The Limits of Math and Science: A Look at Einstein, Reich, and Jung

So, tell us about "the limits of mathematics and science". Thanks in advance. •

− greenpeaceRdale1844coop eno ard • a few seconds from now You mean besides what I´ve mentioned already, actually. You´re welcome for that. In fact, my points stand. Both math and science are cognitive tools following logical formats being used by humans. That is, they are both philosophical in nature, meaning they refer to mathematical philosophy and scientific philosophy. As forms of philosophy, they are part of an epistemological spectrum. Thus, Einstein´s enormous accomplishments weren´t achieved in an atom smasher. He was working in a patent office. He was making advances in scientific philosophy through pure scientific philosophical activity. Meanwhile, one of his sons was diagnosed with schizophrenia, around 1930. His physics philosophizing didn´t help his son much, no matter how fundamental the principle is.. One of Freud´s diverse former students diverging from his orthodoxy, Wlihelm Reich, however, published in 1933 his successful therapeutic work with a schizophrenic. Reich didn´t develop his approach with math, but did use his natural science medical training in recognizing the interrelatedness of his extension into psychosomatic muscular tension and breathing. However, he ignored the issues of social sensibilities, giving massages to disrobed patients in his vegetotherapy and equating his bio-orgone energy to God. Carl Jung had already visited Africa and developed ideas around the Collective Unconscious, along with ideas about the Higher Self and the Imago Dei in relation to Jesus Christ. The Jewish geniuses often failed to acknowledge Jesus altogether. Not math, not science, but a very empirical issue. As Heinrich Rickert points out, science tries to generalize from individual cases. Human historical activity produces individualized phenomena and concepts, including the very circumstances of the History of Science (i.e. scientific philosophy). That accounts for Einstein´s niche. His work is not considered Quantum mechanics, but "old quantum theory" or semi-classical approximations. Those are more examples of philosophical distinctions in "science" itself. The Big Bang theory was first developed by a Catholic who noticed nebula distance data before Hubble´s red shift data. Einstein had stuck with the "Static Universe" hypothesis, not grasping the full weight of Lemaitre´s critique of the "eternal past." Einstein had developed his cosmological constant, and after Hubble´s red-shift etc corroborative evidence, got upset that he had been wrong. Those are the historical etc philosophical details of science itself. Not math, not "science." Wilhelm Reich´s healing a schizophrenic didn´t help Einstein´s boy even though they happened contemporaneously, because of human psychosocial relations issues. Wilhelm Reich´s reputation got crazier, no less, one of those issues. Not math, not science. As for the abiogenesis issue following your post, science itself is predicated on Christians develping it historically to investigate God´s lawful physical Creation. Life is squeezed between chemical processes and biological emergence. The same holds for physics becoming chemistry, and pre-human biology becoming symbolic psychology and anthropology. It´s called "emergentism," another philosophical development that applies to scientific, social scientific, and the rest of the disciplines, i.e. epistemologies. Including the philosophy of religion, metaphysics. enoch arden greenpeaceRdale1844coop • 5 hours ago • edited The Big Bang theory was first developed by a Catholic who noticed nebula distance data before Hubble´s red shift data. This is a popular Catholic lie. The theoretical concept of the expanding universe was developed in 1922 by Friedmann, a Russian mathematician. Einstein accepted this model which is now called Friedmann-Einstein model. So, what is the difference between science and "philosophy of science"? And what does either of these have to do with Freud, Jung or other charlatans swindling the stupid public with their entertaining fables? • − Avatar greenpeaceRdale1844coop enoch ard • 17 minutes ago • edited I didn´t get the information from a Catholic site, for one thing. Your crude assertion really reflects your own distorted mindset more than any misrepresentation by noting Lemaitre´s spiritual-religious orientation as a scientific philosopher. Friedmann´s ideas were and are noteworthy, but a cursory examination also indicates how you yourself misunderstand and misrepresent them. Friedmann published his ideas in German in 1922 and 1924. He was apparently in touch with Einstein, who didn´t take on its empirical implications. However, the German language appears one contributing factor to the Belgian Lemaitre´s not citing Friedmann´s theoretical work in his 1927 paper. Lemaitre did study in the UK and US, it is worth noting. Lemaitre´s work is thus considered independent. Nevertheless, the 1929 English translation by A Eddington, I believe, did include a reference to Friedmann. Friedmann, interestingly from the point of view of religious psychology, was raised Russian Orthodox Christian. https://inspirehep.net/file... As for your preferred name, it is the Friedmann-Lemaitre models because of their insights, while the FLRW metric is based around Einstein´s field equations is used by my source. Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric, for the Standard Model of cosmology. I see that a Lambda-CDM model annex has been added on, no less. Einstein, meanwhile, did NOT accept this model, apparently, until Hubble confirmed Lemaitre´s use of earlier data. "...What is the difference between science and 'philosophy of science'" The conventional terminology of the "philosophy of science" thus needs to be adjusted by correctly referring to scientific philosophy. As Popper developed ideas about "falsifiability" and Kuhn about social processes and paradigms in Scientific Revolutions, it is actually a subdiscipline of some other form of philosophy, probably epistemology, addressing how scientific philosophy develops knowledge. Similarly, the sociology of science observes related processes. That´s why I´m developing the need to refer to Multidisciplinary Philosophy as the more complete way to elevate the relevance of Philosophy in general, and the true relevance of its branch Epistemology and all the academic disciplines as de facto knowledge domain "epistemologies," which is a powerful and fundamental unifying viewpoint. I´ve seen contemporary sources still referring to knowledge in terms of "sciences." That´s incorrect in a fundamental sense, and merely derivative or a specific contextual viewpoint if desired. It appears to largely reflect the scientific materialism of science fans, and their fears of their stereotypes of the non-sciences. M Pigliucci went from biologist to philosopher addressing the limits of science in an interesting development. He has nailed L Krauss, who called "philosophy a kind of science" by pointing out that Krauss had the epistemology exactly backwards. As for Freud and Jung, and Reich, et al and what I mentioned, the issue is the limits of math and science. Your own disparaging comments don´t reflect a qualified assessment, but your own scientific materialism and in-group/out-group social psychological reactiveness. That would include projection fallacy issues, no less, underlying what is in fact ad hom fallacy. You don´t argue from empirical evidence and establishing a logical argument. You insult as if that distracts from your own issues. It doesn´t. It is your issues that you are confusing with the need to pay attention to epistemological details and domains for understanding knowledge about phenomena. The specific point I raised concerns Einstein´s son who was diagnosed as schizophrenic in 1930. A powerful approach that offered potential help lay in Freud´s legacy with W Reich. Reich, as I pointed out, had published his own case study of successfully treating a schizophrenic patient in 1933. As far as a logical survey of such information goes, wouldn´t it make sense in a rational world for someone to have noticed this and informed Einstein to look into it? My additional points, however, note that Reich´s pursuits also exposed him to the potentially powerful and destabilizing factors of a psychosocial and cultural nature that he simply treated in a polarized and indiscreet manner. Later practitioners have taken Reich´s less unorthodox and imprudent work to create thriving traditions that illuminate the more stable alternatives that were in fact open to Reich. That includes Jung´s already established work, as I noted. However, that appears to be reasoning already outside your comfort zone based on your apparent scientific materialism. Again, Reich´s veering into imprudence doesn´t equate with invalidation of the field of therapeutic psychology, and so on. That is a false equivalence, that you combine with ad hom and its underlying projection fallacy. Those are your issues, and basically reflect a poorly informed mindset and lack of appropriate literacy. enoch arden greenpeaceRdale1844coop • 6 hours ago The same holds for physics becoming chemistry, and pre-human biology becoming symbolic psychology and anthropology. Physics becoming anthropology. Remarkable. Are you sure you understand what you wrote? • Reply • Share › − Avatar greenpeaceRdale1844coop enoch arden • 6 minutes ago • edited greenpeaceRdale1844coop enoch arden • 3 hours ago • edited I´m presenting a phenomenon that has a philosophical term associated with it, "emergentism" or even in addition to "Levels of Analysis and Explanation," that you neglect to mention to demonstrate that you yourself understand what I am discussing. Your simplistic formulation in reply seems to demonstrate a failure to grasp the significance of my point, and its implications. "Science," i.e. scientific philosophy, is a term that I´ve already mentioned in terms of its misleading nature. It is a technophile