Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#35917 09/02/10 05:32 AM
T
thebigpicture
Unregistered
thebigpicture
Unregistered
T
Your beliefs are based on emotional balance. You become attracted to specific ideas or beliefs because of the role those ideas or beliefs play in your emotional balance. Your beliefs can change when other sources of emotions change. People can change their beliefs in the same way they can fall out of love with one person and in love with another. We have specific beliefs to cope with our environments. Some people cope with the sadness caused by their environment by using intoxicating substances; others cope with their environment by having specific beliefs or habits.

The world is filled with billions of followers of different religions. People are correct for having their individual beliefs because their beliefs keep them more emotionally balanced than they would be without those beliefs. Some people may not believe empirical evidence provided by scientists because if they were to believe in that evidence, then they would probably become emotionally unbalanced based on where they are currently experiencing their happiness and sadness.

Emotional balance may be the result of a law of nature or the universe called the Law of Emotional Balance. The Law of Emotional Balance states that a person will experience as much happiness as sadness before being allowed to die.

Even though we may never be able to absolutely prove the Law of Emotional Balance because it seems impossible to quantify all of the emotions a person will experience in a lifetime, this does not mean that there is no evidence pointing to the existence of this law. Even without a way of quantifying all emotions, we can still determine if the Law of Emotional Balance is a possibility or outright impossible. For the Law of Emotional Balance to be true, certain base requirements would have to be met. The universe would need to have uncertainty programmed into it because without uncertainty, we could always predict the future and take in mostly happiness and minimal sadness and, thereby, violate the Law of Emotional Balance. We would need to have dreams during which our defenses are lowered so we could be forced to experience specific emotions needed to prevent violations of the Law of Emotional Balance. We would need homeostasis in cells, because cells are also living organisms that comprise other organisms like humans. We would need unusual/unique cultural structures with flexibility: sins, penance, religion, laws, punishments, government . . . The list goes on . . . Since these base requirements for the Law of Emotional Balance are met, why not try to test to see if emotional balance is maintained by a law. Falsifiable experiments exist that build a case in support of emotional balance as a law.

Conservation laws prevent charged particles from turning into pure energy unless they are neutralized with equal and opposite charges. Emotions and electricity may very well be directly tied together, so it is not too much of a stretch to consider that there may be a conservation law that governs emotions. The Law of Emotional Balance proposes that there may very well be a reservoir of “emotional energy,” and this reservoir is forced to follow the Law of Emotional Balance. It is this reservoir that many people have come to believe is God or God’s active hand in impacting a seemingly causally closed world governed by the laws of physics.

All objections to the Law of Emotional Balance are based on assumptions that are not necessarily true. As examples, it is an assumption that thinking you can commit suicide at any time is the same phenomenon as actually committing suicide at any time. It is an assumption that fetuses do not experience emotions in utero. In fact, it has been scientifically proven that fetuses do experience emotions in utero. It is an assumption that people starving in Third World countries do not become emotionally balanced before their death. It is an assumption that depressed people do not experience pleasure. People with chronic lifelong illnesses like depression have their baselines adjusted to their illnesses, and slight decreases in their daily depression cause them to experience pleasure, even though they are experiencing a level of depression that would make a non-depressed person experience sadness. All arguments against the Law of Emotional Balance are assumptions, and when analyzed, each argument leaves plenty of room to support that the Law of Emotional Balance is still a possibility.

The Law of Emotional Balance does not preclude that there is a creator of the universe. But the Law of Emotional Balance supports the notion that the world is causally closed and that the Law of Emotional Balance is what has given humankind the impression that there is a presence that actively responds to our thoughts, feelings, desires, and necessities.

Based on the Law of Emotional Balance, regardless of the choices we make in life, we will experience as much happiness as we do sadness. But the difference between some lifestyles and others is that some lifestyles will contribute to or inevitably result in the Earth being inhospitable for humans, and other lifestyles will not. We are destroying and contaminating the ecosystems that provide us with potable water, healthy food, and clean air. We have to adopt belief structures and lifestyles that secure without a doubt that our planet will be continue to be able to sustain human life.

