Measuring Existence?

[altonhare]

P and I had some private communication and I believe the issue is resolved. Anyone please chime in if this doesn't work:

1) Concrete Object: That which has shape and location.
2) Abstract Object: That which has shape but no location (a circle, square, tribar, the leprechaun in my head). Requires an observer to imagine.
3) Concrete Concept: A relationship between two concrete objects, requires an observation (and, by extension, an observer i.e. life).
4) Abstract Concept: A relationship between abstract objects such as "The leprechaun in my head likes to hoard gold". Also requires life/observer.

It comes down to, which of these four will we say "exists"? I say only the first exists because it is completely observer-free. I think the others in this thread say "1" and "3" exist because, although it requires an observer, "3" is still based on concretes.

Under 1-3 exist something can both begin and cease to exist, i.e the cloud as a particular arrangement of atoms. Under 1-exist nothing can be said to either begin or cease to exist unless one rejects the axiomatic "something cannot come from nothing and vice versa".

Can we start a fire, roast marshmellows, and sing "koombayah"? However it's spelled.

[kevin]

Altonhare,
I do not think No1 exists.
Apart from a tiny fraction of time, then it is gone, then it reforms, but changes as it reforms, that been dependent upon the condition it is in remaing similer due to inputs.
those inputs change constantly, and that is where time is.
Reset all the condition to any setting, and there you will be.
it will be almost impossible to fully reset the condition, thus any travel in time will be a kind of vague resemblance, one may call it ghostly?
I therefore consider that existance is a tiny fraction below that which we can percieve
Kevin

[lizzie]

Altonhare said: Please read. I NEVER said that matter can cease to exist. I put forth a quote from Millers and interpreted it as saying that objects can come into existence and cease to exist. I am arguing against this claim and that's the whole point of this thread!

Can matter cease to exist? What if it pops back into the nomaterial realm?

The ancient creation science conceives all physical form, animate or inanimate, to be sustained by an undercurrent of process, a flux of vital energy that is present in all regions of space. Such ongoing metabolic activity might even be regarded as manifesting a kind of vital consciousness.

The ether, conceived to serve as the substrate for physical form, is portrayed on the other hand as the domain of the spirit. This view of a vast, living beyond contrasts sharply with the sanitized mechanistic paradigm of modern physics, which has denied the existence of an unseen supernatural realm and forged a wedge between science and religion.

Throughout this atomistic crusade, there has been a tendency to regard structure as the primary basis for physical reality and to relegate process to second place.

The ancient science of creation takes a very different approach by instead positing process as the basis for the physical world.

Modern physics traditionally recognizes the existence of only the explicit order, the more outwardly apparent structural-physical order of matter and energy; the prehistoric science recognizes that this explicit order is an expression of a more fundamental less obvious implicit order, the functional order inherent in the arrangement and interplay of the underlying ether process.

This evolved hierarchy subdivides into three primary vectors of system evolution: the material evolution vector of “nonliving” systems; the life evolution vector of biological organisms and social organizations and the mental evolution vector of systems born from the mind. All structures along these vectors are examples of explicit order that has emerged as a result of pre-existing implicit order or organization inherent in the processes that create them.

Unless nature has made an exception for the material evolution vector, this principle applies to subatomic particles and photons as well; such quantum structures must consist of ordered patterns formed in a primordial space-filling ether continuum. This continuum constitutes another vector of existence not directly accessible to our senses.

Modern science takes a very different position in that it recognizes only the observable physical world as real. It subscribes to the doctrine of logical positivism that holds that the “existence” of something is contingent upon our ability to obtain “positive” knowledge of its presence through direct observation. He refused to admit the existence of a god, a nonmaterial spiritual realm, or an ether, unless they can be empirically verified.

The patterns of nature demands that an inherently unobservable realm exists beneath the observable. By understanding how certain types of open chemical reaction systems spontaneously self-organize their molecular reactants into macroscopic wave patterns, we are led to infer that the constituents of the all pervading ether might similarly self-organize to spawn wavelike patterns is the next run up in nature’s hierarchy, these being the subatomic particles.

Because of diffusion, processes transpiring in one part of the ether depend in a real way on processes that take place elsewhere in the ether.

Genesis of the Cosmos – the Ancient Science of continuous Creation – Paul A. LaViolette

[altonhare]

lizzie:

I agree with this statement in your quote:

Modern science takes a very different position in that it recognizes only the observable physical world as real.

