Freedom of Religion

[Abracadabra]

Besides, science has not and cannot prove the "primacy of consciousness" as much as it cannot prove law of identity. Both of these are still presupposed truths for scientific inquiry to be valid.

Ok, I apologize for proclaiming that you are arrogantly trying to shove your opinions onto me. I confess that this was overly-presumptuous on my part in the first place. Obviously you just aren't understanding where I'm coming from. That's all.

Based on your quote above, you stated, "Both of these are still presupposed truths for scientific inquiry to be valid."

Sure, these are both presupposed "truths" for scientific inquire to be valid.

But that doesn't mean anything.

First off, scientific inquiry may not be valid with respect to the true nature of reality. Maybe what we believe we see before our eyes is actually an illusion (or there is far more to it than we see). There are many philosophies that suggest the former (that it doesn't need to preexist)

There are valid philosophies that suggest that the "Big Bang" didn't created us, but rather we created the "Big Bang" precisely due to our belief in scientific methods. In other words, there are philosophers that suggest that we create the universe from within. We create 'science' (and construct an entire physical world via explanations) as we imagine to explain it.

After all, if their premise is that we are imagining the physical world, then it automatically follows that we are actually constructing it as we go.

I'm not necessarily supporting these types of philosophies, but clearly they exist, and they cannot themselves be ruled out.

Secondly, even if I accept a physical structure "out there" that is the fabric of spacetime, (which I actually do accept), that doesn't mean that this is all that exists. In fact, that is my view.

I hold that the fabric of spacetime that we describe using the scientific method is merely a small part of "reality". It doesn't even come close to representing all of reality. In fact, I personally believe that what we currently know about the fabric of spacetime is indeed just the tip of the iceberg with respect to actual 'reality'.

And apparently scientists are more than willing to embrace this. They too are proposing extra hidden dimensions even to the fabric of spacetime. So they are even proposing that there is far more to spacetime than we even currently know.

We currently know of 4 dimension if you count time. They are proposing that there are a total of 11 dimensions to spacetime. That's 7 unseen and yet undetected physical spacetime dimensions. So in other words, all of our current modern science basically only knows 4/11th's of the true nature of spacetime and is completely in the dark of 7/11th's of it.

In short even scientists are proclaiming that we know very little even about the fabric of spacetime itself. So how could they possibly rule anything out of something they know so little about?

Scientist themselves are proposing that this is most likely the case. In fact, many of them are wishing hard for it to be true and would have huge parties if they could discover evidence to support their dreams.

This ironically gives a bit of clout to those former philosophies I mentioned that claim that we make this stuff up before we actually discover it. (i.e. we create it in our minds before it becomes physical reality)

But I'm not even anywhere near done.

There is also the mystery of time. I'm not going to belabor that point because I had already addressed it in a previous post. But our knowledge of the nature of time is extremely vague. Sure we have the precise and accurate ability to quantify the temporal motions between bodies within the fabric of spacetime via Special and General Relativity. But those very observations right there give rise to huge paradoxes concerning the "True Nature of Now".

According to Relativity there can be no such thing as a universal absolute "now". This instantly implies that the very concept of "now" is fuzzy. Moreover it implies pasts and futures must necessarily coexist. The very concept of a relative "now" demands it. This brings into question our very notion of time being a linear chain of cause and effect moving from some absolute past toward some absolute future.

In short, all that science has "discovered" about time is that it's far weirder than we could have ever imagined it to be. And that we truly have absolutely no clue whatsoever about the true nature of "time".

So once again science reveals a completely absence of knowledge of the true nature of things. Even though it has pinned down precise equations for plotting the behavior of motion with the fabric of spacetime.

What's next?

Well we have the scientific Inflation Theory that predicts the existence of multiple universes. We have Quantum Theory that suggests the possibility of infinite many parallel realities (at least via some interpretations of it). Other interpretations suggest equally bizarre things, not the least of which is that things can be in instantaneous connection over vast distances (something that is ruled out by General Relativity as being possible within the fabric of spacetime itself). Thus Quantum Mechanics is pointing to the existence of some other "world" or reality that exists even beneath the fabric of spacetime.

So there exists scientific evidence for these things. These ideas are not something that I'm pulling out of a rabbit's hat.

~~~

Therefore we can't make any presumptions about what needs to be 'presupposed'. Primacy of consciousness, primacy of existence. Those can be nothing more than stabs in the dark. Pure guesses.

We simply don't know enough about the true nature of reality to demand a primacy of anything as a solid axiom to begin with.

~~~

If you doubt my words, considering finding a copy of Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos", either in book form, or as a DVD. Watch, or read, the chapter entitled "What is Space". He addresses this notion quite clearly.

He first introduced Newton's concept of an absolute space. Then shows why that can't hold. Then turns to General Relativity as a description of space and shows that even after you have removed all "physical objects" from the fabric of spacetime, you still have a fabric left. A fabric that is even detectable at least in terms of inertia.

In other words, there can be no question whatsoever, that something exists, even beneath the very fabric of spacetime.

That's a given. And it's certainly an accepted principle of science, that something exists even beneath the facade of what we call "the physical world".

That's a scientific principle, well accepted. And all of the laws and rules of quantum mechanics also still apply. In other words, not only does this non-physical underlying fabric of spacetime exist, but it necessarily contains structured information.

And it is in that "world" where I suspect the true nature of spirit to reside (very much along the lines of how the Eastern Mystics view it)

And when you stop and think about it and ask, "What are our brains ultimately?" Are they merely a structure that has emerged from leptons, quarks, and bosons?

Well, they are surly that.

But from when to leptons, quarks, and bosons arise?

Well that should be obvious based on our current scientific understanding of the cosmos. Lepton's, quarks, and bosons, arise out of the ocean of "quantum fields" which is the "structure" of the seemingly "emptiness" that lies beneath the fabric of spacetime.

~~~

So, in short, my "primacy" axiom, would be that everything arises and belongs to, this underlying non-physical mysterious structure that gives rise to everything, both in terms of physics and consciousness.

They are inseparable. It's holistic. And that's a valid term because clearly within this underlying quantum structure time knows no bounds. It knows no bounds in terms of past and future, it knows no bounds in terms of speed limits of light. It's a primordial eternal "now" that ultimately contains everything that can ever arise from it, including the ability to have an experience.

That's my story, and um stick'in to it.

If you believe that you can "rule it out" then you are only deluding yourself.

You may chose to not personally believe it or even not wish to entertain it.

But to claim that you could "rule it out" is simply a misunderstanding on your part.