Science: Conjectures and Refutations

[altonhare]

Simply put: part of something larger or greater. A subset. I have a mind and a body.

-GC

Okay, so in my terminology I might ask you "What is X made of?" and you would say "Y and Z are aspects of X" which I translate as "Y and Z compose X".

I am never fooled by 'the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics' because I ignore it, as I do with anything which is complicated. [See my signature for further details]

-GC

Good.

This could have been Sumerian cuneiform for all that it means to me. Rigid, formulaic thinking is anathema to me.

-GC

Right, I'm glad mathematical symbolism does not influence you. My point here was that structure (objects) precedes concepts (relations among objects). One way to express a concept is with an equation. An equation is conceptual, it must be based on (preceded by) objects. I think you agree with this.

Nothing, whether physical or mental is 'just there'. All is cause and effect. Even the Universe came from somewhere.

-GC

Causality is an extension of the law of identity. Every object interacts with every other object in accordance with its single identity. Talking about where the Universe "came from" is a violation of identity. If the Universe is "everything that exists" then the "creation" of the Universe involves something coming from nothing. This is a direct self-contradiction. It is the process of ignoring this obvious self-contradiction that has led to such confusion, paradox, and irrationality in mainstream physics and religion.

The physical cannot precede the mental surely? Thought must precede action. Taking your defintion of the Universe to be the totality of 'existents', how can a
physical entity (or thing) produce consciousness? If your (or anyone elses) answer to this is that consciousness evolved, then this begs the question of where did the concept of 'evolve' originate?

-GC

You are making the mistake of demanding an "origin", which is fallacious. If you accept identity you accept that something is not nothing, therefore nothing cannot "become" something without violating identity. Therefore concepts like consciousness, evolve, love, etc. always exist, they did not "originate". The physical does not "precede" the mental nor vice versa. Both always are. To state otherwise results immediately in self-contradiction and fallacy. It is difficult for humans to accept this because the entities we work with in our daily lives (class II's like steaks, cars, and toilet paper) are created and destroyed, so we insist that ALL entities must be created and/or destroyed. Even class I's. However the "creation/destruction" of class I's is a self-contradiction by my definition.

Therefore, not only is there no problem with fundamental entities' lack of origin, accepting it is the only way to avoid self-contradiction. Class I's just are.

As far as I am aware, nobody has yet found the basic building block of matter, in the sense of a 'physical' particle or whatever label one wishes to give it.

-GC

I have not yet found the Egyptian Pyramids, but they are surely there even if I refuse to believe it. This argument is moot. The denial of a fundamental constituent (continuous entity) results in an infinite regression.

See also images of tics and parasites on insects etc. There are some wierd and wonderful looking creatures down at that
level. If one were shown an artist's drawing of one of these creatures and was asked do you think such a creature lives on Earth, one would answer no. I would wager that these creatures also have smaller creatures living in and on them. Then there is the nano-world (see the
amazing images Junglelord has posted today (on which thread I cannot remmber). And I am using the word 'real' in the sense of 'normal' or 'familiar'or 'according to everyday experience' etc.

-GC

Again, simply because people would not believe in these tiny, weird creatures' existence, does not make them inexistent. I agree that the nature of the fundamental constituents do not have to be familiar to us in terms of our daily lives. However, they must be finite 3 dimensional objects. The pictures you see use very complex processes that aren't actually understood physically. At best these pictures are showing you regions of a certain color where there are the most interactions between the detector object (often an electron) and the detected object (often an atom or molecule). In the best of cases this will show you where most of the fundamental building blocks are relative to each other. These building blocks are most certainly "real" in the sense that they have shape and location.

I want to make sure you've understood some of my explanations regarding volume. No object IS space. There may be space between the constituents of an object. These are not the same statement. The first statement is direct self-contradiction, a logical fallacy. The second is a statement consistent with and derived directly from the definitions of space and object. The volume of an atom is the volume of the fundamental constituents comprising it. If you assume the atom is impenetrable (amounts to assuming the atom is the fundamental constituent) you assume it is continuous and the volume you calculate based on this assumption is, indeed, 10000x greater than the volume if you assume it is a proton+electron. However, as soon as another object penetrates the electron shell or breaks apart some of the constituents your assumption flies out the window and leads to erroneous results. This tells you that your initial assumption was invalid. I hope I can at least correct this error that I've seen floating around all of these boards.

That statement has no logic. You have absolutely no proof that the Universe contains all that exists. You also have no proof that the only options are are exist and non-existence. It is entirely conceivable that there are other states of which we are at present unaware

-GC

What is proof? We don't "prove" the universe is all that exists! We define the universe as everything that exists! If you wish to define it otherwise be my guest.