- lizzie

Modern physics places too much priority on observation and measurement. Concrete objects exist independent of humans or our ability to perceive them. It is illogical to prove existence, concrete objects exist by definition. Modern physics incongruously tries to prove the existence of various objects with measurements and experiments. Modern physics does indeed have this problem.

I have difficulty understanding most of the rest of your post. Just because something is "unseen" or "unobservable" does not mean it must be illogical, irrational, or supernatural. For instance, the thread in thread theory cannot be "seen". The thread is the mode of seeing, i.e. it mechanically transmits a torsion from one atom to an atom in your eye. The fact that the fundamental constituent of the universe is undetectable is logical. How can one detect that which one USES to detect? The fundamental constituent in a TOEusually inherently precludes direct detection, i.e. only its effects are detectable.

However, if we forego rationality as a criterion for objects/concepts simply because they are undetectable or unobservable then everyone's theory or explanation is equally valid. This gets us nowhere. There must be a filter on theories. If we forego the filter of rationality and consistency then we are basically conceding that the universe is unknowable to humans. If we decide the universe is unknowable then there is no longer a purpose for science.

The reason I mention these things is not because I intend to accuse you of being irrational or supernatural, but because there are several words in your quote that I have found are often associated with these kinds of "explanations". If you can define these words in terms of concrete objects I would understand you much better. In particular, these are the primary words I am interested in:

energy, spirit, creation, space, ether, god, nonmaterial

[lizzie]

Altonhare said: If you can define these words in terms of concrete objects I would understand you much better. In particular, these are the primary words I am interested in: energy, spirit, creation, space, ether, god, nonmaterial.

How about if I provide you with a rational definition of concrete; and you provide me with a concrete example of rationality?

[altonhare]

Sure. Concrete is an adjective. It describes the noun it modifies as having location. Location is the distance from an object to every other object. Object is that which has shape i.e. is distinguished from that which it is not. Distance is the space between two objects. Space is the absence of object(s). Rational is an adjective that describes a noun as not violating three axioms: locality, causality, or identity. Assuming these axioms amounts to assuming that the universe is knowable. Additionally rational describes something that is demonstrable. This amounts to one being skeptical, i.e. I will not accept an explanation (even if it does not violate the 3 axioms) purely on faith. I must see an actual movie or demonstration. Locality means that A cannot both be at location B and not at location B. Causality means that A cannot occur both before and after B. Identity means that A cannot be both A and "not A".

This can be contrasted with irrational, which either violates an axiom or is not demonstrable. Science distinguishes itself in that it assumes the universe is knowable and engages in thought and inquiry to that effect. Additionally science distinguishes itself by being skeptical (requires a demonstration, won't take an explanation on faith). Non-scientists by default must assume that the universe is unknowable to humans and as such it would be illogical to engage in thought and inquiry about that which is not understandable. For instance, present day mathematical physicists propose all kinds of irrational explanations for observations they do not understand. They propose that the entire universe was present at the same location (BB hypothesis violation of locality). They propose that the universe is composed of discrete particles but that these discrete particles are also nondiscrete (quantum hypothesis, violation of identity and locality). They propose that an impossible one dimensional "object" both moves through space and composes space (Superstring hypothesis, a 1-D object cannot be demonstrated (shown) nor depicted, violation of identity), and they propose that causality is violated simply because two objects move at different velocities (relativistic hypothesis).

It is this combination of skepticism and the assumption that the universe is knowable that ensures not "every theory is okay". Scientists are not a bunch of buddies trying to make each other feel good about their thoughts. They are skeptical critics. Note that observation and measurement have nothing to do with how I distinguish science from non-science. An explanation or theory MUST pass the rationality criteria FIRST. Observation and measurement are inherently biased and, at best, can help someone else understand what guided your thinking to arrive at a theory.

These distinguishing criteria are not correct because I say so. Anyone is free to define their own dividing line between science and non-science. However, I have yet to see anyone do so on these boards. It is exactly in their lack of effort in distinguishing science from non-science that modern scientists are unable to distinguish themselves from Creationists, Christians, etc. This is exactly the problem science has today. It is evident in most debates on science vs. "religion" that nobody knows the difference anymore. Even worse, few are even trying to know the difference! Many mathematical physicists practically embrace irrationalities, paradoxes, contradiction, and supernatural phenomena because these are the kinds of things that excite the general public. To get funding, they need to get public interest. They have to make what they're doing sound as sensational as possible! Modern journals are not in the business of doing science anymore, they are in the business of making money. Making money means pleasing and entertaining your customer base. Outrageous sci-fi and fantasy vis a vis time travel, wormholes, alternate dimensions, etc. is entertaining and exciting. Rational inquiry is boring and tedious to the everyman.

