Dark Matter Apparently is Midichlorians

I read the post for the elements of disagreement, fear of shame, and the prejudice towards seekers of truth and practitioners of prudence and reasoning.

discussions don't benefit until logical explanations are provided

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

Would you kindly then also cite those posts, please? Because I don't seem to be finding anything about shame or about fear or about logic and reason, but maybe I'm overlooking something...

The problem is that every time you try to define the force someone else is going to get butt hurt about it. So long as you experience it who cares what everyone else thinks. People can define and label and Tao it till there blue in the face. To anyone who wishes to experience it, go find a night club where there are a lot of youth dancing, sit back and drink it up...

Trying to define what's infinite is limiting it. As Campbell says, when give "god" a name, you are already defining it, since the word god brings with it several pre-concepts and ideas.

The Force probably is in the Dark Matter, because the Force is everywhere, it's the very fabric of the universe and of our bodies and everything else.

Entropist wrote: leave the Force undefined? serious? does the code mention knowledge?

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

how do YOU define the force?

The code also talks about wisdom, and the wisdom thats trying to be explained here by everyone else is that even though we have run every scenario possible, we believe that 1+1 does in fact = 2. However, we must also accept that we only know so much of the universe around us, that there is the possibility that down the road we might actually find out that 1+1 does not actually = 2.

Or to better sum up, everything about dark matter we know now is simply theory still, there's no way to really know if we're right or not so we must keep an open mind to the possibilities, and always assume we don't yet know all the information, all the perspectives, and make the best judgments, but also not be quick to make such judgments, based on that knowledge.

Tellahane wrote: The code also talks about wisdom...

Citation, please...

... there is the possibility that down the road we might actually find out that 1+1 does not actually = 2.

First, you said that we have run every scenario possible, so the possibility you are referring to is - by your own admission - impossible. However, math is not a science. It is not based on scenarios or observations, but solely on internal consistency. Therefore 1 + 1 = 2 is true under very specific meanings of "1", "2", the "=" relation and the "+" operator, respectively. That is not a matter of discovery, it is a matter of definition.

On the other hand, physics is a science, so eventhough that analogy is analogous in just about no way, the point you are trying to make might still be valid.

Or to better sum up, everything about dark matter we know now is simply theory still...

Theory is as far as it goes. The real thing is the real thing. Theory is what we know about it. Not what we speculate or can imagine or can assert, but what we actually know.

... there's no way to really know if we're right or not...

Depends on what you mean by "right". And science doesn't care about being right.

... so we must keep an open mind to the possibilities, and always assume we don't yet know all the information, all the perspectives, and make the best judgments, but also not be quick to make such judgments, based on that knowledge.

One of the inherent problems with omniscience is that an omniscient being would be unable to tell whether they are in fact omniscient. Scale that down to just one topic and obviously you end up with a scenario that at every point we have no way of telling whether there is still more to know about that topic or not. Assume nothing. Question everything. Research doesn't start with the assumption that we are missing something when everything is working out; rather it starts with a problem - whenever something does not quite work. It is in that case that either our equipment or our understanding failed and it is only by eliminating the former that we can conclude - not assume - the latter.
Oh, and there multiple ways to understand what is "possible". Not everything that is logically possible is physically possible and not everything that is physically possible is by any means probable and not everything that is probable is or ever has been actually the case. The open mind is the critical mind: The one that filters propositions, not the one that just accepts them all, indiscriminately.

Gisteron wrote:

Tellahane wrote: The code also talks about wisdom...

Citation, please...

... there is the possibility that down the road we might actually find out that 1+1 does not actually = 2.

First, you said that we have run every scenario possible, so the possibility you are referring to is - by your own admission - impossible. However, math is not a science. It is not based on scenarios or observations, but solely on internal consistency. Therefore 1 + 1 = 2 is true under very specific meanings of "1", "2", the "=" relation and the "+" operator, respectively. That is not a matter of discovery, it is a matter of definition.

On the other hand, physics is a science, so eventhough that analogy is analogous in just about no way, the point you are trying to make might still be valid.

Or to better sum up, everything about dark matter we know now is simply theory still...

Theory is as far as it goes. The real thing is the real thing. Theory is what we know about it. Not what we speculate or can imagine or can assert, but what we actually know.

... there's no way to really know if we're right or not...

Depends on what you mean by "right". And science doesn't care about being right.

... so we must keep an open mind to the possibilities, and always assume we don't yet know all the information, all the perspectives, and make the best judgments, but also not be quick to make such judgments, based on that knowledge.

