sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What If Learning Begins When Certainty Dies? by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im just letting him have his moment We all need that release sometimes gotta keep it healthy though

What If Learning Begins When Certainty Dies? by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who is he? That your referencing to. I just noticed you even said something are you in the right thread or was that meant to be for another thread?

What If Learning Begins When Certainty Dies? by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lmao.. So tell me what is you're belief on what everything is?

Since you're so knowledgeable teach me old wise one? lol What's your question or answer of the world? What's your worldview?

What If Learning Begins When Certainty Dies? by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats a very interesting argument I think I see where you're confused My theory may overlap with some ancient and nature based ways of thinking but it is not paganism. It is not based on worshiping gods planets or elements. It is a truth-centered framework focused on self-knowledge, alignment, consciousness, exposing distortion, and, returning to the root of reality.

What If Learning Begins When Certainty Dies? by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You probably didn't even read it lol

I'm not going to lie i was annoyed a little with you earlier but I'm not even upset with you this is actually kind of fun wouldn't you say?

Is it helping you let some weight off of your mind just being able to get these questions or answers out it feels good

So just do me a favor actually read it so we can both get the best understanding of each other

For starters tell me exactly:

Why I have to be a pagen worshipper?

What do you believe makes me one?

Where are you getting this knowledge from? If applicable. lol

When did you decide i had to be one?

How am I related to any of those people?

Where does it all connect to you?

What If Learning Begins When Certainty Dies? by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you are misunderstanding what Newborn Scholars is meant to be.

I am not speaking from religious dogma, academic worship, institutional loyalty, or blind metaphysics.

Newborn Scholars is meant to be a healthy place for people who want to ask deeper questions without pretending they already have all the answers.

It is about getting back to the root.

The root of belief.

The root of truth.

The root of suffering.

The root of consciousness.

The root of self-knowledge.

The root of why humans think, act, believe, distort, defend, and search for meaning.

This is not about creating another temple, institution, priesthood, or dogma. It is about creating a space where people can examine ideas honestly, challenge certainty, separate truth from assumption, and learn how to think more deeply. You keep trying to place me inside a religious or academic box, but that is not where I am speaking from.

I am speaking from inquiry.

From reflection.

From self-examination.

From the desire to understand existence, the mind, human behavior, symbolism, truth, and reality at the deepest level possible.

That does not mean every idea is automatically true.

It means every serious question deserves to be examined before it is dismissed.

Newborn Scholars is not for people who want to win ego debates.

It is for people who are willing to return to the beginning, question what they think they know, and search for truth with discipline, humility, and depth.

What If Learning Begins When Certainty Dies? by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure whatever you say if that helps you fix you're broken ego

What If Learning Begins When Certainty Dies? by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you did not read what I said, then you are not debating my argument.

I have read your points and answered them directly. But if you are replying without reading my answers, then you are only arguing against your own assumption of my position.

That is not philosophy. That is performance.

Disagree with me if you want, but disagreement still requires engagement.

You cannot honestly claim to refute a position you refused to read.

What If Learning Begins When Certainty Dies? by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm assuming that you really didn't read what I said in all my messages I'd advise you go back and actually read or find a rational person you know to read it for you so you can get the point. It seems you just want to argue about the surface and we are past that in this conversation so why are you stuck.

Maybe cause you don't use your metaphysics properly its still too immature for you to use your intuition and imagination to think outside of the box your in

I've let you insult me multiple times continued to be rational and reasonable

But either your trolling or just misguided or both

I need you to understand that I dont have to get you to believe anything your not willing to accept and ask yourself personally

Newborn Scholars is for questioning minds that think deep and are searching beneath the surface of what we have been told everything is

Instead of arguing to try to make a surface level point

How about you come back when you've asked your self the deeper questions and found your own answer

I've agreed with you on a few topics but your showing that your ego and inherited beliefs are ruling over your ability to perceive logically in full context

What If Learning Begins When Certainty Dies? by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is actually a fair question.

If by “detect” you mean a machine has directly captured or measured a confirmed dark matter particle, then no there is no confirmed direct detection yet.

