Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Expectations Drive Our Searches. Do you disagree?

The 'theory of expected knowledge' by Sivashanmugam claims that our searches are driven by our expectations. It also claims that your knowledge about anything and everything is not unexpected. Here is the link to the document - The expected knowledge - http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111218052804/analytical/images/4/4e/Expected.pdf


What is your opinion on it?
I am confused - What is that which drives our searches? Expectations or observations?

Hi Parvatha, welcome.

I followed your link and found 26 pages of repetition; did I miss something?

Initially it raised two questions in my mind:

1. What was the point?
2. How much can you know about the parts of a photon?

You ask: "What is that which drives our searches? Expectations or observations?"

I suspect one could make a case for either, or both. You have undoubtedly given this some thought already. You might like to get things started with some ideas.

Hello Parvatha

Regarding the pdf, while in this electronic age it can't be condemned as a waste of paper, greater economy of words would grant greater economy of the reader's time.

Re your question: We tend to search in the places we most expect to be fruitful, do we not? Given that there are reasons for our expectations - observations, logic, or both - there's at least a hope that we will be successful. Wouldn't you agree?

Perhaps expectations initiate our searches, but observations and logic direct our efforts.

That's almost certainly an oversimplification, but it could do as a starting point.

I doubt it. It is more likely that you, like the Reverend who posts here, submit topics to draw attention to an idea, so that the individual discussion can be addressed with the daily sermon of the author of the subject in question.
Desire.


Here is another theory posted on the web by Shivashanmugam

You will find them everywhere in everything

If you search for divisibility,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for comparability,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for connectivity,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for sensitivity,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for transformability,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for substitutability,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for satisfiability,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

Without the search for divisibility, science would not have found the divisibility of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities!

Without the search for comparability, science would not have found the comparability of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities!

Without the search for connectivity, science would not have found the connectivity of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities!

Without the search for sensitivity, science would not have found the sensitivity of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities!

Without the search for transformability, science would not have found the transformability of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities!

Without the search for substitutability, science would not have found the substitutability of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities!

Without the search for satisfiability, science would not have found the conditions which could be satisfied by atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities!

Science constantly searches, researches and tests the universal laws of nature everywhere in everything. No scientific method excludes the universal laws of nature. The universal laws of nature form the very foundation for human knowledge. The universal laws of nature will continue to exist until the universe becomes nothing.

What will you do if nothing has divisibility, comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability, and satisfiability?

What would your knowledge be if nothing has divisibility, comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability, and satisfiability?

Do you know anything whose nature cannot be known from the universal laws of nature?

Oh, beloved men and women,
You will never know anything whose nature cannot be known from the universal laws of nature!

Refute this if you can, or else declare that you know neither the universal laws of nature nor the nature of anything!

Either would facilitate a search, but would not interest motivate the start more?

I think I may perhaps have missed a specialised meaning in the word 'search' but it seems to me that a search is only as enthusiastic as its motivation--- unless, of course, there is an element of coercion involved.

Good point, Ellis. There can be two sources of motivation: (1) the carrot and/or stick that initiates the search (2) the intrinsic value of the object of the search. The two need not always be identical nor of equal power. I don't think we can assume that expectation of success is necessarily a driving factor where coercion is present?

Shivashanmugam appears to like repetition, but one thing that seems to arise from this surfeit of words is that we may have an inclination to find what we are looking for. That, I suspect, has more to do with human nature than with scientific investigation.

Exactly! What is the starting point? Expectation or observation.

Some kind of paradoxical scenario:
Which one is correct?
1. New is expected.
2. New is unexpected.
Both 1&2 appear to be correct. But, both cannot be correct.

You're playing with words, Parvatha. There's no paradox.

What is new?

You are experiencing 'new' from your own perspective therefore new is both expected or unexpected as you have not experienced this new before. However your perception is not mine. I may find new is unexpected. Or I may find new expected.

But new is still new. Our individual or even combined perception hasn't changed its newness, but we have changed as new cannot be for us the same new. The new we then experience is forever changing.

That makes even more sense than I had thought it would. That's a novelty!

As in the universe, or awareness of individuality and its corresponding experience of itself and its,...individual manifestations? Awareness is filtered thru beliefs in beginnings and endings when the ego is invested in the relative world of duality, and it seeks to define the present moment.
Because individuality is diverse and unique in its identification with personal realities, there is no one absolute way to identify with a particular moment in relative space and time, while standing completely within the boundaries of duality and perceiving another individual with their own opinion.

Expectation/desire is what stimulates creation. Expectation is a quality of creativity and desire. Observation is part and parcel to awareness of self and its corresponding qualities that are desire, intelligence, expectation, power, love etc. (relative to states of consciousness) etc. etc.
There is no paradox unless one is not conscious of reality. Both are correct and both are perceptions of different experiences.

It can be said, nothing is new, for if something can be discovered as new, it already exists somewhere in potential.
This also brings into consideration, the reality of consciousness and its ability to manifest.
At some level, (consciousness) being connected to the desire to bring forth the objective experience of Newness, initiates all experiences.
Consciousness visualizes both the object of experience, the subjective perception, and the experience of the two, as they are then manifest in space and time.

Within the relative, and amongst the collaboration of individual perceptions, it may be agreed upon, that some things may be new to someone with a lack of experience, and then familiar to one who has experience or has experienced the subjective object or experience of consideration.

The differentiation between new, and new that is unique to individuality, is where NEW means that the aforementioned uniqueness of individual perspective is acknowledged.

TT, is someone paying you by the word?

Actually in this case I thin that TT is justified in using far too many words. The argument, like the topic is ephemeral!

Is this science?

While we are, in my opinion, off topic scientifically, I was very brave yesterday. I decided to make a cup of tea before bed time, and when I went to turn the kettle on a very large Huntsman spider jumped out from under the microwave and ran towards me. They are non-venemous, but are also large, this one was about 8 cms, and hairy. This is where I was BRAVE. I caught him and put him in the garden.

Then I had a small glass of something a little stronger than tea!

AH HA! I have something scientific after all. Why do we have an irrational fear (or revulsion) of spiders? This type is not harmful, in fact it is helpful by catching flies and mosquitos.

Yes, but I'm sworn by oath to conceal their identity.


And to Ellis..
I don't like spiders. Ran into one of those bird catching spiders webs in Fiji once.

(TT, you've been to Fiji too? Fascinating)

Spent 6 months there..

Shame! I could do with getting in on that.

Ellis, I’ve just been looking at pictures of Huntsman spiders; it looks as though you have some beauties in Oz. A bit more impressive than this Aranius diadematus I photographed in our garden last summer. Not the best shot I have, but the wasp gives some scale.

http://i.imgur.com/R961t.jpg

BTW, I'm showing off, because my son has just shown me (again) how to up-load ( or is it down-load?)images.

Ellis, I almost forgot to say how praiseworthy, as well as brave, your reaction was. So many people would just have applied the rolled up newspaper treatment, especially in a country in which you have some real “nasties”.