The Starmaker <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > altergnostic wrote: >> >> The Starmaker <email@example.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> "Both math and physics are ASPECTS of reality."???? >>> >>> >>> You got that all wrong! >>> >>> >>> Both math and physics are ASPECTS of *YOUR* reality, not reality itself. >>> >>> >>> You simply are *structured* to view reality physcally and mathematically... >>> >>> you are projecting... >>> >>> you are reading into it, not reading from it. >>> >>> >>> It's an illusion! A very persistent stubborn illusion. >>> >>> >>> The Starmaker >>> >>> >>> There is a differece between reading 'into' Nature, and reading 'from' Nature.... >>> >>> >>> >>> You people do a lot of 'reading into Nature'....I wish you would stop this nonsence. >>> >>> >>> >>> You people give Nature a bad name? >> >> Potato, potahto. >> Admittedly, reality just is, period. Any added adjective is of our own >> making, and serves to help us understand and, yes, relate to it on a >> rational basis. >> That doesn't mean there are both adequate and inadequate descriptions (or >> projections, if you like). If i project my belief that reality is made of >> frutyiolpfs, which are transcendental objects made of love and clay, is >> that SCIENTIFICALLY valid? > > > The answer is Yes! If "frutyiolpfs" passes observation and experiment, > and you are structured to > view reality as frutyiolpfs, then it is scientifically valid.
Ah, there you go. There are conditions that make a claim scientifically valid, as you enumerated. Currently, frutyiolpfs are not valid, as there is no model nor evidence of transcendental entities made of love and clay (to the point where the sentence has little meaning). If frutyiolpfs was to pass scientific scrutiny, it could very well be stated they are aspects of reality. Currently, math and physics are as much aspects of reality as time-wasting discussions are aspects of sci.physics.relativity. Falsify this claim, i dare you.
> > > Change the structure of your brain and you change your reality, the way > you view the universe.
Change reality and you change reality, yes. Currently, reality includes this structure if the brain, and math and physics seem to work when describing nature, se we are allowed to infer they are discovered, not invented, aspects of reality. You are also allowed to say they aren't and we are all just brainsturbating, as i agreed: reality just is, any advective is of our own making. So, with all that in mind, i still feel safe to say that reality has physicality and mathematicalicality, i think Gaia knows what i mean and says it's fine, if this helps us understand her.
> > > Currently, you are structured to view the universe as > mathematically...somewhere else...maybe another > planet, some alien on a flying saucer may have a different brain > structure...frutyiolpfs. > > > How do you think the alien from another planet flies the flying saucer?
By doing the opposite of rejecting all his science because he was just projecting. ;)