One of the inherent problems with omniscience is that an omniscient being would be unable to tell whether they are in fact omniscient. Scale that down to just one topic and obviously you end up with a scenario that at every point we have no way of telling whether there is still more to know about that topic or not. Assume nothing. Question everything. Research doesn't start with the assumption that we are missing something when everything is working out; rather it starts with a problem - whenever something does not quite work. It is in that case that either our equipment or our understanding failed and it is only by eliminating the former that we can conclude - not assume - the latter.
Oh, and there multiple ways to understand what is "possible". Not everything that is logically possible is physically possible and not everything that is physically possible is by any means probable and not everything that is probable is or ever has been actually the case. The open mind is the critical mind: The one that filters propositions, not the one that just accepts them all, indiscriminately.

Ok got me on the code, quote the tenants then, or use any of the other many codes out there such as grey jedi code if you wish, citation aside...

always keeping an open mind to possibilities that we don't yet know exist is something I'll stick by on a personal level as its served me very well, on a side note, had nothing better to do today gist?

The Grey Jedi Code means nothing here.

And what about possibilities you know don't exist?

Gisteron wrote: Would you kindly then also cite those posts, please? Because I don't seem to be finding anything about shame or about fear or about logic and reason, but maybe I'm overlooking something...

Gisteron wrote: I think that the aspiration to put your religious beliefs in factual or in scientific terms when they are clearly and by design not rooted in fact is, if anything, a disservice to that faith.

Instead I suggest we leave the Force undefined, leave it unfalsifiable and leave that word useless for only outside of critical discourse is where it can hope to survive.

would this also mean, “don't destroy our current beliefs by shining light for knowledge”?

any assertion needs reasoning, otherwise it's unjustified opinion. the need to distinguish illusion from reality needs prudence to build justification on with logic and reason, otherwise it's clear prejudice.

Gisteron wrote: There is no defining the Force in a way that everybody were to agree. We've all been there, we've all tried that.

The only effects defining the Force would have is dividing the community into the few who share that definition and the majority that doesn't, as well as make the sharing ones look frankly stupid for thinking they found an answer to which they do not even know a question.

To leave it undefined is not to reject knowing anything about it. Rather, it is letting go of the childish quest for a definition of something that does not actually affect anything outside of discussions about itself.

All knowledge about the Force comes down to knowledge about something we already have a perfectly functional word for. There is no such thing as knowledge of the Force.

again, “keep the matter in the dark” is demonstrated here, why fear? ego, is why

so why use ego and emotional fear as hostage shield to defend a discussion point? choose to take ourselves less seriously and the matter seriously as a commitment to the virtue courage. otherwise taking ourselves so seriously and the matter less seriously demonstrates commitment to fear.



Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

Zenchi wrote: The problem is that every time you try to define the force someone else is going to get butt hurt about it. So long as you experience it who cares what everyone else thinks. People can define and label and Tao it till there blue in the face. To anyone who wishes to experience it, go find a night club where there are a lot of youth dancing, sit back and drink it up...

so how can you know for certain?

and then if everyone has different experiences of what the Force is, obviously the definition of the Force is inconsistent and not universal as the Force. the disparity in accuracy disproves the reasoning of the reasoner, not disproving the Force, but the understanding.

this includes the same experience felt by many but unable to prove or explain with logic and reason is a failure to understand, not a failure of the Force

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

Almeida wrote: Trying to define what's infinite is limiting it. As Campbell says, when give "god" a name, you are already defining it, since the word god brings with it several pre-concepts and ideas.

the need to understand the matter is imperative to the means to apply the matter.

unless we don't need mastery of the matter because nothing is claimed or merit taken from the matter, then anyone is free to, right?


Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

For me at least the Force is everything, so defining it only ever represents a viewpoint, and why no-one will ever agree :lol:

The Force is the very essence of universal unity (as is known to be a community-wide agreement), and thus, anything said about it would need to reflect this nature. That said, anything that one attempts to "know" is anything that one must be separated from in order to know it - and one cannot separate themselves from the Force. This is the very understanding for which Lao Tsu informs us in the first verse of the Tao Te Ching. Some may think this is just a mystical cryptic mumbo jumbo, but given deep enough contemplation, you'll realize why the text has survived for as long as it has because it has an amount of logic within it that is immensely difficult to grasp because it is more simple than we are used to ever perceiving in terms of that logic.

Entropist wrote:

Gisteron wrote: I think that the aspiration to put your religious beliefs in factual or in scientific terms when they are clearly and by design not rooted in fact is, if anything, a disservice to that faith.

Instead I suggest we leave the Force undefined, leave it unfalsifiable and leave that word useless for only outside of critical discourse is where it can hope to survive.

would this also mean, “don't destroy our current beliefs by shining light for knowledge”?

