Indivisibility

[lifegazer]

Consider an object - say 'a rock', for example.
Keep dividing it until you are left with just one particle. It doesn't matter what this particle is - the importance of the argument is to isolate an absolutely singular entity.

Some might object: "What happens if all objects are infinitely divisible?"
The simple answer to that is that if this is the case, then no singular finite objects actually exist in reality.
Either they do or they don't. If they don't, then bang goes your reality of singular entities separated by spacetime. If they do, then let's proceed with the argument:-

What can we say about an absolutely singular entity?

An absolutely-singular entity must be indivisible. Clearly, if it was divisible, then it could not be classed as an absolutely-singular entity in the first place.
Therefore, an absolutely-singular entity is absolutely indivisible.

What can we say about absolute indivisibility?

Space and time are what are reported to exist between singular entities (thus separating those entities). But neither space nor time can separate something that is reported as absolutely-indivisible.
Consequently, an absolutely-indivisible entity must, IN itself, be spaceless and timeless.

Conclusion

You must now see where this is going: If an absolutely singular entity is spaceless and timeless in itself, then those entities are not 4-dimensional in themselves.
In a nutshell: no "singular thing" can truly exist as a 4-dimensional entity = there is no 4-dimensional reality.

4-dimensional reality negated.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Space and time are what are reported to exist between singular entities (thus separating those entities). But neither space nor time can separate something that is reported as absolutely-indivisible.

You just lost me. Why not? Spatial separation of multiple "singular entities" is not the same as dividing a single "singular entity."

Jeremy

[Wudang]

Are you trying to argue that strings must be zero-dimensional?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Are you trying to argue that strings must be zero-dimensional?
What strings?
String-theory is just that: "a theory"... an incomplete one at that.

My conclusion is clear. If you find fault in the preceding reasoning, then address that reasoning.

[Wudang]

Don't need to, Schrodinger beat me to it.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Don't need to, Schrodinger beat me to it.
Howso?

[Beleth]

You are applying the same words to two different concepts.

You are using the same words to describe what can best be described as "the set of all 4-dimensional entities" as you are using to describe the 4-dimensional entities themselves.

The set of all 4-dimensional entities may itself be absolutely singular in that there (by definition) is no entity outside it, but that doesn't mean the entities inside it are themselves singular.

Here's an example. Take the set of all odd numbers.
{1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, ... }
The set itself is infinite, but it doesn't make any sense (in fact, it's erroneous) to call any particular member of the set "infinite".
Likewise, each member of the set is odd, but it doesn't make any sense to call the set itself "odd".

Just because the set exhibits a certain property (in your case, "indivisible") doesn't mean that each member of the set, or indeed subsets of the set, exhibit the same property.

[Wudang]

Well for a kick off, there are no "singular" things as you abuse the word (which actually means something that stands out from its background). Try this (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae329.cfm)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Well for a kick off, there are no "singular" things as you abuse the word (which actually means something that stands out from its background). Try this (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae329.cfm)
Your method for refuting my argument is to avoid that argument and talk about something else altogether. Noted.

Regardless, if there are no singular things, then explain to this forum what time and space are separating.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Beleth
The set of all 4-dimensional entities may itself be absolutely singular in that there (by definition) is no entity outside it, but that doesn't mean the entities inside it are themselves singular.


Same reply as previous:
If there are no singular things, then explain to this forum what time and space are separating.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by lifegazer
[any] theory is just that: "a theory"... Sure sign of misunderstanding.

[Anathema]

If LG can prove an absolutely-singular entity must be indivisible, will that mean liberty and justice for all?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Your method for refuting my argument is to avoid that argument and talk about something else altogether. Noted.

Ah, so you didn't read about Schrodinger then?

Regardless, if there are no singular things, then explain to this forum what time and space are separating.

Do you mean "singular" in the sense of that word in the english language or in your own private lifegazer-speak?

If the former, then I refer you again to the esteemed Schrodinger as a starting point (well, perhaps not a point).

If the latter, then guessing at what you mean, I would hazard that they are separating space-time events.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
If the former, then I refer you again to the esteemed Schrodinger as a starting point (well, perhaps not a point).

Just answer the questions. You're beginning to sound like a politician. Correction - you are like a politician.
You'll score no points in this debate unless you make clear comments.

If the latter, then guessing at what you mean, I would hazard that they are separating space-time events.
Events of what?

Wake-up call: If there are no "things", then there is no spacetime separating those things = there are no events (of things) in spacetime.

Put your science book to one side. Incomplete theories are useless in refuting the argument I have presented. Please address that argument directly.

[Yahweh]

You're using multiple definitions of division.

Apparently, you are using definitions of division to mean both "breaking down" and "having spatial boundaries".

Its very possible to break down a rock into its finest 4D parts and still rightfully call each part indivisible, it would merely amount to singular existence through space and time.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Just answer the questions. You're beginning to sound like a politician. Correction - you are like a politician.
You'll score no points in this debate unless you make clear comments.


Are clear as you are about whether you're speaking the english language or lifegazer-speak? I shall assume that you are using words as defined in the Oxford dictionary, okay?


Events of what?

Events of space-time, I thought I said.


Wake-up call: If there are no "things", then there is no spacetime separating those things = there are no events (of things) in spacetime.

I can just as easily say that if there are no "things" then is no Mind separating these things. Statements are not argument.


Put your science book to one side. Incomplete theories are useless in refuting the argument I have presented. Please address that argument directly.

Well your argument isn't exactly complete. It begs the question of what a "singular entity" is.
Since a "singular" thing is something which stands out from its background then an absolutely singular thing must be something that absolutely stands out from its background - is it still part of its background then? If the background is space-time then how can something be absolutely singular (which is frankly still poorly defined) ?

[epepke]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Consider an object - say 'a rock', for example.
Keep dividing it until you are left with just one particle. It doesn't matter what this particle is - the importance of the argument is to isolate an absolutely singular entity.

That's nice.

Given 2000 years, I'm sure you'll be able to come up with the Standard Model.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by epepke
That's nice.

Given 2000 years, I'm sure you'll be able to come up with the Standard Model.
Actually, since Leucippus was around 420 BC, he might need a bit longer.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
it would merely amount to singular existence through space and time.
If no space exists between something (as it cannot in the case of an indivisible thing), then you cannot say that any two points within that thing are separated by space. As such, you cannot even say that "two separate points" exist. What is there to separate two different points in an entity exhibiting absolute sameness?

You need to think beyond your conceptualisations of space.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Events of space-time, I thought I said.

You cannot even define space or time without "things" to relate those concepts to!!!

Without "things", space and time are defineless.

There can be no events without "things".

You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.
I'll ask you one more time:
If there are no "things", then what does space and time separate?

If I were you, I'd just exhibit some sincerity and concede to this point.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by epepke
That's nice.

Given 2000 years, I'm sure you'll be able to come up with the Standard Model.
Does this somehow parade as a refutation to my argument?

[Ratman_tf]

Lifegazer, I never understood your need to rely on the Real World in order to disprove the objective existence of the Real World.

It seems to me that you'd be better off attacking this from the angle of why god generates rocks and atoms and us in the first place, otherwise, you're just speculating on things that don't really exist.

[epepke]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Does this somehow parade as a refutation to my argument?

No. Your argument is incoherent and relies on semantic sloppiness. This has been pointed out to you. As far as I'm concerned, it needs no refutation. I'm just making fun of you.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If no space exists between something (as it cannot in the case of an indivisible thing), then you cannot say that any two points within that thing are separated by space. As such, you cannot even say that "two separate points" exist. What is there to separate two different points in an entity exhibiting absolute sameness?

You need to think beyond your conceptualisations of space.

Apparently I also need to think beyond my conceptalisations of grammar. "no space exists between something"? Okay, what's the difference between a duck?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
Lifegazer, I never understood your need to rely on the Real World in order to disprove the objective existence of the Real World.

99.99% of the people I talk to have a blind and unshakable-faith
in the "real world". I have to break that faith - it seems - before anyone will even begin to listen to me.

It seems to me that you'd be better off attacking this from the angle of why god generates rocks and atoms and us in the first place, otherwise, you're just speculating on things that don't really exist.
Well if they "don't really exist", I shouldn't have a need to convince you of the existence of God.

My argument has been presented. If you find a flaw, then discuss.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
It doesn't matter what this particle is - the importance of the argument is to isolate an absolutely singular entity.Well, here's your first problem: After a certain point, it wouldn't be correct to call the think you're dividing a "particle" anymore. That term would be too simplistic and inaccurate for what you would end up with (even before it became necessarily "indivisible", if ever).
Some might object: "What happens if all objects are infinitely divisible?"
The simple answer to that is that if this is the case, then no singular finite objects actually exist in reality. Maybe I missed the explanation, but whaaaaa....?

How does infinitely divisible objects lead to the conclusion that there are no singular finite objects? Or maybe a better question is, what are you defining as "singular finite objects"?
Space and time are what are reported to exist between singular entities (thus separating those entities).Here's your second problem. Spacetime isn't just what exists between objects. Objects exist in spacetime. That is, there is also spacetime were objects are currently at as well as between them and other objects. Again, a rather simplistic and inaccurate take.

However, even if this view were correct, all one could say is that there is no spacetime at the indivisible objects, not that there is no spacetime. To make that argument, you would have to try to argue that there is only one indivisible object and that can hardly be the case since all macroscopic objects are divisible, meaning they are made of many divisible objects.
But neither space nor time can separate something that is reported as absolutely-indivisible.
Consequently, an absolutely-indivisible entity must, IN itself, be spaceless and timeless.This, of course, is made double-moot given the poor understanding of both "indivisible objects" and "spacetime".
You must now see where this is going: If an absolutely singular entity is spaceless and timeless in itself, then those entities are not 4-dimensional in themselves. I don't see how it follows, but it is moot as absolutely indivisible entities are not spaceless or timeless.


You really should avoid attempting these physical arguments until you learn more about physics. You're just no good at them.


edited for spelling

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by epepke
No. Your argument is incoherent and relies on semantic sloppiness. This has been pointed out to you. As far as I'm concerned, it needs no refutation. I'm just making fun of you.
Denial. The last retreat of the lame.

If you think my argument is incoherent, I would suggest you join the kiddies club in yahoo and talk about cartoons. In other words, say something worthwhile or get lost.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You cannot even define space or time without "things" to relate those concepts to!!!

Without "things", space and time are defineless.

There can be no events without "things".

You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.
I'll ask you one more time:
If there are no "things", then what does space and time separate?