.
#35924 09/02/10 04:10 PM
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: thebigpicture
. We are destroying and contaminating the ecosystems that provide us with potable water, healthy food, and clean air. We have to adopt belief structures and lifestyles that secure without a doubt that our planet will be continue to be able to sustain human life.


Hmm. Somehow you worked environmentalism and some advice into your theory. How does that connect with emotional balance?

kallog #35985 09/07/10 01:50 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Kallog
Hmm. Somehow you worked environmentalism and some advice into your theory. How does that connect with emotional balance?


Many years ago, when I was involved in home education, I realised that, when dealing with a hostile Local Education Authority, if I included several points, or asked several questions in one letter, the LEA would respond to one point of their choice and ignore the rest. The same thing tends to happen in discussion threads. Here we have a lengthy, interesting post with a little "commercial" tacked on to the end, and it is that appendage that attracts comment. You're capable of better than that, Kallog.

Thebigpicture: I shall have to read your post again, perhaps more than once, before commenting. You obviously have many ideas, to which you have given much thought. Maybe you should write a book. Even if it never gets published, the exercise is well worth the effort.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
to happen in discussion threads. Here we have a lengthy, interesting post with a little "commercial" tacked on to the end, and it is that appendage that attracts


His main idea seemed extremely silly, so I didn't want to get involved in it.

However that point irritated me. It seems these days you can give extra weight to anything by tacking environmentalism onto it. Kind of a way to make people feel connected with your idea.



Last edited by kallog; 09/07/10 02:27 PM.
kallog #35992 09/07/10 04:10 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Kallog
His main idea seemed extremely silly,


Silly is relative. Think of what the experts said about Wegener.

Have you read Mark McCutcheon/s "The Final Theory"? You have to admire the amount of work he has put into "silly".


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
His theory is instantly disproven by a child who's born with a painful disease, then dies before enjoying much/any good emotion.

His stated reasoning is by analogy, which isn't valid. Electrical charge is conserved, but speed isn't. That makes the analogy automatically inapplicable to at least one other area. He gives no reason it should apply to emotions but not to so many other 'quantities'.

kallog #36026 09/10/10 04:34 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Kallog
His theory is instantly disproven by a child who's born with a painful disease, then dies before enjoying much/any good emotion.


On the face of it, that seems like a sound argument, but how can we be sure that even a painful disease actually precludes good emotions?

If the theory has any merit, perhaps it should be expanded to include the possibility of reincarnation.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: thebigpicture
People are correct for having their individual beliefs because their beliefs keep them more emotionally balanced than they would be without those beliefs.


Almost every day the News tells us that people are acting in a way that certainly suggest emotional imbalance, and doing this in the name of some belief system.

Quote:
Some people may not believe empirical evidence provided by scientists because if they were to believe in that evidence, then they would probably become emotionally unbalanced based on where they are currently experiencing their happiness and sadness.


True, but the history of science is a history of changing beliefs, most of which have, at some time been held to be proven facts. It is often difficult for non-scientific people to distinguish between what some scientist is proposing as a theory, and what is accepted scientific “fact”; especially when scientists themselves cannot agree.

Quote:
The Law of Emotional Balance states that a person will experience as much happiness as sadness before being allowed to die.


This is where I balk. I accept that this is a belief which people have every right to hold, but I believe its place in philosophy, rather than in science.

Quote:
The universe would need to have uncertainty programmed into it because without uncertainty, we could always predict the future and take in mostly happiness and minimal sadness and, thereby, violate the Law of Emotional Balance.


We could do this only if we had a reliable way to predict the future. The same balance could be achieved by predestination; as long as we were not aware of what the future had in store for us.

Quote:
…so we could be forced to experience specific emotions


Forced? Here comes predestination again.

Quote:
All objections to the Law of Emotional Balance are based on assumptions that are not necessarily true.


As are all assumptions supporting the LEB: it is of the nature of assumptions that they are not necessarily true.

Quote:
…the Law of Emotional Balance supports the notion that the world is causally closed


….and a causally closed world supports the LEB. Isn’t that a bit like saying “I know there is a God because a certain scripture says so;” and “I know that scripture is true because God says it is”?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

If the theory has any merit, perhaps it should be expanded to include the possibility of reincarnation.


