Home » Philosophy » Science, The Scientific Method and The Workings of Creation

Science, The Scientific Method and The Workings of Creation


I get really annoyed when some people seem to think that science is ‘the answer to everything’. That if we only use science we’ll be fine. It is not like that. Thinking this makes science nothing more than another religion. Firstly, we have to distinguish between ‘science’ and ‘the scientific method’. Today, when we talk about ‘science’ we mostly think about ‘natural science’. In the beginning, though, ‘science’ and ‘philosophy’ was often used interchangeably.

Science, in today’s terms, does not have the answers to everything, and what science does have the answer to isn’t always correct. This have been proven over and over again over the millennia. Even a scientific ‘proof’ have to be believed by other scientists and society at large to be true. And even then, it might be disproved later.

There are also several different directions within the different fields within the scientific community, where some scientists agree upon one thing, while others agree upon something else. Thus, science doesn’t give any homogenous picture of the world, and is not as ‘all knowing’ as some people might believe. The scientific community, where ‘science’ comes from, is just like the rest of society, with a lot of compartments and prestige. They also live in a high degree within a created ‘paradigm’, where some things are ok to say and write, while others are taboo.

What is science, really? Commonly, philosophy isn’t regarded as ‘science’, since it deals with ‘non-provable’ concepts, deriving ‘science’ from a definition that everything has to be ‘provable’ according to a certain set of criteria. Still, I would argue that you can not have science without philosophy. Often times I hear so called scientists, highly regarded ones also, speak about ‘the age of the universe’, or ‘the distance from the earth to this or that galaxy’, measured in lightyears.

This is the same as being an ant and try to say something about the size of the planet, or even the forest it is in. It climbs up in the tallest tree and tries to look as far as possible and comes up with a measurement unit to measure the size of the forest. ‘Tree’s’ is say’s. The forest consists of so and so many trees, and this is it’s size. To me, this is humans trying to measure the ‘size of the universe’.

To say that the universe even has an age is philosophy. For it to have an age, you have to have time, and space. And you have to believe that everything you see around you actually is real, that it actually exists ‘out there’. All the physicists I’ve seen speak takes this for granted. And this is really a HUGE thing to take for granted. To build all your science upon something that you actually don’t know for sure.

A galaxy is like a rock. A rock lies there, apparently still and unmoving. A galaxy also seems to by ‘lying there’, apparently still and unmoving. Still here on earth we experience that the days and years go by from the earth’s rotation around itself and around the sun. According to scientists the earth moves around itself in the speed of about 1000 miles per hour. Hm, I use the metric system, so I would say about 1,600 km/h. Miles, kilometers, hours. It’s all created by us, by ‘scientists’.

Back to the rock that ‘lies there’. We now know that inside that rock there are atoms and particles that move around in infinite speeds. Thus, it’s not as ‘still’ as it looks like. We are in the middle of that rock, experiencing our lives. From the outside, there seems to be no movement, while being on the inside, you experience all kinds of movement. So, what is time? And what is space? These are not externally verifiable units. Time and space is subjective and experienced. Thus, everything that has been said about ‘the age of the universe’ and the ‘distance between stars’ is made up. It is fantasy. It is created in the minds of the scientists, trying to understand their experiences.

How can you know anything around you is real? The answer is; You can’t. We are creating this world as we experience it.

Science is, as stated, far from something homogenous. Science is very diverse, and there are many types of sciences.

The scientific method, on the other hand, now that is probably a better yardstick to go by, than ‘science’.

So, what is the scientific method? There are several methods within science. But the most common one is described as ‘the hypothetic deductive method’.  This method starts with a question, hypothesis or theory, and from that question one deduces certain logical consequences that are testable and verifiable by others. After testing one draws conclusions and determine whether the theory is true or false. It’s a pretty simple and straight forward method, and it is the method that have been utilized to build the world we have today. It is good and sound and gives answers to many things.

Still, it is highly dependent of the creativity of the researcher. The questions asked and theories derived can only be as good and deep as the mindset and ability of the scientist. A scientist with a closed mind gets one type of results, while a scientist with an open mind gets another type of results. It has been proven many times that different scientist with different theories about the same subject gets different results when testing. They get results supporting their own theory.

And this leads us to quantum physics. Science have gotten so far now, that the most open minded (and even a good deal of the closed minded ones too) now acknowledges that we, humans, are affecting the world around us, simply by being in it, thinking, feeling, talking, acting and having an intent. And this is proven in many experiments in several fields. It is proven that when particles are observed, they are influenced by the observer.