If I were you, I'd just exhibit some sincerity and concede to this point.

"defineless"? Actually, your problem is that you can't define space or time without "things" to relate them to, I understand spacetime as a metric. You seem to be thinking of it as some form of aether or something equally outdated. Is spacetime a "thing" in your native language?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
"defineless"? Actually, your problem is that you can't define space or time without "things" to relate them to, I understand spacetime as a metric.

If you lack the intelligence to understand that values of space and time are defined in relation to and between "things", then it's pointless talking to you.

Take every-thing out of the universe and then try to define an event. It's impossible.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
99.99% of the people I talk to have a blind and unshakable-faith
in the "real world". I have to break that faith - it seems - before anyone will even begin to listen to me.uh-huh. And how are you going to do that without understanding the "real world" in the first place? My argument has been presented. If you find a flaw, then discuss. Done and done.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If you lack the intelligence to understand that values of space and time are defined in relation to and between "things", then it's pointless talking to you.

Take every-thing out of the universe and then try to define an event. It's impossible.

I repeat for the hard-of-thinking "spacetime", "metric".

I don't think people who describe something as "defineless" should be criticising others intelligence, to be frank.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If you lack the intelligence to understand that values of space and time are defined in relation to and between "things", then it's pointless talking to you. Uh.... lifegazer? That isn't how spacetime is defined. You seem to be the only one who defines it that way and you will have to admit that when it comes to things like relativity, you are woefully uninformed. Remember all those discussions we've had on the subject, some of which you had to conceed that you didn't understand? This is one of those times.
Take every-thing out of the universe and then try to define an event. It's impossible. Actually, it is possible. It would just be smooth.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Consider an object - say 'a rock', for example.
Keep dividing it until you are left with just one particle. It doesn't matter what this particle is - the importance of the argument is to isolate an absolutely singular entity.

Some might object: "What happens if all objects are infinitely divisible?"
The simple answer to that is that if this is the case, then no singular finite objects actually exist in reality.
Either they do or they don't. If they don't, then bang goes your reality of singular entities separated by spacetime. If they do, then let's proceed with the argument:-

What can we say about an absolutely singular entity?

An absolutely-singular entity must be indivisible. Clearly, if it was divisible, then it could not be classed as an absolutely-singular entity in the first place.
Therefore, an absolutely-singular entity is absolutely indivisible.

What can we say about absolute indivisibility?

Space and time are what are reported to exist between singular entities (thus separating those entities). But neither space nor time can separate something that is reported as absolutely-indivisible.
Consequently, an absolutely-indivisible entity must, IN itself, be spaceless and timeless.

Conclusion

You must now see where this is going: If an absolutely singular entity is spaceless and timeless in itself, then those entities are not 4-dimensional in themselves.
In a nutshell: no "singular thing" can truly exist as a 4-dimensional entity = there is no 4-dimensional reality.

4-dimensional reality negated.

11 dimensional reality hypothesized. All you have to do is find a nonvanishing harmonic spinor.

[epepke]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Denial. The last retreat of the lame.

If you think my argument is incoherent, I would suggest you join the kiddies club in yahoo and talk about cartoons. In other words, say something worthwhile or get lost. [/B][/QUOTE]

Woohoo! A put-down by lifegazer. Now I can die happy.

You constantly present things that you apparently consider arguments, based on a rather simple idee fixe. You use words that you only half-understand to describe concepts that you don't seem to understand at all. You provide a valuable service to this forum because you show us what can happen to a mind that otherwise might be put to some use.

[Z]

Ahhhh.... I see that LG has snuck away from yet another thread to start a new, equally invalid thread...

Someone ought to maintain a running index of every thread he abandons, and the exact conditions of his arguments at the end of said threads.

Welll.... let's see what Mr. Woefully Ignorant has to say tonight:

Originally posted by lifegazer
Consider an object - say 'a rock', for example.
Keep dividing it until you are left with just one particle. It doesn't matter what this particle is - the importance of the argument is to isolate an absolutely singular entity.

Problem: Divide a rock - you now have two half-rocks. Divide again - more parts. What you perhaps wish to say is, divide the rock and discard half until you are left with just one particle.

Problem 2: Define 'absolutely singular'. As I understand it, an absolutely singular entity is any one entity. Period. Which means, you have one rock - well, that's an absolutely singular entity. So what do you mean, an absolutely singular entity? Perhaps you are asking us to divide the components until you have an indivisible entity... in which case, we can only theorize, at this point, as to the existence of an 'absolutely indivisible' entity. Oh, we'd like to assume that there is some point at which we can no longer split things - doesn't that have something to do with Planck's constant, or something? - and we've even gone and classified some particles as being 'indivisible'. Muons, neutrinos, bosons, etc. If you really are interested in the theory of 'indivisible entities', then you need to spend quite a while studying quantum theory.

Some might object: "What happens if all objects are infinitely divisible?"
The simple answer to that is that if this is the case, then no singular finite objects actually exist in reality.
Either they do or they don't. If they don't, then bang goes your reality of singular entities separated by spacetime. If they do, then let's proceed with the argument:-

What can we say about an absolutely singular entity?

An absolutely-singular entity must be indivisible. Clearly, if it was divisible, then it could not be classed as an absolutely-singular entity in the first place.
Therefore, an absolutely-singular entity is absolutely indivisible.

What can we say about absolute indivisibility?

Space and time are what are reported to exist between singular entities (thus separating those entities). But neither space nor time can separate something that is reported as absolutely-indivisible.

In other words, space-time cannot divide an absolutely indivisible entity - well, of course it cannot 'divide' it. But properties of said entities can certainly be 'defined' by space-time.

Consequently, an absolutely-indivisible entity must, IN itself, be spaceless and timeless.

Study quantum theory for a while. As I understand it, indivisible entities are not, in fact, spaceless nor timeless.

Conclusion

You must now see where this is going: If an absolutely singular entity is spaceless and timeless in itself, then those entities are not 4-dimensional in themselves.

Meaningless conclusion, since we have not proven that an individual entity is spaceless or timeless. Further, just because an entity may itself be less than 4-dimensional does not indicate that it cannot exist in 4 or more dimensional space.

In a nutshell: no "singular thing" can truly exist as a 4-dimensional entity = there is no 4-dimensional reality.

Nutshell - good analogy. IN fact: no matter what 'singular things' exist, if there exist any two things, then space-time must exist. By space-time I mean some form of multi-dimensional reality. If you have only one, singular, unchanging thing, then spacetime is meaningless. But the moment you add another, you define space - specifically, a distance between two things. Add a third, and you may very well invoke two more dimensions. Plus, the very act of adding a thing invokes time.

Now - in proper reasoning, if you come to a conclusion that is clearly wrong, you must re-think your reasoning. Clearly, the conclusion that 4-dimensional space cannot exist is wrong, ergo, your reasoning is faulty.

4-dimensional reality negated.

NOT EVEN CLOSE.

[monkboon]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You'll score no points in this debate unless you make clear comments.

What's good for the goose, and all that.

Space and time are what are reported to exist between singular entities (thus separating those entities). But neither space nor time can separate something that is reported as absolutely-indivisible.

Separate what? The singular entity from itself?

Consequently, an absolutely-indivisible entity must, IN itself, be spaceless and timeless.

You seem to be making a big jump to your conclusion here. Your definition of space-time says that it separates singular entities, but it says nothing of what space-time is relative to any one singular entity. I don't see how you've shown that singular entities occupy null space-time. Show your work.

Are you still trying to convince me that I'm God? I'm not buying it. If I were God, I could have gotten out of that speeding ticket 12 years ago, and that I certainly did not.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Space and time are what are reported to exist between singular entities (thus separating those entities). But neither space nor time can separate something that is reported as absolutely-indivisible.
Consequently, an absolutely-indivisible entity must, IN itself, be spaceless and timeless.

Conclusion

You must now see where this is going: If an absolutely singular entity is spaceless and timeless in itself, then those entities are not 4-dimensional in themselves.
In a nutshell: no "singular thing" can truly exist as a 4-dimensional entity = there is no 4-dimensional reality.

4-dimensional reality negated.

Thats great, but your entire argument was founded on the divisibility of objects. The property of divisibility/non-divisibility, etc, applies to objects. Space/time is not an object, and divisibility or non-divisibility is not a property that can be assigned to space/time.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Wake-up call: If there are no "things", then there is no spacetime separating those things = there are no events (of things) in spacetime.

Put your science book to one side. Incomplete theories are useless in refuting the argument I have presented. Please address that argument directly.

He is pointing out that particles are probability curves, and the probability curve of a single particle can be divided as many times as you want. Take a photon passing through the silvered mirror, until it reacts with another particle, half the probability curve is on one side of the mirror, half is on the other side.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Does this somehow parade as a refutation to my argument?

Its funny, laugh.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Thats great, but your entire argument was founded on the divisibility of objects. The property of divisibility/non-divisibility, etc, applies to objects. Space/time is not an object, and divisibility or non-divisibility is not a property that can be assigned to space/time.
My argument did not include the divisibility of spacetime.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
He is pointing out that particles are probability curves, and the probability curve of a single particle can be divided as many times as you want. Take a photon passing through the silvered mirror, until it reacts with another particle, half the probability curve is on one side of the mirror, half is on the other side.
So reality is full of "probability curves"? lol

Come on Russ. Time to face the music. Either real things exist beyond your sense of them, or they don't.
And don't forget that our physics refer to our sense of the world, since that is the only world we can observe.
So, probability curves refer to the chances of a particle being sensed within your awareness.

[Z]

Just demonstrating further lack of understanding, LG. Read the theories... I know science doesn't mean much to you, but if you would only try... you would understand the nature of the 'indivisible' things.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
"It doesn't matter what this particle is - the importance of the argument is to isolate an absolutely singular entity."

Well, here's your first problem: After a certain point, it wouldn't be correct to call the think you're dividing a "particle" anymore. That term would be too simplistic and inaccurate for what you would end up with (even before it became necessarily "indivisible", if ever).

Whatever you want to label a single thing is irrelevant. The only relevance here is whether definite things exist beyond your sense of them, separated from you by spacetime.

"Some might object: "What happens if all objects are infinitely divisible?"
The simple answer to that is that if this is the case, then no singular finite objects actually exist in reality."

Maybe I missed the explanation, but whaaaaa....?

I pre-empted the possibility that some readers would respond thus as a means to disputing the possibility that "singular things" do definitely exist. But if they don't exist, then no thing can exist separate from your awareness then, can it?

