How do you disprove physics?

Just shows no single hypothesis has been widely accepted despite whole hearted belief on some parts. There is always this argument about authority because the mind naturally conceives and communicates abstractly. In particular you are discussing the meaning of symbols. Budge postulated that the symbol originated as the belt buckle of the mother goddess Isis with the notion that both the ankh and the knot of Isis were used in many ceremonies. Sir Alan Gardiner speculated that it depicts a sandal strap, which is also written with the ankh hieroglyph. Both are correct in their own sphere of influence.

Point taken anyway and as far as the usefulness of peer review it is also limited in it's ability to be helpful.as i have seen accredited counsels be flat wrong. Fortunately most of the stuff argued about is not vital and what is important to some is not to others so everyone can cultivate their own ideas to the extent they are able. I think if you have a sincere regard to know it is reflected in constant questioning and learning always involves the willingness to consider. Bottom line though we are all our own measure and we cannot exceed the boundaries we accept for ourselves but in the same turn learning happens on the edges. I also think the soundness of any lesson can only be measured by the quality of your own experience. There is a problem in this in that people are not always honest with themselves about the quality of their own experience of falsely believe that it is generated by someone or something else.

 

No RooRshack, I am not one of those ancient alien fucktards-----not since I was in 6th grade which is when Van Daniken first proposed that crap. Yes I was enthralled for a couple of years as a kid. But Egyptology is more than just a study of religion---it is cultural anthropology-----but yes, it is not the same kind of science as Nuclear physics for example. Mathematical proofs do not play a big part in it for example.

Yes, I would agree that a sandal is a very important thing to have within a desert. However if you take a symbol that is inherently connected to the universal motif of the tree of life/World Mountain (even if it is only at an abstract level) then it would make sense to be based on something with a stronger mythical significance connected to such celestial axis symbols. I could more easily see the sandal strap being based on the ankh, than the other way around.

Ah yes----I had forgotten about the belt of Isis, as Budge's suggestion---and here I have Budge's books on the Egyptian God's Volume I and II. Or that it was Sir Gardiner's suggestion of the strap---or even if I knew that---I just remember how there is so much adherence to the idea. The concept of the belt of Isis makes more sense, and it does tie more into the celestial axis motif---it is not uncommon to find the celestial axis as a rope, or ladder in the Middle East and Africa. Actually Budge did a lot of very impressive work. i do have a few issues with him---which I cannot recall offhand, but I have notes in the margins of his books-----oh yes I remember one----his explanation for the hieroglyph, neter (god). I would have to dig the book out to recall exactly what it was.


I know you all agree, but again the fact is, as an anthropologist friend of mine who has worked digs in Egypt (and not to brag, but he does like my take on the ankh) has plenty of stories to tell, there are some good sound theories that get rejected----the people that have power over such things are extremely dogmatic and do not like their theories and ideas tested or challenged at all.

 

Well who does like their power tested, in any field?

Personally, I thought the ankh was a highly stylized person... maybe derived from a crude style of doll or something. Not that the people using the symbol would necessarially have any knowledge or memory of that origin. I had no idea that there was even an accepted, rejected, or any other type of theory on it.

 

sup MeAgain, can you clarify somethings here?

1. i cant imagine somehting that is hard to define. anything in our universe can be described. a table is a piece of furniture, maybe its made out of wood or whatever. the fact that it exists can be easily proven. can you elaborate on this buddhist example, i just cant imagine how a table can become more mysterious.

3. i cant think of an example of this that makes sense. i dont think ive ever read a definition in a scientific context that was circular, like in a science book or article.

 

While you are waiting , symbols are abstractions from relationships. You could say a table is energy or an idea etc...

 

yes i see what you mean but if someone said to literally describe a table, i think it would be easy.

 

ok, dont forget, the first two points were very enlightening. awesome post man, thanks for taking the time to write it.

 

This IS really good stuff. Physics is disproven when God is found not to exist at the U.N. Once upon a time he existed,

We can feel great now about ISIS. The modern world is unfolding as it should.

 

Well, there is no sham negativity. Physics can be left to progress without concern for the discoveries at the U.N.

I AM the Exorcist. Long live love on the Planets.

 

I cannot see quantum physics therefor it does not exist.

 

Personally I always disprove physics naked.

 

I do it from inside a black hole.

 

Factually inside the black hole there is no Physics to contradict for another derivation of theory. One cannot even perceive difference in phenomenon (yes!). So there is the contradiction of the event horizon and the speed of light; The event occurs for the one valid theory,

 

Interesting points, so as it pertains to the topic.. would you suggest science is inheritly on shaky ground due to necessarily needing philisophical antecedents in definitions, semantics, functions and descriptions? That is an interesting argument, seems the process of replication, falsifiability and peer review may clear up some of the particulars of a concept, but it is interesting points nonetheless.

I disagree with this point, I don't think science makes the tremendous leaps and advancements in practically every field in the past century without setting parameters.

 

Not trying to hijack the thread, or appear obnoxious, but Meagain's posts are confusing to me, so I need some clarification in order to better understand what is being said.

As I understand it philosophy can mean any of the following, depending on how it is used in context:
noun, plural philosophies.

1.the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2.any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
3.a particular system of thought based on such study or investigation:

the philosophy of Spinoza.


4.the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them:

the philosophy of science.


5.a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
6.an attitude of rationality, patience, composure, and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances.

I can accept that philosophy is the search for truth, but the various groups who may practice it seem unable to agree on exactly what it means and therefore are unable to accurately define what truth is, since different philosophies may define it in different terms, if I understand what Meagain is saying.
So really, it is a people problem. We choose to define things in terms we are only willing to accept, and the efforts of those who put together dictionaries and the like are just wasting their time, really. Or they can be viewed as a loose guide, the definitions contained within them subject to the various views of people who practice different belief systems, all of which contain their own definitions of ordinary everyday words.
"Table", I found, is defined mostly as: an article of furniture consisting of a flat, slablike top supported on one or more legs or other supports. It can, of course mean something different when used as a verb, such as "Let's table this discussion until morning." The meaning of which is generally: "Let's quit for now and take it up again in the morning." And involves the action of placing material on a table, or what passes to those present as a table. So it can be anything anyone wants it to be, really.
The term "truth" does also have various definitions, but again it depends on the context. In it's simplest meaning, I take it to mean "being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false", according to various dictionaries.
If philosophy is the search for truth, then we still need to know how to determine if something is true or not.
When you say Buddhism, is there a particular discipline you are referring to? That might help determine the "angle of meaning". Do we need to consult with every other belief system to try to determine what meaning they give to the simple word "truth" I know that christians speak of "absolute truth", which has always seemed slightly absurd to me. Something is either true, or it is not, what has "absolute" got to do with it?
I generally provide a definition of a word with the meaning I apply to it in conversations of this kind so as to avoid confusion and let people know what I mean when I am referring to something. I fail to understand why the meanings of words have to be debated, when for the most part they are settled as to meaning, and updated when meanings change enough that it affects how they are perceived by the general population, and what is meant by the person making a statement takes the time to define what he or she is trying to say. I think this is the reason why the various sciences (medical, legal, etc) have their own language, and the words in them have very specific meanings, so that there is no question what is being said.
Is it better to equivocate:

verb (used without object), equivocated, equivocating.1.to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge:



Or to be open, honest and to the point about what we mean?

 

It's like empiricism of the changing scientific observations in history. They just happen for the interpretation of one person, OR the book worms collection of the right concepts in case colleagues want to trust and know from you. Who judges that kind of knowledge source? The dead one. :dizzy2: