To restate a point Dr. Randall makes: Our theories can only address what we directly or indirectly perceive. Does the universe also contain that which we cannot directly or indirectly percieve? Almost certainly yes, although we cannot know that to any degree. Can science present its theories as "this is the universe"? No, and to do so is indeed human bias.

@ValidatingUsername

24 күн бұрын

The more real truth is that science maps what humans force in their society (un)intentionally, a real phenomenon[,] or an (un)intentionally forced perspective on the data and real science is done when the real phenomenon is separated out from the others.

@NewGuyTcan

24 күн бұрын

concerning ourselves with that which we cannot know is also called "a waste of time"--and that is the best use case for that kind of effort. It's also known in some places as a "philosophy degree".

@cottawalla

23 күн бұрын

You kind of described time. The universe is unrecognisable from how it was perceived 200 years ago, yet it hasn't changed.

@bobs4429

23 күн бұрын

@@NewGuyTcan Long ago we couldn't perceive that the earth is round, but we pushed the boundaries of our abilities and it became observable. Yes, there are realities that we might never perceive, but I don't think the search is a waste of time. Far from it. To think so is as much of a bias as believing we can perceive it all.

@paulaa1175

21 күн бұрын

@@NewGuyTcan To substantiate that "that which we cannot know" should be of no concern to us because it is "a waste of time", would require you to engage in at least some philosophical effort: what constitutes the limits of what we can know and what we cannot, and how do we go about validating what is not a waste of time versus what is? Who is going to justify themselves as the proper judge of 'time wasting' -- on what grounds? It's funny how those that say philosophy is a waste of time inevitably spray about some grand philosophical half-positions on their way to that opinion.

This talk does not really happen because the three speakers did not find the common ground, which is more in epistemic questions about the limits and grounding postures of science, and how much can philosophical work help clarify those limits. (if it can at all) Martin Cohen decided to avoid the whole topic and wander off into the mythos. The scientists basically said "science works because theories get verified (or not) by observations, and the program continues forward refining knowledge" - but they can't explain WHY science gets useful verifications - as a product of human intelligence, or a mirroring of 'the real' in the cosmos into symbolic form, or some inherent capability of mathematical form as a 'real' ... etc Science cannot do meta-scientific justification - and there the door remains open for philosophy.

@whitemakesright2177

21 күн бұрын

Well stated. I find that these kinds of discussions often end up with the participants talking past each other, precisely because most scientists have no understanding of philosophy, and most philosophers have very little understanding of science.

@user-nb3mq3cg8k

19 күн бұрын

Some philosophers like Karl Popper were first scientists before they turned to philosophers. That's why he is very influential since he really got right how scientific theory verifiability is, when met the scientific method. Thus, Cohen didn't talk about any "mythos" Greek philosopher Thales speculation about the earth being flat and held by water is actually a "science" or first account of natural philosophy back then. And that interests how back then, in antiquity understanding how inductive reasoning from their specific historical context.

For me I'll make a statement entailing idea and logic being the central form of the universe. We used to think that our minds are actually within us but from recent indication it doesn't really seem that way. We may possess our brains but our consciousness belongs without. The whole universe is like a giant ocean then we are not just like fish swimming around in it but part of the water, our consciousness is like another colour from the water in the ocean.

It would have been neat to get to hear the whole debate. From what is shown, Dr. Randall appears to address the issue with the greatest clarity (to this thick person, anyway). Thank you for bringing at least part of this to us.

2:50 We’ve always been describing the “visible universe”. It’s our ability to extend sight that keeps changing. Of course we are seeing only a tiny slice.

@paulaa1175

21 күн бұрын

How can we know that "we are seeing only a tiny slice"? That implies that we can compare what we can see with what we cannot see - and then make the judgment that we do not see much. Furthermore, We don't even know if we have an ability to extend sight: it may be that we are pretty much hitting a wall now and won't 'see' much further/differently in the future.

@irisofrosebloom8741

20 күн бұрын

@@paulaa1175 it was at the very least true that past humans were only seeing a tiny slice of ths universe. furthermore, if you want to be pedantic, i'm guessing we don't have fully detailed images of distant cosmic phenomena, i.e. there's lots of detail in the universe we don't have the ability to see yet even in regions we know to exist.