THOSE THAT BELIEVE IN A REALITY BEYOND THEIR SENSE OF ONE, MUST INSIST ON THE DEFINITE EXISTENCE OF "THINGS"

Your call - do you want to argue that "things" have definite existence or not? If not, then get down on your knees and praise your God. If so, then address the OP.

"Space and time are what are reported to exist between singular entities (thus separating those entities)."

Here's your second problem. Spacetime isn't just what exists between objects. Objects exist in spacetime. That is, there is also spacetime were objects are currently at as well as between them and other objects. Again, a rather simplistic and inaccurate take.

I refer you to the answer I gave to Yahweh:
"If no space exists between something (as it cannot in the case of an indivisible thing), then you cannot say that any two points within that thing are separated by space. As such, you cannot even say that "two separate points" exist. What is there to separate two different points in an entity exhibiting absolute sameness?

You need to think beyond your conceptualisations of space."

However, even if this view were correct, all one could say is that there is no spacetime at the indivisible objects, not that there is no spacetime.

If ALL things that are reported to exist are shown to be devoid of space and time, then no thing truly exists in spacetime.
How can an entity devoid of any physical dimension actual exist in those dimensions?

You really should avoid attempting these physical arguments until you learn more about physics. You're just no good at them.

You really should avoid philosophical contemplation because you're too engrossed within you physics books to make sense of reality.
Touche.

Stick to reason Uppy lad and minimise the garbage in future.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Just demonstrating further lack of understanding, LG. Read the theories... I know science doesn't mean much to you, but if you would only try... you would understand the nature of the 'indivisible' things.
Quack quack quack.
Go away and come back when you understand that scientific theories refer to sensed existence.
On second thoughts: go away and come back when you understand that scientific theories refer to sensed existence AND that unless "things" DEFINITELY exist beyond your sense of them, that no external reality doth exist.

The responses to my OP have been **** poor. Really. It all reeks of satanism or something.

[Z]

LG your tone, as usual, is offensive and moronic.

You don't stick to reason, so why should anyone else?

I've already explained - as I'm sure others have, in this thread as well as an older thread - that space/time is something that exists between indivisible things, not within them. You tried this argument before and got nowhere - you tried claiming that if any thing exists with less dimensions than reality, that reality cannot have more dimensions than that thing. WRONG.

But - you are still trying to relate indivisible things to space as if they were matter. What we're trying to hint to you is, that at a certain stage, some things cease being 'matter' and become-- something else. What? Heck, no one really knows the answers to that yet. Electrons, for example, aren't exactly matter as we understand it - they are indivisible particle/wave functions. We don't see individual electrons; rather, we see their 'shell' or their energy movements... It's very complicated, but that's the way it is.

At any rate, as I said before, in order for dimensions of space to exist, all you need are any number of indivisible things beyond one. They can themselves have only a location within space-time - in fact, we can even use points, if you like - but regardless of what they are, the moment there are two or more of them, space is defined.

As for time - time is just a measure of change. If you have nothing, and then you suddenly have two particles, you have space-time. Simple reason.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Quack quack quack.
Go away and come back when you understand that scientific theories refer to sensed existence.
On second thoughts: go away and come back when you understand that scientific theories refer to sensed existence AND that unless "things" DEFINITELY exist beyond your sense of them, that no external reality doth exist.

The responses to my OP have been **** poor. Really. It all reeks of satanism or something.

Here's a better idea, LG - hows about you go away and come back when you understand anything at all. For example - when you understand basic concepts such as infinity, space, or time. Regardless of whether or not science deals with sensed-things or not, you cannot use science to argue against science. You cannot invoke science and logic in your reasoning, then deny their efficacy because of their dependance on 'sensed-reality'.

Your mis-use, again, of 'doth' just demonstrates: you're not interested in reason, you're only interested in bolstering your own ridiculous and loosely-founded faith.

Your OPs are always, in themselves, **** poor. Really. They all reek of fundamentalism or something.

[Anathema]

LG, LG, LG....still writhing like a salted slug...

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Here's a better idea, LG - hows about you go away and come back when you understand anything at all. For example - when you understand basic concepts such as infinity, space, or time. Regardless of whether or not science deals with sensed-things or not, you cannot use science to argue against science.

I have used reason to argue against an unfounded so-called philosophical stance. My OP doesn't even mention science.
Address the OP or gag your beak.

[Z]

Already did, monkey-boy. Check page 1. As usual, you either missed it or just refused to try dealing with the results of your incorrect assumptions and failed reasoning.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Whatever you want to label a single thing is irrelevant. The only relevance here is whether definite things exist beyond your sense of them, separated from you by spacetime."Definite things", huh?

Neither "definite" nor "thing" have much meaning beyond a certain point. You're going to have to be more specific if you are going to hinge your argument on whether or not they exist.

And, again, you're using an incorrect concept of spacetime, but we'll get into that.
I pre-empted the possibility that some readers would respond thus as a means to disputing the possibility that "singular things" do definitely exist. But if they don't exist, then no thing can exist separate from your awareness then, can it?Yeah, it still doesn't make any sense. I'll repeat the reiteration of my question: Or maybe a better question is, what are you defining as "singular finite objects"?
THOSE THAT BELIEVE IN A REALITY BEYOND THEIR SENSE OF ONE, MUST INSIST ON THE DEFINITE EXISTENCE OF "THINGS"What do you mean by "definite". By my understanding of the word, yeah, I do believe in the existance of things, as much as one can be.
I refer you to the answer I gave to Yahweh:
"If no space exists between something (as it cannot in the case of an indivisible thing), then you cannot say that any two points within that thing are separated by space. As such, you cannot even say that "two separate points" exist. What is there to separate two different points in an entity exhibiting absolute sameness?Okay, pay attention. Let's construct an imaginary construct. We'll call it the "Indivisible Object". So that it is easier to understand in our macroscopic world, we'll say it has the following properties: It cannot be devided into smaller parts.
It is 1 meter long.
It is 1 meter wide.
It is 1 meter high.
It is green*.
Now. Given that it cannot be seperated into parts, it is by definition, indivisible. However, you will still note that it occupies multiple points in space. Thus, it can be said that portions of the indivisible object are seperated by a spacial distance. Further, as the indivisible object has duration, it space a temperal distance as well.

Now, shrink the indivisible object to whatever size you imagine an indivisible object ought to be. It still possesses spacial distance (even if very small) and it still possesses temporal distance. Thus, the indivisible object still exists within the spacetime manifold.
If ALL things that are reported to exist are shown to be devoid of space and time, then no thing truly exists in spacetime.But the premise is not met, so the conclusion does not hold. :con2:
Stick to reason Uppy lad and minimise the garbage in future. I'd ask you to do the same, but you've not quite made it to "reason" yet. You're stuck in "rationalization".

* No particular reason. I just like green.

[Z]

Um, technical point, UC - an indivisible object can't have a color, can it? There's no sub-portions that absorb light, move to higher energy states, then return to lower energy states releasing specific frequencies of light, are there? So we have to deal with uncolored things, right? In other words, invisible things?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
LG your tone, as usual, is offensive and moronic.

Shut up you satanic plonker.

I've already explained - as I'm sure others have, in this thread as well as an older thread - that space/time is something that exists between indivisible things, not within them.

Ghosts in spacetime? LOL

What we're trying to hint to you is, that at a certain stage, some things cease being 'matter' and become-- something else. What? Heck, no one really knows the answers to that yet. Electrons, for example, aren't exactly matter as we understand it - they are indivisible particle/wave functions.

What did I just say to you in my previous post? Do you not listen?
"Go away and come back when you understand that scientific theories refer to sensed existence AND that unless "things" DEFINITELY exist beyond your sense of them, that no external reality doth exist."

We don't see individual electrons; rather, we see their 'shell' or their energy movements... It's very complicated, but that's the way it is.

LOL
"It's complicated LG - nobody really understands, but non-understanding suffices to refute your philosophy."
This is retard philosophy and I don't give a monkey's uncle whether you're offended or not.

I understand!!!
Particles are seen within awareness and until seen, their potential to be seen within awareness is equated to "a probability wave".
QM refers to SENSED existence.
How many bleedin' times do I have to explain to you this simple truth?

Science tells us nothing about reality - science tells us about the world that is sensed. FACT.
Now, put your science books back on the shelf and try and think for yourself for a change. Are you capable of that?

Up the quality or stay away from my threads. I'm tired of your BS.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Same reply as previous:
If there are no singular things, then explain to this forum what time and space are separating. I never said there were no singular things. Your miscomprehension of my statement is noted.

Describing "the set of all 4-dimensional things" as "singular" imparts a different meaning to word "singular" than describing "one 4-dimensional thing" as "singular" does. The former is a definiton akin to "unique" where the latter is a definition akin to "particular".

I own a pickup truck.
There is a set of objects containg all the pickup trucks in existence.
That set is "singular" in that there is no other set with that description, i.e. it is "unique" set.
My pickup truck is "singular" in that, although there are others like it, it is the only one I own, i.e. it is a "particular" truck.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Um, technical point, UC - an indivisible object can't have a color, can it?Sure it can, all you have to do is cover the indivisible objects with an appropriate electron cloud. The electrons themselves aren't part of the indivisible object, but definition. Just near it. Really, really, near it.









It's my imaginary object and I say it's green!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
My argument did not include the divisibility of spacetime.

"But neither space nor time can separate something that is reported as absolutely-indivisible.
Consequently, an absolutely-indivisible entity must, IN itself, be spaceless and timeless."

The statement assumes that space/time itself can be divided. Be interesting to see if you reply to the divided waves of probability.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Shut up you satanic plonker.

Make me. Oh, and by the way: Wiccans aren't satanic. Satan is a creation of the Judeo-Christian faith. As for what the heck a plonker is...???

Ghosts in spacetime? LOL

Well, this just shows you're losing it - where were ghosts referred to?

What did I just say to you in my previous post? Do you not listen?
"Go away and come back when you understand that scientific theories refer to sensed existence AND that unless "things" DEFINITELY exist beyond your sense of them, that no external reality doth exist."

You are not in charge of these forums. You do not control who posts what, where. You cannot make me 'go away'. As long as you try passing off incorrect information as if it were true, I will be here to correct you. No one is arguing with you about your 'sensed-existence' in this thread. Your OP is making the assumption that 'sensed-existence' is 'real-existence' - so naturally the discussion follows those lines.

LOL
"It's complicated LG - nobody really understands, but non-understanding suffices to refute your philosophy."
This is retard philosophy and I don't give a monkey's uncle whether you're offended or not.