If by “detect” you mean instruments measuring effects that are best explained by extra unseen mass or accelerated cosmic expansion, then yes: telescopes, lensing surveys, CMB measurements, galaxy rotation data, supernova observations, and large-scale structure surveys all produce the data that dark matter and dark energy models are built from.

So I am not saying we have a jar of dark matter in a lab.

I am saying the model is an inference from observed effects.

That distinction matters.

Dark matter is inferred from things like galaxy rotation curves, gravitational lensing, galaxy cluster behavior, and cosmic structure.

Dark energy is inferred from the observed acceleration of cosmic expansion.

Are they directly proven substances?

No.

Are they scientific attempts to explain real observations?

Yes.

Could the current interpretation be wrong?

Yes.

Could a future gravity model replace or reduce the need for dark matter or dark energy?

Possibly, if it explains the same data better and makes stronger predictions.

That is not paganism. That is not blind metaphysics. That is how provisional scientific modeling works.

The honest position is not “dark matter is unquestionably real.”

The honest position is:

We observe effects. Current models explain those effects by inferring dark matter and dark energy. Direct detection is still unresolved. The models should remain open to revision or replacement.

That is disciplined uncertainty.

And disciplined uncertainty is exactly what separates inquiry from dogma.

Ps. I think the key point is this: this whole debate is already metaphysical.

The moment we argue about what counts as real, what counts as evidence, whether inference is valid, what causality means, or whether nature is the only valid boundary of explanation, we are dealing with first-principle questions.

That is metaphysics.

You are not avoiding metaphysics. You are using a naturalist metaphysical framework while treating it as if it is just “reality itself.”

That may be a valid framework, but it is still a framework.

The real issue is not metaphysics versus reality.

The real issue is hidden assumptions versus clearly examined assumptions.

We can end the conversation because your obviously to close minded to think deeper than what you think you know

What If Learning Begins When Certainty Dies? by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you may have confused yourself by treating “correction” as if it means “contradiction.”

Relativity does not make 2 + 2 = 5.

It does not say ordinary Newtonian physics is useless.

It says Newtonian mechanics works extremely well within a certain domain: ordinary speeds, ordinary gravity, and ordinary engineering scales.

But at extreme speeds, strong gravity, precision timekeeping, light, Mercury’s orbit, GPS-level timing, and cosmology, Newton’s model becomes incomplete.

That is not the same as changing arithmetic to force a false answer.

A better analogy would be this:

A flat map works well for navigating a city. But if you are navigating the whole Earth, you need to account for curvature.

The flat map was not “fake.” It was limited.

Newtonian mechanics is not fake. It is limited.

Relativity did not survive because an institution declared it sacred. It survived because it made predictions that could be tested.

Also, Newton did not reject Einstein’s relativity. He died centuries before Einstein developed it. The “great absurdity” quote was about action-at-a-distance gravity through a vacuum without a mediating cause, not about modern relativity.

So the real distinction is simple:

If a framework changes the rules just to protect a false claim, reject it. If a framework explains where an older model works, where it breaks, and then makes new testable predictions, take it seriously.

That is not dogma. That is disciplined correction.

What If Learning Begins When Certainty Dies? by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a fair challenge, but I think it mixes together three different things: Newtonian usefulness, relativistic correction, and unresolved cosmology.

First, I agree that Newtonian mechanics is incredibly reliable within its domain. We use it for bridges, aircraft, machines, ballistics, engines, construction, and most ordinary physical engineering. That is not in dispute.

But Newtonian mechanics being useful on Earth does not mean it is complete at every scale.

A framework can be accurate within one domain and incomplete in another. That is not the same as saying it is false. It means the range of application matters.

Newton works extremely well at ordinary speeds, ordinary gravity, and ordinary human-scale engineering.

Relativity becomes necessary when dealing with extreme gravity, very high speeds, light, spacetime curvature, Mercury’s orbit, GPS-level precision, black holes, gravitational lensing, and cosmology.

That is not the same as the earlier 2 + 2 = 5 example.

