I have a premise that falls in the Human Sciences realm in my estimation. The premise has pseudoscience in it to the extent that the premise is derived from a layman's hypothetical model of the universe, it has philosophy to the extent that the premise is at the heart of a personal philosophy of life that is derived from my layman level hypothetical model of the universe, and it has religion in it to the extent that it makes a correlation between the infinite and eternal characteristics of the universe hypothesized in my cosmological model and the generally accepted religious characteristics of the God found in many religions. That correlation is expressed by the statement in rhyme, "I say with certainty one of two things, it seems to make sense to proclaim; God or the universe has always been here, and maybe they're one and the same". The premise itself is that in an infinite and eternal universe governed by invariant natural laws (my layman model of cosmology), anything Supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand. The premise goes on to derive a concept that there is no first cause to an infinite and eternal universe, but instead there is an eternal sameness in the universe that is governed by invariant natural laws. I refer to that as the Perfect Cosmological Principle which says that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale in both space and time, i.e. an eternal sameness at the grand level in my cosmological model; a level I call the big bang arena landscape of the greater universe. It is a landscape reflecting the steady state of the greater universe that is characterized by multiple big bangs that are part of the arena process that defeats entropy (again from my model of cosmology). The details of that are in the pseudoscience forum in a thread about my model and not intended to be discussed in this thread. And finally, the premise goes to the point that it may be possible for humans to invoke the as yet unknown natural laws associated with being, consciousness, thought, and conscience to achieve favorable outcomes to our hopes and needs through a process similar to prayer invoked by religions, but that draws on the concept that such ability has always been a part of the sameness of our universe. That concept provides the final part of the premise, that those as yet mysterious natural laws are there for evolved intelligent contemplative individuals to discover and utilize in their own lives. I call that part "seeking acknowledgments from beyond the boundary" of known science and into the mysterious realm of the as yet unknown natural laws of the universe. If this thread is allowed to proceed here, I will deal with the community to the extent that there are any responses from members, and in between active discussion, I will try to stimulate discussion by exploring my own thinking about how to best invoke the concept of Eternal Intent, and what it means to successfully utilize acknowledgements from beyond the boundary of known science and into the realm of as yet unknown and not yet understood natural laws.
This appears to be in the wrong place. You bring in the supernatural, which is by definition not science. You also use a series of made up terms which again is not science but in the realm of pseudo science or at best philosophy. This may stimulate some interesting discussion, but not in the science section I dare say. By the way I disagree with the basic premise because the evidence does not support an infinte and eternal universe.
In which case you're not getting off to a very good start. Pseudoscience by definition violates the laws of nature and/or the scientific method, which is why it is not science. Well you're safe there, everything has a bit of philosophy in it. That's two strikes now, at least if you accept the common definition of religion, which includes the hypothesis that the universe was created by a fantastic creature called "God." This hypothesis relies on the fallacy of recursion. The definition of "universe" is "everything that exists," and I think it can be accepted without argument that any fantastic creature that is capable of creating something so large must exist. Therefore God created himself. This is logically impossible; therefore the hypothesis is patently false; therefore religion is simply a very popular form of woo-woo. That's a reasonable statement. It does not require postulating preposterous things like gods, angels, dead people coming back to life, and a flood that covers the world so deeply that there is in fact not enough water available to do so. But the reality is always much less dazzling than the fairytale. Evolution is rather boring to any creature whose lifespan is not measured in millions of years. Relativity is completely undetectable to creatures who spend their lives at the bottom of a gravity well and never travel at more than a few millionths of the speed of light. The Periodic Table, plate tectonics, genetics, quarks & bosons, the non-geocentric universe... all of these things have enormously increased our understanding of the universe, while frustrating our sense of wonder. As you were already told, there is no evidence indicating that the universe is infinite either spatially or temporally. In fact the Big Bang hypothesis suggests that it is finite both spatially and temporally in at least one direction. Yes, it's always fun to imagine a universe that works exactly the way we would like it to. Hell, I'd settle for just my own country working that way. But it's not true of the USA and there is absolutely no reason to suspect that it's true of the universe. Of all the zillions of possibilities, what hubris it is to think that the universe works in the way you like, just because you like it? I doubt that the Moderator is going to treat this thread with respect. For starters, you posted it in Biology??? Why??? Your speculations are all in the realm of cosmology, except for the ones at the end which, frankly, belong in Pseudoscience. Not to mention, you've made so many fundamental errors that your entire model is pretty close to collapsing--to the extent that it has any structure. So far it resembles Romney's economic plan. "I can do this but I can't stop and explain right now and I haven't even bothered to work up a PowerPoint presentation."