Did I say nobody really understands? No, I did not. Some folks understand it very well. I understand just enough to know that your philosophy is total bunk and based on absolutely incorrect assumptions. And I don't care whether you're offended or not - clearly, you are a moron.

I am not offended, btw - I often get ignorant people insulting me when they cannot understand basic principles. I deal with children all the time.

I understand!!!
Particles are seen within awareness and until seen, their potential to be seen within awareness is equated to "a probability wave".
QM refers to SENSED existence.
How many bleedin' times do I have to explain to you this simple truth?

A million assertions doesn't make a truth - but no one is arguing with what you are saying, either. So continue on...

Science tells us nothing about reality - science tells us about the world that is sensed. FACT.
Now, put your science books back on the shelf and try and think for yourself for a change. Are you capable of that?

Yet you invoke science in your OP - so either you play the game by the rules you establish, or you gets knocked around for being an ignorant a$$hat. If you didn't want science interfering with this post, you shouldn't bring up scientific ideas.

As it is, science tells us about the only reality to which we are privy - FACT - whereas your so-called reason tells us nothing at all, seeing as its founded on falsehood and poor thinking skills.

Up the quality or stay away from my threads. I'm tired of your BS.

In order to reach your level, LG, I'd have to lower my quality. And, frankly, I don't care what you're tired of - I will post when and where I feel like, if it is appropriate. Clearly, you are the only one offended by me posting in your threads - I'd suggest that's because you are the only one with something to fear from my posts: specifically, that you might learn something.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
So reality is full of "probability curves"? lol


exactly.


Come on Russ. Time to face the music. Either real things exist beyond your sense of them, or they don't.


Particle, or wave of probability. In a reality made up of descrite particles, the particles would be just as real as the waves in a quantum mechanical reality. (Reality is best described with QM, which you seem to agree with, so I don't see how you take issue)


And don't forget that our physics refer to our sense of the world, since that is the only world we can observe.
So, probability curves refer to the chances of a particle being sensed within your awareness.

No, the refer to the chance of a particle interacting with another particle, that signal being amplified, and then us sensing that amplifed (likely displayed somewhere, or stored somewhere) information. We don't sense the QM interactions in experiments directly.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by RussDill
divided waves of probability That made my head hurt.

I suppose one could argue that dividing waves of probablility would be fairly easy. If it is a stream of photons going through a beam splitter, you could have the "right side" and the "left side", but I suppose you could also argue that you aren't really dividing anything since the photons still end up on either one side or the other.





Stupid QM

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I have used reason to argue against an unfounded so-called philosophical stance. My OP doesn't even mention science.
Address the OP or gag your beak.

What philosophical stance would that be, again? I saw scientific theory being attacked, not philosophy.

Your OP is all about science.

And I have no beak - nor can you make me 'gag my beak', monkey-boy.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Upchurch
That made my head hurt.

I suppose one could argue that dividing waves of probablility would be fairly easy. If it is a stream of photons going through a beam splitter, you could have the "right side" and the "left side", but I suppose you could also argue that you aren't really dividing anything since the photons still end up on either one side or the other.





Stupid QM

Easier way to think about it. The wave function of a particle is always spread out over a certain area, and that area can be grown, shrunk, it can have holes made in it (donut electron orbits), it can even be split up.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
In order to reach your level, LG, I'd have to lower my quality.
Until you realise two things, I will not be partaking of PHILOSOPHICAL discussion with you any more:-

(1) Science seeks to discern the order present in sensed existence. It has nothing else to go on.
The laws of physics mirror sensed-reality.
(2) Science - which says nothing about ~reality~, but which delves deep into the UNreality of sensed-things - is neither a philosophy nor the basis for a philosophy.

Last chance dude. I shall give up on you as much as I like your spirit. I cannot afford to waste any more of my time on you since my time is running out. Not only that, but you spoil every thread I start with this same nonsense about "scientific fact" refuting my philosophy when it is easily provable that no scientific fact actually deals with reality.

There are no sensed facts which counter a philosophy about REALITY.

Embrace these philosophical truths or go away, for if you do not (after all the discussions we have had thus far), then I can only conclude that you are incapable of doing so or that you simply do not want to. As such, I will not respond to anything else you have to say.
I wish you well regardless. I apologise for my previous frustrations - you are a plonker but I like you.

[RussDill]

You really want to drive LG crazy though? mention quarks, and the lack of free quarks. Quarks are an elementry particle, but they are always bundled with 2 other quarks. There is no such thing as a free quark, the bundle of three quarks is kinda undivisible. Why? Because the force of attraction varies *inversely* with distance. The farther you pull them apart, the harder it is to pull, until you have enough energy that you get three new quarks. So is a proton indivisible?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Embrace these philosophical truths or go away, for if you do not (after all the discussions we have had thus far), then I can only conclude that you are incapable of doing so or that you simply do not want to. As such, I will not respond to anything else you have to say.
I wish you well regardless. I apologise for my previous frustrations - you are a plonker but I like you.

back to the sermon preaching LG I guess. So much for intelligent discussion.

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by lifegazer
There are no sensed facts which counter a philosophy about REALITY.

The concept of a sensed-reality is still irrelevant. It does not matter. It is useless. Give up on it.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
You really want to drive LG crazy though? mention quarks, and the lack of free quarks. Quarks are an elementry particle, but they are always bundled with 2 other quarks. There is no such thing as a free quark, the bundle of three quarks is kinda undivisible. Why? Because the force of attraction varies *inversely* with distance. The farther you pull them apart, the harder it is to pull, until you have enough energy that you get three new quarks. So is a proton indivisible?
You really think I lack the intelligence to understand these things?
You underestimate me.

What you fail to understand - like Z-dragon - is that physics is a mirror of the order that exists in the sensed world.
Yup - physics says nothing about a reality beyond the sense of one, so what you just said - and it is easily understandable - says Jack about a reality of things.

[Z]

Yet you start a discussion about sensed-reality. When you do that, science applies. If you violate science within the discussion, you violate the nature of the discussion itself.

The OP in this case dealt with things within sensed-reality. For all practical intents and purposes, sensed-reality IS reality. Why? Because there is no other reality which can be compared to sensed-reality.

You're not discussing a philosophy, LG, when you start discussing divisible objects in sensed space. You're discussing scientific theory.

Deal with it, little boy.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Deal with it, little boy.
Goodbye brother.
:cry:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Yet you start a discussion about sensed-reality.For that matter, can you think of a lifegazer discussion that hasn't started with a "sensed-reality" concept? The concept of "singularity" comes from our senses, as does "indivisible".

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You really think I lack the intelligence to understand these things?
You underestimate me.

What you fail to understand - like Z-dragon - is that physics is a mirror of the order that exists in the sensed world.
Yup - physics says nothing about a reality beyond the sense of one, so what you just said - and it is easily understandable - says Jack about a reality of things.

...then why take issue with M-Theory?

[Z]

Ignore me all you like, LG - I don't post responses to you for your sake, but for the sake of others. Just like anyone else I argue with - the goal is not changing your inflexible and undereducated mind, but to be a light guiding those who read this in passing.

Now, just in case anyone else missed the point:

Originally posted by lifegazer
Consider an object - say 'a rock', for example.

Here, as you can see, LG has started with a premise dealing with 'sensed-reality'. By his own philosophy, a 'rock' can only exist within 'sensed-reality'. By invoking this 'rock' he also must invoke the 'science' which deals with said 'rock'.

Keep dividing it until you are left with just one particle. It doesn't matter what this particle is - the importance of the argument is to isolate an absolutely singular entity.

Again, with the sensed-reality. But let's move on. He firsts asks us to isolate one particle - which would be fairly easy to do, say, a neutron or a proton. Then he changes gears and asks for an absolutely singular entity.

First, we have no idea what he means by absolutely singular. But if he's referring to an indivisible entity, then we have to know - does he want a particle, or an indivisible entity? But let's play his game, for a moment - and offer him an electron.

Some might object: "What happens if all objects are infinitely divisible?"
The simple answer to that is that if this is the case, then no singular finite objects actually exist in reality.
Either they do or they don't. If they don't, then bang goes your reality of singular entities separated by spacetime. If they do, then let's proceed with the argument:-

No problem here - we have numerous examples of entities that are, at the moment, indivisible. Of course, we may later learn how we might divide them, and whatever emerges from that study will become the new 'indivisible object'.

What can we say about an absolutely singular entity?

Nothing, until we understand what he means by 'absolutely singular'.

An absolutely-singular entity must be indivisible. Clearly, if it was divisible, then it could not be classed as an absolutely-singular entity in the first place.
Therefore, an absolutely-singular entity is absolutely indivisible.

This is fairly reasonable - if we invoke the concept that 'absolutely' means that there never will be any means to split this electron down, then a single electron is an absolutely singular, absolutely indivisible entity.

What can we say about absolute indivisibility?

Space and time are what are reported to exist between singular entities (thus separating those entities). But neither space nor time can separate something that is reported as absolutely-indivisible.

Clearly, a poorly-worded statement. That's like saying that an apple cannot separate something that is absolutely-indivisible. Obviously, nothing can divide that which is indivisible - but space and time can separate any number of absolutely indivisible entities from each other.

Consequently, an absolutely-indivisible entity must, IN itself, be spaceless and timeless.

This requires a definition of spaceless and timeless. IF, by spaceless, we means 'occupies no space', that is clearly wrong. An indivisible entity can certainly occupy space - the 'space' does not divide it; it simply exists within space. Likewise, 'timeless' would mean that the indivisible particle in question - the electron - is unchanging. By itself, a particle can be timeless - well, an individual particle can be timeless - but if any other entity exists, and any change occurs between entities, then that particle, in fact, occupies time as well.

So, no, an absolutely-indivisible entity cannot be spaceless or timeless, without heavily revising the definitions of said words.

Conclusion

You must now see where this is going: If an absolutely singular entity is spaceless and timeless in itself, then those entities are not 4-dimensional in themselves.

Conclusion based on a flawed premise. Really, the remainder of the conclusion does not merit discussion, as the premises they are founded upon are faulty.

That's it, really.

[Z]

Originally posted by Upchurch
For that matter, can you think of a lifegazer discussion that hasn't started with a "sensed-reality" concept? The concept of "singularity" comes from our senses, as does "indivisible".

You know, you have a good point here. LG tends to follow this pattern:

1) concept from 'sensed-reality'
2) big error regarding the 'science' of 'sensed-reality'
3) faulty conclusion
4) ugly arguments where he's shown his understanding of science is flawed
5) repeated assertions that 'science' tells us nothing about 'reality'
6) flees to start another cycle

It's funny, really - he says things like, "Physics tells us nothing about reality, only about the order between things in sensed-reality," but he starts off by having us consider a thing in sensed-reality. Which means physics applies.

It's like discussing an ancient sport, then claiming that anthropology can tell us nothing about modern sports! Crazy.

[Anathema]

We've seen it before.....

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Until you realise two things, I will not be partaking of PHILOSOPHICAL discussion with you any more:-


As of the second page of this you are not partaking of any fom of discussion with aynone. You are simply being ignorant and abusive.
Your OP is about the fundamental attributes of matter which you do not understand. As has been demonstrated concusively in many threads.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Your OP is about the fundamental attributes of matter which you do not understand. As has been demonstrated concusively in many threads.
Our understanding is of SENSED matter. "Things" within awareness act as particles or waves.
I have told certain people in here this already. Now I'm telling you.
Scientific knowledge doesn't relate to the reality of things. Science doesn't relate to reality.
Science is not a philosophy.
Science is not the basis for a philosophy.

Now,
THOSE THAT BELIEVE IN A REALITY BEYOND THEIR SENSE OF ONE, MUST INSIST ON THE DEFINITE EXISTENCE OF "THINGS".

Screw the science of sensed-things. It's irrelevant to the bold text.

[lifegazer]

Furthermore, I have asked you (three times) to define an event in spacetime without mentioning a "thing".
Three times you have ignored me.

... No wonder really, since it's impossible.

[Filip Sandor]

Ok, I see some people have already attacked this your analogy.. I hope nobody minds me taking a shot as some critical disection of your points then..

Originally posted by lifegazer
Consider an object - say 'a rock', for example.
Keep dividing it until you are left with just one particle. It doesn't matter what this particle is - the importance of the argument is to isolate an absolutely singular entity.

Some might object: "What happens if all objects are infinitely divisible?"
The simple answer to that is that if this is the case, then no singular finite objects actually exist in reality.
Either they do or they don't. If they don't, then bang goes your reality of singular entities separated by spacetime. If they do, then let's proceed with the argument:-

Let's pause for a moment and ask this: is there any singular thing in reality?

Well, in order for there to be ONE thing, we must understand the concept more than one. Simply put, the word singular is a mathematical term and it can easily be shown that math doesn't work for everything, therefore, math is false. A very quick and easy proof that math is false can go like this: How would you measure the exact length of one third of a meter? The answer is, you can't do it... mathematically of course, therefore, math is false and anything based in math, is also false; therefore, singular entities are false.

What can we say about an absolutely singular entity?

We can say that it must be, at least to a degree, a figment of the imagination. Although it might not be entirely wrong either. We did not choose to view 'things' separately, but do so naturally, which seems logically incompatable with the idea that singularity is a figment of the imagination, but is clearly significant in it's own right. (more on this below)

An absolutely-singular entity must be indivisible. Clearly, if it was divisible, then it could not be classed as an absolutely-singular entity in the first place.
Therefore, an absolutely-singular entity is absolutely indivisible.

What can we say about absolute indivisibility?

It certainly appears to be a false notion. Even according to quantum physics, which observes that the smallest units of energy 'quanta' are, but mere distortions in space-time; they do not appear to be entirely separate from space-time (and it might be wiser not to treat them as such without due necessity).

Space and time are what are reported to exist between singular entities (thus separating those entities). But neither space nor time can separate something that is reported as absolutely-indivisible.

Even if you try you will find that it quite difficult visaulize. I agree.

Consequently, an absolutely-indivisible entity must, IN itself, be spaceless and timeless.

Space and time apparently interact, which would mean that they cannot be truly separate like the numbers we invented. Take away the number and the indivisible entity itself disappears, naturally.

Clearly there is room for further reasoning and investigation into this matter at a deeper level, but it quickly becomes very metaphysical in nature. This can be a very dangerous territory that most people are probably better off not venturing into without the right "mental gear" as it can become highly obtruse. In fact, such philosophizing can easily come to a dead end and even become totally boring so in my opinion, it's probably better to leave it open to interpretation until one is not so attached to superficial things.

(I would be quite interested to hear if 1inChrist has any comments on metaphysics,... or if he has any clue as to what I am talking about.)

Anyway, I digress!

Conclusion

You must now see where this is going: If an absolutely singular entity is spaceless and timeless in itself, then those entities are not 4-dimensional in themselves.
In a nutshell: no "singular thing" can truly exist as a 4-dimensional entity = there is no 4-dimensional reality.

4-dimensional reality negated.

Fair enough. So why do we interpret it as such?

[lifegazer]

therefore, singular entities are false.

How can there be no singular entity in existence? If there can be no singular entity, then there can be no multitude of singular entities. There can be nothing.
Such a conclusion leads to the negation of all existence.

There must be a singular entity.

It certainly appears to be a false notion. Even according to quantum physics, which observes that the smallest units of energy 'quanta' are, but mere distortions in space-time; they do not appear to be entirely separate from space-time (and it might be wiser not to treat them as such without due necessity).

We have a sense of things. Physics is the study of those senses.
Physics cannot study any [supposed] reality beyond the sense of one and physics cannot make conclusions about anything other than the order of sensed-things flickering upon the screen of awareness.
... Until this is realised, en masse, philosophy and science are doomed to stagnation.

"Space and time are what are reported to exist between singular entities (thus separating those entities). But neither space nor time can separate something that is reported as absolutely-indivisible."

Even if you try you will find that it quite difficult visaulize. I agree.

Thankyou.

Clearly there is room for further reasoning and investigation into this matter at a deeper level, but it quickly becomes very metaphysical in nature. This can be a very dangerous territory that most people are probably better off not venturing into without the right "mental gear" as it can become highly obtruse. In fact, such philosophizing can easily come to a dead end and even become totally boring so in my opinion, it's probably better to leave it open to interpretation until one is not so attached to superficial things.

The argument I have posted is really not so complicated.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Furthermore, I have asked you (three times) to define an event in spacetime without mentioning a "thing".
Three times you have ignored me.

... No wonder really, since it's impossible.

I have not ignored you nor have the others such as Russdill who have tried to spoonfeed you Janet and John versions of science. I can't explain a spacetime event to you because ,despite all our efforts, you fail to grasp spacetime (which to be fair is difficult without O-level geometry). You lack the vocabulary, the education, apparently the intelligence and definitely the willingness to learn anything.
Here is a clue: unlike you we do not hyphenate for random decoration nor do we agglutinate for that reason. Spacetime is a distinct concept.
Now go away and read a book. I would suggest Anthony Weston's "A rulebook for arguments" as a starter. Chapter 1 has a section "Distinguish premises and conclusion" which you might find especially useful.

[Wudang]

Here's another tip lifegazer. If you want to try discussing the material world, discuss it. If you don't want to discuss it, don't discuss it. Flipping between the two in a single thread makes you look foolishly inconsistent.
Your ranting about what physics is was demolished conclusively in at least 2 threads that you abandoned as usual. Shall we resurrect them? Oh hell why not?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
I have not ignored you nor have the others such as Russdill who have tried to spoonfeed you Janet and John versions of science. I can't explain a spacetime event to you because ,despite all our efforts, you fail to grasp spacetime (which to be fair is difficult without O-level geometry). You lack the vocabulary, the education, apparently the intelligence and definitely the willingness to learn anything.
Here is a clue: unlike you we do not hyphenate for random decoration nor do we agglutinate for that reason. Spacetime is a distinct concept.
Now go away and read a book. I would suggest Anthony Weston's "A rulebook for arguments" as a starter. Chapter 1 has a section "Distinguish premises and conclusion" which you might find especially useful.
Shut up waffling and BSing this forum.
I have asked you four times to describe just one event without mentioning a "thing"- any event - yet you have failed to deliver.

Events are what happen to things.
An event cannot happen if there is no-thing in existence.

Up the grade or clear off. I'm tired of your nonsense and lies and insincerity.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Shut up waffling and BSing this forum.
I have asked you four times to describe just one event without mentioning a "thing"- any event - yet you have failed to deliver.

Events are what happen to things.
An event cannot happen if there is no-thing in existence.

Up the grade or clear off. I'm tired of your nonsense and lies and insincerity.

I do not lie. As I said before you're the one who's been caught lieing about your ignorance of Upchurch's question when you started a thread on it.

Read this slowly and carefully - I am not talking about everyday events. I am talking about spacetime events. As I thought I made clear. Your ignorance (which is self-imposed) is not my fault.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
I do not lie. As I said before you're the one who's been caught lieing about your ignorance of Upchurch's question when you started a thread on it.

Read this slowly and carefully - I am not talking about everyday events. I am talking about spacetime events. As I thought I made clear. Your ignorance (which is self-imposed) is not my fault.
Five times I have asked...

Still no answer.

Tell me of an event or clear off.

[Z]

LG, the problem here is you fixate on what is essentially a pointless question. Since you don't even understand the nature of spacetime, why bother explaining a spacetime event without a 'thing' (as you like to put it)? So asking, over and over again, without first conceding a few points of your own, does nothing at all except make you look the fool.

How many times have we asked you to explain why you ask questions about sensed-reality, then deny us the use of sensed-reality science when we reply? Sure, we're readily admitting science can only describe the order among sensed-things - those sensed-things are, as near as we can tell, the only reality to which we are privy. When you ask a question, for example, about a rock, you're asking a question about a sensed-thing, which means the science of sensed-things applies. If, on the other hand, you're asking about some non-sensed thing, then there can be no discussions whatsoever.

So you put up or shut up.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
When you ask a question, for example, about a rock, you're asking a question about a sensed-thing, which means the science of sensed-things applies.

Essentially, this thread ponders the possible reality of things beyond the SENSE of them.
Therefore, the science of sensed-things is irrelevant.
The only tool left to ponder the possible reality of a "thing" is reason itself.

The question is rationally legitimate:
Do any real things have definite existence beyond the sense of them?

If no, then on yer knees.
If yes, then address the argument using reason and put your science books back on the shelf.

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by lifegazer
How can there be no singular entity in existence? If there can be no singular entity, then there can be no multitude of singular entities. There can be nothing.
Such a conclusion leads to the negation of all existence.

