paradigm shift for emptiness

[AntonioLao]

On the one hand, in Eastern philosophy the word "empty" means perfection. On the other hand, in Western philosophy it is said that Nature abhors the perfect emptiness of the vacuum. This is a perfection of the mind or consciousness. A mind devoids of forethought or afterthought, devoids of good or evil. Confucianism believes that every human mind was born with this perfection until imperfect or incomplete sensory data begin to accumulate. Auditory and tactile senses were the first that accumulate in the perfect mind of a fetus. Most often the first sound that the fetus heard is the voice of its mother. However, since the fetus is encased in a fluid, the sound may not be intelligible but yet loving, endearing and soothing. This first experience of life's imperfection could become a life long quest of regaining the perfection that is the emptiness of the mind. The quest for knowledge, the love of music, and the need to socialize are all by-products of these mental imperfections that a fetus accumulates during 9-month long gestation. This is known as passive learning while active learning becomes most of the postnatal activities of the new born assuming no birth defect of any kind.

Near the end of the 19th century scientific investigations were carried out to find the perfect state of the aether, the state of absolute rest, and the prime mover of absolute motion for the newly discovered electromagnetic (EM) radiation (e.g. light is a form of EM radiation). Although it was already known that light propagates at a finite speed, its motion along different directions with respect to the absolute aether frame can vary and the difference can be detected. Failure to detect this difference became the null experiment that prompted the formulation of the theory of special relativity of uniform linear motions and its subsequent generalization into uniform accelerated motions known as the theory of general relativity. However, both theories failed to say anything more about the true nature of the aether. The physical nature of the aether was serendipitously rediscovered when quantum field theories asserted the existence of quantum vacuum fluctuations of zero-point energies. It became a paradigm shift for the true meaning of emptiness as the seat of a limitless source of energy for attaining true perfection for every body, mind, and soul.

[austintorn@aol.com]

THE EVER VICTORIOUS

Over Man came the Triumph of Love
But Chastity gave it a shove;

However, Death then conquered,
But this was not the final word,

For Time happily reigned over all,
Or so it thought—as its thrall,

For Divinity vanquished its trend;
But, still, this was not the end;

As ever, the basis was left to sting,
For Nothing overwhelms everything.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

It became a paradigm shift for the true meaning of emptiness as the seat of a limitless source of energy for attaining true perfection for every body, mind, and soul.

And since this is absolutely impossible to physically, logically or mathematically quantify__It's not science, but mere superstition...

Superstitions will never give perfection to body, mind and or soul...

Superstitions are for the intellectually disabled...

[SteveA]

And since this is absolutely impossible to physically, logically or mathematically quantify__It's not science, but mere superstition...

Superstitions will never give perfection to body, mind and or soul...

Superstitions are for the intellectually disabled...

Does yesterday exist? You can't show it exists, but would 'science say the concept of yesterday is a superstition? Obviously people have to have some measure of faith or 'superstitious" beliefs for science to be considered to describe truths.

Which is given preference - a logical truth or an empirical measurement? If we find experimental evidence to suggest that occassionally 1+1=3, do we redefine mathematics?

[SteveA]

Another way of looking at this is that the information conveyed by a word is not dependent solely upon the word itself, but all of the other words that were not said.

If there was only one word in a language, you couldn't say anything except refer to some quantity of identical words, whereas when a larger vocabulary is present, the fact that one word was selected versus other possible words means more and we gain nuances that were unavailable without this.

Even though someone could say that those other words were never said (or people could have different vocabularies in which case the same word could imply different things. It would be more precise within the context of a larger vocabulary and more nebulous or unspecific when viewed from a perspective containing a smaller context) this doesn't mean that the unspoken words had no value or did not contribute to the message. Someone who did not know that such words could be used would appear unable to detect such nuances and yes, they might even consider the idea of unspoken words as contributing to meaning as something nonsensical and superstitious with no proof (for them) available.

[AntonioLao]

Lloyd, are you superstitious about the quantum vacuum fluctuations burning up your scientific conscience?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Lloyd, are you superstitious about the quantum vacuum fluctuations burning up your scientific conscience?

No Antonio, not superstitious about the non-sense of quantum vacuum fluctuations, which is simple subjective experiential supposition and conjecture__but the fact that such non-sense does knowingly destroy any possibility of science's advance__and has been the major problem since the public and even many scientists started interpreting science subjectively__when the subjective is but a very small part of scientific interpretation__as the greater revolution in science is the objective non-experiential operational and system's knowledge control of the simpler subjective experiential thinking, that's truly important to science. But after the nonsense of Kuhn and Bohm's subjective experiential thinking being falsely applied to modern science by such 'new agers', I'm just one who's well aware of this destructive element to true scientific methodology__which if you simply follow TV, one can easily see where this 'New Age Stupidity' is headed... When Empires lose power they lose their objective references upon the real operational world of actions, thus turning subjective and retrograde... If this be taken to limits__the most retrograde empires are 1st, the Islamic Nations, with the most backward fundamental religions vying for control, 2nd, the failed European Nations and England, etc.__which I simply choose to make my points__as these are the major influences of such retrograde beliefs destroyong the advancement of science and knowledge in America__as she has also been turned to retrograde experiential beliefs over objective operational abilities, over the last 50+ years__which is nothing other than the retrograde ideas of the Islamic, European and British ideas invasion on otherwise successful American ideas... Of course, this has taken place over such a long and slow period, people are not aware of it, since they've chosen to follow such nonsense as Kuhn and Bohm, rather than think for themselves...

