Beyond Light Speed: A Tenet Nosce suggestion

[Tenet Nosce]

But isn't that obvious? What is not known is in the unconscious, which is latent potential by definition.

It is obvious to you and me... just apparently not to everybody, least of all many scientists. Materialism is still the dominant paradigm in science, and it is completely absurd. What is worse, materialism is actually a minority view. Science has been pushing materialism onto humanity for long enough, and it is way past the time where science itself has demonstrated materialism as untenable.

I wonder why you created such an idea?

No you don't.

Not really. They're not cause-effect observations like physical principles.

"Cause-effect observations" might be based on an entirely incorrect understanding of causality. That is what is on the table here with this type of potential discovery. This is on top of other evidence which suggest that information CAN travel from the future to the past. There is of course, quantum entanglement which has yet to be explained by the prevailing theory.

Not really. Those disciplines are simply not yet amenable to being expressed in theoretical terms, so there is an inherent disconnect. We have no math for the mind yet. But there are people working on it.

I don't agree. I think those disciplines are inherently amenable to being expressed in theoretical terms. Moreover, there is evidence of actual historical periods in history where certain cultures had succeeded in expressing a cohesive view of science, philosophy, and religion. These views were deliberately distorted and separated as a means of controlling the masses.

And yes, we do have the math for the mind. It is called gematria. Of course, according to the mainstream view this is nonsensical, archaic, and superstitious.

It's not easy work and we are fortunate to have these people solving the problems involved.

It has been deliberately manufactured for it to be "difficult" by those who seek to gain a financial and/or military advantage over others by the process of compartmentalization and nondisclosure. If scientific research were occurring in a truly collaborative environment, it would be much easier for this process to occur.

You see, they have to use both intuition and intellect, and mostly spend a lot of time and effort, in order to create something workable. While, from the backseat of their car, we can just speculate and finger point and be in dismay at how arrogant they seem to be.

Right. Again compartmentalization. I would also add elitism. As an undergraduate I was "advised" by my professors that I would not be "permitted" to speculate on such "advanced" concepts until I sufficiently demonstrated adherence to the established dogma. This is a problem.

That's a very old idea that goes back millenia. And as you found out, it's a philosophical idea still, even though it has practical relevance in our subjective understanding. Most scientists realize this.

Right. I wasn't presenting it as an original idea. I don't know about "most scientists" however my philosophy professor deemed it quite unacceptable to enter into any "serious" discussion of space and time.

If someone bothers to demonstrate a successor theory with better explanatory power, there may actually be more attention paid.

Oh c'mon dude! You know how this works. There is little to no money available to demonstrate these successor theories, and many of them have been deemed laughable right off the bat. Zero-point energy being a stereotypical example.

Has been happening throughout history. In retrospect it was obvious. We learn what we are ready to learn and no less or no more.

No, I don't think so. "We" are not all in the same place, and so what happens is that those on the forefront have to wait around for everybody else to stop dragging their heels and/or croak until we can move forward. In many cases throughout history, as I am sure you know, people were even PUT TO DEATH for challenging the prevailing paradigm. And yes, even in today's world there are enough examples of fringe scientists who suddenly croak right before they were about to come out with their new ideas.

You appear to be selectively ignoring those who are consciously interfering with the process.

e.g. "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"

Exactly... which is still being "discussed and debated" 40 years later when it is self-evident. WHY do we have these great leaps forward? Because somebody else is in the background consciously trying to apply the brakes. Once the resistance becomes too great to bear, humanity is "allowed" to lurch forward again, with all the appurtenant confusion of progressing in fits and starts rather than in an evenly balanced way.

No neccessarily true. It would explain some holes in current theory, which itself is based on overly complex epicycles. So a more complex, variable light speed, as a patch to the current system of theory, is by no means a pointer to simplification.

I don't think so. I am not even sure why you are arguing this, as it appears that you already know where this will lead as do I.

There is no such thing as a "vacuum". Nothingness does not exist. Light is all there is. Beyond light, there is mind. Mind is the medium in which light travels.

I am extremely certain that the above paragraph is true. I did not make it true. The Creator made this true. What the Creator made true is not "biased". It is simply true. Science, philosophy, and psychology would all do well to begin from the acceptance of truth, rather than the denial of it.

Right, at some point there probably will be some form of measurement that will improve our understanding of physics.

What is would take is acceptance of the truth that some things are beyond measurement. In other words, an abandonment of materialism.

You: "Hopefully, this discovery will lead to some real scientific investigation into the densities."
Me: "It's a 1st-density measurement."
You: "You are seeing bias/hope" where there actually was none.

Gotta love it.

Right. I hope this discovery will lead to some real scientific investigation into the densities. Not: I hope this finding is true. It doesn't matter to me whether or not this particular finding is true. I am "hopeful" that this finding will act as a catalyst for scientists to more deeply research into this area of knowledge. But even with that, "hopeful" is the wrong word because it is actually inevitable. So I will rephrase:

"Inevitably, this discovery will lead to some real scientific investigation into the densities."

Now I am 'interfering'?

Well, we are continuing on this side discussion which is taking our mind and energy away from discussing the finding itself- which would likely be more productive for all parties involved.