The Unknown - What Is Reality

jeff-kubitz (70)in #writing • 9 years ago

If there were ever a good example of what is real and what it not, the internet would be it. If you think all is known, then who are you really talking to?

Yes, in a conversation in a chat room, in an email who are you really talking to? Is the person who they say they are?

Here is an unclear picture and it is a representation of not only how much we know about the universe we live in but how much we accept to be true of what we know. The greatest example being we think we know everything.

We often here about complete explanations for everything from the size of the universe, to how it began, to how it will end, whether there is God( Advanced beings greater more, far more intelligent, power beyond our understanding) or whether we are the top of all existence. We hear about the might of nations that have never fought or won a war of any consequence.

We hear about how to get rich over night and various financial theories. We hear about population and the death of species.

We hear about quarks, muons, Higgs-Boson particles, electrons, protons, neutrons, molecules and what is out there in space.

We hear about all that we are all the time, what we are capable of and based on intelligence and personality traits what we will ever be capable of doing our entire lives.

Like the picture, how much of this stuff is true? What do we really see, feel, sense of what is really there. Is that what the photograph of our understanding really is like compared to what we say as a species we know?

In science empiricism is followed to answer the quest for truth of the physical and spiritual world, of all that there is. Empiricism or the scientific method is thus:

Law - a stated fact which is proved under the scientific method
Theory - a possible explanation of how something happens.
Hypothesis - a path to testing the theory or a portion of a theory
Experiment - a repeatable test of a hypothesis.

For example: Leonardo DaVinci thought that objects fell at the same rate. He dropped two objects off the leaning tower of Pisa and they hit the ground at the same time. This was opposite of the belief at the time that objects of different weights fell at a different rate. When it was accepted, that objects of different weights fell at the same rate and they wanted to put him to death for it at first, human engineering improved greatly because of this simple fact.

People who call philosophy a science are the ones who wanted to put Leonardo DaVinci to death. If it is not the scientific method, it is not science. A philosophy is the beliefs based upon logic of a philosopher. People will ask themselves, why are my beliefs any different than any other philosopher and why do the others hold any weight?

Now some would say it was the church or the clergy that presented the most resistance but that is untrue. Rather it was the equivalent of the Doctors of Philosophy at the time, the scientists, the educators, the teachers who believed without substantiation and without any evidence that Leonardo DaVinci was insane. Their view of reality was incorrect and they refused to accept a change to their view.

There is countless evidence that mankind is not only not the greatest thing in the universe but that if a human being meets many a type of indigent animal life on a one to one field of battle the beast will kill and eat man as easy as if the superiority of man were a total joke.

The beast could be something as small as a poisonous spider or as big as a shark or killer whale. If on one's own planet, one is not superior, what logic would dictate that one is the most superior and only being in the entire universe?

Don't misunderstand this next line books contain knowledge. Even more hilarious are people who have never accomplished anything, sitting there reading books, not performing any experiments, not developing a hypothesis, not having anything more than a theory or a philosophy stating they know the truth and know all and by that logic can tell the rest of humanity whether it is right or wrong, even execute people for differing them. These know it all's slaughter on a regular basis.

That humanity knows every type of energy, every type of matter, the states of all things and how they are correctly combined is not correct and it is not science. Example: somewhere out there is a better super fuel. If everything is known, why has it not been discovered yet?

The truth of this picture is in reality, science has proven what is seen is upside down, the brain processes what is seen and turns it right side up.

There are many strange things on the Earth such as intelligence's higher than humans. Things which have been observed, events recorded, and documented in the past which much of humanity has not seen or does not care about but that does not make the scientific evidence incorrect.

Just because you do not see a volcano blow in your lifetime, I have and they are real. When volcanoes erupt, explode, and no one seems to be able to predict that, they are very destructive, very. Again, just because you have not seen it does not make it a lie. Does not mean the volcano did not erupt or that they do not exist.

Just because your philosophy does not accept some sorts of scientific evidence and you refuse to accept the evidence even when it is presented to you puts you not in the realm of science but in the realm of the superstitious who refuse to accept fact.

Knowledge grows at the rate greater than the individual to perceive or understand knowledge. The flat earth society is the perhaps the best example: Archimedes determined that the world was round and not flat long before Christianity even started using observation and science. Yet, perhaps as a joke, or an exercise to show people how they can come to believe absolute hogwash. The Flat Earth Society meets and one side takes up the debate the Earth is still flat and refutes that the earth is a sphere, successfully in the face of all scientific evidence.

Around the time of Christopher Columbus, and some say Leif Erickson, people began to find evidence that the earth was not flat. Even past that time, when evidence began to arise that was again indisputable it still took hundreds of more years for people to understand and believe that the earth was a sphere, even after Magellan's circumnavigation.

Which side of the science are you on? I am a scientist. I have published many a work on many things based upon direct observation. One is the paranormal and super-normal, the supernatural. Things which are often not accepted by many a scientists though they are directly observed to occur and documented. This is an interest I have based upon direct observation.

As a scientist, I have observed things and tested them and do not deserve the persecution of ill witted philosophers with no foot or basis in science. No one deserves that abuse.

It is one thing to follow the scientific method. It is another to persecute those who do follow the scientific method. Christianity is the basis of the modern scientific method. Islam is the basis for algebra.

It is therefore, not only logical, but scientific to state that reality is not fully known and that mankind does not know so much more than humanity claims. It is also scientific to state that philosophy, however important, is not necessarily science or even derived truth because like reality, philosophy has an infinite amount ahead of it to examine and learn to prove what is true and what is not. Maybe one day, philosophers will test their theories or statements to prove them true.

The use of the scientific term law in materialist philosophy is misused. Again, a law is a proven theory that is based upon hypotheses tested by repeatable experiments. Then, if the complete theory is verified it becomes a law. Philosophy does not verify, it theorizes. Philosophy creates theory which it cannot often substantiate. If philosophy did not, there would be no new philosophy or philosophers, that part of science it shares.

Especially one when one is a materialist philosopher we open this age old argument, one is Plato pointing up and the other is Aristotle pointing down. It goes on forever this argument and the wise know there is something up above and something below and the wise have always known this simple truth.