Rather than intrude in a forum where the discussion of natural laws associated with consciousness and thought, the as yet unknown natural laws that I am referring to, and that seem apparent even if we haven't quantified them, I will wait and see where the thread belongs. As for your intrusion on my political sensibilities with your opinon about a presidential canditate that almost 50% of the voters voted for, that seems out of place as well. Maybe we will discuss the topic elsewhere.
Jung wasn't exactly enamored with science's sense of paramount (emphasis, mine): [...] Scientific education is based in the main on statistical truths and abstract knowledge and therefore imparts an unrealistic, rational picture of the world, in which the individual, as a merely marginal phenomenon, plays no role. The individual, however, as an irrational datum, is the true and authentic carrier of reality, the concrete man as apposed to the unreal ideal or normal man whom the scientific statements refer. What is more, most of the natural sciences try to represent the results of their investigations as though these had come into existence without man's intervention, in such a way that the collaboration of the psyche—an indispensable factor—remains invisible. (An exception to this is modern physics, which recognizes that the observed is not independent of the observer.) So in this respect, too, science conveys a picture of the world from which a real human psyche appears to be excluded—the very antithesis of the "humanities". Under the influence of scientific assumptions, not only the psyche but the individual man and, indeed, all individual events whatsoever suffer a leveling down and a process of blurring that distorts the picture of reality into a conceptual average. We ought not to underestimate the psychological effect of the statistical world picture: it displaces the individual in favor of anonymous units that pile up into mass formations. [...]
Man has ever wondered at his place in the universe and so it seems appropriate that this thread should be in Human Sciences, for all science is Human Science and humans a part of that which they would study. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and how quickly we grow arrogant and dismissive, forgetting, it seems, how recent are these marvelous technologies, technologies that would seem like magic to people born a mere hundred years ago. Whither leads the path of discovery....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thank you for those thoughts. I was just coming to post this when I saw your post supporting the topic here in this forum, but let's see if it wouldn't be better to move the thread: We are all unique individuals. However, the topic of invoking some "as yet unknown" natural laws associated with consciousness and thought has something common to us all; we all have moments of conscious thought. Though we have little definitive science that can be quantified by equations, I think that scientists, as a community, would agree that there are unknown natural laws and mysteries that are actually hidden in the invariant natural laws. That is the basis for my misconception that this forum would be the appropriate place to explore the unique idea that what is considered prayer in a religious context would be equivalent to attempting to invoke natural laws by seeking acknowledgements from beyond the boundary of science and into the realm of as yet unknown natural laws. Of course that is in the context that everything thought to be Supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand. If the moderator would move this thread to Free Thoughts, I will attempt to explore my ideas further.
I can't move it anywhere I am just a member. I think this would belong in philosphy, free thoughts or maybe religion. This is not science, (that is not a slam, it just isn't science) but it could generate interesting conversations, as I said.
