10
   

What is Proof?

 
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 May, 2018 11:07 am
@brianjakub,
Let me answer.

1. No idea.
2. No idea.
3. No idea.
4. No idea.
5. No idea.
6. No idea.

The difference between us is 'honesty'.

Speculation is NOT proof.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 May, 2018 11:25 am
@mark noble,
How do you pick up your paycheck if you don't know who you are?
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 May, 2018 11:35 am
@brianjakub,
Your identity is a label.
Prescribed.

You're either pretending to be stupid - Or are so.

Fine.

We need no longer interact.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 May, 2018 12:09 pm
@mark noble,
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I meant that tongue in cheek.

Once everyone agrees to a name-- it is who you are. That is why we have birth certificates.

Back when people believed in God they brought a child to be baptized before God and that name was assigned to that person forever as an objective truth.

Information is information. As the written word and the printing press was developed men tried to keep the meanings of words consistent and, dictionaries meant something. Lately, cultures seem to change the meanings of words to whats popular at the time. We must remember that all words have one purpose, to provide a means for mankind to understand and experience reality.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2018 12:07 am
@brianjakub,
Laughing Crass statements like 'information is information' indiciate that you have no idea how language relates to what we call 'reality'.
Your respondent above is merely indicating the well known view of one's 'name' being a marker for 'social expectations connected to an individual'. Different names (e.g. nicknames) involve different social identities. Your own view is that of a 'naive realist' who believes that 'reality' is 'out there' and described by 'words'. The accepted view of philosoohers of language is that languge serves to construct what we call 'reality' which amounts to a shared web of social interactions and expectations.. A corruption of this, at a simplistic level, can be observed by the ideas of religionists who imagine 'The Word' originating from 'God' (the Big Constructor). The 'word magic' of prayer and ritual chanting is related to this level. At the secular level, 'hypnosis' cashes in on the powerful constructivity of language.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2018 06:26 am
@fresco,
God creates reality we manipulate it. When God creates a word and tells us what it means that's what it means there is no other interpretation his is 100% correct. When he spoke the universe into existence a hydrogen Atom was a hydrogen Atom always in a gold Atom was a gold Atom always. He determined the ontology of the matter he created. To make sure we understood the meaning of his words he became a human and manipulated the creation that he made so that we could see how he interpreted it. And then he sent the interpreter (the Holy Spirit on Pentecost Sunday) to help us after he left.

When a person says a word what it means to that person Is what it means. Unfortunately some people (me included )aren't very good expressing what they're thinking and words and saw back-and-forth With other people is necessary to clarify the meaning.

God created rituals because rituals or experiences and experiences or how people come to understand. People create rituals also. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between a God created ritual adamant created ritual. But since Jesus was God if he created a ritual it is created for us to experience God by experiencing forgiveness for our sins and then inserting his perfection into our body so we can experience the perfection he established at the beginning of the universe before it got screwed up by sin.

It is a good story that ends in nothing but goodness because everybody gets what they want. just ask the Holy Spirit the great interpreter to open your eyes you can see and understand it
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2018 06:58 am
@fresco,
We don't use words to construct reality. Reality existed long before humans came on the scene. We use words to experience reality. Reality that existed before we got here. Time plays a factor in the physical World. How can you use words to construct something that already existed and, had meaning to God before we were put here?
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2018 07:26 am
@brianjakub,
You didn't offend me. I'm ego-free.
Yet, I'll not waste time (Respective "Now's") in circular combat with prescription-Based realities.

A colleague, I've been tutoring in 'let's say 'spiritual' (Source) enlightenment', lately (And this fella has followed every step, watched every link, memorised lyrics to (A particular musician) songs - Gone the distance), told me 'I'd changed' when I told him not to recite the latest 'Trump' bollux (CLOWN-NEWS) at me.

He, after all his studenting, didn't even grasp the concept of change.

He thought he just had to follow a process, remain as he is, and wisdom, knowledge, understanding, et al - Would just turn-up.

I did get him to grow a huge 'pirate-beard' (Which is funny) NOT for my own humour! Because his 'curled-up' giant moustache hides his nosering.

Anyway - Unignored.
Now type something I'm not expecting...?
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2018 07:47 am
@brianjakub,
Define 'God', Please, Brian?

You've Thus applied characteristics - He, Creator, teacher, perfection, speech, translator (Why?) (Sideview - Making everything cryptic and intangible is NOT 'Perfect' translation).

And I've lost interest.

EVERYTHING IS EVERYTHING
And I'ts EVERYWHERE at Once.

GOD IS EVERYTHING = EVERYTHING IS GOD.

All you need do to understand (An ever-changing God) is to UNDERSTAND "EVERYTHING".

And that's what "EVERYTHING'S" doing. Trying to UNDERSTAND Itself. Smile
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2018 01:13 pm
@brianjakub,
Since 'time' is a psychological construction which is dispensible in frontier physics, your argument regarding 'before' is another anthropomorphic construction. All human imagination of 'scenario's before observers' involves the sleight of hand of ignoring that such scenarios are in the mind's eye of a current observer, and constructed for current (retrodictive) purposes.
But I am wasting my time trying to penetrate your screen of self hypnotic word magic. You are not going to delve any deeper than your version of naive realism and will cvontinue to ignore the fact that yours is merely one ad hoc variant amongst many.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 May, 2018 04:00 pm
@fresco,
Time is a psychological construct that existed before psychology. It existed when the first spinning particle came into existence. Before that time could be considered meaningless because without something physically moving there is nothing to relate time to. If there is a conscience that existed before matter started spinning (God for instance) He still would have psycologically conceived time I suspect but, am not sure.

Quote:
Naïve realism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the psychological theory called "naïve realism", see naïve realism (psychology)

Naïve realism argues we perceive the world directly
In philosophy of mind, naïve realism, also known as direct realism or common sense realism, is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are. Objects obey the laws of physics and retain all their properties whether or not there is anyone to observe them.[1] They are composed of matter, occupy space and have properties, such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste and colour, that are usually perceived correctly. . .


I prefer to be labeled as someone who uses common sense realism rather than naive realism. I take naive realism as an insult.

wiki
Quote:
. . . Realism in physics refers to the fact that any physical system must have definite properties whether measured/observed or not. Physics up to the 19th century was always implicitly and sometimes explicitly taken to be based on philosophical realism.

Scientific realism in classical physics has remained compatible with the naïve realism of everyday thinking on the whole but there is no known, consistent way to visualize the world underlying quantum theory in terms of ideas of the everyday world. "The general conclusion is that in quantum theory naïve realism, although necessary at the level of observations, fails at the microscopic level."[16]. . .


If you look at the structure of the false vacuium and matter I provide in embeddeddimesions.com you will see that I have provided a way to visualize the world underlying quantum theory in terms of ideas of the everyday world. I did that by using common sense because, that's all it takes.

fresco
Quote:
But I am wasting my time trying to penetrate your screen of self hypnotic word magic. You are not going to delve any deeper than your version of naive realism and will cvontinue to ignore the fact that yours is merely one ad hoc variant amongst many.


Yeah, but mine actually works to explain why the constants are what they are, and why the physical forces exist as they do.

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2018 05:52 am
@brianjakub,
Smile Definitely a very naive realist, if you think 'common sense' has anything to do with QM.

Dream on !
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2018 08:07 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Definitely a very naive realist, if you think 'common sense' has anything to do with QM.


Yeah, gut instinct tells you there's so such thing.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 May, 2018 10:34 am
@brianjakub,
If you add just a single droplet of water, a grain of salt, a single atom - To an ocean - The WHOLE ocean rises upon the introduction thereof.

And the 'Non-Ocean' realm from whence sprung 'said' addition - reduces upon loss of 'said' addition.

And that 'transaction' Alters EVERYTHING - Everywhere.

If one part of an object 'MOVES', Then the 'ENTIRE' object 'MOVES' - And ALL objects Must Relocate to allow for this. One Thing "MOVES" = Every Thing "MOVES".

EVERY THOUGHT - Reshapes Reality 'ALL' Reality.

brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2018 01:07 pm
@mark noble,
Quote:
EVERY THOUGHT - Reshapes Reality 'ALL' Reality
I agree. That is in complete agreement with quantum mechanics and relativity.
Kind of gives you a feeling of responsibility when using your mind.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2018 01:09 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Smile Definitely a very naive realist, if you think 'common sense' has anything to do with QM.

Dream on !
I used to dream. Then I learned. Now I know.

Keep dreaming and learning, fresco.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 May, 2018 07:53 am
@brianjakub,
I, too, agree - With being responsible for what you create.

Are you intered into a christian-schism, Brian?
If so - I have a few 'Immanuel' (Real conduit) assertations, I'd like to discuss.

I'll jump the gun - And pose:

Where is the "kingdom of God"?
It's 'EVERYWHERE' btw.

But from a (Prescribed) (Constantinian) perspective?

See - The 'Bible' is NOT inaccurate - It is 'Incomplete'.


QM = Here & Now in the Infinite - At ALL Scales.
That's why Nassim's life is shredding the Matrix

Have you read (Audiobook is better - 3Hrs) the Kybalion?
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 May, 2018 12:26 pm
@mark noble,
How can the Bible be incomplete? It was never intended to be the last word on everything.

How is nassim’s life shredding the matrix?
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2018 04:18 am
@brianjakub,
You, again, skipped my questions and provide your own.

Then you agree - The Bible is incomplete?

Define 'Nassim's life' - Your overview?
Consider his abduction, by ET's, His meetings with the 'Galactic Council' (Lots of ET's) His tauroidal designs and his firsthand knowledge of 'Immanuels' intent?

Then define 'The Matrix' - Your opinion?

The 'Kingdom of God' question - clearly insignificant...?

I think my time is better spent elsewhere.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2018 08:34 am
@mark noble,
I am not interred in a schism. I belong to the original.

The kingdom of God is wherever God decides it is. Becoming a member of the kingdom is a choice.

I don’t have a Constantinian perspective i subscribe to a Roman Catholic perzsprctive that was established by Jesus before Constantine existed.

The Bible is the inspired word of God. It is complete but, our understanding of it is incomplete.

I have not read the Kybalion but I read about the philosophy behind it.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What is Proof?
  3. » Page 9
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/19/2022 at 10:40:49