An existent has shape (a boundary, is finite, is not infinite) and location or is a specific static or dynamic relationship among entities with shape and location. The other option is to not have shape (infinite, not finite). What can it mean to either A) Be both infinite and finite or B) Be neither infinite nor finite? Anything that is partially existent and partially not violates identity and making a statement to this effect is a self-contradiction.

[Plasmatic]

That statement has no logic. You have absolutely no proof that the Universe contains all that exists...You also have no proof that the only options are are exist and non-existence

Now this is ironic coming from one with your criteria of meaning.
Existence is an axiom GC so your right one cannot "prove" it. Your comments show that you dont understand that "logic" rests upon axioms.My logic is derived directly from my definition of universe and the law of excluded middle ,along with the law of identiy,and non contradiction.
Not to mention that the assertion that something exists out side the universe if it wasnt a logical absurdity would be arbitrary precisley becuase there would be NO proof or evidence possible.

But all this is moot if one isnt concerned with identity and non contradiction.they just go about existing with identity without aknowledging it.

Would you care to provide a category that is non contradictory and has identity and is stil an"option". And likewise a definition of universe that would have the same criteria yet include "non existence"?

Your acceptance of the category of being makes the same mistake as those who formed it ,its superfluous . Something exists or it doesnt.

Emergent from what - existence? ..So where did the 'emergent properties of existence' come from.

The same invalid questions. Existence exists it has always existed [axiom]in its fundemental constituency.

[Plasmatic]

LOL you type faster than me Alton.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,

Every object interacts with every other object in accordance with its single identity.

Is that a fact or is it just your opinion?

Talking about where the Universe "came from" is a violation of identity.

So arrest me. Whose 'law of identity'? I don't obey the laws of Britain so I'm not overly concerned about obeying this law of identity.

If the Universe is "everything that exists" then the "creation" of the Universe involves something coming from nothing.

Big 'if'. In any case it does not logically follow that it must come from nothing. It could have come from something which no longer exists, or does that break one of your laws?

mainstream physics and religion

I don't do either of these, mainstream or other, in any way, shape or form.

You are making the mistake of demanding an "origin", which is fallacious.

In your world perhaps. I picked up this fallacious reasoning from reading the works of the world's great thinkers.

If you accept identity you accept that something is not nothing, therefore nothing cannot "become" something without violating identity.

That is your understanding of things not mine.

Therefore concepts like consciousness, evolve, love, etc. always exist, they did not "originate".

Can you provide evidence for this? To make a statement such as yours one must have a pretty good understanding of time, not to mention eternity.

The physical does not "precede" the mental nor vice versa. Both always are. To state otherwise results immediately in self-contradiction and fallacy.

Says who?

It is difficult for humans to accept this because the entities we work with in our daily lives (class II's like steaks, cars, and toilet paper) are created and destroyed, so we insist that ALL entities must be created and/or destroyed.

Us poor humans, lucky we are to have you scientists to sort us out.

However the "creation/destruction" of class I's is a self-contradiction by my definition.

With the emphasis on it being your definition.

Class I's just are.

A five year-old couldn't have put that better. So there.

The denial of a fundamental constituent (continuous entity) results in an infinite regression.

WTF does that mean?

Again, simply because people would not believe in these tiny, weird creatures' existence, does not make them inexistent.

My point was that these critters were beyond the experience of people so people would find them unbelievable. The same point holds for something existing prior to the current Universe.

I want to make sure you've understood some of my explanations regarding volume.

I don't need your explanation of volume. I'm quite happy to use the word as I see fit.

What is proof? We don't "prove" the universe is all that exists!

A shred of evidence then? I concede that I cannot provide a shred of evidence to the contrary but I am at least not conceited enough to rule out the idea that it might not be all that exists.

We define the universe as everything that exists!

Bully for you. I don't. And begore you ask for my definition, I'm still trying to understand the Universe and do not yet find make in a position to make a definitve statement about it. But, if ou have no objections, I'll carry on trying to learn from the world's great teachers rather than you. Should the world's grat teachers let me down then rest assured that you will be the first person I contact.

An existent has shape (a boundary, is finite, is not infinite) and location or is a specific static or dynamic relationship among entities with shape and location. The other option is to not have shape (infinite, not finite).

Yawn. Here we are back with your definition. What shape is a thought or emotion? So the Universe is finite? Then what exists beyond it? What is beyond its boundary?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Plasmatic,

Existence is an axiom GC so your right one cannot "prove" it.

Whose axiom? What right one of mine?

Your comments show that you dont understand that "logic" rests upon axioms.

I care not a fig whether logic rests on axioms or not. I am not overly fussed about logic. Logic is a tool I have in my toolkit. It is not the only tool.

My logic is derived directly from my definition of universe and the law of excluded middle, along with the law of identiy,and non contradiction.

