Hootenanny Talks w/ Rupert Sheldrake
Wow, what a bunch of nonsense: Hootenanny Talks w/ Rupert Sheldrake
Rupert Sheldrake
Science my friend is based on mathematics.
As my sifu would say - science and math they are RELATED.
You cannot have science without mathematics.
The certainty in science is mathematical certainty. It is the belief that under the hood of the universe there is a simple set of rules that govern the way things behave.
One common reality. Observer independent.
Modern Realism perhaps it should be called.
Think of it as a book handed down by God. The Old Testament (Torah) dictates the rules of life for human beings… well there is the “scientific tree of knowledge” that dictates the way matter interacts.
( I don’t know if an olive has a consciousness but for sure a slab of concrete has no “soul”!!! )
And this is why physics is the shit and everything else is the b-shit. Physics is absolute. It is the closest science that is like mathematics. All the way up there with computer science which is some sort of new-world math. Or it can be.
Bioloy is a bunch of random tests and inferences….
… not too clear how you “prove” something there.
The axioms of physics are:
- Temporal and spacial invariance of the laws of physics. (so if you measure c here, then you will measure c elsewhere no matter what frame of reference or acceleration or how quantum you are. Call it the “c is c” rule.
- Quantum Mechanics as a closed source black box with good documentation but no real idea about what is going on inside. Call this “quantum mechanics as a tool”
Physics is not math. These axioms ‘could’ be wrong. But this ‘could’ is unlikely in the Descartian sense of knowledge.
Like this would be number 9. and 10. in the list of axiomatically true statements rooting back to the Descarte question “I think therefore I am” and I can doubt anything else.
1. I am because I am thinking.
2. There is a physical world out there that is universal and shared.
3.
yada yada yada…
9. Temporal and spacial invariance
10. Quantum Mechanics
All this to say that without the axiomatical clinical certainty that mathematics can provide is at a higher level of intellectual activity — above religious and spiritual revelations.
I would question any hand-wavy new-age theory of the world that claims validity.
And as a great gift to the scientific community I will voice the general guidelines.
IF YOUR THEORY HAS NO EQUATIONS IN IT -
THEN IT CANNOT BE USEFUL FOR SCIENCE.