LG,

I am only suggesting that numbers are ultimately meaningless and if you follow it through logically this includes the number 1 also. Any numeric definition implies, by mathematical necessity, an endless set of theoretical values, which we know to be ultimately false, right? How can we define ONE without defining any other, possible values? We can assign any meaning to it that we like, but then it isn't a number anymore.

One possible, rational explination for this that carries conceptual merit pertaining to reality might be that logic seems to contradict itself naturally; in that it [appears to] arbitrarily define itself (ie. there is no logic behind logic). It may be cheap, but it works for now. :D

We have a sense of things. Physics is the study of those senses.
Physics cannot study any [supposed] reality beyond the sense of one and physics cannot make conclusions about anything other than the order of sensed-things flickering upon the screen of awareness.
... Until this is realised, en masse, philosophy and science are doomed to stagnation.

I don't think it's necessary to dig that deep into it. You're balancing on a knife edge - science on one side and suggestive ideas at best on the other. For all intents and purposes, science is doing phenomenally well I would say!

From a philosophical point of view science may be somewhat limited and I do believe it is limited in many scopes, but that is not a good enough reason to discard science and scientific reasearch as a valid and useful practice, in my opinion. Look at all the things that science has done for us! How would you drive around without a car... what would fuel cars if it wasn't for the discovery of oil refinement and the internal combustion engine? What would life be like without the discovery of electriciy and how to manipulate it?! Look at computers and how useful they are in our lives. What about lightbulds, toasters, telephones... all of these things would not exist if it was not for science!

Albert Einstein once said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." The same can be said about science and philosophy.


The argument I have posted is really not so complicated.

Well, I am just very good at complicating things! Sorry for any inconvenience. ;)

[Z]

Consider an object - say 'a rock', for example. Keep dividing it until you are left with just one particle. It doesn't matter what this particle is - the importance of the argument is to isolate an absolutely singular entity.

Right here, you ask us to consider an object - say, a 'rock', for example. Since the only objects - the only 'rocks' - we know of exist in our sensed-awareness, then all the sensed-awareness rules of science applies to these objects, these rocks.

Nowhere in your OP here do you bring up things beyond our sensed-awareness of things.

Reason cannot ponder the reality of a 'thing' if we deny the science which applies to said 'thing' - unless you are discussing a thing which is beyond the grasp of science, in which case you are discussing a 'thing' which is also beyond the grasp of our sensed-awareness... in which case, no amount of 'reason' can determine any 'truth' about such things.

If you are trying to ponder the state of 'rockness' which exists beyond our sense of a rock, then you must apply science, because if the things we sense definitely exist beyond our sense of them, then our sciences are justified and validated. If what I see, feel, and otherwise detect as a 'rock' is, in fact, a rock, then the attributes of said 'rock' which I detect are true and valid, and ergo science applies appropriately.

So by invoking this object, you either a) refer to the sensed-object, in which case science applies, or b) refer to the object as a real thing which we have sensed, in which case you validate science as being a functional tool for reality beyond the senses as well.

[Filip Sandor]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lifegazer
Essentially, this thread ponders the possible reality of things beyond the SENSE of them.
Therefore, the science of sensed-things is irrelevant.[quote]

LG,

Here is an interesting question for you...

How can you tell the difference between sensed things and reality?

(twilight zone music plays in the background) ;)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor
From a philosophical point of view science may be somewhat limited and I do believe it is limited in many scopes, but that is not a good enough reason to discard science and scientific reasearch as a valid and useful practice, in my opinion.

I have never advocated discarding science. Neither have I said that science is useless.
The point is that it tells us nothing about a 'reality' beyond the sense of one - nothing about a reality beyond whatever it is that I am, having these inner experiences.
Science is not a philosophy nor the basis of one.
In brief, science has no place in a philosophy forum.
Understand?

Look at all the things that science has done for us! How would you drive around without a car... what would fuel cars if it wasn't for the discovery of oil refinement and the internal combustion engine? What would life be like without the discovery of electriciy and how to manipulate it?! Look at computers and how useful they are in our lives. What about lightbulds, toasters, telephones... all of these things would not exist if it was not for science!

True. But what's this got to do with knowing about 'reality'?
Science is about the manipulation of sensed-order.

Btw, it can also be argued that science will be, ultimately, the thing which brings-about the destruction of the world - global-warming, nuclear weapons, etc..
But let's not get into that here.

[Z]

In brief, science has no place in a philosophy forum. Understand?

Then why ask a scientific question in a philosophy forum? As you often seem to do.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Then why ask a scientific question in a philosophy forum? As you often seem to do.
I have asked you to ponder the possible reality of "things" beyond your sense of them. That is not a scientific question.

[Anathema]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I have asked you to ponder the possible reality of "things" beyond your sense of them. That is not a scientific question. Are you gazing at a possible reality of lint in your navel, or is it just sensed-lint?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor
Here is an interesting question for you...

How can you tell the difference between sensed things and reality?

That's easy:
One is the internal awareness of "things" generated by abstract sensations.
The other is... not that.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I have asked you to ponder the possible reality of "things" beyond your sense of them. That is not a scientific question.

No, here is what you asked:

Consider an object - say 'a rock', for example. Keep dividing it until you are left with just one particle. It doesn't matter what this particle is - the importance of the argument is to isolate an absolutely singular entity.

You didn't ask us to consider a rock beyond our sensed-awareness of a rock. You didn't ask us to consider a hypothetical real rock existing in hypothetical real space. You asked us to consider an object that could be divided.

We know your philosophy - there are two modes of reality: sensed-reality, in which divisible things like rocks, people, and bubble gum exist, and to which science applies; and God, which is indivisible, uniform, non-spatial, non-temporal, and where no 'rock' nor any other divisible 'object' exists as well. So if you are mentioning an object, say, a 'rock', you are discussing sensed-reality, to which science applies.

Care to tell any more porkies, plonker? Like the porkie about how you wouldn't reply to any more of my posts?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Furthermore, I have asked you (three times) to define an event in spacetime without mentioning a "thing".
Three times you have ignored me.

... No wonder really, since it's impossible.
LOL.

Okay. Pay attention, since I am now going to do the impossible. I will define a spacetime event without mentioning a "thing". Heck, I'll do several. Ready?

Simple cartesian coordinates
(x, y, z, t) = (0, 0, 0, 0)

Cylindrical coordinates
(r, θ, h, t) = (2, 1.5 π, 4, 25)

Spherical coordinates
(r, θ, σ, t) = (15, π, 3π/2, 428)


See, lifegazer. An event in spacetime is merely a reference to a point in the spacetime manifold, that is all. And you'll not I was able to define three without mentioning a single "thing". Not only was it not impossible, it is fairly simple.

If you are going to continue to argue using "sensed world" complaining, quite complaining when we do the same, only correctly.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Nowhere in your OP here do you bring up things beyond our sensed-awareness of things.

Do you want me to rewrite the OP so as to clarify that we are investigating the possible reality of real things?
You're just dancing around the issue.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
That's easy:
One is the internal awareness of "things" generated by abstract sensations.
The other is... not that.

Again, a potential misuse of 'abstract', but let's move on...

This sounds like a stumble to me, LG - let's face it: humans define reality as the things of which they are aware. They assume that those things are external to self, but not without reason. So this 'internal awareness generated by abstract sensations' is reality to humans.

Anything of which we cannot be made aware via sensations is not reality.

Let's face it - remove the function of sensed-awareness, and we have absolutely no tools for determining the true nature of reality. Not even your much-vaunted 'reason' can determine the true nature of reality - especially not if your 'reasoning' continues to rely upon notions and concepts borrowed from sensed-reality.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Do you want me to rewrite the OP so as to clarify that we are inverstigating the possible reality of real things?
You're just dancing around the issue.

Yes, that would probably help - however, in this case, you still cannot toss out science. If the sensed-things within our awareness are given to us by concrete sensations of externally real objects, then science is no longer merely the order among sensed-things, but the order among real things as translated via the sensations, and therefore still applies to the discussion at hand.

I think it's you who is dancing there, Mr. Flatley.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Simple cartesian coordinates
(x, y, z, t) = (0, 0, 0, 0)

What event does this signify?

Cylindrical coordinates
(r, θ, h, t) = (2, 1.5 π, 4, 25)

Spherical coordinates
(r, θ, σ, t) = (15, π, 3π/2, 428)

Cylinders and spheres are objects.
If the values of your coordinates are to have any significance, then they have significance to those objects - those things.

If you are going to continue to argue using "sensed world" complaining, quite complaining when we do the same, only correctly.
You've done nothing correctly.
I want you to tell me of an actual event that can happen in spacetime minus the existence of things.

Posting coordinates in reference to conceptualised shapes is absolutely meaningless in regards a discussion pertaining to reality.

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I have never advocated discarding science. Neither have I said that science is useless.
The point is that it tells us nothing about a 'reality' beyond the sense of one - nothing about a reality beyond whatever it is that I am, having these inner experiences.
Science is not a philosophy nor the basis of one.
In brief, science has no place in a philosophy forum.
Understand?

LG,

You're taking this too seriously I think.

What exactly do you mean by "sensed things?"

How do you determine what is a sense of an object and what is an object?

What do you mean by "reality?" How do you differentiate between real and unreal?

All the different terms you use have practical meanings in the English language, but they can also have more abstract meanings, which you have to define as much as you can if you want to move on to the next level of discussion. This discussion won't last very long without proper clarification on your terms because we could be talking about anything and almost anyone could be right. Please define your terms accordingly... or take a breather and come back later to continue. Not trying to be a prick here, I just hate to see good philosophical chat turn into sensless babble.

[Z]

Actually, those are 'events' in spacetime. They are not actions, nor objects - merely 'events'.

I think he's demonstrating to you that you don't fully understand the language of that which you ask for.

For example, if I took you to an empty parking lot and you demanded to see a truck, and I climbed the flagpole and brought you the ball off the top - well, it's a similar situation. You might have been referring to a pickup truck or a semi tractor trailer; I referred to the ball on top of the flagpole. Unfortunately, science is full of strangely referred words - like 'event', 'spin', etc. - so asking for an event in spacetime that doesn't involve a 'thing' is asking for trouble.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
This sounds like a stumble to me, LG - let's face it: humans define reality as the things of which they are aware. They assume that those things are external to self, but not without reason. So this 'internal awareness generated by abstract sensations' is reality to humans.

You cannot use human ignorance as the basis for declaring sensed-things as real.
You cannot use human ignorance as the basis for declaring sensed-things as existing externally to awareness (externally to the observer).

You continue to do so, which kinda highlights your inability to reason.

