PHILOSOPHIC vs SCIENTIFIC If the statement 'Daisies exist' is a scientific statement which is subject to proof and verification, then so is the statement 'The physical universe exists.' There is no topological different between them. Daisies are merely a subset of the physical universe. Thus it doesn't matter if one asserts that daisies exist, or planets exist, or stars, or galaxies, or spacetime, or the PU itself, they are all simply existential assertions that are open to verification by demonstrating the existence of at least one such instance of any of them. If there is a daisy, show me one. If there is a physical universe, show me one. DEMONSTRATING the existence of a daisy inside the PU, is no different than DEMONSTRATING the existence of the entire shebang. Show me one, and it's done. Notice that if you can show me a daisy, you HAVE shown me a physical universe, by definition of a daisy being a subset of the PU. Notice also that it is not sufficient to show me a PICTURE or a conscious experience of one to prove it exists I need to see one directly, otherwise it remains forever a theory. There in lies the rub, because if all I can see are pictures of things, or conscious renditions of them, and I can never see the thing itself directly, then I can never have the proof I seek that the thing in question actually exists. All I have proof of is the existence of the pictures and conscious renditions! The existence of the messenger never proves the existence of the King, even if the message the messenger brings from the King is "I-AM!". The existence of the object in question remains a theory, supported but never prooven by the evidence of pictures and conscious renditions, which are at best messengers. One can argue, yes but why would there be a royal messenger if there weren't a King to send him, but we will leave that kind of argument to the mentally broken. Existence of the symbol does not prove existence of the referent. You can never learn with perfect certainty about A by looking at B. It's kind of silly to even try. Now some will claim that science only applies to the existence of those things IN the physical universe, not to the physical universe as a whole. They would claim that the assertion that the physical universe exists, is a philosophical position and not a scientific one. That's ok by me, but I don't see the necessity to the complexity. If the existence of the entire physical universe is not in the realm of science, then what realm is it in? Science is supposed to give us truth, the actual truth and nothing but the truth. What good is getting the truth about an arena of activity, if the very existence of that arena itself is in scientific question or worse scientific irrelevancy? By claiming that only those things in the physical universe are objects of valid scientific study, science removes itself from the bigger truths of the AllThatIs, that may also surrender to the exact same methods science uses in the physical universe. OBSERVE, THEORIZE, PREDICT, EXPERIMENT, OBSERVE. To say that this activity in the physical universe is sound science, but the exact same activity in the conscious universe is not, is lunacy. Someone is trying to DEFINE the conscious universe out of existence, because somehow 'only science gives us the truth' and 'only the physical universe is a valid arena for scientific study.' If you fall for that one, you must have wanted it and paid for it, and so it serves you right. ACTUAL vs VIRTUAL If the physical universe is a virtual universe, a dream or co hallucination in the mind of God and many dreamers, then it is obvious that experiments within the virtual universe, may never be able to detect the actual universe that is virtualizing it. And if something can be learned about the actual universe from studying one of its virtualizations, then it is possible the actual universe wanted it to be so and built in those abilities into the virtual universe. But then again, maybe not, it depends entirely on the motivations and abilities of the creator universe what it puts into the created universe. Things inside the virtual universe are virtual actualities, while the virtual universe as a whole is an actual virtuality. In this sense one might be able to say that discovering knowledge about things inside the virtual physical universe is some how different than discovering things ABOUT the actual virtualizing of the physical universe in the first place. Those are two different arenas for sure. But the METHODS of science remain the same, because LOGIC remains the same, and IS is IS remains the same, and ALL, SOME and NONE remain the same and thus verifiability and falsifiability remain the same. Whatever you say about ANYTHING from rock to God is either an existential statement like 'Some thing exists', or a universal statement like 'All things are such and so'. Thus any existential statement is verifiable via instantiation, presenting those interested with an actual direct instance of the statement. "Daisies exist", well here's a daisy. And just so, any universal statement is falsifiable via counter instantiation, presenting those interested with a direct countering instance of the statement. "All daisies are white", well here's a black daisy. Inside the virtual universe one is limited to virtual tools to discover virtual rules, and virtual phenomenon and their apparent relations to each other. Outside the virtual universe, one must use actual tools to discover actual rules, and actual phenomenon and their actual relations. One admits that the outside universe may have created a virtual book inside the virtual universe which contains a detained description of the outside universe, but really in general no virtual tool inside the virtual universe will ever be able to sense or report anything actual about the actual universe that is virtualizing it. Thus there is a science on how to make daisies inside the virtual universe, and there is a science on how to make virtual universes inside the actual universe. The science INSIDE a virtual universe is merely a virtualization of the science OUTSIDE the virtual universe! Thus science in the actual universe existed first before it could be virtualized into the virtual universe. Thus if science exists in the realm of Mammon, science must also exist in the realm of God. Thus the scientific method remains the same whether one is in a dream or not, whether one studies things in the dream using dream tools, or studies the dream itself using actual tools, namely consciousness. Homer -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink (607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com Sat Feb 13 22:55:27 EST 2010