To believe a proposition is to judge it as true. Such a judgement requires however knowledge of the proposition and its peripherals. In the case of the Force, there is neither a clear proposition nor any peripherals, so there is not actually anything to be believed. When I called the attempt to chain it to scientific terms a disservice to the faith, I meant that it is a disservice to the community and the peace we occasionally find within. If you happen to actually have faith about the Force - or anything else for that matter - I'm all in favour of shattering it mercilessly, if logic and reason demand so; that is not the issue. My point is, with the current state of TOTJO there is no way to define the Force and everything attempts to do so ever accomplish is - as I go on to explain in the next passage you quote - needless conflict with no prospect of resolution because nobody ever has any facts to back up anything they assert about the Force that is really not about anything else.

any assertion needs reasoning, otherwise it's unjustified opinion. the need to distinguish illusion from reality needs prudence to build justification on with logic and reason, otherwise it's clear prejudice.

I think you and I might just be getting along in the long run.

Gisteron wrote: There is no defining the Force in a way that everybody were to agree. We've all been there, we've all tried that.

The only effects defining the Force would have is dividing the community into the few who share that definition and the majority that doesn't, as well as make the sharing ones look frankly stupid for thinking they found an answer to which they do not even know a question.

To leave it undefined is not to reject knowing anything about it. Rather, it is letting go of the childish quest for a definition of something that does not actually affect anything outside of discussions about itself.

All knowledge about the Force comes down to knowledge about something we already have a perfectly functional word for. There is no such thing as knowledge of the Force.

again, “keep the matter in the dark” is demonstrated here, why fear? ego, is why

That's not it at all. As stated above, the purpose here is not to protect a precious superstition. Nothinig about the Force matters to anything outside of discussions about it, because it's not actually an identifiable real thing. The best anybody could do is what was done here: Just rename dark matter into the Force and then talk about that. Wait another week and somebody will call brainwaves "the Force"; wait another month and it is going to be the Higgs particle, and a week after that perhaps love and friendship. Yes, I do find that stupid and I'd rather we call things that have perfectly functional names by those names rather than the baggage-ridden Force label. Said label would then remain however undefined and outside of reason because there is nothing to be reasoned about. We don't even know there is a "there" there. Some carry on day in day out proposing answers, yet none of them do even know the question to begin with.

so why use ego and emotional fear as hostage shield to defend a discussion point? choose to take ourselves less seriously and the matter seriously as a commitment to the virtue courage. otherwise taking ourselves so seriously and the matter less seriously demonstrates commitment to fear.

The Force to me is what it was to Campbell: Not so much a real thing as a means to express an aspect of the human condition or perhaps a moral lesson and likely both. To twist the achievements of science such as to make the Force look like an actual thing is in my opinion not just looking less serious but also missing the point. As a science major I also take umbrage with that tactic of hijacking scientific terms to peddle woo, I just happen to find it more tactful to argue that doing so is against the interests of Jedi themselves than to argue that it is offensive to my sensibilities as a scientist. It is then not about fear or courage or defending anything, not to me anyway.

I have a diplomatic and just means to address the discussion of the Force Jedi code, or anything people are afraid to offend the mental constructs people hold onto so tightly because there's no other mental construct to be their vehicle

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

Proteus wrote: The Force is the very essence of universal unity (as is known to be a community-wide agreement), and thus, anything said about it would need to reflect this nature. That said, anything that one attempts to "know" is anything that one must be separated from in order to know it - and one cannot separate themselves from the Force.

there's so many ways to experiment within the validity of that sentence of Dao De Jing by Lao Zi. it's the same way gravity is studied since it's the Force

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

Gisteron wrote: To believe a proposition is to judge it as true. Such a judgement requires however knowledge of the proposition and its peripherals. In the case of the Force, there is neither a clear proposition nor any peripherals, so there is not actually anything to be believed.

and the same applies to the proposition believing there's no clear understanding because one bases on their belief to say there's none, right?

When I called the attempt to chain it to scientific terms a disservice to the faith, I meant that it is a disservice to the community and the peace we occasionally find within.

just because someone is offended doesn't mean they are right or have right of way

My point is, with the current state of TOTJO there is no way to define the Force and everything attempts to do so ever accomplish is - as I go on to explain in the next passage you quote - needless conflict with no prospect of resolution because nobody ever has any facts to back up anything they assert about the Force that is really not about anything else.

ignorance is part of the problem, maybe there's a lack in inquiry skills? but more problematic is the unwillingness to learn, right?

