< 0410 | 0411 | 0412 >

RG—"The notion that anything can happen undermines the whole concept of science"

The notion that anything can happen, is not only wrong, but undermines the whole concept of science. If anything can happen, then there is no basis for scientific theories and principles. Knowing that only certain things can happen is what differentiates science from religious faith.

RS—"No religious zealot would try to disprove his own doctrine"

I would say Popper's idea of 'falsification' in science is the main thing that differentiates science from religion. I have never heard of a religious zealot trying to see if he could disprove his own doctrine!

Scientific falsification is more like the rolling confirmation bias of "existence."

RS, "Existence" is the unfalsifiable doctrine of "science." Scientific falsification is more like the rolling confirmation bias of said existence:

The validation of Existence is necessarily by the litany of self-deceptions, "I'm just joking."

"As the new and deep from-the-intersubjective inside collective perspective of always being in the past, ontological species have properly necessarily been just joking."

It's not that things happen at all, but that they are what they are (A is B)

It is not that only certain things can happen, but that things (A)—(the present-future) are what they (B)—(e.g., the past) are. Any explanation why and how that is, no matter how much the tragically twisted existentialist bullshit of the "why" and "how" they "happen," in and as the holiness of the paradox or incompleteness of "existence," is more A-is-B.

RG—When science does refer to existence it is actually in the realm of philosophy.

Science very rarely refers to 'existence', and is definitely not a doctrine. When it does refer to 'existence', it is actually in the realm of philosophy

Existence is the once removed and hidden ground of zealotry.

Existence is what the science (empirical knowledge) is about.

RG—No, science does not refer to 'existence'.

The error our experience of existence is imperative

Science is empiricism, i.e., the belief that a formalized system of our experience of existence is imperative.

However, it's even narrower than that. Empiricism is the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. The senses are physical, so such knowledge is about "the physical world," which by definition exists. But what is "happening now" with newspeak instead of news, is the belief that sensory experience should formally extend to the spiritual realm of the inside across all things, where "the psyche" aids "the mind" in the oraculous grokking of the extra-physical. Existence nevertheless.

RG—I don’t think that ‘experience of existence’ can have a formalized system within science.

Newspeak-science is the whimpering of human holocaust cybernetics

Newspeak-science is cybernetics, i.e., human holocaust, unlike what it replaces, namely earthly existence as the ecstasy of love equals war, but tolerated with the whimpering of order equals chaos with spiritual grit and grace, a cybernetics duplicitously peddled as humanity's ultimate nirvana or liberation from duality.

Experience of existence is proto-cybernetics

Experience of existence is proto-cybernetics, a moving forward by evolution with punctuated equilibrium.