 10,000 years since that area rained enough for that kind of damage. Sounds plausible to me, but I'm not an Egyptologist that built a career around one theory.   You find that kind of ego across many of the scientific disciplines. Someone comes along with a new theory that threatens your life's body of work, you tend to fight against it.
> 
> What truth are you looking for?  I know the color green has been a metaphor up until now in this conversation, but I would call it a truth. Green is green.  A universal truth.   Christians say the Word is the truth. That might make them feel good, but that is not a universal truth. It's a truth to their group.
> 
> I haven't read this entire thread, so if this takes things the wrong direction, my apologies. I'm just throwing things out I think of from time to time.



He said this:



Israel said:


> Yes, very much...yes.
> I hope you were able to see that in my fumbling. Things influence every which way...from emotions affecting seeing,  seeing affecting emotions...etc.
> But...in that now realization comes also an unsettling of sorts in the "truth" sensor...how can I know truth, if I am subject to inputs affecting perspective, perspective affecting view? How, if tabula rasa is only seeming possible recourse left for "true" knowing...can this be possible?
> So now...my "truth" sensor is recognized as askew...and that (I think some can relate)...becomes most troubling of all.
> ...



This is the part I'm trying to work with:



Israel said:


> He recommends an experiment, but it will only be an invitation to those who are convicted truth (as in concept of "God") is both knowable and also as knowable, may be _aligned to_. Here I seek to place no restriction, as I do not see any "in the Lord" against any inclined to take on the experiment. But it does demand of itself, an inward honesty...at least as regards pursuit, it cannot work any other way.
> 
> If we enter the arena of seeking to know the truth (and who, we might ask...hasn't at least dipped their toe?) I am convinced even more here of "non restriction". I can offer no help, except perhaps in this single thing of recognition of a deep commonness we either do, or do not share. The recognition of our relationship to "things".
> 
> Like words, ideas, car keys (made perhaps exquisitely clear when we cannot find them), guns (perhaps when they misfire at a ten pointer), dust (when it so cakes our computer parts to make it unbootable)...cold viruses...dogs and cats...wives...and each other. Everything is fair game so to speak unless we deny_ a relationship._ If we don't deny these, "truth" easily fits in among them. Even if we may presently have some difficulty, reluctance, loathing to say "god"...(but, by the which difficulty, reluctance, and loathing, also testify to a relationship) but do not deny us entrance to this experiment.



Green is green and I'd like to keep it that way.  If we can't then the experiment will flop.


----------



## Israel (Apr 14, 2017)

drippin' rock said:


> I think the desire to fit into a group can be distilled down to a function of survival.  As can everything we do.  Of course survival is much easier today than say 200 years ago. Where does ego fit into all that?  I'm not sure. I agree you have to "let yourself go" sometimes to see things in a different way. It has been suggested that the Sphinx predates the pyramids by as much as 10,000 years because the wear suggests years of rain damage. It has been 10,000 years since that area rained enough for that kind of damage. Sounds plausible to me, but I'm not an Egyptologist that built a career around one theory.   You find that kind of ego across many of the scientific disciplines. Someone comes along with a new theory that threatens your life's body of work, you tend to fight against it.
> 
> What truth are you looking for?  I know the color green has been a metaphor up until now in this conversation, but I would call it a truth. Green is green.  A universal truth.   Christians say the Word is the truth. That might make them feel good, but that is not a universal truth. It's a truth to their group.
> 
> I haven't read this entire thread, so if this takes things the wrong direction, my apologies. I'm just throwing things out I think of from time to time.



No you have nothing to apologize for. If anything I am sorry that my reference may have placed a burden upon you for further explanation. I agreed with what you previously said about "egos". And do, also, with most of the above.

I like that you introduced metaphor...it's also been heavy on my mind since a post by Ambush. The one in which it's stated "god" is just a sound uttered, representing to the speaker something (it seems) unutterably resistant to sharing in knowledge. In some ways I also agree with that. That's why I began to consider introducing those matters upon which we might agree..."Is thought...real?" Consciousness? Truth? We may dare not even approach this one..."love".

These things, though hard to subject to a spectrometer upon which we might all agree as universally sound to draw our final conclusions...nevertheless are responsible in lesser and greater measure for every spectrometer ever built. "Our" spectrometer(s), in that sense are totally dependent things, developed things, secondary things (if you will). The spectrometer points us toward a thing...no? Even if you will, confirms a thing we have intuited in the metaphor..."green" that we attach to a now discovered wavelength. "Ahhh, I knew there was a distinction, a difference...but I didn't know where that lie...from which it came....it is now plain "light" has wavelength, also...and I find it is different for each of the "colors" I see".

Ambush, you propose checking the date of calibration for assurance. I needn't tell you how many things like jostling, a clumsy co-worker, or god(?) forbid, a deliberately malignant technician could leave us, through intent, with a less than perfect machine, despite what the calibration sticker may state. The only sure method would be some sort of assurance of a constant calibration, whether back is turned, whether clumsy co-workers are invited in, whether the device could be secured from a malign purpose. 

In all our best efforts it seems...even and especially within ourselves a trust will either be formed...or negated. "I trust my machine" becomes moot if all these others are not somehow accounted for.
That is also a little of what I was aiming at in that "pouring" in of things long before I even knew I was going to be in some way responsible for...or responsive to...how my own machine was "built".


----------



## 660griz (Apr 14, 2017)

Israel said:


> Ambush, you propose checking the date of calibration for assurance. I needn't tell you how many things like jostling, a clumsy co-worker, or god(?) forbid, a deliberately malignant technician could leave us, through intent, with a less than perfect machine, despite what the calibration sticker may state. The only sure method would be some sort of assurance of a constant calibration, whether back is turned, whether clumsy co-workers are invited in, whether the device could be secured from a malign purpose.



That was me. There are QA steps built in. I worked in PMEL for awhile. Fascinating stuff. 
The point is, if we use the same device, no matter the calibration, we all have the same point of reference and can discuss.


----------



## Israel (Apr 14, 2017)

660griz said:


> That was me. There are QA steps built in. I worked in PMEL for awhile. Fascinating stuff.
> The point is, if we use the same device, no matter the calibration, we all have the same point of reference and can discuss.


 
Sorry if I added confusion.

I want to be circumspect in seeking to understand. For the sake of clarity do you mean, in simplest terms (to me)...our device is "mind"? It is a thing we might (perhaps must) agree to as having severally despite its (seeming, but often appearing as obvious) differing outputs individually?
We may not know how "perfect mind" appears, or if it even exists (another consideration altogether) but we must first all agree...mind is a real thing, individually, and common amongst us...to proceed?

(And since I am not quite sure of all the lingo and steps...in PMEL, are the quality assurance "steps built in"...more or less things that will not let you proceed to "a" next step without a preliminary first being met satisfactorily? So, you couldn't "print" a _Calibrated_ sticker till each and every step was vetted internally for accuracy [to that system]?)


----------

