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?