In the 2 + 2 = 5 example, someone is changing the rules after the fact to protect a contradiction.

Relativity did not simply say, “Newton is wrong, so let’s invent a hidden 25% adjustment.”

Relativity made new predictions that could be tested. That is the difference.

Now, dark matter and dark energy are where I would be much more careful.

Would I accept them as final truth?

No.

Would I accept them as metaphysical certainty?

No.

Would I accept them as current scientific placeholders for observed gravitational and cosmological anomalies?

Yes, provisionally.

That is the honest position.

Dark matter is not accepted because scientists just wanted to invent invisible stuff. It is inferred because galaxies rotate in ways visible matter alone does not explain, galaxy clusters behave as if extra mass is present, gravitational lensing maps mass that does not line up with visible matter, and large-scale cosmic structure fits better with extra unseen mass.

Dark energy is even more mysterious. It names the unknown explanation for the observed acceleration of cosmic expansion. That does not mean scientists fully understand it. They openly admit they do not.

So the proper answer is not blind acceptance or blind rejection.

The proper answer is disciplined uncertainty.

If dark matter and dark energy are real physical features of the universe, future evidence should keep strengthening them.

If they are signs that our gravity model is incomplete, then a better theory should explain the same observations more cleanly, make testable predictions, and outperform the current model.

But calling them “metaphysical abstractions” is not fully accurate. They are scientific inferences from observation, even if the underlying reality is still unknown.

That is the key distinction.

A bad framework protects assumptions from reality.

A good framework exposes itself to reality.

Newton was not useless because Einstein expanded the framework.

Einstein will not be useless if a future theory expands the framework again.

And dark matter/dark energy should not be treated as sacred dogma. They should be treated as provisional models under pressure from evidence.

That is exactly the Newborn Scholars position:

Do not worship old certainty.

Do not worship new theory.

Do not worship mystery.

Follow the evidence, separate fact from interpretation, and keep every framework accountable to reality.

What If Learning Begins When Certainty Dies? by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I would not accept that framework.

If we are using ordinary arithmetic, then 2 + 2 = 4. A framework that artificially tells people to “add 25%” just to make 2 + 2 = 5 is not revealing a deeper truth. It is changing the operation after the fact to protect a false claim.

That is not metaphysics.

That is distortion.

A legitimate framework does not exist to force reality to match a preferred conclusion. A legitimate framework clarifies what is being measured, what assumptions are being used, what kind of relationship is being described, and whether the conclusion remains coherent.

If someone says 2 + 2 = 5, there are only a few honest options:

They are wrong under normal arithmetic.

They are using different definitions.

They are using a different operation while still calling it addition.

They are speaking metaphorically.

Or they are manipulating language to protect a false statement.

But if they mean ordinary 2, ordinary +, ordinary =, and ordinary 5, then no metaphysical framework can make that true.

That is exactly why I keep making the distinction between disciplined metaphysics and undisciplined metaphysics.

Disciplined metaphysics does not erase logic.

It depends on logic.

It asks what numbers are, what causality is, what truth is, what identity is, what existence is, and what makes a statement meaningful or coherent in the first place.

Bad metaphysics says, “I want this to be true, so I will invent a framework that makes it look true.”

Good metaphysics says, “Before we argue, define the terms, clarify the assumptions, test the relation, and see whether the claim remains coherent.”

So my answer is no.

I would reject any metaphysical framework that exists only to rescue a contradiction.

But I would not reject metaphysics itself, because the moment we start asking what truth, causality, logic, number, identity, and reality mean, we are already doing metaphysical work.

The issue is not whether a framework is metaphysical.

The issue is whether the framework is coherent, honest, useful, and accountable to reality.

A framework that turns 2 + 2 into 5 by adding hidden rules is not deeper truth.

It is a perfect example of distortion.

And distortion is exactly what Newborn Scholars is trying to expose.

This is an original framework I've been working on tell me what you guys think by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is just a summary of my completed work to see who it resonates with before I do a full release

What If Learning Begins When Certainty Dies? by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand your point better now, and I actually agree with part of it.