Here's just some of their nonsense__which you probably won't recognize, being so subjective__and ignoring most of the objective realities...

In SSR, Kuhn also argues that rival paradigms are incommensurable—that is, it is not possible to understand one paradigm through the conceptual framework and terminology of another rival paradigm. For many critics, for example David Stove (Popper and After, 1982), this thesis seemed to entail that theory choice is fundamentally irrational: if rival theories cannot be directly compared, then one cannot make a rational choice as to which one is better. Whether Kuhn's views had such relativistic consequences is the subject of much debate; Kuhn himself denied the accusation of relativism in the third edition of SSR, and sought to clarify his views to avoid further misinterpretation. Freeman Dyson has quoted Kuhn as saying "I am not a Kuhnian!", referring to the relativism that some philosophers have developed based on his work.

The enormous impact of Kuhn's work can be measured in the changes it brought about in the vocabulary of the philosophy of science: besides "paradigm shift", Kuhn raised the word "paradigm" itself from a term used in certain forms of linguistics to its current broader meaning, coined the term "normal science" to refer to the relatively routine, day-to-day work of scientists working within a paradigm, and was largely responsible for the use of the term "scientific revolutions" in the plural, taking place at widely different periods of time and in different disciplines, as opposed to a single "Scientific Revolution" in the late Renaissance. The frequent use of the phrase "paradigm shift" has made scientists more aware of and in many cases more receptive to paradigm changes, so that Kuhn’s analysis of the evolution of scientific views has by itself influenced that evolution.

Bohm...
What is the source of all this trouble? I'm saying that the source is basically in thought. Many people would think that such a statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which to solve our problems. That's part of our tradition. Yet it looks as if the thing we use to solve our problems with is the source of our problems. It's like going to the doctor and having him make you ill. In fact, in 20% of medical cases we do apparently have that going on. But in the case of thought, it's far over 20%.

...the general tacit assumption in thought is that it's just telling you the way things are and that it's not doing anything - that 'you' are inside there, deciding what to do with the info. But you don't decide what to do with the info. Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us. Thought is creating divisions out of itself and then saying that they are there naturally. This is another major feature of thought: Thought doesn't know it is doing something and then it struggles against what it is doing. It doesn't want to know that it is doing it. And thought struggles against the results, trying to avoid those unpleasant results while keeping on with that way of thinking. That is what I call "sustained incoherence".

Now, the point isn't what these guys said__it's the point that many people and scientists believe this jibberish, which then in turn influences science to go retrograde... These are just two examples of thousands of anti-intelligences that are invading all our sensible operational intelligences, that have been handed down to us, throughout the ages__and I don't mean any of the dogmas of thought, but the true, valid and quantifiable fundamental modal 1st thoughts__that have existed since the beginning of recorded time...

1st thoughts are what we need__not copied thoughts, false axioms and pseudo-constructions__and this applies to all fields of study...

[AntonioLao]

If it is not superstition then it is the fear of scientific progress. The fear of being left behind with an empty bag.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The superstitious fear state of mind, does not belong in any conversation about science__Fear has no meaning to physical science...

Fear is a metaphysical state of psychology, which any true physical science knows nothing about__tis outside of such physical science investigations...

To bring metaphysical states into physical science, simply conflates and confuses all sensible meaning, within physical science...

Fear is an energy field, which can never be fully measured__as any person under study may be faking__and science has no measurement potential of faking...

The con-man wins almost every time, in the psychological contests of such faking...

Science can only study what it can measure__It can't measure the pseudo-quantum fluctuations of black-holes, or the pseudo-zero-point energy__Must be fear that produces such nonsense speculations_ha...?

Those are just tautological areas of theoretical assumptions, conjectures and suppositions__Non-science, until experimentally proven to be scientific, which imo, never will be...

Zero-point energy is zero-point energy__If it's a true zero point volume__It has zero energy__But, since a true zero point volume is impossible of existence, as field is everywhere, there's always a minimal amount of energy/motion, em-field present everywhere... Just toss a couple of hematite crystals into the air, or even in open space, and watch em vibrate together... Here on Earth, they even sing about their quantum frequencies__They don't fluctuate__They always sing...

[SteveA]

Thank you Lloyd for agreeing with the rest of us that ones subjective view of things is most important as you obviously prefer your own unique view of things.

At the rate you're going, you'll eventually not even need to rely on empirical data from disagreeing collective resources and you'll also be able to witness conscious influences beyond physical measurement as well.

You're jammin' Lloyd. Go for it.

In SSR, Kuhn also argues that rival paradigms are incommensurable—that is, it is not possible to understand one paradigm through the conceptual framework and terminology of another rival paradigm. For many critics, for example David Stove (Popper and After, 1982), this thesis seemed to entail that theory choice is fundamentally irrational:

Are you now trying to say that if you were rational you'd agree with us? In this specific case, maybe I'd agree, but that would just be because you'd be agreeing with a couple smart (ass? ) fellows and not because the agreement made you rational.