Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher
I did not want to say this but have you looked at all of my posts(on the thread)?
Very well, then I guess I have to repeat the process. It goes without saying, but feel free to counter.
What is *this* "reality"? An unproven state of conditions commonly perceived as "natural".
What is science? The ability to produce solutions in some problem domain.
If you connect the attribute of "reality"'s unproven condition with its scientific sets of laws, what you get is the system of the "reality".
However, in truth, what you only get is a system of a *possible* false reality. This *possibility* is where I center my argument. If "reality" itself is non-*solid* fact, how much can its "science" be? This is what I meant by a science over a "science". Around the unproven "science" we have, we *may* have that *truer* science that allows our natural "laws" bended.
Inter alia, I give you amnesty to correct me.
|
Congratulations, you have shared the basic tenets of your beliefs, which I may now inform you originated more than
2400 years ago. In short, what you have is mere
philosophy, and philosophy which is antithetical to the spirit of human inquiry, at that. You have, as yet, no logical proofs or evidence for your
philosophy, and are content merely to
believe without having the drive to truly
understand the basis of your own beliefs.
Welcome to the 21st Century, kid.