We are all co-creating this universe through our own thoughts. Even though scientists have researched, tested, researched and tested again, trying to seek out the truth, thinking, and thinking again, they haven’t thought about the one thing that obviously plays a big part in this: Thought itself. Now, though, even science, is acknowledging this. That our thoughts and our intent is crucial to the results we get.

So, what does this all mean? If science per se is not the answer to everything, then what is?

We are.

We are the ones who are creating everything through our minds, desires, intents, thoughts, feelings, words and actions. Not science. Not religion. Not money. Not God.

We.

So, we have to ask ourselves: What do we want, then? What kind of world do we really want?

Sure, we can take the scientific method and use it for what it’s worth. We can listen to science, but not make a religion out of it. We can listen to religions but not be blinded by it. We can listen to spirituality and not be overtaken by it.

But most of all, we can listen to our selves. Build up trust in our selves. Because we all have the same ability to give answers than anyone else. Not in the same fields, maybe, but that’s not the point. We all have the same ability to create. We are all creators by default. Because simply by thinking, experiencing and acting in this world, we create. We can not not create. It is impossible. Every interpretation of something is a creation. Every step is a creation. Every movement is a creation on some level. Every thought is a creation. And what you think about yourself creates yourself. And what we think about the world creates the world.

Now is the time for co-creation and trust in ourselves. We create by choosing consciously what we want to focus on. What we focus on we get more of. And the only limit is our imagination. If it can be imagined, it can be created.

So let’s imagine the world we want and create it together. This is what it is all about. Putting our trust to ‘science’ is again putting our trust to someone or something outside of ourselves, just like we’ve done with religion for so many years.

Now, the turn has come to us. And when I say ‘us’, I mean all of us. You, me, scientists, artists, everyone. We are the ones who now will create this world and our future together. And it will happen by someone proposing suggestions to what the future can be like, to what our society can be like, and we will all take more or less part in giving feedback, coming up with new creations, tweaking and developing.

The one major new idea we have before us now is a society without money. Even the greatest scientists of the times seems to have taken money and the monetary system for granted. For something that has had to be there, like air. Something that it has been impossible to be without.

Now has the time come to imagine a world without this thing called ‘money’, and without the usual notions of ‘ownership’ and ‘property’. And we are now faced with the challenge of imagining and creating how this world will work and how we can move from where we are now to where we want to be. ‘Science’ alone will not get us there, but using it as the tool it is, I highly recommend.

All this said, I think this guy deepens my point:

YouTube Preview Image

Tags: , ,

16 Responses so far.

  1. john says:

    Although started by Theists and modern science by Christians because they knew God was a designer and lawmaker it has been taken over by Atheists who essentially fit the profile of a serial killers convention. Many people dont understand that in Science scholarships, Theists overwhelmingly choose Medicine(MD’s) and atheists chose feilds of scientific “Origins”.

    They are so dishonest they claim only smart people are atheists(not serial killers, porn moguls, hitler youth, skin heads, herion addicts, death metal bands..they must be brilliant too…ha) when there are 700,000 MDs in the USA alone who have an 11 year science degree and are 75% theists, verses only 18000 physicist which only requires a 4 years degree and are overwhelmingly atheists.

    They have taken over science because believers already know where we came from and have no compulsion to sit alone for hours like hermits searching for an answer they already have. So it makes perfect sense why atheists populate these occupations.

    They have turned the search for truth into their own little antiGod social misfit club and even though they have had proof the universe is designed for 40 years they hid it from the public behind embarrassing theories that belong in comic books and in the midst of these weirdos are honest open minded seekers of truth that are outcast belittled and trashed for questioning the high priest, grand poobah exalted mystic rulers of a 4×4 cubicle of socially awkward obsessive compulsive arrogance that is somehow convinced that the overwhelming majority of mankind is crazy

  2. Daniel Ku Ricardo says:

    WE HAVE ALWAYS LIVED IN A DREAM TIME, AS THE ABORIGINALS OF AUSTRALIA DESCRIBED

  3. JustinG says:

    Richard

    I also really like your numbers analogy.

    Even when one considers only whole numbers, one can still see infinite numbers. However there is no denying that the negative numbers exist.

    Similarly, although you consider God to be distinct from you and to work ‘on you’ It would surely be hard as a christian for you to categorically deny that that god resides in you and works through you from time to time.