[Z]

No, LG, I'm demonstrating the need for clarity in definition.

I'm demonstrating that reality is generally defined as that which causes the sensations which we have within our sensed-awareness. There are reasons why we consider this definition of reality to be valid. To define reality as something else requires a re-definition of the terms involved.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor
LG,

You're taking this too seriously I think.

Really? I don't suppose 'reality' is important to you. Nor do I suppose that the repercussions for humanity in regards 'reality' are important to you. But it is to the world - whether the world realises it or not. Which is why it's important to me.

What exactly do you mean by "sensed things?"

You have sensations... from the sensations comes the awareness of "things". Hence: sensed-things.

How do you determine what is a sense of an object and what is an object?

There is no way to experience the reality of an object since all experience is through sensation: colour; sound; pain; sweet; cold; etc. etc..

What do you mean by "reality?" How do you differentiate between real and unreal?

Reality: That thing or things which definitely exist in themselves and are not mere perceptions generated through abstract sensation.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Actually, those are 'events' in spacetime. They are not actions, nor objects - merely 'events'.

Actually, they were conceptualised coordinates refering to a pair of conceptualised shapes.
I have asked that somebody should describe a definite event (something which really might happen). Nobody has done so because anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that real events require real "things" for those events to occur.

I think he's demonstrating to you that you don't fully understand the language of that which you ask for.

Give over - coordinates are a piece of cake.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What event does this signify?the place/moment that occurs at (0, 0, 0, 0).
Cylinders and spheres are objects.
If the values of your coordinates are to have any significance, then they have significance to those objects - those things.Heh. They're just names, lifegazer. The are called "cylindrical" and "spherical" because it is in those coordinate systems that those objects are most easily defined. It would be analogous, I suppose, to calling cartesian coordiantes "cubal". The coordinate system is in no way dependent on the objects for which they are named.

added: A better anaology is the system that uses things like "inches" and "miles" is called "english". The "english" system is in no way dependent on England. Neither are spherical coordinates dependent on spheres.
You've done nothing correctly.
I want you to tell me of an actual event that can happen in spacetime minus the existence of things.Au contrair. It seems that your education into the world around must continue. From here (http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/qg/st.html):The "spacetime manifold" is the smooth, continuous domain of the field. This means that spatial and time coordinates are inter-related, and that the field is a function of these coordinates. A point on the manifold is a spacetime "event", and the distance between two events on the manifold is the spacetime "interval". The interval may be "timelike", "spacelike" or "null", corresponding to whether the interval is negative, positive or zero. Practically, this means that any two events which are separated by a timelike or null interval may influence each other, since something travelling less than or at the speed of light can connect them. It you are going to use "sensed world" arguments, learn to use them correctly.

Or don't. It's actually more amusing when you don't. :)
Posting coordinates in reference to conceptualised shapes is absolutely meaningless in regards a discussion pertaining to reality. Fortunately, I did no such thing. Your statement is incorrect.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
... real events require real "things" for those events to occur. Proof of this claim?

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Really? I don't suppose 'reality' is important to you. Nor do I suppose that the repercussions for humanity in regards 'reality' are important to you. But it is to the world - whether the world realises it or not. Which is why it's important to me.

You have sensations... from the sensations comes the awareness of "things". Hence: sensed-things.

There is no way to experience the reality of an object since all experience is through sensation: colour; sound; pain; sweet; cold; etc. etc..

Reality: That thing or things which definitely exist in themselves and are not mere perceptions generated through abstract sensation.

Well, I'd agree with the last statement - which makes it good that we have non-abstract sensations, yes?

LG - abstract means 'not representing a specific instance'. If I have a sensation of the coffee in my mug, that is a concrete, specific sensation of a real object. If, however, I somehow have an abstract sensation of 'coffee', well, I don't see how I could have such a sensation outside of thought. How do you have a non-representational perception? Basically, you don't - unless you deny the external reality of things.

See - you are starting with your philosophical end and trying to argue backwards to verify it.

Reality is both that which we perceive, and the source of those perceptions. IT is both the sensed-awarenesses that we are enmeshed in, and the causes of those sensed-things.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
the place/moment that occurs at (0, 0, 0, 0).

So, at a specific point in space at a specific time... what occurs?

Heh. They're just names, lifegazer. The are called "cylindrical" and "spherical" because it is in those coordinate systems that those objects are most easily defined. It would be analogous, I suppose, to calling cartesian coordiantes "cubal". The coordinate system is in no way dependent on the objects for which they are named.

What does conceptual mathematics have to do with real events? Really?

Au contrair. It seems that your education into the world around must continue. From here (http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/qg/st.html):It you are going to use "sensed world" arguments, learn to use them correctly.

What does any of this tell us about real events?

And did you notice the bottom part of that paragraph? :-
Practically, this means that any two events which are separated by a timelike or null interval may influence each other, since something travelling less than or at the speed of light can connect them.

... Notice how the definitions are all tied-up with the existence of things other than spacetime?

[Anders]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Consider an object - say 'a rock', for example.
Keep dividing it until you are left with just one particle. It doesn't matter what this particle is - the importance of the argument is to isolate an absolutely singular entity.

Some might object: "What happens if all objects are infinitely divisible?"
The simple answer to that is that if this is the case, then no singular finite objects actually exist in reality.
Either they do or they don't. If they don't, then bang goes your reality of singular entities separated by spacetime. If they do, then let's proceed with the argument:-

What can we say about an absolutely singular entity?

An absolutely-singular entity must be indivisible. Clearly, if it was divisible, then it could not be classed as an absolutely-singular entity in the first place.
Therefore, an absolutely-singular entity is absolutely indivisible.

What can we say about absolute indivisibility?

Space and time are what are reported to exist between singular entities (thus separating those entities). But neither space nor time can separate something that is reported as absolutely-indivisible.
Consequently, an absolutely-indivisible entity must, IN itself, be spaceless and timeless.

Conclusion

You must now see where this is going: If an absolutely singular entity is spaceless and timeless in itself, then those entities are not 4-dimensional in themselves.
In a nutshell: no "singular thing" can truly exist as a 4-dimensional entity = there is no 4-dimensional reality.

4-dimensional reality negated.
Handwaving, worthless handwaving.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
So, at a specific point in space at a specific time... what occurs?An event, whether or not you attach any significance (or insignificance) to the event is up to you, but still, an event occurs. The point is, I was able to define one (three actually) without any reference to a "thing".
What does conceptual mathematics have to do with real events? Really? What do you mean by "real"? Your make believe fantasy world? Probably not much.
And did you notice the bottom part of that paragraph? :-
Practically, this means that any two events which are separated by a timelike or null interval may influence each other, since something travelling less than or at the speed of light can connect them.

... Notice how the definitions are all tied-up with the existence of things other than spacetime? You'll further notice that the definition is not dependent on the existance of things. Or distance, for that matter as two events can be seperated by a null interval. The only reference to a "thing" was in regards to influence. Nice try, but you didn't read closely enough.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
So, at a specific point in space at a specific time... what occurs?

What does conceptual mathematics have to do with real events? Really?

What does any of this tell us about real events?

And did you notice the bottom part of that paragraph? :-
Practically, this means that any two events which are separated by a timelike or null interval may influence each other, since something travelling less than or at the speed of light can connect them.

... Notice how the definitions are all tied-up with the existence of things other than spacetime?

Aahhh, good times. I think I've seen this discussion before somewhere. :biggrin:

Lifegazer, I see that you still haven't looked into infinitesimals and how to do integration.

Let me say this: There are basically two possible configurations for a space.
It is either continuous or discrete. Let's say it is continuous for now.
Picture a finite space and divide it into little pieces. You can do this up to infinity if you like, as it is continuous. We take a shortcut and say we divided it into an infinite number of sub-spaces. These we call infinitesimals and are by inspection indivisible. Now if we consider two adjacent infinitesimals we can define a distance between them, which is however arbitrarily small. You can keep adding infinitesimals to your set, but they will never add up to a space that is not arbitrarily small. Unless you take an infinite number of them. That is, any finite continuous space can be divided into an infinite number of indivisible points.
This is what must follow if space is continuous.
Now if it is dicrete (who knows?), points can only exist on certain positions. So then any space contains a limited number of none the less indivisible points. points in between might be imagined but cannot exist in such a space. Both types of space can exist however, even a space imagined by your God would be one of the above, thereby negating your negation of space, which is fairly ludicrous and uninformed to begin with, as many have attempted to show you in another thread.
And then we arrive once again at the questions about the space imagined by your God. Is that continuous? What doth occupy imagined positions? What does it matter compared to real external space etc etc etc.

In other words: The same old questions about your same old philosophy.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
An event, whether or not you attach any significance (or insignificance) to the event is up to you, but still, an event occurs. The point is, I was able to define one (three actually) without any reference to a "thing".

Upchurch squire, the mathematical definition of a conceptual point within conceptual spacetime as an 'event' in no way proves that real events (read as 'occurances') can occur without real "things"... or even that real [smooth] spacetime can exist by itself.

What does space mean without relation to things? What does time mean without relation to things?
We discern of time relative to the motion/action of perceived bodies. We fathom distance relative to the sensed-space which exists between perceived bodies.

[Upchurch]

You have yet to define what exactly you mean by "real". When you refer to "real" are you only refering to the scenerio presented by your philosophy? Is that the only thing you accept as "real"?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
You have yet to define what exactly you mean by "real". When you refer to "real" are you only refering to the scenerio presented by your philosophy? Is that the only thing you accept as "real"?
Most people think that what we sense is an internal representation of what actually exists. For example, if we sense a rock, then a real rock exists externally to our awareness of it.
What is this 'real rock' made of?
It cannot be nothing.
It cannot be formless.
It cannot be substanceless.

Hence, it becomes subject to the argument I made in my OP.

You seem to want to have, or support, an external reality full of things separated by space and time. Yet to give these things definite form subjects them to my argument. So now you're looking for alternative explanations - a reality of things with no definitely real existence??
It's impossible upchurch. A bizarre form of reasoning brought-about by our limited understanding of quantum-physics.
Yet I have had to remind you that all physics is the study of those things that can be sensed - including QM.

QM is easily explainable when one realises that 'awareness' is truly non-spatial... and when one realises that the fundamental-energy giving-rise to the sense of things emanates from a source which has absolute free-will (since an entity with absolute free-will is ultimately non-determinable.).

If you want your external reality of "things" separated by space & time, then you need to support the fact that those "things" are 'out there' and definitely exist. Otherwise, there's nothing out there for you to believe in.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Btw, it can also be argued that science will be, ultimately, the thing which brings-about the destruction of the world - global-warming, nuclear weapons, etc..
But let's not get into that here.