You might have thought of that before you started. What "seems apparent" to you looks like a fortune cookie message to me. More than 50% of the voters voted for the other moron, and he's just as worthless. I'm waiting to see a tally of votes for the various third parties. This must have been a great year for them, with both Republocrats so obviously clueless: neither one mentioned climate change in their so-called "debates," despite the fact that it is surely the most dire and important problem facing the entire human race. The inscrutability of our species, as manifested in its ability to ignore existential threats to its civilization, is certainly an apt topic for this subforum. I'm as big a Jung fan as any old hippie, but he didn't get everything right.
I guess this post will be moved with the thread when the moderator decides where it belongs; anywhere but the cesspool is fine with me, and preferably somewhere where Fraggle Rocker never goes, lol. Just kidding FR, your perspective exists, no one will deny that. I just don't see "fortune cookie" in the premise that there are natural laws behind the functioning of consciousness and thought. The conversation that I will try to promote and try to keep as the main topic is that the Supernatural expectation of "intervention of an active God", when one of a religious ilk prays, and which cannot be falsified, can be replaced by the expectation that there may be as yet unknown natural laws whose equations may depend on the state of the mind, thought, and intention of the one who is seeking the acknowledgement. Answers to prayers, which are completely subjective and can only be experienced by the individual, cannot be irrefutably proven, and can only be spoken about. The experiment of seeking acknowledgement from beyond the boundary of known science and into the realm of as yet unknown natural laws, a social experiment, is intended to be a completely individual and private matter because any success in receiving an acknowledgement would be just as subjective as the answered prayer. I maintain though, that an individual can experiment with seeking acknowledgements, judge for themselves the degree of acknowledgement received, and adjust the inputs, i.e. revise the supposed unquantified equations and try again.
"May depend on the state of mind, thought, and intention"—yes: seeking a more effective and formidable will than they can muster on their own. But I think in most cases, any results ensuing from the conjuring of such "mighty" assistance—the answered prayer—is nothing more than a placebo effect. However, there's also the phenomenon of a collective summoning of will. Which makes me wonder, how can the insubstantial forces of consciousness—summoning, drive, will, envy, etc—be so readily amplified beyond normal proportions.
Experiments have been run on prayer and it doesn't work. Here is a study you might find interesting. I have read of studies where they told heart patient that a group would pray for them (but they did not) and the patients had a statistically significant decrease in complications. The moral of the story is praying for someone without their knowledge maybe a waste of time but lying to them about praying for them when you really aren't, could help them. Hmmm.. blessed is the liar for he shall heal the sick??Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The criticisms of my choice of sub-forum for this topic, along with comments on my short comings in word usage and of my misunderstanding of science, as well as the rebuke I received when I said that the thread should be moved to where ever the moderator saw fit, may have created a negative mental energy, and yet have not resulted in this thread finding a home. Negative mental energy; I bet you love to hear that kind of pseudoscience here in a science sub-forum, hilarious, right. Who ever would call that a phrase of merit; pseudoscience pure and simple. Please move the thread to pseudoscience to appease Origin and FR, if for no other reason. I could care less where it is, I just want to develop the ideas. The phrase "positive and negative mental energy" goes exactly to my point. If there are natural laws enabling consciousness and thought, the fortune cookie hypothesis in some brilliant minds, then that means that positive and negative thought are operative inputs to the equations that we don't yet understand, but that I propose we try to learn about by experiment. My intention is to suggest that individuals can experiment by modifying the inputs to hypothesized trial equations, run a trial of the equation and observe the outcome, and then attempt to improve the outcome by modifying the equations and the inputs. So to say positive and negative thought could be considerations in the degree of success one might have in invoking the as yet unknown but invariant natural laws is in line and on the topic. Success is to be measured subjectively by the individual relative to favorable outcomes to the experiments. No favorable outcome, no success. Negative outcomes are a failure of the equation, not negative success of the equation as the off topic posts suggest. That is not to say that repeated negative outcomes aren't an important set of outcomes given the scientific method; it is just to say that a set of negative outcomes like that are a great topic for another experiment, not this one. In this experiment they simply trigger the modifications for the next trial.