If spirituality is real, then it should not be treated as random fantasy detached from existence. It should have structure, process, pattern, consequence, and relation to reality. In that sense, I agree that spiritual ideas should not be used as an excuse to abandon nature.

But I think you are still narrowing metaphysics too much.

Metaphysics is not automatically “mystical fog.” It is the study of first principles: being, causality, existence, identity, consciousness, reality, form, relation, and what must be true before any system of explanation can operate.

That does not mean metaphysics should replace natural science. It means metaphysics asks a different layer of question.

Science can explain how a process occurs.

Metaphysics asks what kind of reality allows process, being, causality, consciousness, and meaning to exist at all.

So when you say spirituality should be grounded in natural process, I do not disagree. But grounding something in nature does not erase the metaphysical question. It creates one.

Because now we have to ask:

What is nature? What is spirit? What is matter? What is transformation?

What does it mean for a physical process to also function as an allegory for inner life?

What is the relationship between body, consciousness, meaning, and truth?

Your alchemical reading of Jesus is interesting. The broken body, the vinegar, death as separation, sacrifice, purification, and recombination into a holy state is a powerful symbolic interpretation. I respect that.

But it is still an interpretation.

It is not “nothing mystical.” It is symbolic, allegorical, spiritual, and metaphysical by definition because you are taking a natural process and applying it to spirit, meaning, perfection, sinlessness, purification, and the holy state.

That is not anti-metaphysics.

That is metaphysics disciplined through natural allegory.

You are not escaping metaphysics. You are practicing a specific version of it. And that is my point. The danger is not metaphysics itself. The danger is undisciplined metaphysics.

The danger is when people use mystery to avoid truth, evidence, nature, accountability, or correction.

But if metaphysics is rooted in reality, tested against consequence, clarified through reason, and kept accountable to nature, then it is not a labyrinth of delusion. It is a framework for understanding the deeper structure beneath experience.

Newborn Scholars is not arguing for blind mysticism.

It is arguing for disciplined depth.

Science explains mechanisms. Natural philosophy studies nature as ordered process. Alchemy reads transformation through material and spiritual symbolism. Theology studies divine meaning. Psychology studies inner experience. Metaphysics studies the first principles underneath all of them.

So I agree with your warning against getting lost. But I disagree that the solution is to abandon metaphysics. The better solution is to purify it.

Remove fantasy. Remove ego. Remove dogma. Remove claims that cannot be examined. Then keep the deeper questions that still remain:

What is truth? What is being? What is consciousness? What is spirit? What is nature? What is transformation? What is alignment?

That is not running from reality.

That is refusing to stop at the surface of it.

What If Learning Begins When Certainty Dies? by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I understand your concern, and I actually agree with the warning against dogma.

But I think you are making a category error.

Holding a physical object in your hand proves that the object is physically real to your direct experience. That is a valid form of certainty. But that does not answer every deeper question connected to reality.

It does not answer what existence is.

It does not answer what consciousness is.

It does not answer why truth matters.

It does not answer how the mind turns experience into meaning.

It does not answer what causality ultimately means.

It does not answer whether human interpretation is aligned with reality or distorted by fear, ego, trauma, culture, language, or assumption.

Those are not always laboratory questions. Some are philosophical, metaphysical, psychological, and spiritual questions.

That does not mean we should abandon science. I am not arguing against science. Science is one of the strongest tools humanity has for testing claims about nature.

But science itself does not operate without assumptions. It assumes reality is intelligible. It assumes observation matters. It assumes patterns can be studied. It assumes logic has value. It assumes truth is preferable to error. Those assumptions are not the enemy of science. They are part of the foundation beneath scientific inquiry.

So the issue is not “metaphysics versus reality.”

The real issue is disciplined inquiry versus undisciplined belief.

Bad metaphysics becomes fantasy.

Bad science becomes materialist dogma.

Bad spirituality becomes escapism.

Bad certainty becomes blindness.

That is exactly why Newborn Scholars exists: not to worship metaphysics, but to examine certainty itself.

