[jim barlow]

"For me, this is the proof that science ultimatelly depends on intuition. We consider science the ultimate point of achievement by the human intellect, the thing that pulls us further away from being primitive animals. But in reality, observation of phenomena is reduced to animal senses, hypothesis is reduced to previous experiences, methods are reduced to instincts of what is appropiate and what isn't... Do you agree? "

I sure do. The artist and the scientist have some common threads too. Flying, space travel I think have been conceived by that intuition. This kind of activity is probably speeding up along with everything else.

[dleviwing]

Imagine if everyone were to decide to have their own opinion as to the value of 2+2. One may have the opinion that it equals 5 another may say it equals 21 and so on. The fact is, if you chose to place your personal opinions as your tools of scientific evaluation of observation, then don't be surprised if those who follow the accepted standards tend to disagree with your methods and opinions.
The idea of establishing standards is to allow all who learn them to communicate with common understanding.
An artist will state that there are 7 primary colors and a scientist will state there are only 3.

[Guille]

Jim Barlow,

I like looking at culture as a cartesian coordinate system (x,y). In the left side of the x, is art, in the right side of the x, is science. In the top part of the y, is philosophy. In the bottom part of the y, is religion/myth/spirituality. So something can be philosophic and scientific, philosophic and artistic, artistic and religious/spiritual/mythological, or scientific and religious/spiritual/mythological, but it cannot be artistic and scientific, nor philosophical and religious/spiritual/mythological. Still, art and science are on the same line, x, and thus have the same origin and purpose. Just as philosophy with religion/spirituality/myth, but the methods are completelly different among these, and among art and science.

[Unreal Zelta]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Imagine if everyone were to decide to have their own opinion as to the value of 2+2. One may have the opinion that it equals 5 another may say it equals 21 and so on. The fact is, if you chose to place your personal opinions as your tools of scientific evaluation of observation, then don't be surprised if those who follow the accepted standards tend to disagree with your methods and opinions. The idea of establishing standards is to allow all who learn them to communicate with common understanding. An artist will state that there are 7 primary colors and a scientist will state there are only 3.

Yes, we do need to accept the standardrised theories (e.g 1+1=2, x+x=2x etc), in order to fit into the modern world of standard models (live like everyone else, the same routines, same activities ands so on). But now let us think, how FAR can that take us? So if we want to solve the problem, we must look at the source of our problem (the cause of it). As a result, "If we want to expand our theories, thoughts and so on, We MUST first expand language." And also, I personally think that a revolution is science is much needed to break free of the standard models and REALISE what QUANTUM reality is truly about!

Kindest regards

Zelta

[Guille]

UZ,

I agree. Our thought is limited to-by our language. The day we learn to work better with language, to be completelly expressionist, and to take it to the surrealist level, then our communication will allow a perception of the world without prejudices or conditions, what we call 'liberal' and 'free', for a consciousness to connected to reality.

[ANDY J]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> GTP: (Guille's Time Paradox) is what I present in this post, although I have mentioned in several times on the chat. 1.: Time is a property of dimensions (actually of objects in spatial dimensions). 2.: Thus, for time being a dimension: 2.1: Time must have the properties of dimensions, 2.2: Time must have time which is itself a property of dimensions. 3.: Time must have time (the paradox). If you have any comment, solution, explenation, or arror that you find, let me know in this thread.

Perhaps time only exists when it is used to measure and organize if you ignore time then you are left with change and movement we and the universe would not get older we would change or perhaps decay.
It would be interesting to spend some time living without any reference to or use of time how would you organize and schedule your self without time you
would mearly have to call it by another name does this mean time exists or that we invented time to organize events does the universe use time as an organizing tool this would fit with the universe being self aware.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Unreal Zelta Yes, we do need to accept the standardrised theories (e.g 1+1=2, x+x=2x etc), in order to fit into the modern world of standard models (live like everyone else, the same routines, same activities ands so on).

Unreal Zelta;
I think you best review what you are saying. Languages, including mathematics, are NOT theories. Many claim they can redo the definition of time in order to explain phenomena. This is a very poor practice and only causes confusion.

[Unreal Zelta]

Originally Posted by ANDY J Perhaps time only exists when it is used to measure and organize if you ignore time then you are left with change and movement we and the universe would not get older we would change or perhaps decay. It would be interesting to spend some time living without any reference to or use of time how would you organize and schedule your self without time you would mearly have to call it by another name does this mean time exists or that we invented time to organize events does the universe use time as an organizing tool this would fit with the universe being self aware.

Andy,
I agree with you. Is time still there if we don't observe it?, Is it the same for everyone? We all should consider those questions. They lead to another puzzling question, is time "constant?" The questions are more complicated than one thinks.

regards

Zelta

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Unreal Zelta Andy, I agree with you. Is time still there if we don't observe it?, Is it the same for everyone? We all should consider those questions. They lead to another puzzling question, is time "constant?" The questions are more complicated than one thinks.

Time is universal and time is relative. Some people find this contradictory but it isn't. I mean by it, that yes, time is there when we are not there, it is always there as much as there is motion of something, if there is matter there must be motion so if there is matter there is time. Nothing is completelly still, nothing is absolute motionless. Therefore, if there is matter, there is time. Only in vacuums there is no time, and there are no real vacuums. Also, time is different to all o fus as our miton is different even if it's just a bit. Remember motion includes direction, speed, and magnitude (space covered). Is time 'constant' that is very complex. Motion is not constant, but time is, I mean, a second is a second, for it is a measurement given to time. Just a cm is constant, it won't change of size.

[Unreal Zelta]

Guille,
I totally agree with your point, time is constant, motion is not. However, this question always troubles me, "Is time really directly linked to motion?"

Best regards
Zelta