March 20, 2013

What is Science?

   So many times, the words we choose connotate an implied meaning different from the consent decree.  The word choice is made to impress a thought form, as opposed to clearing up information, it stands to befuddle us even more.  What we believe science to be is the rock underpinning for existence - it turns out that science is a buzz word for many different thought forms.
   What science is to me, a practicing scientist is a method for viewing the world as part of an intertangled relationship between all things.  The method involves PQRST - Priview, Question, Research, Study, Test.  We start with a hypothesis of something that we think might explain something and then set out trying to find an example where our theory breaks down.  Science does not explain what we think we know, it takes knowledge in context to form a new enlightenment.
   Unfortunately, science today is more of a justification for consumption than a means of seeking truth.  The truth tends to be buried beneath volumes of detail and the matter of matter cannot be questioned.  How come we use a 300 year old concept of gravity developed by Isaac Newton? - surely the state of the art has advances since them.  Science is supposed to question myths, not exclude them like some overwrough relative that has worn out her welcome.  The basis in mathematics, a topic few people really grasp, allows a lot of hand waving and 'not true' slogans to be used to obfuscate rather than to clarify.  Cognitive dissonance leads the viewer to give up rather than grokking - a self-reenforcing practice of dumbing ourselves down.
   The idea that belief can have an effect is rejected out-right by the scientific community.  Determinism says that you must fit your theory into the existing model or it will be rejected - the gatekeepers guard their ability to convert cheap science into expensive gadgets for everyone in the future.  It takes belief to know that material goods are only a figment of our imagination, based on the way we have been taught to require a common consensus, when in fact such a thing does not have to exist.
   In preparing for tomorrow's discussion in the now, i came up with a number of potential topics to address in a meta-physical workshop.  The first topic, How do you do true?, is a question of what we believe.  If you continually enforce what you believe to be true upon others who do not agree, you quickly find your supply of friendly listeners diminishing.  They have their own version of truth, which can easily be different from yours - no need to be raining on the parade.  There is enough room for multiple opinions on every matter.
   Science is a faction - not quite fact, not quite fiction - something made up to provide a consistent point of view.  The fact that a premise can be addressed in multiple weighs and be found okay by all views is reenforcement that that premise is true - yet not a proof beyond all doubts.  Once upon a time, when i believed in the concept of time, i thought that i could prove a theorum - now i know that there can never be absolute proof - except with vodka.
   The problem with math is that nature doesn't even attempt to count.  It uses the fibonacci sequence and a doubling function to generate symmetry - every greater is a compound function of several lessers.  As above, so below holds as a function of scale on every scale - even though the reflection of time changes at each scale.  Thus dogs have seven years in our one and it provides us with their relative age.  I wonder how much free energy can be harnessed from a constant wag of a happy dog's tail?
   One question that science can answer for me - how do we do that 5D thing that we do?  By learning things like remote viewing and telepathy, we expand the function of the brain beyond the caveats of current science - but if i know i can do something repeatedly, how can someone else denies that it happens and require proof in their terms and not mine?  We need to be stepping out beyond the current illusion of 3D space - there are too many disconnects for the prior illusion to continue to hold.
    To come up with a common consensus of reality is a goal of those who wish control.  Independence of thought means doing your homework and verifying a concept from a second or third source that does not trace back to the original source.  Your internal truth detector - the heart - knows intuitively the difference between right and worng - but something wrong for you is not necessarily wrong for me - it relies on a value judgement.  That is why we measure things within science - to ascertain value, both relative and absolute.
   We can ignore the matrix and the system and get to know enough to sense, with love.  Unconditional love means listening to all points of view with the same basic intent - learning to transcend personal ego for a peek at something structural within the lattice.  Energy flows constantly and seems to move in a direction that releases more energy - sometimes known as chaos.  Order requires even more energy, because it is creating structure from disarray: when we own our own time and thought, we can do anything we set our minds to do.
   Remember - the Beatles had the concept down in the Magical Mystery tour - Nothing is real, and there is nothing to get hung about.  SFF.  Take comfort in knowing that the ships will decloak soon to provide peace (and Southern Comfort).  If we each own our reality and develop a consistency of approach, then when these systems provide convergent agreement, we shall be able to tell right from wrong by consensus.  The question to ask is - How can i be of service?
   Namaste'     doc

1 comment:

PintofStout said...

Gonna keep coming back to this one until I know it instinctively.