Nope your whole post just confirmed what i know you to be and this is why i don't want to have this discussion with you. I wouldn't neccesarily call you a vapid spiritualist, and i am pretty sure you're intelligent, however your lack of any education in physics, mathematics, the scientific method and other such critical modes of thinking leaves your conclusions flawed.
Also:
HTS: I want to be immortal!!!
Sophie: it's impossible.
HTS: HOW MEAGER ARE YOUR AMBITIONS!?
Do you see my problem here?
Yeah... your problem is you don't even want to be immortal because you think it's impossible. If it's impossible, surely you can prove/disprove that...aren't you making unfalsifiable claims? Do you believe those claims to be true for no adequate reasoning? It seems that way. Nothing is impossible: that's practically the biggest motivator for scientists and engineers. Human flight was impossible for a hot minute there. There was a point where getting across an ocean was impossible for people. Maybe things are impossible, but there's a way around "impossibilities"... so are they really impossible? There's a way into any system, no matter how uncrackable its defense seems. There's no such thing as "an unsinkable ship". "Nothing is impossible" is occam's razor in action: one assumption about impossibility, vs the myriad your worldview requires.
Look here: do you see my problem with you telling yourself and the rest of the world that something is impossible when you have no way of knowing that and no way of proving that? And then claiming you're an educated scientist? Believing something is impossible is just as flawed as believing it
must be true. The irony of you saying my conclusions are flawed when the only conclusion I've drawn is "it's possible that it's possible"... and you've settled on a concrete "it's not possible"
because of your education? That's retarded. My methodology is flawed within the limited context of your education and academia. You have no way of knowing whether my conclusion is flawed because my conclusion regards a totally unsubstantiated, totally unfalsifiable claim that you're making. You're essentially saying my conclusion that your conclusion is flawed... is flawed, and that I should shut up.
My only point was that you shouldn't have drawn a conclusion about the impossibility of 4th-dimensional perception or any merits it might have. Certainly being able to perceive something precisely and accurately is reward enough in itself. Something we should strive for, not dismiss outright as an impossibility. And also that time is not "the 4th dimension", which you happily agreed with (if you're a fan of Minkowski space).
PS: Assuming there's a natural explanation for phenomena is one of the basic assumptions made by science, and that's great and all, but remember that it's just an assumption. There are
explanations. Don't assume "nature" is the extent of things - that's one less assumption I'm making than you. ♥