    And just as fractions and decimals make up the whole, Jesus is a fraction of the whole. Just as all the other fractions are a fraction of the whole, and although you may only accept one fraction as a valid part of the whole. All of the other fractions will still make the whole. I don’t believe there’s a single verse in the bible that can dispute that.

    The problem with so many religious indoctrinations is that they attempt; and all too often succeed in separating their subjects from their God. Of course this is only natural. How could they stand as an intermediary between God and man if God and man were one???

    Personally I can’t imagine how awful it would feel to be separated from my God.

  4. Richard says:

    I think you’ve got it wrong to simply suppose that the universe is nothing more than the product of collective consciousness. Yes, of course humanity has done great things, created technology and structures and shaped the environment in many ways to our own needs. Yet sometimes, circumstances get the better of us. We can, for example, build all the flood defences we like, but that won’t stop the water from rising. That this happens proves, in some way, that there is a reality beyond what we create.

    Or take science. Yes, we construct theories and models to explain our findings, and in a way, we set up the experiments to find out what we want to find out, but what is found out is not always what we want. When Michelson amnd Morley set up their interferometer experiments to measure how the earth moves through the aether (whihc was at the time used to describe the hypothetical substance through which light moved, and it was assumed that light could be observed to move relative to the position of the earth)- what did they find? No relative motion, which was explained by no aether. This was one of many pointers at the time towards the existence of Einsteinian relativity.

    Where then does all this leave us? Firstly, I would say that science is not an infalliable guide to reality- of course it isn’t. It is not absoluter reality, but neither is it simply a human construct. What it is is a way of creating the best subjective approximation of absolute reality as we can make it. (Yes, in some sense physical reality is relative- but not to our minds, but to our physical frame of reference. And yes, there is uncertainty in the quantum world, but it is uncertainty within certain limits.) So you are right in saying that science is something we can learn from, but only within limits- but I wouldn’t start off with the humanism just yet.

    Not that this ought to prevent the idea of an RBE/ non-monetary economy- indeed money is a human, social construct- not necessary, but simply a means of exchange or store of value society has at certain points of history decided was useful, and can perhaps be rejected in favour of something better. That’s one thing we *can* change.

    You also seem to somehow reject the idea of God as well in this article- as a Christian I certainly don’t go with that. I know that God is very real, and has shown himself many times over in history, most fully in the form of the man Jesus. If you ae prepared to look, there are many miracles and lives being changed eve n now, which point to the reality of this God. And assuming this is true, would it not be right to look to God, who really is in charge of creation, and not simply our own limited efforts?

    • admin says:

      Well, it depends on how you define ‘God’. And if you tell me that ‘God’ is undefinable or ‘defines itself’, well, then it is still you who is defining ‘God’. In a very vague way, that is, but still, a definition.

      If you say that ‘God’ is the ‘force’, ‘person’ or ‘energy’ that created everything, it is still YOU who is defining ‘God’.

      There’s no way around this. WE are defining God however we look at it.

      I am not saying ‘there is no God’. Absolutely not. What I say is that ‘I define “God” as “everything that IS and everything that IS NOT”.

      Thus, God is everything to me. God is in everything and outside of everything. We are a part of God and God is a part of us. God is both the Process of Life and the Absolute (if there is any ‘absolute). God is matter and antimatter, planets and galaxies, sunsets and sunrises, beauty and ugliness. Everything.

      God is in me and God is in you. You are in God and I am in God. God is the Universe. God is the Multiverse. God is every thought ever thought by anyone ever lived. God is Love. God is eternity. God is Now. God is Never. God is the juicy life force that penetrates everything and makes everything grow. God is the rotting carcasses and plant material turning in to black soil. God is consciousness. God is unconsciousness.

      God is the bacteria. God is the Sun. God is the wind. God is the rain. God is the summer. God is the winter. God is the gentle breeze. God is the tornado. God is atom. God is the supernova. God is the source. God is the ocean. God is ‘good’ and God is ‘evil’. Understanding that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are of course terms made up by us. Just like the term ‘God’.

      To me, if one defines God as anything less than absolutely everything, including nothing, one has reduced ‘God’ to something that fits a limited mind, which absolutely does not fit God. At least not my God.

      And if you think ‘miracles’, ‘synchronicity’, ‘healing’ and the likes are credits of God, you’re of course absolutely right, as this ‘God’ that we are talking about is all mighty, totally unlimited.

      And we are a part of this ‘God’, and this ‘God’ is a part of us. This ‘God’ is the unimaginable huge consciousness that has created this Uni/multiverse. We are a part of this consciousness and this consciousness is a part of us.

