Honestly, I have a very important question for materialistic scientists. If determinism is universal, then how is scientific understanding valid? Nothing in nature led us to believe in cars or air planes, nothing concrete in our nature or behaviours, no structure in our deterministic brains would have allowed this behaviour to ever have been expressed.

Nothing in nature leads us to “believe” ANYTHING!

So if not nature then what is it?

I think nature gives humans the drive to learn and build. We started getting bigger brains when we decided to consume meat. That craving must have come from somewhere. No organ produced a chemical signal that describes or explains drive. No organic process explains or illustrates curiosity.

Why should we explain it? Just use it. Because science arguably is supposed to be able to. If the scientific paradigm is valid, than everything “real” is explainable and explainable by materially observable things.

There are some things we aren’t ready to know about yet. How do we know that there are things we aren’t ready to know about?

If we have a “drive” to know about them then we’re probably ready, or should be getting ourselves ready.

So we have at least two realities do we not? Which seems to be the greater truth, that we live in a persistent reality or that we live in a changing reality?

CHANGING – no doubt about that!

Yet nothing in nature describes or explains this change. It all seems to be coincidental, accidental despite our supposedly living in a deterministic reality. Cause and effect are supposed to be the rule, but if so then where are the material processes at the heart of it all? There are many scientists now who are even arguing against classical causality, that there really is any such thing as strict cause and effect. They advance the notion that everything is accidental, all of it. If so then how is science in any way valid?

That would unhinge all of science.

It’s fun and cool when I can follow it. It’s scary and toxic.

Science is toxic? You do understand atomic weapons perfectly well, as well as you need to.

Which is very little.

Well, the fact that science can predict the behaviour of the material world will always give it some validity.

What leads to initial science? What physical behaviour lead to the first question? The first experimental effort? From everything they have learned about our brains so far, there is no explanation for why we should experiment at all, everything points more to an apathetic mindset, conservation of biological resources.

I’m discovering the ‘science’ to be hugely contradictory in it’s conclusions. I’m starting to wonder what use it is.

Curiosity, and wanting to have better technology than your enemy. Yet they have no basis in physical reality either. The biological drives don’t explain experimentation. Food and sex drive don’t explain trying to understand the physics of flying sticks or stones.

How can we explain what no one else can? How can we explain anything at all? Unless the explanation was always already there? Consider that the conceptual world is not created, but is instead pre-existing. That the potential for every action, every choice, has its basis in a facet of reality that our sense organs don’t respond to directly.

Yes, that’s why they say a scientist discovers, not creates.

Mechanism has always existed.

So even if it’s not in your world, it’s still in THE world.

The intelligence that introduced us to our various tool using insights predated the tools themselves, predated the brains that could act on those insights as well. If the greater reality is that of change versus persistence, perhaps then the greater reality is present not in matter but instead energy. Energy which is by definition information.

Energy fields? Actually, even energy fields are temporary manifestations. The shape and behaviour of an energy field will shift over time, even convert beyond the point of having recognizable connection to its previous state.

Where does all that energy go, anyway? Energy never goes anywhere, because it goes everywhere. No change beyond a change in context, a change of syntax perhaps.

It’s like Wonka Vision. Over our heads in a million pieces until it has something to play with.

Energy is more like a cycle like breathing air and exhaling air? The air doesn’t go away it just changes. Indeed.

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~