Bully for you then.

Not to mention that the assertion that something exists out side the universe if it wasnt a logical absurdity would be arbitrary precisley becuase there would be NO proof or evidence possible.

It is only a logical absurdity if one accepts your definition of Universe. It is not a logical absurdity if one defines the Universe as all that is known to exist.

Would you care to provide a category that is non contradictory and has identity and is stil an"option".

What's a catagory? I don't subscribe to your pseudo-Aristoltelian, Randian definitions.

And likewise a definition of universe that would have the same criteria yet include "non existence"?

Why must I include non-existence?

Your acceptance of the category of being makes the same mistake as those who formed it,its superfluous . Something exists or it doesnt.

I never said that having being rules out existence. I said that everything exists but not everything has being. Thoughts, emotions, unicorns, etc have existence but not being. You, me and the cat next door have existence and being.

Existence exists it has always existed [axiom]in its fundemental constituency.

What exactly is a fundamental constituency? Are you saying then that you are immortal? (given that you exist).

[altonhare]

Plasm there is no point debating with GC, he rejects Identity. You cannot talk to someone who thinks A is both A and "not A". I'm done here.

[Grey Cloud]

Plasm there is no point debating with GC, he rejects Identity. You cannot talk to someone who thinks A is both A and "not A". I'm done here.

Cue the sound of dummy/pacifier being spit out.

[altonhare]

Plasm there is no point debating with GC, he rejects Identity. You cannot talk to someone who thinks A is both A and "not A". I'm done here.

Cue the sound of dummy/pacifier being spit out.

At this point there is only one question to debate:

Is A A?

[Plasmatic]

GC Ill not labor under impossible conditions. However I would like you to point out ANY "pseudo-Aristotilian" remarks I have made. That being what have I claimed of Aristotle that is not true?

[whitenightf3]

Emergent from what - existence? Do you have any proof of this? Can you show me something from which consciousness is emerging; has emerged; or will emerge?

Hi Consciousness emerges from Mind and here I don't mean little mind I mean Big Mind what we in the West call God.
I have trawled through this thread and it is more to do with Philosophy than Science.
The question do ideas, numbers, laws, exist on there own, waiting to be discovered; is something that Philosophers have been debating for thousands of years.
I agree with Sheldrake, Lipton, Goswami and Chopra et al that the brain is both a transmitter and receiver that tunes into Mind that is everywhere and everywhen. This model then incorporates most of the phenomena that comes under the umbarella of paranormal.
There is evidence that information that is out there, can and does get downloaded into the brains of people. One of the most famous recent cases is that of JK Rowling who said that the whole of the Harry Potter story just magically appeared in her mind in its complete entirity. Another case similar to that was Nietzche's Thus spoke Zarathustra, again this whole book just appeared from nowhere in the mind of the great philosopher. Of course life is littered with such examples of people plucking ideas out of thin air, no wonder they say life is a mystery.

Knowledge will take you from A to B but Imagination will take you everywhere.
Albert Einstein

[Plasmatic]

Knowledge will take you from A to B but Imagination will take you everywhere.
Albert Einstein

This sounds exactly like something the author of Relativity would say.

Ps I thought I sent this message earlier?

[altonhare]

I have trawled through this thread and it is more to do with Philosophy than Science.

-whiteknight

That's because many of the people in this thread have forfeited an objective, rational philosophy in favor of believing whatever is popular or makes them feel good. Physics is the study of objects so we cannot even discuss physics until we have settled what an "object" is, i.e. what is something and how is it different from nothing. Objects have shape, shape means it is finite/bordered. Treating concepts as objects is called reification and is the status quo in "science" these days.

The question do ideas, numbers, laws, exist on there own, waiting to be discovered; is something that Philosophers have been debating for thousands of years.

-whiteknight

Objects exist all on their own, they have shape whether we perceive that shape or not. Concepts exist as consciously identified relationships among objects. Ideas, numbers, and laws are all concepts.

There is evidence that information that is out there, can and does get downloaded into the brains of people.

-whiteknight

In making this claim you have avoided the first step of the scientific method, which is to define your terms and present the object(s) that your theory refers to. You must define information in terms of objects for this word to actually mean anything. You also must define/illustrate "downloading" of this information into someone's "brain" for this claim to have any meaning. What is actually happening? When you evade the first step you avoid actually saying anything substantial and thus avoid committing yourself to a specific claim. Modern scientists do this all the time. It allows them to redefine their terms retroactively to fit experiments. This basically prevents them from ever being wrong. They also avoid actually accomplishing anything productive with the experiment since the purpose of experiments is to corroborate or cast doubt on a hypothesis. With no hypothesis the experiment can't actually tell you anything new.