      And the term ‘consciousness’ is the key. We live our lives on different levels of consciousness (read ‘God’), being aware of different things. And this whole life is truly a ‘play of consciousness’. We all experience different things with our minds. When we sleep, we dream. When we are ‘awake’, we experience another world.

      Sometimes, time can seem to go very slowly. Other times, ‘time flies’. Two people can experience the same movie totally differently. When you close your eyes, you can observe your thoughts. Your thoughts. Where does they come from? They can be words, pictures, smells, feelings, stories, ideas. If you meditate on one thought, or simply let all thoughts go, you will experience something else. What? Bliss? God? Consciousness? Does the world really exist?

      The point is that ‘like attracts like’. Everything is vibration. Frequencies. Energy. And thoughts and feelings are energy. This energy is reflected in the lives of the people who have those thoughts and feelings and results in ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ experiences. Has ‘God’ anything to do with this? Yes, of course. God is everything. God is in them, and they are in God. But God does of course not favor one over another. God has no interest what so ever. God only reflects every person’s innermost dreams and wishes. The person’s true wishes, that is. The wishes that has the strongest energy, whether the are fears or joys.

      This is how ‘miracles’ happens. If a person has a strong conviction, not superficial, but believed and felt in the depth of that person, anything can happen. The only reason we can’t fly (with our physical bodies, and without wings or air balloons, that is), is that no one believes (read ‘knows’) it strongly enough. No one has experienced it. Some yogis has claimed to levitate, and they might have. But this sounds too unbelievable to most people, so they won’t go on trying it themselves.

      But this is what it is all about. ‘Believability’. We have to be able to believe and visualize something to actually do it. And this is what this blog is all about.

      Building up believable images about a new world. A world without money. A just world for everyone. A world only imagined by very few people on this planet.

      We have to get this world into our collective consciousness. This is how creation happens. It is a process of visualization. Developing ideas. This Process of Creation IS God. It is ‘God in us’ that gives us ideas and images to create in this ‘physical world’. We are not apart from God. ‘God’ isn’t some remote entity that ‘created this world’ one time long ago. No, God is the eternal Process of developing consciousness. God is Life. Life is God. Life is Good. We are Life. We are God.

      • Richard says:

        Well, fine ideas, but I must disagree to a large extent. My understanding is of a personal God, who is the creator of the universe and yet independent from it. Infinite and incomprehensible, but still, in some small way, knowable as one knows a person. And some claim to know Him. If we assume such an omnipotent being, then anythng is possible for Him. We, however, are limited, finite beings.

        How does not defining God as “everything” limit Him? I don’t think so. I’ll use as an analogy the theory of infinite sets: imagine the set of all positive whole numbers, or 1, 2, 3… How many numbers are in that set? Infinity. Now imagine, say, if we included 0, or -1, -2, -3… or even fractions/decimals- numbers smaller than whole numbers. We’d essentially have a clearly much ‘bigger’ set, but it is still infinite. If God is infinite, then that does not stop there from being that which is distinct in nature.

        Attempting to deify life, or anything that is in essence nature, doesn’t even make a huge deal of sense to me. We are essentially deifying something, worshipping something, which is not essentially greater than what we are and the environment around us. No doubt that leads to all manner of pride, and of (I think) believing of ourselves more highly than we ought to think. This seems to be in some sense your mentality- as if (to reference the old tale) King Cnut really could command the waves to obey him, and they would.

        What I would say however, is what the Bible talks about us being created in the image of God. I sometimes do take this to mean we have the ability to be creative, to have some sense of free will and to exercise it to shape our destinies. I don’t believe this in some supernatural way- as it were, we can’t command the waves to retreat, but we can build sea walls. I don’t deny it might be possible to change, fundamentally, the way we order society- if we really want to. But then, it won’t entirely get rid of the sin nature- only through Jesus’ death on the cross, can that be effected.

        I have read of theories something like what you describe which do relate toknown ideas of zero-point or vacuum energy (known physical principles) somehow being harnessed or manipulated, but I’m skeptical. I even know some Christians who claim to believe in abilities relating to faith, similar to what you describe. But, I also think there are entities out there who are quite willing to create miraculous happenings, counterfeits to draw us away from the true God.