euphemism that has accompanied scientists´ psychosocial inattentiveness to the distinction between phenomena and human knowledge development activity. The switch to the term "Science" has been accompanied by the tendency to confuse the philosophical nature of scientific models with the physical basis of scientific phenomena, and the distinctions of other phenomena, especially human psychosocial and cultural phenomena. That has served the psychosocial status ambitions of scientists, but has advanced out of appropriate balance with socioeconomic factors that the Social Gospel identified as early as George Fox´s trans-aristocratic innovations as he founded the Christian Quaker-Friends, and how T Clarkson sought out the Quakers to anchor his pioneering social movement organizing activity, by the 1840s and the co-op social biz model, and by 1877 in workers´ rights and Afro-Am post-slavery education. And, revealingly, the externalized focus that glorifies the scientific materialism appears to be the very crux of your simplistic reply. Given your demonstrated attitude of scientific materialism, the appropriate reply to you is to indicate that the statement "Physics has become anthropology" is made as a human philosophical activity, that itself occurred within the realm of anthropology, first, not transmitted by an astrophysical event to a scientist in a telescope. In fact, in talking about philosophical model of emergentism in phenomena, we are exercising philosophical faculties that in anthropological development, have been built around the legacy of Descartes, Newton, Locke et al in Christian society operating with the growing influence of Universities. Microwave background radiation didn´t directly cause the appearance of Newton. Jesus´ legacy did, as Bishop R Grosseteste was a proto-scientist and the monk Thomas of Aquinas demonstrated the necessity of clarifying Christian assumptions in modernizing ancient Greek philosophy. Aristotle ignored the First Cause and deferred to his belief in an eternal Universe. Not Aquinas. Aristotle also assumed limiting assumptions like no curvilinear motion. Not Bishop Tempier and his Condemnation of 1277. It is thus that the observation of the phenomena "Physics has become anthropology" has a contemplative dimension, a self-referential dimension that reflects the philosophical introspective method because this is an explicitly philosophical discussion. Treating words about phenomena as if it is "science" merely observing physical phenomena that indicates that the physics of atoms underlies the existence of a spearshaft or shamans rattle, or human church-based incense, doesn´t equate with scientific materialism´s intent to eliminate religion logically. It is this clarity of Multidisciplinary Philosophy that I mentioned that deconstructs, demystifies, and levels "science" epistemologically, and can anticipate the maneuvering of your own distorting mindset and psychology. In a word, "anthropology observes physics becoming anthropology and observing physics becoming anthropology." That´s emergentism, where a low intensity emergent reality assumes awareness and can calculate and represent high intensity forces like the Big Bang and manipulate forces like subatomic force. It is our self-awareness that is in operation, and why deconstructing and demystifying the term "science" is helpful. It also recalls the dynamics that lead to distractions from the urgency of addressing issues like sustainability, pluralism, and human rights. While the Big Bang hypothesis and the size of an inflating Universe can be calculated in their enormity of referent phenomena, it is our own continued survival that requires attention and action, as well as its spiritual-religious foundations in relation to the transcendental source and Jesus´ 2 Commandments, including no 2, "Love thy neighbor as thyself, as Jesus loved others." It turns out that anthropology observing physics becoming anthropology and observing physics becoming anthropology," actually includes the origin of Newton and Descartes et al in Thomas of Aquinas and Bishop R Grosseteste, and their roots back to Jesus, with all the monastic school praying and meditating that went with it, sustaining the sense of the value of what that Jesus guy brought from his Jewish heritage and its particular spiritual religious prophetic experience of something else, a Higher Power. THE Higher Power that made Christians able to rescue Aristotles´ abandoned First Cause argument. The Transcendent perceptible through meditation, prayer, and devotional study. God through Jesus, and Jesus´ legacy of loving integrity. Humans who can make atomic bombs thinking it can keep the peace, with many understanding the tragic excess of that. And the drama amidst the UN´s ideals, established by FDR and his Christian service values, derived from the Social Gospel movement. The answer to why there is something rather than nothing, and why there was a Big Bang hypothetical event. And the relevance of UN human rights and sustainability.