A Psychologist Explains why Science does not communicate with Religion or Philosophy

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

I thought this was decent for the Uncertainty Principle…it starts on the Principle around 7:30, but the earlier bits help you understand that.

If you don’t get it the first time through, I would suggest watching it again and then if it clicks and you are going that makes sense, taking a day break and then watching it again once or twice so it really sinks in.  That way you will remember er it well enough you won’t have to start from scratch next time it comes up even if you are not secure in your understanding enough to teach it to someone else (which is my standard for understanding science).

Another way to approach the video if it feels like too much info at once is to take it one concept at a time.  Stop and replay a section until you are secure that you get it.  Then move on to the next part.  But watch it once all the way through at the beginning so you have a general idea where it’s going, what the purpose of those concepts are for.

If it’s not making sense, try watching it two or three times if you are getting some of it, but not all.  If nothing is clicking and you still want to figure it out what the Principle is, try other videos as they may present it in a way that works for you.

Absolutely fabulous video- thanks!

Let's make it even easier for - perhaps a 10 year old!

Suppose the 10 year old gets to see the ocean for the first time in her life, and she sees the water crashing onto the beach.   She asks her mother about this water and how it behaves- she of course drinks water daily, but has never seen water like this- kind of like a living thing that moves and can crash into the sand, making sounds and... well just NOT acting the way she is used to seeing it!

She wants to know what water "really is"- is it the nice cool drink on a hot day she knows well, or if it is cold enough, it stops moving at all and becomes "ice" which of course makes her water drink cold by putting the ice into her glass.

So what is water "really"??  Is it hard and cold like ice or can it move and crash on the beach and make noises?

But her sister in 10th grade is actually in HIGH SCHOOL now and is taking a chemistry class!   Surely she will know the answer!

Her sister suggests they go and talk to her chemistry teacher who surely will know the answer!

And so they go and ask the chemistry teacher what water "really is" !  She explains that water is "really" made of tiny particles called "molecules" which are made up of even smaller particles called "atoms"  THAT is what water really IS!

But then the 10 year old wonders, and asks how could all those particles also be WAVES on the beach? ?  Her teacher explains that waves on the beach happen because the wind on the ocean......   etc.  

But the 10 year old asks "But how could water be BOTH the nice cool drink AND be the powerful wave at the beach that could push you over and makes a roaring noise?

What is water REALLY?

The answer begins with is "WELL it DEPENDS on how you LOOK AT IT..."

"So what IS water REALLY?"

THIS is the key to everything we think about or see- it is the same question we see here 100 times a day...  WELL WHAT IS GOD REALLY?

And the answer should ALWAYS be "WELL it depends on how you look at it...."

The PROBLEM IS NOT IN WHAT THINGS REALLY ARE, but HOW WE LOOK AT THEM.!!!   THAT IS THE BASIS OF ALL LINGUISTIC "CONFLICTS" mixing one "language game" (CONTEXT) with another, from a different perspective!

[CV75]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And the answer should ALWAYS be "WELL it depends on how you look at it...."

Thank you -- I feel validated in so many ways!

[OGHoosier]

On 5/16/2024 at 4:13 PM, Calm said:

 Perhaps boredom is actually a sin, a rejection of the beauty of God’s creations, including ourselves.

G.K. Chesterton in Orthodoxy:

Quote

All the towering materialism which dominates the modern mind rests ultimately upon one assumption; a false assumption. It is supposed that if a thing goes on repeating itself it is probably dead; a piece of clockwork. People feel that if the universe was personal it would vary; if the sun were alive it would dance. This is a fallacy even in relation to known fact. For the variation in human affairs is generally brought into them, not by life, but by death; by the dying down or breaking off of their strength or desire. A man varies his movements because of some slight element of failure or fatigue. He gets into an omnibus because he is tired of walking; or he walks because he is tired of sitting still. But if his life and joy were so gigantic that he never tired of going to Islington, he might go to Islington as regularly as the Thames goes to Sheerness. The very speed and ecstasy of his life would have the stillness of death. The sun rises every morning. I do not rise every morning; but the variation is due not to my activity, but to my inaction. Now, to put the matter in a popular phrase, it might be true that the sun rises regularly because he never gets tired of rising. His routine might be due, not to a lifelessness, but to a rush of life. The thing I mean can be seen, for instance, in children, when they find some game or joke that they specially enjoy. A child kicks his legs rhythmically through excess, not absence, of life. Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, "Do it again"; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, "Do it again" to the sun; and every evening, "Do it again" to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we. 

 

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

G.K. Chesterton in Orthodoxy:

 

Oh my gosh!  Thanks.   And IOU some other comments as well- 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

G.K. Chesterton in Orthodoxy:

 

Science looks at things as if they are dead, and they usually are.

Dissection.  Observations of anatomy.  Structures not functions.  "Why believe in God"= useless. No evidence.  God is dead.

Living things are in constant flux- moving thinking, deciding, driving, stopping, eating and watching and yes, even typing.  Their states are in constant flux.

Science cannot examine the world relationally in flux, as it "really is".  First you have to stop it.  Take a picture.  Oh! at that nanosecond (now dead) THIS WAS HAPPENING.

It doesn't see the relations, the fluctuations, the causes the constant stream of consciousness ,the world as it changes.  Even if it shows consciousness, it does so after the fact.  

Heraclitus said "you cannot step into the same stream twice," and he was absolutely correct.   Your toe even entering the stream causes the ripples to change forever.

Wittgenstein saw it in "language games"

James saw it in Radical Empiricism. Rorty saw it in the falsity of belief in "MIRRORS" of Nature.

Even Oprah sees it in the "Universe"

Edited May 24, 2024 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

G.K. Chesterton in Orthodoxy:

 

I love it.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/15/2024 at 6:52 AM, Teancum said:

I see it when I talk with you. I don't what I discuss with many others. 

Seek after what works for you, and forget the babble everywhere.  I just think we are on the same channel in many ways.