        • admin says:

          You have some good points there, with number sequences, reducing your God to numbers. But why not? Have you seen this?: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzfgq1zv8jg Numbers explaining ‘everything’. Still, I don’t see any point in continuing this discussion, as from experience, I don’t get anywhere with christians anyway. Especially not when they start quoting the Bible, which can be interpreted in a multitude of ways, and can not be a basis for any logical discussion. I say as I quoted on FB once:

          “I don’t care what ones personal faith is. One could believe in the Holy Chicken of Antioc, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or nothing at all. The fundamental question is this: Are you a good person, do you treat others well and with respect, do you wish for ALL mankind to live positive, fruitful lives of personal fulfillment and purpose, and do you do this without caring one bit what their personal faith (or lack of faith) is? If so, then it’s all good. Moving forward…”

          So, I respect your personal God belief, as long as you respect other peoples beliefs as well.

          In the end, I’m all about WHAT WORKS to build a sustainable loving and sharing world that works for everyone. God or no God.

          Namaste (it means ‘the God in me sees the God in you’)

          • Richard says:

            Just to let you know, I wasn’t “reducing my God to numbers”- I was using an analogy, much like Jesus used parables to explain something about God and His kingdom. Obviously God cannot be reduced.

            Obviously I’m not going to force you or anyone else to become Christian, and nor am I going to judge those who will not. We are still commanded to love our neighbours whoever they are (even if they are our enemies!) But I still think it *is* imprtant what people believe, as I consider this to reflect basic truth, and what happens to people in the context of eternity. If there truly is a personal God who is our creator, it is reasonale to suppose He expects things of us, and it is important to ensure that what we believe about Him is right. Moreover, it means there is no way to be truly personally fulfilled without knowing God and being in personal relationship with Him.

            This does not however mean that any effort on the part of anyone, believer or no, to work for the good of others and to seek a better world is in itself a bad thing, or that we should not work together as a society, as a human race to do what we can. (That also means I don’t consider the RBE as an idea, or at least an ideal to aspire to is not in itself a bad thing, something I refuse to consider, if it works; rather that attempts by it’s proponents to go against or marginalise what I believe- and the Zeitgeist movies in particular stand out for this kind of thing- is what I am opposed to.)

            Nor do I think it reasonable to supposehat the basic meaning of hte Bible is not plain to those who are willing to consider it, and whilst there are certain areas over which there will always be uncertainty and inability to understand, most is simply the misunderstandings or stubborn beliefs of certain people.

            And since you would rather leave the subject, I will also leave it at that.

  5. instinct says:

    What a nice article, great thoughts in there and personally I think you are right and had to post this article on my website, have a look if you like, www.instinctmovement.com

    “Certainly, this world is merely a dream. A dream dreamt by the whole population of this planet. Hey, what happened to ‘oneness’? Well, on ‘the other side’, we are also divided, but less divided than here. There’s another side to the ‘other side’ as well. There’s no end to the universe. Just like a fractal picture that has eternity in it, the universe never ends. It is One Whole, but that whole is divided into parts that each contain the whole. ”

    Also beautiful.

  6. admin says:

    You don’t have to agree with this article. This is my opinion, and I don’t have to be ‘right’.

    What I believe is that we are all part of One consciousness, however ‘new agey’ that sounds. I don’t care what it sounds.

    I wanted to ‘state my case’ in regards to this, since I think an expression of these thoughts are lacking in The Zeitgeist Movement. I also think that having a feeling of oneness is crucial to feel real compassion for each other and really feel that what I do for others I do for myself, which I think is paramount in a resource based economy.

    Thinking in terms of ‘oneness’, though, does far from interfere with a scientific approach to things, as long as science does not become another new ‘religion’, as stated.

    Science is what is helping us describing and creating this world/illusion by giving us firm thoughts of possibilities. And we need those thoughts to create our world.

    Thoughts are the creating entities. And we need all the minds on this planet to think together about how our world can be.

    When it comes to the dilemma whether there ‘is something out there’ or not, I would definitely say that there ‘is something out there’ within this illusion. Yes, there is something out there, but that doesn’t mean that whatever is out there is more real than whatever you experience in a dream.

    Certainly, this world is merely a dream. A dream dreamt by the whole population of this planet. Hey, what happened to ‘oneness’? Well, on ‘the other side’, we are also divided, but less divided than here. There’s another side to the ‘other side’ as well. There’s no end to the universe. Just like a fractal picture that has eternity in it, the universe never ends. It is One Whole, but that whole is divided into parts that each contain the whole.

    When we ‘die’ and leave these bodies we will see that we are much much greater than we could ever imagine living our lives on this planet. We might not discover this after our first lives here, but eventually, we will gather up the parts of our consciousness and ‘pull ourselves together again’.

