“A case is never true because somebody has said that this is the truth. The truth is neither more nor less than what we alone understand. “
No one can speak on behalf of science, but we can point to some dead ends (such as belief in authority are called opinions and use of speculation instead of thinking) that it is important to be aware of.
It is a simple. A current view says that there exist limits for recognition, but this is in my opinion not the case. When the above motto noted that “the truth is neither more nor less than what we individually understand” why we can add that this understanding can be expanded in the unlimited until we reach a common and comprehensive truth when our perception is not limited by time and space only, and our idea of science is no longer limited to something purely pragmatic but finds its insufficient basis in what can be physically measured and weighed in basis of a so-called “constants”. To the last comment I can add:
“Science has never explained the numerical value behind the constants of nature” And with regard to the practical agreed – “There are no centimeters, seconds, kilograms or Planck’s constants of nature”.
Scientists detect and classify, but it gives us no real understanding of the causes leading to the effects observed. Understanding occurs when a given thing finds its proper place in a larger context, and the greater this context may be the deeper an understanding. Many, even within science’s own areas, have already recognized the importance of the so-called interdisciplinary sciences. However, this is not progressed very far in the development of these because this development is hindered by a dominant tendency to prioritize specialization and analysis rather than generalization and synthesis.
The scientific developments are working in the way that you are contriving new hypotheses and seek to prove these by observing the mating experiments, thence in the hope that the experiment will confirm the hypothesis, thereby advancing to a recognized theory. Overlooked is it, however, that there might exist another theory – not based on speculation but on thinking – which could also be confirmed by the same experiment, thus leading science development out of the dead end that speculation in many cases leads to nowhere.
“The Relativity Theory is real enough – logically – it has simply nothing to do with reality.”
And the creator of the theory of relativity expressed at a time these words: “I may have been headed in the wrong direction”……..
Unfortunately, this example is not one of the exceptions in contemporary science – but rather the rule. For example, there are 6 different quantum theories – they may not represent the truth all sixth. One of the leading theorists in this area is at least honest when he says:
“I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”
It is, in fact, intuition or imagination (which usually refers to the artistic field) which may pave the way for an expansion of our understanding. And this “enlargement of understanding” denotes, as before mentioned, a very important aspect that slows our access to the future of science.
This “broaden understanding” is closely linked to what we can say about the “wrong” and “right” concepts, which in turn form the background to talk about the difference between “speculation” and “thinking”. We can start by asking this question for a scientist or spiritual person, who believes to be on the trail of a new discovery: “How did you get the idea for your new hypothesis?” Presumably he or she could answer the following: “I suddenly came to think of some new contexts that could be used as a basis….. ” But where do such thoughts come from …?
We are often advertising for greater consistency in the way we formulate and retain the concepts of .. ….Quite logically (consistently), we can say: “My brain came to mind -” …If we assume this is common practice in the scientific or spiritual universe is such a statement meaningless because our mind is indeed activated in the brain, but these words are not created by the brain. We must realize that our mind in the original form is formatted through the eye and ear that perceives and filters – before they are activated in the brain and exists as something objectively all around us.
“The universe is a thought – and thoughts can be thought!”
But what is it for an activity, which is going on in the brain? Is it an activity aimed at creating concepts for what we see when we observe the world of objects and phenomena and a risk that these concepts can thus be formed from a right or a wrong basis.
Whenever scientists observe things in nature they are so liable with the names of these things. The repeated observations in the form of concepts they say. However, it is not concepts that enters the things and tells us something about things special creature.
But if this is impossible, then the so-called research will not pull a deeper wisdom of nature than it has already been entered into the form of his naming of things. It has in fact put some labels on things in order to recognize and remember them and, above all, keep them separate from each other. This method opens, however, a rich forum for speculation which is to construct hypotheses about how the different things and phenomena might be linked.
But can we possibly do otherwise? Can we really talk about things have a special creature? The first question,Yes. As a note to the second question, we must specify an example which presumably can be realized immediately.
“The theory of evolution can probably tell us why a duck has webbed between the toes – but it tells us nothing about why duck’s actually exists”
We have already realized the absurdity of the phrase “brain thinking” and thoughts must exist in the world as a tool that is accessible and common to all. But this tool is activated more or less in the form of concept formation in different people. The question now is: How is this done. In other words, we are here on the trail of a theory of knowledge, which must form the basis of all science areas. Such a theory of knowledge must of course be perfectly occurrence. It must seize the realization that when it first starts.
“Should an epistemology really shed light on the cognition area or have a starting point that is completely untouched by enlightenment in it-self. Such a basis is found only in the pure observation of the existence of the world.”
The “pure observation” that we can imagine is that only the newborn child is able to experience the field of thought activity that begins with the concept formation, which in turn will reveal a world that consists of a bewildering variety of colors and shapes without the order and coherence which concepts can create, but considered equally interesting or uninteresting. The various children’s reactions to this – literally – incomprehensible world is different, simply because kids are different. We can therefore how paradoxical it may sound, talk about that in the pure observation as somewhat subjective, whereas in the area of thought – when this thinking once is properly understood – will find it objective. This is exactly the opposite view that they claim in science today, when the world of experience (the observed) is regarded as the objective while thinking considered somewhat subjective – the misconception is due basically not being prepared in the difference between “speculation” and “thinking”.
It should now not be excluded that some of the great explorers – and not least the great composers – have experienced this and have been told that they now had the honor to create something which in fact was already created. But let me be more specific and add: they have, after all – by virtue of their rigorous mental work – produced and deliberately made what were hidden and only exist in an unconscious form.
Truth is not a decree which lowered down from the spiritual world. But when the sensory world recognized correctly it is shown everywhere to be revelations of the spiritual. Our work with the acknowledgment must, however, always start with self-awareness.
“A God may have created me, but he must leave it to myself to recognize me as I am. My self-consciousness, I give myself. In it I am not of knowledge, a recognition that I have received from the outside, but one that I have created. ”
In the above I have used the opinions of many different people – I like to play in all keys – (and I still play the piano and keyboard).
Well, nobody is perfect although many would like to be – self-knowledge is one of the most important basic elements in the diversity of life and when I try to see the big picture in this exciting universe I often return to the starting point:
– Life is just an experiment that cannot be “likely” but “experienced” without bias or other manipulative perceptions.