Dark Matter Apparently is Midichlorians

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/16/dark-matter-apparently-is-midichlorians/#.Vn5GsS8q2K0

Found this article to be an interesting read. Thought I'd share

I always wondered if anyone would explain the Force from a scientific perspective. I was about to search for previous threads, then make a thread to ask if the Force is the same Force as measured by Newtons and the laws of motion.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

Hmm, so here I was looking forward to yet more new age woo-woo but what I find is nothing. Take the first and the last sentence out of the article and it has naught to do with the Force anymore... Well, at least those are the only two references, but essentially the article talks about dark matter. Now, if that is what anybody chooses to call the Force, they are welcome to it, of course; I for my part will keep calling it the name it has been assigned because I don't actually wish to confuse people for no reason and to no end.
And yet, that being said, words are but a means to the end that is communication and so long as the latter can be fully achieved, the former can be used however the user chooses. The Force is not by any means a well-defined term but it carries baggage with it that no thing as real and mundane as dark matter or indeed the mechanical quantity that is force would take on. 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. Enough religions have tried doing that and when the discoveries came that changed our understanding, they were left to change the unchanging, fundamental Truths of the universe, looking all the more ridiculous for it. 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.

Cultivating an understanding of the Force is paradoxal to defining, analysing and explaining. When one goes that route, one only confuses oneself and eliminates most of the "understanding" that can come about ... Anything we might say about the Force with language is going to be incomplete, It being irreducible and incomprehensible to the conscious mind.

For cultivating that understanding of the Force, one must have the faith to abandon "certainty" -- one cannot "know" something to "tell" of It. Science - which is a wonderful discipline - will only ever be able to comprehend phenomena that arise within the Force, never the Force Itself. Faith shouldn't be stupid either -- not forcing oneself to believe in that which is implausible, as that is just another type of "explanation", and not a very good one. Faith means simply "letting go" of that need for "certainty".

Just be 'okay' with "not getting it", for when you "don't get it", you've "got it". When you think you've "got it", you "don't get it" ...

Tao Te Ching 14 :

Look, and it can't be seen.
Listen, and it can't be heard.
Reach, and it can't be grasped. Above, it isn't bright.
Below, it isn't dark.
Seamless, unnamable,
it returns to the realm of nothing.
Form that includes all forms,
image without an image,
subtle, beyond all conception. Approach it and there is no beginning;
follow it and there is no end.
You can't know it, but you can be it,
at ease in your own life.
Just realize where you come from:
this is the essence of wisdom.

Tao Te Ching 56 :

Those who know don't talk.
Those who talk don't know. Close your mouth,
block off your senses,
blunt your sharpness,
untie your knots,
soften your glare,
settle your dust.
This is the primal identity. Be like the Tao.
It can't be approached or withdrawn from,
benefited or harmed,
honored or brought into disgrace.
It gives itself up continually.
That is why it endures.

Of course, that having been said, I don't want to discourage this sort of discussion either, as from science we do indeed learn a lot. Science is great for that ... for marvelling at the 'parts' of reality that we can see 'part'-ing as whatever 'part' they appear to us in any 'part'ial moment. Yet, saying that "Dark Matter is Midichlorians", or that "God is Love" or even that "my morning tea is Democratic Socialist" : these statements all have about the same truth value.

leave the Force undefined? serious? does the code mention knowledge?

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

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

It does.

And the moment you decide you 'know' something that you don't really understand, your inquiry ends. You stop learning because you already know so damned much. Consider the many people who believe they truly and completely 'know' what their god thinks and wants (another immeasurable, unverifiable quantity). What kinds of distortion has that kind of thinking unleashed on the world?

Think of it as taking an attitude of not knowing: always conscious of your own ignorance, so always open to new information and insight. The rush to find answers, the neat bows that we feel we must put on our ideas in order to feel secure, none of it serves.

Don't simply mash two ideas together so you can feel as though you have answered a central question. There is no rush. Quick and sloppy answers do not a Jedi make.

so continue inquiry, that's the point of knowledge. have the courage to shine light on what is the Force. why fear understanding the Force? let curiosity have the freedom to flow

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

This is not about knowledge. There is no defining the Force in a way that everybody were to agree. We've all been there, we've all tried that. Questions like these are posted over and over again with every wave of incoming newcomers. 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.

if everybody doesn't want agree, or is scared to look stupid, then the level of reasoning and prudence in the matter is clearly demonstrated, isn't it?

what makes taking the freedom we have to be prudent and logical about understanding the Force, receive pure prejudice to shun as a childish request, just because people are fearful of being seen as unable to explain?

ignorance is not so much a shame as the unwillingness to learn

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

I really don't think you've truly read Alex's post, Entropist. And, this discussion probably won't go anywhere until you do.

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?