1)Is uncertainty a reflection of your consciousness, a state of mind or position in belief and understanding?
2)Do you see consciousness, state of mind and belief and understanding as the same thing?
They are all the same thing to me a category of "stuff" that can not be measured or tested via science.
Right. I get that as the mindset for "scientests"
that derive reality by all that can be seen heard, and felt by current states of awareness and the technology derived from such a state of mind. The "I don't care" about anything else is part and parcel to the "Janitorial" state of mind (maintaining whatever creative endeavors someone else has qualified and quantified) that you identified yourself with in the previous post.
Evidently not all those who practice science or physics as a religion are unified within a single viewpoint, experience or hold the same beliefs, nor do they think the same.
I care little what anyone thinks at all .. in GOD we trust the rest of you bring data
Part of my reasoning in the above statement about the Janitorial point of view. Easier to cling to the mainstream dogma than to test, stretch, and evolve.
Science is not a democracy and it doesn't care what anyone thinks or for any sort of consensus or group agreement.
That wouldn't appear to be the definition of peer review which would substantiate a scientific discovery based on what or who science is.
Bill G might agree with you he likes his science consensus but it won't get you far with me. I don't blame Bill he obviously came thru a science education that taught science as an authority (they told him it was true) and he honestly believes that is how it works.
I fail to see how anyone's point of view regarding the show me and I will believe (as you stated earlier in regards to your acceptance of reality), sets you or science apart from anyone subscribing to a belief system.
I come from a very different science world where if you want to convince or influence me show me a logical argument supported by facts.
This world you claim to be privy to, is not so private or unique. It applies to the ego and it's need to validate reality with what can be understood. Anything outside the realm of validation with the human senses is virtually non existent to most. However the conundrum that exists within these claims as they pertain to science, is that the scientific man also claims to be a discoverer of things that were previously unknown and scientifically identified as not real. Go figure.
Why would science pretend not to care, but then search for more than whatever is known within current historical and scientific belief?
I'd say by your own admission, that you are no scientist but rather, a troll. Just gotta say something about everything and pretend to be someone that someone cares to listen to even tho you say you don't care. If you really don't care why bother living breathing or coming here?
That is how my science world works and to those of my ilk, everything else is just noise and drivel.
Right, until it's not.
Appeal to authority and consensus and I will show you someone who obviously doesn't really understand what they are dealing with and is having to fake it.
The I'm just a janitor, go talk to someone who cares point of view?
If some scientists (and or layman) want to try to fall into the "stupid consensus hole" it is not for me to save them. Poor Max's problem is none of this garbage is falsifiable so it isn't science by definition and it doesn't matter how many he recruits in his new cult.
Every piece of the puzzle wants to claim to be the authority of every other piece of the puzzle. That is the way the ego works. Instead of finding value in all things it's easier to claim sovereignty over the whole as the authority over someone else's idea of authority.
When Einstein first published his work on relativity there were probably under 100 people in the world who actually accepted and understood the concept. We still have scientists who don't accept the work and science doesn't care
I get that. The need to be valued usually starts with a history of not being validated as important. So there is always competition for importance based on who or what you are in accord with the status quo.
Out with the old and in with the new.
Yep and that fine just don't call it science or pretend it is because it's a religion at that point
Science and religion are both filled with those who rely on belief, in something.
You yourself cannot deny what you hold true within science or what you call science, because you yourself have not done every single science experiment to quantify your position as a scientist. Tho you might claim to be able to validate anything that has been scientifically derived thru scientific process, you wouldn't have the time to perform every scientific experiment that validates reality (or what's in it that you can validate with a logical argument) by yourself. In fact a scientific argument would indicate an opposing thought stream or point of view.
I suppose for arguments sake you could idealize a scenario where you could play all possible scenarios within your own mind, but I would like to hear you make that claim (for entertainment purposes)
.
Would you attempt to take the "I don't care what anyone else says or thinks" attitude as the authority to what your outcomes were if there were only yourself to argue or discuss theory and practice?
You would have depend on others to accept what you say in order to validate yourself, simply because if there were no one to listen or hear what you had to say, there would be nothing to refer to in the understanding of yourself or what you do.
You reveal this when you use arguments such as:
Not sure I really want to join in any discussion that involves Max Tegmark, as one of his senior colleagues once said to him
Quote: "Max your crackpot papers are not helping you."
To make a point in reference to your choice and opinion having validation, by referencing someone else's opinion.
Enjoy your discussion as I said from a science point there isn't anything that can be discussed it's just other "stuff".
Which is why you are participating and discussing it from a point of view defining who you are, by first defining science and a scientist?
