Awaken to reality!

[write4u]

@mriana

Anything can be turned into a religion depending on how you use it and you’re using math like a religion.

OK, not being religious, I’d like to know what “being religious” is. Can you explain how quoting science is being religious?

Is quoting Relativity being religious? How about Quantum?

Quantum

In physics, a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Quantum is a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents. Wikipedia

When you identify scientific posts as religion, are you claiming that science is a religion?

[inthedarkness]

It’s about what is right, that’s about it. Truth often leads to misery as it shatters our illusions of life.

@citizenschallengev4

That’s fair enough, (actually pretty good if originating from you) but does it help you with the dialogue you are having with yourself?

Do you deal with expectations of yourself, that go back to your early experiences?

No I’m trying to give an overview of what the philosophy looks like, which as you can tell is a form of spiritual narcissism.

@write4u

Mathematics is the scriptural bible of physics. Contrary to the religious preaching of different versions of Abrahamic scripture, all scientists use the same mathematics in describing the world.
Scientific scripture is based on provable evidence. If you do not believe in mathematical logic, you are forever stuck in mystery.

Math is a concept we invented as I showed earlier and the quote says.

[citizenschallengev4]

@lausten

@citizenschallengev4

You seem to think all that is a silly conceit, or irrelevant to the philosophical debates, …?

How you get from me saying my brain can send signals to my muscles to, “you’re silly”, I have no idea. This conversation is moving into an alternate universe.

It enters alternate universe terrain when you eliminate half my paragraph, and feign I’m causing confusion.

@citizenschallengev4

A consequence of that conviction is recognizing our bodies contain innate knowledge that’s been gained through its long evolutionary journey. You seem to think all that is a silly conceit, or irrelevant to the philosophical debates, (or)…?

You’ve told me as much.
If I’ve misunderstood, please correct me.

[write4u]

@inthedarkness

Math is a concept we invented as I showed earlier and the quote says.

Well, you are wrong! That is like saying that “ducks” are invented by humans.
But as we know, humans did not invent the bird, but assigned a symbolic name to "differentiate " ducks from geese or swans.

And so it is with natural mathematics. Humans codified and assigned symbolic values and functions, in order to differentiate objects and their properties from other objects and their possible (theoretical) relational values and behaviors.

Existing natural mathematics are discovered. Humans invented the symbolic language to describe mathematically relational values and functions.

Ask a cosmologist!

However, Religion is a purely human invention, as evidenced by the invention and demise of some 3000 gods during history, known as mythology.

From Wiki:

Religion (disambiguation)

Religion is any cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, ethics, or organizations, that relate humanity to the supernatural or transcendental.

Nowhere does religion mention anything about mathematics, nor do mathematics speak about religion.

There is no mystery to the universe. There are as yet "unknown properties ", but those can be discovered, in time.

[write4u]

@lausten

How you get from me saying my brain can send signals to my muscles to, “you’re silly”, I have no idea. This conversation is moving into an alternate universe.

The mechanics of neuronal functions are identified as “efferent” and “afferent”.

af·fer·ent

1. Carrying towards.

“An afferent nerve carries impulses from the body to the brain.” (wiki)

and

ef·fer·ent

1. Carrying away from.

"An efferent nerve carries impulses from the brain to the body." (wiki)

And this is why dipolar microtubules allow for both afferent and efferent neural actions.

[lausten]

@citizenschallengev4

when you eliminate half my paragraph

I didn’t erase your post.

@citizenschallengev4

A consequence of that conviction is recognizing our bodies contain innate knowledge that’s been gained through its long evolutionary journey.

I’ve specifically agreed to that more than once.

[lausten]

@write4u

Well, you are wrong!

There are many lengthy responses to math being invented or discovered. There is no need to be so harsh.

[lausten]

@write4u

The mechanics of neuronal functions are identified as “efferent” and “afferent”.

What does this have to do with my comment?

[write4u]

@lausten

What does this have to do with my comment?

Data transport to and from the brain is possible due to the polarity of microtubules.

https://step1.medbullets.com/biochemistry/102076/microtubules

[mriana]

@write4u

@inthedarkness

Math is a concept we invented as I showed earlier and the quote says.

Well, you are wrong! That is like saying that “ducks” are invented by humans.
But as we know, humans did not invent the bird, but assigned a symbolic name to "differentiate " ducks from geese or swans.

And so it is with natural mathematics.

I seems to me, write4u, everyone is sick of your math crap in every thread. It like your preaching your new religion, as I said before. You have turned math into your religion. I also agree with Lausten about not needing to be harsh with others too. This is really getting out of hand and for a mod telling people “they are wrong” is unbecoming.

[lausten]

@write4u

Data transport to and from the brain is possible due to the polarity of microtubules.

Which I’ve never argued and I didn’t comment on. My comment is about CC saying I don’t accept something he says, I’m not even sure what he thinks that is.

[write4u]

@lausten

@write4u

The mechanics of neuronal functions are identified as “efferent” and “afferent”.

What does this have to do with my comment?

This is what you said to CC; “How you get from me saying my brain can send signals to my muscles to, “you’re silly”, I have no idea. This conversation is moving into an alternate universe”

I was expanding on your comment. Sorry if you don’t agree with my support.

I agree this is entering a different reality!

[lausten]

@write4u

was expanding on your comment. Sorry if you don’t agree with my support.

I know what I said. You weren’t expanding on it so it wasn’t supportive. Nice thought, but sorry, it just didn’t land.Did you look at what CC said? What he thought I was not understanding?

[lausten]

@write4u

Can you explain how quoting science is being religious?

Is quoting Relativity being religious? How about Quantum?

Quoting Einstein’s philosophical thoughts is not science. The argument from authority fallacy includes people who have authority in one area, but are speaking outside of that area. I’m not saying he is wrong, I’m saying he is not an authority. The quote is his opinion, not science.

[citizenschallengev4]

@lausten

Which I’ve never argued and I didn’t comment on. My comment is about CC saying I don’t accept something he says, I’m not even sure what he thinks that is.

Then you shoot yourself in the foot.

[citizenschallengev4]

Might have been more accurate to say shooting the dialogue in the foot, but I didn’t think of that soon enough.

---

It occurred to me over night, rather than exasperated ejaculations,
constructing some incisive questions might be more helpful.

[write4u]

@lausten

@write4u

Can you explain how quoting science is being religious?

Is quoting Relativity being religious? How about Quantum?

Quoting Einstein’s philosophical thoughts is not science. The argument from authority fallacy includes people who have authority in one area, but are speaking outside of that area. I’m not saying he is wrong, I’m saying he is not an authority. The quote is his opinion, not science.

That does not answer my question.

[lausten]

@write4u

That does not answer my question.

I didn’t say religious, but you said if was science. It’s not science. Religion has many definitions, like “doing something religiously”. You don’t need a church or scripture for the word to be used.

[write4u]

@lausten

I didn’t say religious, but you said if was science. It’s not science. Religion has many definitions, like “doing something religiously”. You don’t need a church or scripture for the word to be used.

Then why is it used in a negative manner?

[inthedarkness]

@write4u

Well, you are wrong! That is like saying that “ducks” are invented by humans.
But as we know, humans did not invent the bird, but assigned a symbolic name to "differentiate " ducks from geese or swans.

In a sense we did, words refer to our concepts not to things in the world, at least according to some linguists. We draw lines around things in the word the make sense of it all.

Same with math. Whether math exists in the world to be discovered or is something made by humans to make sense of the world in an ongoing debate in mathmatics. After all mathematics is grounded in axioms, stuff you have to take to be true…or else.