Martin Cohen. Excellent minority report. The rest is sci-l-ence... Incredible how materialistic and mechanistic most of our scientists have become in the past few hundred years. Unfortunately there is a reason behind that. Reading list from contemporary authors: Matthew Ehret, David Gosselin.

Interesting conversation. Everyone made valid points. But I suppose the thought behind the original question is that reality is seen through the lens of the human mind. We like to think of ourselves as having general intelligence. But isn't it more likely that our intelligence is quite specific? It was trained on specific kinds of sensory information and at a certain scale, for solving specific kinds of problems (i.e. survival). Personally, I think there is a serious risk that our minds are misinterpreting what we experience, because at a fundamental level our experience is a heavily distorted picture. Martin Cohen's point is a good one. We shouldn't be too surprised that humans are good at predicting the behaviour of nature, because that is the data our brains are trained on. It is circular.

Kurt Godel already confront strong emphasis in mathematical formalism and axiomazation during his time. And also proved that science has also limits. So it is definitely worth for open discussions on if everything that scientists proposed going to be as rigid as science supposed to be.

It was an exciting title, but I feel that Martin Cohen was the only person that really touched upon the topic.

1. Philosophy is what is possible. 2. Alignment of probability results in reality. 3. Projection of reality is an avatar. 4. Perception of an avatar is Maya

On very large scales the universe does not behave according to equations we knew before making the observations. Dark matter and dark energy are theories that were developed precisely because the universe on very large scales does not behave according to equations we knew before making the observations. The rate at which a galaxy should spin towards its exterior of the galexies did not match the equations and understanding we had before. It is possible that we were/are wrong about our understanding of gravity and energy and we may have just made up dark matter and dark energy to force the already existing theories/equations of gravity to still work. It probably better to say hey we are wrong about gravity and energy but dont know why. Claiming something we cant see and cant interact with is causing some phenomena in the physical world feels like a very "science of the gaps" way of doing things. The Inflationary period is another moment where what was observed did not match what was believed so to make what we observe match the theories of the time the inflation period just had to be made up.

Concerned about the up-front premise that AI (created BY humans) could possibly be less human-centric-biased. *tbh, have not listened further, yet.

Meaning is certified by means of multiplication. This operation transforms the infinite into an unending population of a finite variety of types. We always assume that there is a property package to present as a payout for our research, but this entails a subtle change in definitions as usages.

When other points in the universe are discovered and becomes a part of our world we human beings are still the center of the universe. The expansion happens in the past, present, and future. The visible universe is important because it was once not observable.

The ego’s on these kids could clog a black hole.

@seandonahue8464

24 күн бұрын

I agree with the lady on the far left, she seems to be clueless to how she carries herself screams arrogance. Maybe she is not but that’s the messaging, I get in first few minutes. Seems she doesn’t want to be there. After hearing her talk, she contrubuted in a good way, have to say

@violjohn

24 күн бұрын

Lol

@EmsiYTs

17 күн бұрын

Martin Cohen makes valid points, I didn't really see anything 'egotistic' on his side.

Chick on the left clings to the concept of science like a nookie. "We're scientists and we do science". It's like.."ya?.. cool". I only wish I could express my gratitude for such a super intelligent person to have blessed us with their graceful presence.

@doncrozier

22 күн бұрын

she had some great observations on the cosmic background radiation, don't you think?

The Universe is one. Only the view in a perception parts from a viewpoint in it.

Kant only then? I think a correct reading of Hegel and beyond - and then.

to the philosopher: "In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. Then, we compute- well, don't laugh, that's really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law that we guessed is right, we see what it would imply. And then we compare those computation results to nature. Or we say, compare to experiment or experience. Compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. And that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it." Richard Feynman Physicist, winner of 1965 physics Nobel prize

📍8:02 2📍 3:58

I don't know of any scientist that studies human and animal intelligence that will say that humans are special. Nor do I know any theoretical physicist or microbiologist that would say we are on the "middle" of the scale of material reality sizes. None of these "examples" are what I would expect scientists would propose or discuss.

@paulaa1175

21 күн бұрын

Good point. Some off-the-cuff remarks in this non-discussion.

It seems to me that various combinations of various various amounts of various kinds of misleading information and the various combinations of various levels of various kinds of beliefs of such can very often be extremely problematic .