    When we realize as a consciousness part here on earth that we are much much bigger than we think, and we realize that what I do for others I actually do for my self, this world will change. Truly change.

    If we are to introduce a new system like a resource based economy without a true understanding of oneness, it will simply fail. Greed will take it’s course again. Some people will hoard more than others. There will be new fighting and strife, and the whole shebang will start all over again. New wars. More fighting.

    We have to look at this world as a whole for RBE to ever work. We can not look at it only ‘scientifically’ and manage and distribute resources fairly and think everyone will be happy. Because everyone will not be happy if they have a poor understanding of Self.

    This is also why I wrote this article. I think I will write more articles on this topic, and anyone are welcome to comment. We obviously need this discussion.

  7. craig says:

    You seem to lack the basic reflexive consciousness needed to analyze your own writing.

    You claim we create our world entirely, ie there is nothing out there, a form of extreme neo-Kantian solipsism. Which is popular today and is the catechism du jour for the postmodernist non-thinker, created to save a “certain ideology” from extinction by scientific discoveries, the new age movement is full of all these ideas.

    “And in the end you claim that if we can’t know if anything outside us exists, we then need ‘political force’ to tell us what truth will be? What kind of reasoning is that? It is a totally illogical argument without basis”

    It is the logical progression of rational thought, political science and human nature. If we all create our world, ie an extreme form of Polylogism, ie there are many consciousnesses, then there can be no truths. We have nothing in common; we are lost in a solipsistic fog. The only solution to this is a consensus formed by a center of power, which will determine what truth will be. One only has to look at history to see the truth of this. Otherwise society is impossible as everyone has the Truth themselves and it contradicts everyone else’s truths and thus depolarizes us.

    “The logical consequence of not knowing if anything exists, is that ‘I create everything myself’. That is the ONLY logical consequence of this. Because if there is ‘nothing out there’, then there is only ‘me’, thus ‘I’ can be the only creator of whatever might be ‘out there’. ‘I’ will be the creator also of any ‘political force’ telling me what to believe. Now, this is scientific logic in praxis. If you want to stick to the scientific method, you can’t refute this. “
    It is refutable as it is illogical. If you are the only determiner of truth and you will decide for you what truth is as you create all truth, and of course I will do the same thing, we are back in an endless circle of which there is no escape. You haven’t escaped the conundrum I presented to you; you are still on the philosophical hamster wheel. You are using an extreme form of scientism, as the rest of your post shows. You misuse quantum physics to uphold irrationality. If I think therefore I am, you are left in the problem that Descartes was too stupid to see. You end up with 6.5 billion people pointing at themselves as the center of all truth. Thus anything you say I can refute as it goes against my truth and since your truth is just as good as my truth I can discount everything you say as an untruth. So in the end there is no such thing as truth as Truth, big T, must be a knowable and quantifiable property which everyone using reason can come to know, since in your world it isn’t you have just invalidated the entire concept. So you might as well just say, There are no truths.
    “Still, there is no way you can prove that there is something out there. “
    If there is nothing out there, then there is nothing to measure, nothing to research, nothing to quantify, nothing to invent, thus all science and any endeavor like it is futile. Since philosophy has not gotten us anywhere, has invented nothing, has spent its entire history musing on non-essentials, it is worthless. Yet you stand on it as a firm foundation against rational science. Also you refuse to see that science is universal, all of its tenants are discoverable by whatever sentient beings seek the mysteries of the universe itself. If your extreme solipsism was correct there would be many version of science and all of them would work, each depending on the consciousness that changes the universe by its very observation. You are in the realm of myth, fable and magic. Mere belief covered with sentiment all designed to escape existential realities.
    Those who can, go into the hard sciences. Those who Kant, go into philosophy!
    And Yes I can prove there is something out there, stand in front of a speeding train, if there is nothing out there you will live, if there is you will die. One way or the other I will prove to you that there is something out there.
    But your entire article has one major problem, You yourself have just undermined the entire Zeitgeist movement whose basic tenant is to use empirical science for societal change and management. Since you have denigrated empirical science, there is no basis anymore for a rational management of resources. The very problems I pointed out to my local Zeitgeist movement org, has now come true in spades. Eventually the denial of the validity of any “valid” economics would expand to include science as well as you cannot attack rationality in one sphere without attacking it in all spheres.
    You are a prime example of the logical evolution of this valid rational conclusion

    • admin says:

      Hi Craig,

      Thank’s for your reply. Quite amusing, since you confirm about everything I mean, almost as if I would have said it myself.