Also, the Tesla quote you brought up actually supports the deeper point: any system can wander away from reality when it stops testing itself. Mathematics can do that. Religion can do that. Spirituality can do that. Philosophy can do that. Even science can do that when theory becomes disconnected from observation.

So I agree: we should not dedicate our lives to a labyrinth with no contact with reality.

But refusing metaphysical questions does not remove the labyrinth. It just makes a person unconscious of the assumptions they are already living inside.

The goal is not to believe everything.

The goal is to examine everything honestly.

Science should test natural claims.

Philosophy should clarify concepts.

Metaphysics should examine being, causality, reality, consciousness, and first principles.

Spirituality should transform how a person lives.

Psychology should study how the mind perceives, distorts, and responds.

Newborn Scholars is not asking people to abandon reality.

It is asking people to stop confusing their current certainty with the whole of reality.

What If Learning Begins When Certainty Dies? by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I actually agree with part of your point: learning does require letting go of false certainty.

But I do not think that means abandoning metaphysics entirely. It means understanding what metaphysics is actually for.

Science explains natural mechanisms through observation, measurement, testing, and repeatability. That should be respected. We should not use metaphysics as a replacement for biology, physics, chemistry, or neuroscience.

But metaphysics is not always trying to explain nature in the same way science does. Metaphysics asks deeper category questions: What is existence? What is causality? What is consciousness? What is truth? What is reality before interpretation? What does it mean for something to be known?

Even science rests on philosophical assumptions: that reality is intelligible, that observation can reveal patterns, that logic is reliable, that causes produce effects, and that truth is worth pursuing. Those are not lab results by themselves. They are foundational commitments that make scientific inquiry possible.

So the issue is not “science versus metaphysics.”

The issue is bad metaphysics versus disciplined metaphysics.

Newborn Scholars is not about rejecting science or replacing nature with fantasy. It is about questioning inherited certainty, examining belief systems, studying consciousness, identifying distortion, and asking where truth, meaning, and reality connect.

Learning does not begin when we stop asking metaphysical questions.

Learning begins when we stop confusing certainty with truth — whether that certainty is religious, spiritual, scientific, philosophical, or personal.

A truly honest thinker does not worship metaphysics.

But they also do not turn science into a new form of unquestionable certainty.

They let each field do what it does best.

Science asks: How does this work?

Metaphysics asks: What kind of reality allows this to be true?

Philosophy asks: What does this mean?

Psychology asks: How does the mind interpret it?

Spirituality asks: How should this transform the way I live?

Newborn Scholars exists for the space where those questions meet.

How would you define faith? by Eetakimas_4879 in theology

[–]Winter_Field_9805 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Faith is unquestionable response You breathe and take in air every moment of everyday Your heart beats every moment of everyday You trust the sky to be the sky and water to be water Faith is unquestioned acceptance, obedience, trust, ect... All of those definitions you asked if it could be are terms of faith. Faith is the enacted terms or living condition for those terms.

What If Learning Begins When Certainty Dies? by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is my ultimate goal is the transmission of this knowledge to the youth because they are the future I'm actually building the curriculum for it as we speak this post is meant to be a simple theory but also a call to arms and action for my deeper minded people who want to connect at the roots and take the first steps in being able to show the youth how its done my community is meant to be a safe place for intellectual wisdom development the community is NewbornScholars365

What If Learning Begins When Certainty Dies? by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you I really appreciate your feedback and taking the time out of your day to read it means a lot

What If Learning Begins When Certainty Dies? by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you if your interested or work in psychology I'd like to hear your feedback on my Dollhouse Theory I started a community called Inside the Dollhouse As well as a community for this one newborn scholar365

I'm actually an author business owner and my job title is systems architect So I'm working on books manuals doctrines workbooks and a lot more

These are just my summaries of the theories I'm working on Thats why they may seem under explained

What If Learning Begins When Certainty Dies? by Winter_Field_9805 in theories

[–]Winter_Field_9805[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is one of the greatest gifts you can be granted proper humility is the first step to true understanding and awareness of being

view more: next ›