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological . My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept. Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Some clarifications. The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. Marco Biagini

@175griffin

24 күн бұрын

Interesting argument. What would you have to say about anesthetics which interrupt physical processes in the brain and thereby interrupt consciousness? If consciousness isn't a physical process, how can we understand it's interactions with the physical world? Entropy is an emergent phenomenon and the only law of physics which distinguishes past from present. Would you claim that entropy is not physical because experiencing time is a prerequisite for it's existence and the "experiencing" of time is like consciousness in this way?

@guillermobrand8458

24 күн бұрын

Conscious Action explained Based on the information they capture with their senses, living beings with brains manage a utilitarian mental representation of the conditions that currently take place in their relevant material environment. This Mental Correlate is a kind of “photograph” of what is happening in the Present in the relevant material environment of the Individual, a Mental Correlate that we will call “Reality of the Individual”. Life experience, stored in the brain, allows us to give meaning to what is perceived. At the same time, as Pavlov demonstrated, life experience allows us to project eventual future states of the individual's relevant environment, generating expectations of action. Information from the Past, the Present and an eventual Future is managed by the brain. It is evident that the brain makes a utilitarian distinction between the Past, the Present and the projection of an eventual future. Human language allows us to incorporate into the mental correlate events and entities that are not necessarily part of what happens in the world of matter, which gives an unprecedented “malleability” to the Reality of the Individual. For the unconscious, everything is happening in the Present. When a child, whom I will call Pedrito, listens to the story of Little Red Riding Hood, said entity is integrated into the Reality of the Individual. In turn, for the child, this entity is “very real”; he does not need his eyes to see it to incorporate it into his mental correlate of the relevant environment. Thanks to our particular language, authentic “immaterial and timeless worlds” have a place in the Mental Correlate of the relevant environment. In the first four years of life, the child is immersed in an ocean of words, a cascade of sounds and meanings. At this stage, a child hears between seven thousand and twenty-five thousand words a day, a barrage of information. Many of these words speak of events that occur in the present, in the material world, but others cross the boundaries of time and space. There is no impediment so that, when the words do not find their echo in what is happening at that moment in Pedrito's material environment, these words become threads that weave a segment of the tapestry of the Reality of the Individual. Just as the child's brain grants existence to the young Little Red Riding Hood when the story unfolds before him, similarly, when the voices around him talk about tomorrow and a beach with Pedro, as happens for example when his mother tells him says: -“Pedrito, tomorrow we will go for a walk to the beach”- the child's mind, still in the process of deciphering the mysteries of time, instantly conjures the entity Pedrito, with his feet on the golden sand, in the eternal present of childhood. Although over time a strong association between the entity Pedrito and his body is established in the child's brain, a total fusion between said entity and the child's body can never take place, since for the Unconscious the bodily actions of Pedrito They only take place in the Present, while the entity Pedrito is able to carry out actions in authentic timeless and immaterial worlds. The entity Pedrito is what we call the Being, and we know its action as Conscious Action.

@marcobiagini1878

24 күн бұрын

@@175griffin You wrote_”What would you have to say about anesthetics which interrupt physical processes in the brain and thereby interrupt consciousness?” My arguments are not meant to prove that brain processes are not necessary for the existence of our consciousness. My arguments prove that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness and that the existence of an indivisible non-physical element, which is usually called spirit or soul, is also necessary for the existence of our consciousness. You wrote:”If consciousness isn't a physical process, how can we understand it's interactions with the physical world?” There are two logically consistent interpretations; the dualistic view and the idealistic view. In the dualistic perspective, our mental experiences are the result of the interaction between the soul and brain processes. In the idealistic perspective, our mental experiences are the result of the interaction between our soul and God, and brain processes are a representation of that interaction; in this view, the whole universe exists only as an idea in God's mind, who creates the phenomena we observe according to the mathematical models he has conceived (what we call "the laws of physics"). This idealistic perspective is essentially Berkeley's view and provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics. You wrote:”Entropy is an emergent phenomenon and the only law of physics which distinguishes past from present. Would you claim that entropy is not physical because experiencing time is a prerequisite for it's existence and the "experiencing" of time is like consciousness in this way? “ First of all, entropy can be defined also for a single particle; it is not an emergent property at all. But this is not the point; the point is that entropy is a statistical function and statistical functions never provide exact laws, because statistical fluctuations always exist. In case of an high number of particles, these fluctuations are small, but they are still present. This means that statistical laws never describe exactly a real physical system, but always describe a simplified model of the physical system. Such simplified model is an abstract concept that can exist only in a conscious thinking mind. Therefore, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of any statistical law and of any property of a statistical model. Therefore consciousness cannot be a property of any statistical models and no statistical laws represent a valid analogy to explain the existence of consciousness.