The question is, do you have a filter? If so, what is it? How do YOU filter explanations, theories, and ideas?

[kevin]

altonhare,
I really like you, but you are funny.
Try to K.I.S.S.
As a somewhat stupid person, it works brilliantly.
The more complicated you envisage it, the more complicated it becomes, sly old fox?
Kevin

[altonhare]

altonhare,
I really like you, but you are funny.
Try to K.I.S.S.
As a somewhat stupid person, it works brilliantly.
The more complicated you envisage it, the more complicated it becomes, sly old fox?
Kevin

You like me, BUT I'm funny? What does that mean, you usually don't like people who are humorous? Or are you laughing at me rather? So you laugh at people you like?

[lizzie]

Kevin said: Try to K.I.S.S. As a somewhat stupid person, it works brilliantly.
The more complicated you envisage it, the more complicated it becomes

I’ll second that. I am still trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[altonhare]

Kevin said: Try to K.I.S.S. As a somewhat stupid person, it works brilliantly.
The more complicated you envisage it, the more complicated it becomes

I’ll second that. I am still trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

So... how do you filter thoughts/ideas kevin and lizz?

Plasm, GC, B, any comments on having the issue of "exist" resolved?

[altonhare]

Kevin said: Try to K.I.S.S. As a somewhat stupid person, it works brilliantly.
The more complicated you envisage it, the more complicated it becomes

I’ll second that. I am still trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

So... how do you filter thoughts/ideas kevin and lizz? i.e. why do you accept some and reject others?

Plasm, GC, B, any comments on having the issue of "exist" resolved?

[lizzie]

AltonHare said: So... how do you filter thoughts/ideas kevin and lizz? i.e. why do you accept some and reject others?

If I have learned anything here, it’s to follow Kevin's advice. Don't make anything more complicated than it needs to be. There could be 10 different ways of describing an electron; each definition could be perfectly valid in its own right. You will probably select the description that makes the most sense to you. As you learn more down the road, you could decide to use a different description. Nothing is etched in stone; it’s all a process. You improvise as you go along.

[Grey Cloud]

AltonHare wrote

So... how do you filter thoughts...i.e. why do you accept some and reject others?

Simple. Captain Kirk listens to McCoy and Spock, then makes a decision.
Intuition decides at what point between the two extremes the Truth lies.
Nowadays I also have the luxury of amenesis. I unforget. In other words, I listen to the azure eyed maiden.

[Birkeland]

...any comments on having the issue of "exist" resolved?

One does not need to "resolve" an axiomatic - self-evident - truth. What exist does exist: I am, therefore I'll think: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification. Then follows science: What is it? Perspective: we are humans - no other perspective is possible. Context: No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. Logic: the art of non-contradictory identification. Knowledge: a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation.

You see, it's not that hard. All one needs is a little help from Ayn Rand when it comes to methodology. What is it then, reality, gravity, time, everything?

What's the role of modern science? I have heard it said, that the role of modern science is to measure existence - a superficial examination of what is. One could measure a car; how fast it goes; how long it is etc., but one does not reveal anything in regard of what it is and how it functions. Another problem with modern science is deductive reasoning based on theoretical constructs: self-fulfilling and self-deceptive.

Inductive logic - observations - is the fundamental nescesity. But what if the observations could not be done directly? Well, one still have the measurements to build upon, but realise this: one must not try to make the measurements fit a pre defined theory, but rather let the measurements build a theory. This is the right scientific approach.

[altonhare]

I do not need any help from Ayn Rand or anyone else in the universe. We can follow this logic process all by ourselves, we don't need to appeal to authority. Let's argue these points ourselves and see how they stand on their own, without the weight of Ayn Rand's or anyone else's words thrown in.

I have defined four words. I have defined the word "exist" as only referring to words in the first category. Others have defined it in terms of the first and third categories. Is there any fundamental disagreement at this point in the discussion?