The best anybody could do is what was done here: Just rename dark matter into the Force and then talk about that. Wait another week and somebody will call brainwaves "the Force"; wait another month and it is going to be the Higgs particle, and a week after that perhaps love and friendship. Yes, I do find that stupid and I'd rather we call things that have perfectly functional names by those names rather than the baggage-ridden Force label. Said label would then remain however undefined and outside of reason because there is nothing to be reasoned about. We don't even know there is a "there" there. Some carry on day in day out proposing answers, yet none of them do even know the question to begin with.

so the problem is the researcher rather than the Force, meaning no justifiable reason not to

I just happen to find it more tactful to argue that doing so is against the interests of Jedi themselves than to argue that it is offensive to my sensibilities as a scientist. It is then not about fear or courage or defending anything, not to me anyway.

if anything, remaining ignorant and unwilling to master knowledge and have the wisdom to apply is anti-Jedi code, and anti-science too. the point of discussion, conversation, or argument is progress. anything that stops is failure to intelligent discussion

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

Entropist wrote:

Gisteron wrote: To believe a proposition is to judge it as true. Such a judgement requires however knowledge of the proposition and its peripherals. In the case of the Force, there is neither a clear proposition nor any peripherals, so there is not actually anything to be believed.

and the same applies to the proposition believing there's no clear understanding because one bases on their belief to say there's none, right? [sic]

That doesn't really sound like English to me... If you mean to say that my proposition is that there is not or cannot be clear understanding of the Force, then yes, in order to believe it one would have to understand it and think of the facts of the matter that they do support it. I have explained both what I mean by that proposition and why I judge it true.

When I called the attempt to chain it to scientific terms a disservice to the faith, I meant that it is a disservice to the community and the peace we occasionally find within.

just because someone is offended doesn't mean they are right or have right of way

Agreed. However, nothing I said in that quote says anything about offense, so I choose to ignore the citation and interpret your comment as an aside, if I may...

My point is, with the current state of TOTJO there is no way to define the Force and everything attempts to do so ever accomplish is - as I go on to explain in the next passage you quote - needless conflict with no prospect of resolution because nobody ever has any facts to back up anything they assert about the Force that is really not about anything else.

ignorance is part of the problem...

It's part of a lot of problems, but I don't know that what you quoted there even is a problem, or how ignorance plays any role in it...

... maybe there's a lack in inquiry skills?

I would think so, yes... but then I do fail to see how this is relevant to the point you pretend like you are addressing.

but more problematic is the unwillingness to learn, right?

That is certainly more problematic than mere incompetence, yes. Again, what does this have to do with anything though?

The best anybody could do is what was done here: Just rename dark matter into the Force and then talk about that. Wait another week and somebody will call brainwaves "the Force"; wait another month and it is going to be the Higgs particle, and a week after that perhaps love and friendship. Yes, I do find that stupid and I'd rather we call things that have perfectly functional names by those names rather than the baggage-ridden Force label. Said label would then remain however undefined and outside of reason because there is nothing to be reasoned about. We don't even know there is a "there" there. Some carry on day in day out proposing answers, yet none of them do even know the question to begin with.

so the problem is the researcher rather than the Force, meaning no justifiable reason not to [sic]

You seem to be seeing some kind of "the problem" around here... Would you kindly elaborate on what that is, please? Also, what researcher are you talking about and what do you mean by the Force?

I just happen to find it more tactful to argue that doing so is against the interests of Jedi themselves than to argue that it is offensive to my sensibilities as a scientist. It is then not about fear or courage or defending anything, not to me anyway.

if anything, remaining ignorant and unwilling to master knowledge and have the wisdom to apply is anti-Jedi code, and anti-science too.

Good sir... I understand not everybody is good at remembering the text they quote to respond to. Not everybody has to be, that's fine. So I shall repeat it again, for your clarity: There is no such thing as knowledge of the Force. People who call everything that is remotely mysterious to them by that name do nothing to advance knowledge but sure are contributing their part against it by doing so. Whether these people are remaining ignorant or indeed unwilling to master knowledge in other ways, I dare not presume, but it is not by shuffling words about that we master any knowledge. With that out of the way, here comes the harsher part: You, sir, don't get to lecture us on what is Jedi or anti-Jedi, because nobody gets to do that. And since you seem to be arguing in favour of pretending to know what we know we really don't know, I dare propose to you that you neither get to lecture us about the methods, let alone merits, of science.

the point of discussion, conversation, or argument is progress.

Not always, no. Rarely ever, really. Personal or political relations is the only thing that can be actually furthered by talk alone. Everything else requires something else and every discussion that is not diplomatic in nature is not about progress.

anything that stops is failure to intelligent discussion

Even the dumbest of discourses can go on indefinitely. Conversely, even the most intelligent arguments can come to an end whenever both sides have said everything there was to say.