@marcobiagini1878

24 күн бұрын

@@guillermobrand8458 You wrote:”Based on the information they capture with their senses, living beings with brains manage a utilitarian mental representation of the conditions that currently take place in their relevant material environment. “ Your statement is nonsensical since you assume that brain create mental representation in an attempt to explain the existence of mental experience. Furthermore, as I explain in my initial message, brain is only a cognitive construct and therefore cannot be the cause of the existence of mental experience. Best regards.

@guillermobrand8458

24 күн бұрын

@@marcobiagini1878 Try to survive for a few days in a jungle without using your senses and you will be able to see in person what I say.

Yes, the problems we face are very human. I particularly like Max Planck’s unique insight into this problem when he sad science progresses one funeral at a time. Science is intellectually bankrupt.

Practices, with a "c"

Lisa seems to be bored with the discussion. Sun glasses and posture of " why am I here?".

All we know is what we can perceive, and what we can directly perceive is very little and what we can indirectly perceive is only a tiny bit more. Anything beyond that is a totally hidden mystery. We use models based on our perceived experience of Reality and Maths that that were created by our brains and limited perceptions. And so our models are mostly imaginary and most certainly have no correspondence to the true nature of Reality. We know this because our Maths have many "constants" & factors that have no reason to be in the equation other than they are "fudge factors" that make the equations work well enough to be mostly useful. So our Math systems are also inadequate for probing and describing the true nature of Reality.

Like, of course a predictive model of the universe can be unfathomable to humans, yet still iterate and improve. That's the goal of AI+ robotics is (My research area). The most fun area of AI (to me) is Knowledge Representation, where we develop structures (state spaces) to encode data, or better yet, develop robots to tell us what those interesting state spaces are -- spoiler, they make no sense to humans. In my experience almost all these automated representations are completely inaccessible "metaphors" of the universe, and they are so whacky and weird that there is a research area dedicated to just understanding what the robots understand. Its called "Explainable AI". This whole debate on the "we cant" side seems predicated on an underlying assumption -- can the LITERATURE or CONTENT we consume ever escape human bias. Of course not. But that subspace of literature can be populated by agents, who can see the universe more plainly. For example, one kind of dumb agent, the "Telescope", can encode information from the universe, and with a computer, etch that data onto a universe map. This kind of intelligent scanning agent (which uses Scan Matching), is a very simple example of such a biasless truth seeker. Its only when humans crop, project, and try to mash the diagrams into the human visual field that we inject ourselvs into that store. That process is a compression, and as we compress, we select the data of human relevance both practically (i.e. we render in visible light) and sub consciously (cantering the universe on ourselves.)

Intelligence is both collective and distributive on the planet. Human knowledge will be concentrated into AI. Biological humans cannot survive in space but machines can.

Is this cyberpunk?!

The speed of light is not fixed. There are no fixed points for your various equations about the universe as it is composed of infinite variables.

Science can only shift our perspective but science can never show us the full perspective...

@NewGuyTcan

24 күн бұрын

it's by far the closest we'll ever get to a full perspective, so there's that.

@vaibhavsati538

24 күн бұрын

what can then?

@dogstick12

24 күн бұрын

@@NewGuyTcan looking into a microscope or telescope doesn't widen your perspective, it shifts your perspective

@dogstick12

24 күн бұрын

@@vaibhavsati538 nothing, eyes and ears can't show you all that exists, we are limited by design

@dogstick12

24 күн бұрын

@@NewGuyTcan it's the closest we'll ever get to shifting our perspective or travel, science is nothing more than a vehicle

why is that person wearing sunglasses

@EmsiYTs

17 күн бұрын

Very arrogant looking

After doing philosophy for thousands of years, not much changed. After doing three hundred years science we landed on the moon, sent a probe to Pluto and use AI. Which method might be more accurate to give us insight and understanding of nature?

@whitemakesright2177

21 күн бұрын

You display your utter ignorance of history. Philosophy gave birth to science, and science has been being done for thousands of years, not just since the so-called "Enlightenment." How did the Egyptians build the pyramids without science? And to say that "not much changed" from 10,000 BC to 1700 AD is, again, supreme ignorance.

