Egalitarianism - PART 2
You know there is a big problem in science when Marxist elements have infested science. It's no longer about science, reasoning, critical thinking, evidence, or the scientific method. It's more about arguments from authority, science being thought as religion or an ideology, rather than a logical deduction of reality.
Here is the previous part: https://steemit.com/politics/@profitgenerator/egalitarianism-part-1
Now as you can see, most of these science popularizers on TV, they are all leftists, probably Marxists as well, but minimum Liberals. They are also atheists, which is debatable if good or bad, however religion has minimum 1 thing that is positive, is that it creates a community where people help eachother, and it teaches discipline to people.
In a lack of religious world, the world becomes nihilistic, everyone loses hope, but everyone turns to science for answers. And since science's role is to give answers, but in this context it gets corrupted. It will start to give leftist answers.
For example the new God will be the Government. Scientists surely worship it. They get all their funding, paychecks, and tenures from it. It is a very benevolent God for them, but it may not be for others.
Then you come up with Simulated Universe Theories, which is the tipping point of nihilism. Where the human individual feels himself so worthless, that he literally compares himself to being just a machine. How crazy and collectivist is that? It definitely promotes leftist collectivism. Yes you are just a software being run on Big Government's computer my friend!
And you also have a lot of arguments from authority, and the whole peer review process, which is clearly a corrupt consensus, because if 90% of scientists around you are leftists, then guess what papers will be promoted? The scientific method goes out the window, and you have a communist commissariat censor board.
And of course nihilistic determinism is one of the most annoying. Of course if they believe in determinism, then the question is, who is determining it, who set the rules in the stone? A God? Well I thought God gave free will to humans, so isn't that ironic? Well it's nonsense either way.
Look at all the whackjob theories scientists came up with:
They are all unfounded, and it's not just not plausible, but I don't even get it how can they come up with such things? It's like you have asked a bunch of stoners to tell you the mysteries of the universe...
Although these theories have absolutely no proof whatsoever. Well I suppose string theory is widely used, because their math formulas work, but that is not a sufficient proof, that is an Argument from Ignorance logical fallacy, but I suppose these Marxist scientists don't really care about logic do they?
And yet they are all being taught in universities, and popularized in TV documentaries as being almost true, without them having any tangible evidence proving it so.
That is like saying that Communism is almost working ,except that it has caused the death of 100 million people, but it's almost working.
But out of all of these whackjob theories, the one that bothers me the most is the concept where they claim that all atoms are the same. Really? Now let's examine this issue.
https://www.quora.com/Are-all-atoms-the-same
Many scientists agree on this (again this is an argument from majority fallacy, all this scientific consensus is nonsense), although they don't have any tangible proof, is that the atoms are the same.
Now if this is true, then this is a strong proof for communism, because if the atoms, the basic building blocks of the Universe are the same, then it must mean that humans are the same as well, and that we are all equal, and egalitarianism is the default.
But how can they claim such ridiculous claims? Are the masses of 2 Hydrogen atoms the same? How do you measure them? And if you do, how precise is your instrument? What if 1 Hydrogen atom has some small energy fluctuation in it, and it weights 10E-700 grams less, can your dull instruments detect such small difference? I doubt it.
Besides what is an atom anyway? It's just a configuration of energy or matter, whatever that is, in the quantum realm. So if an atom is a 3D sphere, made up of Voxels of the size of 1 Planck Length, as the basic unit, then what if 1 single Voxel has a different combination of energy states than the others, or possibly more. I doubt any instrument can detect such small change.
And if matter forms randomly, which it does, then how can it conform to absolute precision to a predefined state. What atoms now have an instruction set that tells them that they must look perfectly the same.
And what about Entropy? Surely Entropy or the Dark Energy does show up in such small quantum scales so even if the atoms are created equally, they decay, or at least at the Planck size, they undergo some sort of change, they must. The Universe is expanding in all directions, and this expansion has to show up in tiny tiny scales like that, so there is no way for this to be true.
Which means that it's impossible for 2 atoms to be equal, even if all their properties sort of align together (mass, quantum state,etc), besides, as told earlier, there is no way to measure it for sure, so the default is inequality because of the Planck size fluctuations.
So not even the building blocks of the Universe is equal. Everything is random (supporting free will of course), therefore you have variance, statistical dispersion, which means that the basic Planck Length Voxels and their energy properties are randomly distributed within the area of gravity of that mass of matter, and theoretically 2 units of matter could be the same, but not for long, due to decay, entropy processes, and just because of the whole dynamic nature of the Universe.
But of course these scientists have never thought about this implication did they? When they have been brainwashed into Marxist thinking, then you can't even think out of the box, even if you are a scientist.
So everything is egalitarian by default, and they don't even look into the evidence. How crazy is that? And this seems to be the trend in all fields of science.
Douglas Hofstadter The Mind's I: http://www.federaljack.com/ebooks/Consciousness%20Books%20Collection/Hofstadter,%20Dennett%20-%20The%20Mind's%20I.pdf
I've found philosophy to be as necessary as logic for the hard problems. Read the introduction. You might conclude that he has some important things to say.
I will read it when I'll have time, but I already have my metaphysics theory about it, that I have already partially shared here:
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@profitgenerator/secrets-of-the-universe-part-1
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@profitgenerator/secrets-of-the-universe-part-2
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@profitgenerator/secrets-of-the-universe-part-3
It's true for math as well, yes in math 2 numbers are the same, however the stupids forget that the numbers are only intellectual constructs, and whatever those 2 numbers represent, will never be equal in the real world.
So in that sense 1=/=1, if you talk about the real world.
Here is my main article talking about this in Numbers:
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@profitgenerator/secrets-of-the-universe-part-3
I don't have a complete faith in science for example when they say a star is so many millions of light years away I really believe they are lying, or when they say something is so many hundreds of thousand years old, I believe they are lying there too, but I believe they lie just so they don't have to say I don't know.
On the other hand I do see many scientific advancements, in a lot of fields so even if they are communist they are getting some things done, wouldn't you think?
Or maybe I misunderstood what you are trying to convey.
Well science is supposed to be impartial. Science should be able to be done by anyone, no matter of beliefs or ideology, because the scientific method is a clear set of rules, that should be easy to go by.
But since humans are flawed, and view the world subjectively, their experiences and perceptions filter the information they get. So people will be less hesitant to accept evidence that goes against their belief, and will go for evidence that support their beliefs.
Which is false, and it's a violation of the scientific method. Scientists should not go for evidence that supports their conclusions, but rather find the conclusion from the evicence, impartially.
But humans are incapable of that, unless they understand philosophy.
This post has been ranked within the top 80 most undervalued posts in the first half of Jan 16. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $4.47 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Jan 16 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
I do not pretend to understand all of your argument, so I will confine myself to a comment regarding non-belief in god. While it is true that Marxism, on the whole, was defined by many of its proponents as non-theist; The intent was to make the state the center of life and object of worship. Any worship of anything else was a threat. It seems that you imply that atheism leads to group think. Isn't that assertion more true of religion?
Just a thought. Have a great day.
No. It's counterintuitive, but actually religious people are less collectivist than atheists. Because religious people have their God, that gives them the morality, from inside, whether that is true or not, religious people are more introvert in that sense.
However atheists dont believe in a God, which means that they will create it for themselves, through Government. And Government will be an external God, that is much more brutal, and much more evil than any other deity would be.
etc, you get the idea...