Untestable, unfalsifiable -> unscientific -> mental masturbation.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

proposing as a theory, and what is accepted scientific “fact”; especially when scientists themselves cannot agree.

It's safer to assume everything's wrong. Because as you said, throughout history science has been constantly proven wrong in almost every case. Doesn't mean it's useless, just not a perfect description of the world.


Quote:

This is where I balk. I accept that this is a


Etc. I agree, and it went nowhere. See how quickly it denerated into empty circular philosophy talk? That's why I didn't even bother. Just apply FiLCHeRS to see if it's worth bothering with.

kallog #36035 09/11/10 06:02 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: K
Untestable, unfalsifiable -> unscientific -> mental masturbation.


A bit like string theory?

Most of the criticism you level at this idea was also levelled at Wegener when he proposed continental drift. The idea had to be refined and, of course, re-named before the scientific world accepted it. I am not saying that this idea will be accorded the same sort of acceptance; only that out-of-hand rejection of an unrefined idea is not always the most scientific course of action. Kicking it about a bit to see if it falls to bits could be more productive. One of the bits might be of value.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: K
Untestable, unfalsifiable -> unscientific -> mental masturbation.


A bit like string theory?

Most of the criticism you level at this idea was also levelled at Wegener when he proposed continental drift. The


Not that I know much about string theory, but is it really untestable, even in principle? Is there really no evidence you could imagine, however implausable, which would prove it false? I doubt that. Same goes for continental drift. I just had a quick squiz on Wikipedia and the historical critisisms against it were entirely different. They were just based on lack of knowledge, making all sort of things unexplained.

Reincarnation is untestable unless the new person has some memory or other proof of connection with the dead one. But it's allowed for them to have no memory, so if we ask everybody on the planet about their past life, and nobody remembers anything verifiable, that doesn't hurt the theory. The theory can just say "oh you forget everything when you get reincarnated". So it's not falsifiable.

Since you love considering every crazy idea. Feel free to invest time studying these ones I made up:

If a single force is applied to an massive object, it might sometimes accelerate in the opposite direction to the force.

There are invisible flying monkeys living on the moon.

There are invisible creatures living on Mars.

There are invisible creatures living on Venus.

There are .... .. fill in the blank for another 1000 planets in the universe.

I hope you can commit yourself to investigating these 1004 fascinating ideas. Don't dismiss them out of hand, something useful might be hidden in there. When you're finished I'll have another 1000 for you to enjoy studying.

kallog #36044 09/12/10 04:21 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: K
hope you can commit yourself to investigating these 1004 fascinating ideas. Don't dismiss them out of hand, something useful might be hidden in there.
.

As usual, you make your point well, if somewhat laboriously. There is of course a vast difference between not following up an idea because it does not interest you, or because you lack time, on the one hand,and publishing dismissive things about it, on the other.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: K
There are invisible flying monkeys living on the moon.


How did you know about them? Are you a government mole...man?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

an idea because it does not interest you, or because you lack time, on the one hand,and publishing dismissive things about it, on the other.


I'm offended by the piles of rubbish the people spew into the world all the time. Especially the high-level anthrocentric ideas which are no better than astrology.

kallog #36057 09/13/10 12:21 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: K
I'm offended by the piles of rubbish the people spew into the world all the time
.

Perhaps you should try being a "so whatter", its easier on the blood pressure than taking offence at other peoples oddities (often = rubbish).

I am currently reading Mark McCutcheon's "The Final Theory". The first chapter contained some ideas that equated with thoughts that, some time ago, I had committed to paper in an attempt to clarify them in my mind. Beyond that seems to be rubbish, and lots of it, but reading it makes me ask questions that I had not even thought about before.

Does that make the book worth reading?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Does that make the book worth reading?


Sure. But won't make the next book on the same material worth reading.

kallog #36066 09/13/10 03:38 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
We seem to have lapsed into general chat, rather than the sort of scientific discussion that might want to join. Perhaps its time to pull out of this thread.


There never was nothing.

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5