@Thomas-gk42

20 күн бұрын

@@whitemakesright2177 I admit, I used a simplification here. Of course, philosophy and science influence each other, it was not even properly seperated. But for the majority not much changed for the last 3000 years, the farmers constantly used oxes on their fields. Since 1700 they began to use the scientific method to verify assumptions about nature, and that brought enormous progress in technology, which is a strong hint, that this method makes valid statements about the properties of nature. Constuctions like the pyramids and even the gothic cathedrals were built with a lot of power from "try and error". I think we need both, philosophy and science, but some philosophers (namely panpsychists like Goff and Kastrup), today mix science to their philosophy to make it more attractive but without deeper understanding. The outcome is always the same: pseudoscience.

Assuming that every single point of the universe is the centre of the universe is a kind of misleading.

O dear, where is Cantor or a neo-Pythagorean ✍

This is apparent, when you simply observe the periodic table of elements. The bizarre ordering, arranged increasing order by atomic number. Moving from left to right across a period (horizontal row), the atomic number increases sequentially. For example, hydrogen (with atomic number 1) is the first element, followed by helium (with atomic number 2), and so on. In reality, this is not how things work and has been debated, leading to at least 4 different versions being made. Neon, has no single "Atom", it is in fact made of 3 isotopes and can be used in a reaction phase, in conjunction with Hydrogen and Helium. There have been profound findings, such as cold fusion, completely ignored by science, and many great potentially beneficial advances being simply dismissed, as they conflict with modern academic narratives or the interests of those funding these same institutions. Its no surprise. Not anymore than Einstein marrying his first cousin, or Ghandi marrying a child of his own family, as Egyptian pharoes, such as Menkaure who is well known to have married his sister. I could mention many other such cases, but this isn't a blame game. I'm only mentioning this, to highlight the troubles modern science faces, being similar to the inbreeding of "great people", also relating to our "best science". To say we can and should do better, is obvious. Acheiving this, isn't as straightforward or easy, for the same problems which once existed, still being present today.

Its just engineering. As far as we r human.

A perfect example is the idea in Physics that observation by a human affects the outcome of Quantum Mechanics or the Cat in the Box thought experiments. 😂

I feel that pitting top level physicists (Neil Turok and Lisa Randal) against a philosopher is a bit unfair ;) The poor guy's reasoning and input in the discussion was underwhelming to say the least ...

Lisa knows what she's talking about

@sderoski1

24 күн бұрын

She appears to be a narcissist

@tomrobingray

24 күн бұрын

She knows? So she was there at the big bang was she? So she is GOD, not just any female physicist!

@User-jr7vf

24 күн бұрын

@@sderoski1 I had the same impression

@Mentaculus42

24 күн бұрын

Randall is not as important player these days as compared to 20 + years ago when physicists listened to her and she got it wrong (extra dimensions, etc).

@EmsiYTs

17 күн бұрын

She likes to pretend she does.

Why are you guys are so defensive?

Lisa is right, largely. But the amount of hypocrisy in fundamental theoretical physics all these decades ( you guys are just amateur differential geometers with some training in representation theory ) makes her statement fall short.

Poppycock. Peace ✌️ 😎. If it was something you could do you would have done it already. But we know that you haven't so easy slick.

Lisa is so behind the curve it’s embarrassing! 🤭

When absolute Truth is found, science IS religion. Until then, both science and religion are ignorant cults. The biblical prophet Elijah has returned, as prophesied, and testifies: You will not TRULY understand anything until you have found what is termed "the Philosopher's Stone." I can tell you exactly what the Philosopher's Stone is, but you haven't found it until you have found REASON to believe that it is true, like I have. But here it is: The Philosopher's Stone is the fact that "GOD" is The Mind that is ALL. Want to know more? Seek and ye shall find...

@CONNELL19511216

21 күн бұрын

You really don't understand the true nature of science at all. Science is constantly testing hypotheses by carefully designed experiments. No religion is ever tested this way. Science is forever tied to measurement, while religion doesn't even conceive of the need for verification

@readynowforever3676

19 күн бұрын

And you only created two additional accounts to give yourself two thumbs up? You'd better get to work, if you want to proselytize the sheep, my shepherd.

@SuperChimcham

18 күн бұрын

That’s not the philosophers stone