1. Registering for the Forum

    We require a human profile pic upon registration on this forum.

    After registration is submitted, you will receive a confirmation email, which should contain a link to confirm your intent to register for the forum. At this point, you will not yet be registered on the forum.

    Our Support staff will manually approve your account within 24 hours, and you will get a notification. This is to prevent the many spam account signups which we receive on a daily basis.

    If you have any problems completing this registration, please email support@jackkruse.com and we will assist you.

light is created by the sun

Discussion in 'Ask Jack' started by JanSz, Sep 6, 2017.

  1. Sajid Mahmood

    Sajid Mahmood New Member

    well almost kind of perfect!
    JanSz likes this.
  2. Sajid Mahmood

    Sajid Mahmood New Member

    The odds of human life existence is are small to happen by chance! It's a never ending argument! Nature or God, you could argue it either way in nearly every possible way. It's impossible to disprove the existence of God and vice versa.
  3. NeilBB

    NeilBB Gold

    Odds are 100%, since it happened. Probability not needed in the case of certainty, regardless of what quantum physicists might say about that. You could argue whatever you want, doesn't make it rational, much less correct. One is not required in logic to disprove an arbitrary assertion. "God" is an arbitrary assertion, neither true nor false, unrelated and unrelatable to observable human knowledge. Nature is the source of all standards for what we call "perfection," so only humans who don't understand the source of concepts (how to use their own minds) would have the gall to judge nature by it's own standard. Personally, I respect nature for exactly what it is.
  4. drezy

    drezy Gold

    You've gotta get that into a cross-stitch ASAP and put it on your wall. It'll kick "Home sweet home" 's ass right out the circular frame it's currently in

    [​IMG]



    FYI: Digging deeper into this actually started to jog my understanding of chirality(and why it was brought up earlier).


    From 3.1 in https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0502010.pdf
    Assing around but paying attention to the big lessons...
  5. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator


    Neil and I usually agree on most things but one thing in this paragraph I don't agree with.......Probability is still used in nature even in the case of certainty. We all know the sun will rise the next day but what is a probability is how much light your mitochondrion will leak that day compared to the last because it is based upon the probability of what happens around you that next day........so if the power company installs a smart meter you probably will leak more light and this will affect your mass and your health by the mass equivalence equation.......it is a small poitn for others to understand but it is very critical concept between Neil and I as we argue on my porch or by PM.

    Why is it a big deal?
    [​IMG]

    All tied to how mass and energy scale to this equation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=612&v=Xo232kyTsO0
    NeilBB likes this.
  6. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    God and Energy are brothers from another mother.......
  7. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Actually nature is not symmetric.......it just appears this way.
    NeilBB likes this.
  8. NeilBB

    NeilBB Gold

    I knew you'd appreciate the jab at statistical mechanics! Well, the argument I'm making is epistemological, not predictive, regarding the certainty issue. Since everything we know abstractly (conceptually) is in an important sense a fabricated summary of condensed observation, the rules of mental assembly become very important to keep the roadmap relevant at all. But I'm not suggesting that this is synonymous with predicting or even thoroughly understanding the full nature of reality, whatever that even is. That's where physicists usually get into trouble, being too arrogant. Like Dirty Harry, a man's gotta know his limitations. I know mine, my intellectual goals are modest, but pretty well grounded...
  9. NeilBB

    NeilBB Gold

    I'd like to meet their maternal grandmothers then. Good haplogroups... Probably Mediterranean...
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2017
  10. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    You got your words and i'll stick to my waves............NeilBB
    NeilBB likes this.
  11. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    I'm not arrogant just misunderstood.
    NeilBB likes this.
  12. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator


    As a clinician you have some obligation to get as close to the truth as you can, and nothing gets in the way of natural truth as much as language does. (insert NeilBB frown here) The language of nature is complex mathematics and words cannot begin to express the queerness of medical physics or of QED. Therefore the job of creating knowledge and wisdom in this arena must be done using the art of medicine. This is language that all humans grasp. Medicine relies on evidence based facade they created like it is some panacea for humans. It is not. The data shows us what we call evidenced based is not doing us a thing for prevention or lowering costs at all. It protects the paradigm. Evidence based medicine is based upon “hard scientific evidence.” How many of us have heard that very same phrase throughout our careers in medicine? Most of us have used it many times. And when we did, we really had no idea what it implies. In the beginning of my career I had just naturally regarded “hard scientific evidence” as if it were more or less a tangible object we could handle physically or mentally. Tangible like the Statue of Liberty, Central Park, the Mona Lisa, and “hard scientific evidence.” It had never occurred to me that recognizing “hard scientific evidence” would be any more difficult than recognizing the statue, the park, or the painting. Only much later did I realize that “hard scientific evidence” was only an amorphous concept, not a concrete precept based on nature’s laws. After that realization, the debate about health risks from environmental non native EMF's began to make a lot more sense because those radiations are linked to the laws of the electromagnetic force.

    Sooner or later, I think the principle will be accepted that knowledge regarding the link between blue light and non native EMF's and disease is imperfect, now and forever. Really it’s only common sense. The consequences of everything we do, or that is done to us, are imperfectly predictable, and the consequences of EMFs are no exception. “Hard scientific evidence” is not in the world, it is in the world's mind as a core belief of fact when its just an opinion of a set of facts.

    I like connecting with people who think or at least have open minds. I have no time for those who cannot entertain the non conformist view. Conventional wisdom serves to protect others from the painful job of thinking.
    Jude likes this.
  13. drezy

    drezy Gold

    God and ontology covered can we all agree that my "light creates thyme" was kinda funny? Let's all get along.
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2017
    NeilBB likes this.
  14. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    We get along fine........but this point is a big one in the path of science. Bigger than most realize.
    Science at its bottom line, is really anti-intellectual and anti-epistemologic. Neil won't like this meme at all. Why do I fell this way? Science always distrusts pure reason and common sense, because it rejects any manmade consensus. As such, science demands the production of objective fact to define reality. When our core beliefs do not agree with observations made in nature, we have to accept the discomfort of her truth. We have to prefer the unadulterated truth over our most passionate illusions.
    JanSz and Linz like this.
  15. JanSz

    JanSz Silver

  16. NeilBB

    NeilBB Gold

    Agree about peer review, @JanSz

    I support the concept of science, not the current practice. If you abandon epistemology, you are practicing religion, even if you call it quantum physics.
  17. NeilBB

    NeilBB Gold

    Man-made consensus has nothing to do with reason, contrary to the modern views of post-Kantian philosophy. Reason is a minority viewpoint.
    Lahelada likes this.
  18. NeilBB

    NeilBB Gold

    @Jack Kruse Today's "science" is certainly anti-epistemological. That's exactly why it should generally not be trusted at face value. Which happens to be the thing that brought you and me together in this exploration and conversation.
  19. NeilBB

    NeilBB Gold

    Reason starts with observation at the macro level, I never said it should end there. But it does have to be traced back there by some noncontradictory path, otherwise, we are just practicing primitive superstition, dressed up in Lagrangians and Fourier transforms...And have become modern Greek Pythagoreans worshipping numbers...
  20. JanSz

    JanSz Silver


    Miles Mathis often attempts to replace high math with plain algebra.
    Not sure if successfully.

    But apparently some other way of logic and communication would be helpful.

    ...

Share This Page