This is a very good site, Less Wrong, which deals entirely about science. But what I think is that, SCIENCE may not be able to
know 1)the secrets of the Universe 2) the phenomena of Soul/consciousness 3) back-ward travel of time 4) the length and width of Universe, which is ever changing 5) the secret of Death and what happens beyond death 6) How is God and his Mind, though Science may know the Atomic Flux operating Near the God and thus come to know the external nature of God.
I am happy for Opinion of others on my comment. With love to all //rudru47//
So that the statements are in order of profundity. That way each has the opportunity to startle. I had no reaction to 5) because I was still recovering from 4). Consider, if the first item on the list was about “the Atomic Flux operating Near the God”, would you have had any reaction to “SCIENCE may not be able to know...the phenomena of Soul/consciousness”?
I know it’s pedant(errif)ic of me to point out, but it seems poor epistemic hygiene to let equivocations pass by unremarked:
SCIENCE may not be able to know … the length and width of Universe, which is ever changing
is a very different claim from
The idea that something’s changing makes it impossible to know
For one, the sort of person who places limits on SCIENCE’s grasp usually has some mechanism in mind which makes it possible to bypass them (really good drugs, for instance). For two, I don’t see any assertion of a causal relationship between the Universe’s ever-changingness and SCIENCE’s inability to put a tape measure to it. For three, I’m struggling to come up with a way to know the Universe is changing without being able to measure it.
That is, the sort of New Agey people that tend to say “Science can never understand the nature of the soul!” don’t mean that the soul can never be understood, just that understanding it requires divine revelation / seeing past the veil of Maya / altered mindstates corresponding suspiciously to the effects of LSD.
What if it had read “the length and width of Universe, which is big”?
Oh, I see—I parsed “Universe, which is ever changing” as a catechistic epithet, a la “Atomic Flux operating Near the God” or “Holy Mary, mother of God”. It could be an implication of causality, but it still doesn’t seem certain.
people that tend to say “Science can never understand the nature of the soul!” don’t mean that the soul can never be understood, just that it understanding it requires divine revelation
Good point. Sometimes they might mean one and other times the other.
I don’t think it’s a spam-bot. Google the name—it looks like ‘rudru47’ is an Indian (explaining the malformed syntax) with an interest in the occult, New age, and related matters (explaining the malformed semantics).
This is a very good site, Less Wrong, which deals entirely about science. But what I think is that, SCIENCE may not be able to know 1)the secrets of the Universe 2) the phenomena of Soul/consciousness 3) back-ward travel of time 4) the length and width of Universe, which is ever changing 5) the secret of Death and what happens beyond death 6) How is God and his Mind, though Science may know the Atomic Flux operating Near the God and thus come to know the external nature of God. I am happy for Opinion of others on my comment. With love to all //rudru47//
Other than the usual “lurk more”, you missed the main point:
I recommend that you read the material on this site and reconsider your list.
But if you ever must post something like it somewhere else, please switch the order of items 4) and 5).
...why switch 4 and 5?
So that the statements are in order of profundity. That way each has the opportunity to startle. I had no reaction to 5) because I was still recovering from 4). Consider, if the first item on the list was about “the Atomic Flux operating Near the God”, would you have had any reaction to “SCIENCE may not be able to know...the phenomena of Soul/consciousness”?
Now, that’s not very nice. rudru47 spelled “know” correctly.
What I like best about 4) is the (presumably unintended) implication that SCIENCE can, in fact, know the depth of the universe.
Spelling fixed.
The idea that something’s changing makes it impossible to know is an extreme case of collapsing levels.
I know it’s pedant(errif)ic of me to point out, but it seems poor epistemic hygiene to let equivocations pass by unremarked:
is a very different claim from
For one, the sort of person who places limits on SCIENCE’s grasp usually has some mechanism in mind which makes it possible to bypass them (really good drugs, for instance). For two, I don’t see any assertion of a causal relationship between the Universe’s ever-changingness and SCIENCE’s inability to put a tape measure to it. For three, I’m struggling to come up with a way to know the Universe is changing without being able to measure it.
What?
What if it had read “the length and width of Universe, which is big”?
That is, the sort of New Agey people that tend to say “Science can never understand the nature of the soul!” don’t mean that the soul can never be understood, just that understanding it requires divine revelation / seeing past the veil of Maya / altered mindstates corresponding suspiciously to the effects of LSD.
Oh, I see—I parsed “Universe, which is ever changing” as a catechistic epithet, a la “Atomic Flux operating Near the God” or “Holy Mary, mother of God”. It could be an implication of causality, but it still doesn’t seem certain.
Good point. Sometimes they might mean one and other times the other.
This sounds like a spambot. But I can’t work out why there are no links embedded.
I don’t think it’s a spam-bot. Google the name—it looks like ‘rudru47’ is an Indian (explaining the malformed syntax) with an interest in the occult, New age, and related matters (explaining the malformed semantics).
+1 for “malformed semantics”. I am totally stealing that phrase.
Well, once I wrote ‘malformed syntax’, I had to continue the parallelism and what is the dual to ‘syntax’...? It was obvious, really.
Obvious to me.
I’ve seen spam without links in other places. I have no idea why it exists.
Attempting to mis-train spam filters so that other things get through, is the theory.
Seems surprisingly public-spirited, but maybe some spammers are big enough that it makes sense.
To some degree—although training to your generator seems to make sense.