      You are 100% correct in stating that there are no absolute truths. And indeed, that is the only Truth. And yes, all scientific research is ‘futile’ in terms of looking for One Absolute Truth. Again, this has been proven many times over the history. It should be quite proven that this ‘world’ is malleable to a certain degree. Not too many years ago, it was flat, and now it is round. Pretty big transformation if you ask me. You could of course argue that the world was ‘always’ round, but that we simply didn’t see it. And looking back this seems totally correct. We didn’t see it. In the exact same way, we will discover that this world is also an illusion. And when we discover that (which science is about to do), we will look back at ourselves and laugh a bit, just as we do now about thinking the world was flat.

      Living in this illusion, though, doesn’t mean we can’t use science and scientific principles. Far from it. Science is our way of describing and creating this illusion. Religion used to be it, but science took over.

      When I say ‘I’ create everything, it is an understatement there, which you haven’t grasped. And that is that it can only be One ‘I’. Seemingly, we are many creating this world, and on the level we perceive, we certainly are. Still, behind the curtain, on the ‘other side’, we are One. This world is this One consciousness experiencing itself in multitude and diversity.

      And your train example is of course valid if you only think of ‘reality’ as what you can perceive with your senses.

      This is a discussion about ‘where’ our consciousness is. Where is it? In our brains?

      I think your answers will be ‘yes’ to that.

    • admin says:

      Here’s some quotes from you, Craig:

      “Otherwise society is impossible as everyone has the Truth themselves and it contradicts everyone else’s truths and thus depolarizes us.”

      Exactly. This is exactly how society is, if you haven’t noticed. We are all having different experiences and opinions about the world ‘out there’ to some degree. We have to, since we are all seeing it from our own personal perspectives.

      “You end up with 6.5 billion people pointing at themselves as the center of all truth. Thus anything you say I can refute as it goes against my truth and since your truth is just as good as my truth I can discount everything you say as an untruth. So in the end there is no such thing as truth as Truth, big T, must be a knowable and quantifiable property which everyone using reason can come to know, since in your world it isn’t you have just invalidated the entire concept. So you might as well just say, There are no truths.”

      Correct again. There are no truths. And that is the only truth. Reality is a big paradox my friend. Everything is true and untrue at the same time. Something can be true in a certain time period, at a certain place or under certain conditions. But it doesn’t have to be true forever under the same conditions. Truth changes all the time.

      “Since philosophy has not gotten us anywhere, has invented nothing, has spent its entire history musing on non-essentials, it is worthless.”

      Hehe…amusing. “philosophy has not gotten us anywhere”. Wow. How do you come up with statements like these? I’m amazed. Philosophy was equal to science in the beginning of the history of science. “Philosophy” means ‘rational thought’. Without philosophy we wouldn’t have any science. There would be no grounds for logical reasoning. The whole scientific method builds on philosophy.

      “If your extreme solipsism was correct there would be many version of science and all of them would work, each depending on the consciousness that changes the universe by its very observation. You are in the realm of myth, fable and magic. Mere belief covered with sentiment all designed to escape existential realities.”

      A few hundred years ago you would have said that I was in the realm of myth, fable and magic if I stated that the world was round. Not to speak of that it was not the center of the universe. If I am in the realm of myth, fable and magic, I would say that you are in the realm of fear, ignorance and misguided logic.

      “And Yes I can prove there is something out there, stand in front of a speeding train, if there is nothing out there you will live, if there is you will die. One way or the other I will prove to you that there is something out there.”

      You are really afraid of this concept of ‘nothing out there’, aren’t you. Try to ‘kill’ yourself in front of a train and you will see. Yes, the train exists in this illusion, and yes your illusional body will be hit. In this illusion. Just like in a dream, you experience this world. Yes, there is something ‘out there’. Except whatever is ‘out there is You.

      When you ‘die’ your consciousness lives on. “You” lives on with the personality you have. We have all ‘dived’ into this world as consciousnesses, entering bodies to give us vehicles to experience this world with. When we ‘die’ it’s like a computer game where you have ‘more lives’. You can choose to go back to where you were just before you ‘died’ and choose again, or you can move on.

      There are thousands of similar stories functioning as a heavy body of circumstantial evidence that confirms the previous statement. There are also thousands of ‘channeled’ recordings and transcripts that does the same. There are hundreds of volumes of information that is not ‘main stream’, but have information about consciousness, reincarnation and ‘life after death’ that says the same things, written by different authors. These writings stem from both thousands of years back, like the Upanishads, to more recent writings. To dismiss all of this can only be equaled with extreme arrogance and self imposed ignorance, or simply, fear.

