I believe the world needs a new unified model of science and philosophy in order to move forward in a meaningful way. The Enlightenment drove the concepts of science and religion apart for the sake of appreciating both for what they are separately, but I think both have been refined as far as they can be on their own. In my own analysis of many things I have seemingly found a common kind of back and forth, or spiraling effect, where two things shift between a state of dissonance and harmony, and where the dissonance directly contributes to the eventual harmony and the harmony directly contributes to eventual dissonance. I think this might be the case with these two sources of answers to the most common human questions, and I’m interested to see how the idea sits with others. As an additional note though, I’ll say I still also believe the actual integrity of the theory should be the main focus from our perspective, because the binary state I described is still just a common attribute of meaning that we find through specific kinds of observation, not actually its defining characteristic.
That is called cellular automata./thread
>>16829330If that were true then we wouldn’t still see the divide in common ideology that is clearly still there. This isn’t a matter of whether any existing model or theory is correct or not, though. The right model for this purpose can only be the right model if it fulfills the established purpose we need it for.
>>16829330biologists are to up their own arse these days.