      There’s a lot more to this world than what you can ever dream of. Not least what you can perceive with your senses. Truth develops constantly. Always. All the time. There’s no constant truth. If you think that, even as a scientist, or especially as a scientist, you’re doomed.

  8. evolutis says:

    The current monetary belief system produces great quantities of misinformation under the guise of simpleminded complexities. The very same system, then makes demands on us to use the misinformation it generates, to care for our planet and ourselves. The end result is to place us far outside our limitations. Make no mistake, our limitations are dictated by nature. not the mythical monetary construct.

    You where born a problem solver. A steady but not overwhelming, use of one’s own critical thinking should allow you maintain a low profile, and in so doing, not have to pack around a belief that may in turn, weaken your critical thinking. Relying on your individual and awesome capability to intercept the limitless flow of energy and information nature issues provides you a way forward, not an answer to be turned into a belief system.

    We need to go back within our limitations; to accessing nature’s information and energy. Forget the quest for answers; they are dead ends that pretend to predict the future. We are nose pickers, pretending to be stock pickers … Therein lays the rub. As long as we screw with the misinformation of the monetary pig we cannot sustain; We step outside our limitations.

  9. craig says:

    This article was only the eventual natural response (devolution) in a line of reasoning that began with a supposed inherent attachment to empirical science by the Zeitgeist coupled with emotional loopholes as escape hatches. The result is now postmodernist thought in an extreme solipsistic case.

    This entire article is the apparent degeneration of German idealist philosophy in the academy and ending on the shores of nihilistic subjectivism. Bravo, you have now proved our case entirely!

    Every form of modern neo-socialism cannot stand the light or reality and true science and even when adhering to Scientism, the resulting burn on its fingers requires it to run to the soothing balm of metaphysics. We have come now full circle and are back to theology. The very thing I warned the local Zeitgeist community would happen if they didn’t correct the inherent contradictions and errors in the Orientation guide.

    Since our young people are not taught any form of rational thought, irrational emotive surmising will take its place. You have now proven my fears entirely correct.

    For those of you who are one minded and want to get to the depth of things I offer the following links

    Economic Controversies mises.org/books/economic_controversies_rothbard.pdf

    See Section One, chapters 1, 3,4, & 8

    Also see The Counter Revolution of Science, by F.A Hayek

    I recommend the entire work. www.archive.org/details/counterrevolutio030197mbp

    If everything outside of you doesn’t exist and everything is a fiction, then there can be no truths and your truths have no basis to believe just like any other truth. Thus potlcial force must arise to tell us all what truth will be. Postmodernism eventually leads to tyranny.

    • admin says:

      I think you have this all upside down my friend.

      You say I am ‘surmising’ when I say that ‘we’ create our world. Doesn’t our history prove that? That humans have created their world through their thoughts, words and actions? What more proof do you need for that? All our technology is created through our thoughts, words and actions. All our houses, cars, planes, boats and everything that we use everyday is created by us.

      And in the end you claim that if we can’t know if anything outside us exists, we then need ‘political force’ to tell us what truth will be? What kind of reasoning is that? It is a totally illogical argument without basis.

      The logical consequence of not knowing if anything exists, is that ‘I create everything myself’. That is the ONLY logical consequence of this. Because if there is ‘nothing out there’, then there is only ‘me’, thus ‘I’ can be the only creator of whatever might be ‘out there’. ‘I’ will be the creator also of any ‘political force’ telling me what to believe. Now, this is scientific logic in praxis. If you want to stick to the scientific method, you can’t refute this.

      The only scientific logical way to refute this is to change the premises, saying that I KNOW that there is something out there, and then deduct consequences out of that. And that is of course what the scientific community has done all along, when doing research on planets and stars and what have you. Still, there is no way you can prove that there is something out there. Philosophers (yes, philosophers not ‘scientists) have been trying to logically prove this over the millennia. Descartes said that ‘I think, therefore I am’. Now, even this didn’t prove ‘anything to be out there’, but is probably the closest statement you can get to a proof of that.

      Kant acknowledged that we can’t know anything is out there and that space and time are pure forms of intuition. Quantum physics acknowledges this now also, saying that ‘reality is only a probability’. You can not know anything for sure, and reality is influenced/created by our own intents, whether conscious or non-conscious.

Top