So far, science has gone a long way towards saving the world. Just look at life expectancy, the stamping out of disease, and the hope that maybe one day, when the "big one" comes, we may actually be able to do something about it. (unlike the dinosaurs)

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Really? I don't suppose 'reality' is important to you. Nor do I suppose that the repercussions for humanity in regards 'reality' are important to you. But it is to the world - whether the world realises it or not. Which is why it's important to me.
I love it when they get grandiose. But try a little paranoia as well, lifegazer. They go so well together.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Most people think that what we sense is an internal representation of what actually exists. For example, if we sense a rock, then a real rock exists externally to our awareness of it.
What is this 'real rock' made of?
It cannot be nothing.
It cannot be formless.
It cannot be substanceless.

Hence, it becomes subject to the argument I made in my OP.


It is made up of matter. The concepts and properties of matter seem to elude you.


You seem to want to have, or support, an external reality full of things separated by space and time.


Matter and energy exist as a part of spacetime. There is no matter or energy without spacetime, and there is no spacetime with out at least energy. And while an external reality cannot be absolutely proven, it also cannot be disproven. Even in your philosophy, you have this external reality where the laws of physics play out. Your book that the great mind opens to the right page whenever we perceive something. This book is your external reality, within this book, the laws of physics play out. You've only added to the complexity, it is entirely possible that the whole of existence could be the book alone where the laws of physics play out, and we could be part of that book. But you have added the "Mind" which controls and observes the contents of the book, which if you purport exists, you must show that, otherwise, its just the book.


Yet to give these things definite form subjects them to my argument.


Your argument does not apply to our reality, our laws of physics as we understand them. You are looking to create a hole, a logical inconsistency, in the way we understand reality. If you can do so, great, more power to you, go right ahead, however, you have failed to point out such a logical inconsistency, nor shown how even if you were to point out such a logical inconsistency, how the defacto answer would be the "mind".

The problems you have been pointing out have driven mankind batty for about 2400 years. QM is very elegant, and not only solves the paradoxes you point out, but is a *excellent* predictive model.


So now you're looking for alternative explanations - a reality of things with no definitely real existence??
It's impossible upchurch. A bizarre form of reasoning brought-about by our limited understanding of quantum-physics.


Yes, we did have to find an alternative explanation to existence then the atom of the ancients. The questions you ask are brought-about by your limited understanding of quantum physics.


Yet I have had to remind you that all physics is the study of those things that can be sensed - including QM.


Cop out. You cannot point to a true logical inconsistency, so you say that even if you can't plug a god into the gaps between understanding, he exists anyway.


QM is easily explainable when one realises that 'awareness' is truly non-spatial... and when one realises that the fundamental-energy giving-rise to the sense of things emanates from a source which has absolute free-will (since an entity with absolute free-will is ultimately non-determinable.).


Not only does that not adequately explain QM, it contridicts QM. QM relies completely on spacetime and its interaction with matter and energy. QM is not only 100% random (is free-will merely random?), but the probability at which the events occured can be predicted with absolute certainty. Unless you are saying that the probability at which someone will choose various options can be predicted with absolute certaintly, you have no standing.


If you want your external reality of "things" separated by space & time, then you need to support the fact that those "things" are 'out there' and definitely exist. Otherwise, there's nothing out there for you to believe in.

Guess what, I don't want my reality of things to be seperated by space time, I don't want reality to be anything, I'd rather study it and determine the truth.

Add to that, QM doesn't describe a reality of things seperated by spacetime, plato describes such a reality, QM does not.

[edited to fix tags]

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Most people think that what we sense is an internal representation of what actually exists. For example, if we sense a rock, then a real rock exists externally to our awareness of it.
What is this 'real rock' made of?
It cannot be nothing.
It cannot be formless.
It cannot be substanceless.

Hence, it becomes subject to the argument I made in my OP.

You seem to want to have, or support, an external reality full of things separated by space and time. Yet to give these things definite form subjects them to my argument. So now you're looking for alternative explanations - a reality of things with no definitely real existence??
It's impossible upchurch. A bizarre form of reasoning brought-about by our limited understanding of quantum-physics.
Yet I have had to remind you that all physics is the study of those things that can be sensed - including QM.

QM is easily explainable when one realises that 'awareness' is truly non-spatial... and when one realises that the fundamental-energy giving-rise to the sense of things emanates from a source which has absolute free-will (since an entity with absolute free-will is ultimately non-determinable.).

If you want your external reality of "things" separated by space & time, then you need to support the fact that those "things" are 'out there' and definitely exist. Otherwise, there's nothing out there for you to believe in. None of this defines what you mean by the word "real" as used in such phrases as "the mathematical definition of a conceptual point within conceptual spacetime as an 'event' in no way proves that real events (read as 'occurances') can occur without real "things"... "

However, let me help you in your general education. Methematics is actually a language, like English or Spanish or German. To be precise, it is a descriptive langauge whose primary purpose is describing the world around us. Whether or not you choose to believe that world exists, when you ask me to describe an event, the only proper and unambiguous language that can be done in is in mathematics. If you find that to be too conceptual for you to digest, English will only be more so since it can only accomplish a description through comparison and analogy, which is less percise and more error-prone.

So, even if you only consider the real world to be merely a "sensed" world, if you are going to ask about "sensed" events like events, you're going to have to accept an answer given within the language of the "sensed" world. To turn the challenge around, I defy you to define an event without relying on "sensed" world concepts.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
None of this defines what you mean by the word "real" as used in such phrases as "the mathematical definition of a conceptual point within conceptual spacetime as an 'event' in no way proves that real events (read as 'occurances') can occur without real "things"... "

You don't understand the distinction between the illusion of a thing and the reality of a thing?
If we are considering the reality of a rock made of matter, then we are considering the concrete reality of matter itself, having true extension of being in 4 dimensions... as opposed to just the sense of it so.

However, let me help you in your general education. Methematics is actually a language, like English or Spanish or German.

Yes.

To be precise, it is a descriptive langauge whose primary purpose is describing the world around us.

Yes, but let's not forget that mathematics (numbers and concepts) don't necessarily relate to the sensed-world or the possible existence of a real world.
The concepts of pi and perfect shapes and infinity and nothing, for example, spring to mind. And what about the math of string theories? Now there's a prime example, if ever I saw one, of what math can do or attempt to do regardless of reality. Hell, you can even invent dimensions of existence if you want.

Whether or not you choose to believe that world exists, when you ask me to describe an event, the only proper and unambiguous language that can be done in is in mathematics.

Your problem - which you still haven't acknowledged - is that you constantly want to apply conceptual mathematics to the philosophical possibility of a specific reality.
Example: I ask you to define an event that can really happen in spacetime without a "thing" and you tell me that mathetical points (concepts with no substance) in spacetime are ~defined~ as events, therefore you have somehow answered my question. Not.

To turn the challenge around, I defy you to define an event without relying on "sensed" world concepts.
I'm not the one saying that "things" have existence beyond my sense of them.
Ironic that it is you and your skeptic pals who believe in a reality of "things" beyond your sense of one, yet I am left with the burden of defining this external reality for you! LOL

What do you claim exists "out there"?!!!!!!
Answer that. Maybe then we can get somewhere.

How can you believe in an external reality when you don't even know what it is that you believe in?
Bizarre really.

[Z]

That's too easy, LG - matter, energy, and spacetime exist 'out there' - as well as 'in here'.

That's the nature of reality, as far as I'm concerned. There's something deeper, sure, but it doesn't concern me. I don't care about muons, hyperstrings, particle-waves, etc... it's enough that I know, consistantly, that if I reach for the flame I can be burned; that if I need light I can flip a switch and get it; that if I need electricity to power something I can find it. It's enough for me to know how the material world works on my level - I don't need to go manipulating quarks and spinning gravitons to deal with reality. I certainly don't need to do so to bother with Deity.

You don't believe it's out there? Fine - so what? What the hell does it matter, whether reality is all a sensed-illusion or not? You cannot escape this reality; you cannot change the nature of this reality through philosophy and reason. You certainly aren't going to convince anyone, anyone at all, that you're right, seeing as you are painfully and woefully ignorant about the one reality we CAN verify and sense. In short order, you're a fool, with a fool's idea, no means to convert anyone, no desire to learn about the world around you, and nothing to offer anyone except mindless solipsism.

You are caught in this Matrix, LG - and there is absolutely no escape.

So... how does your 'philosophy' intend to deal with that?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
So... how does your 'philosophy' intend to deal with that?

Looks like I'm going into the prophesy business too.

When's the next election?

[Anathema]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
You don't believe it's out there? Fine - so what? What the hell does it matter, whether reality is all a sensed-illusion or not? You cannot escape this reality; you cannot change the nature of this reality through philosophy and reason. You certainly aren't going to convince anyone, anyone at all, that you're right, seeing as you are painfully and woefully ignorant about the one reality we CAN verify and sense. In short order, you're a fool, with a fool's idea, no means to convert anyone, no desire to learn about the world around you, and nothing to offer anyone except mindless solipsism. Now, that's tough love. LG's principles distilled to their essence, arrayed to display their relevance to sensed-entities-who-sense-things, and thrown gauntlet-like at his feet.....again.....for like the 935th time. Fine work, Z!

Now, let's see how long it takes for the tape loop to resume. I prophesy familiar variations on the same old riffs:

1. You haven't understood me.
2. You willfully refuse to accept the truth I've presented.
3. You have a hidden agenda requiring you to resist at all costs.
4. The world must hear what I have to say --- or the worms! the worms! the worms!
5. You refuse to answer my questions.

ad nauseum...

LG, if you're serious about your crusade, you should be on your knees thanking Z --- if you weren't so thick, you'd see he is earnestly trying to help you mold this turd into something of consequence to actual humans......again.....for like the 935th time.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You don't understand the distinction between the illusion of a thing and the reality of a thing?I understand it perfectly. I'm trying to understand what you mean by real when you say thing like "real event". For instance:
Yes, but let's not forget that mathematics (numbers and concepts) don't necessarily relate to the sensed-world or the possible existence of a real world.In fact, they necessarily related to the "sensed-world" or the "real" world. That you think it does not means that (1) you do not understand what mathematics is and (2) have a fairly tenuous grasp of what "real" means. That's why I'm asking you to explain yourself.
The concepts of pi and perfect shapes and infinity and nothing, for example, spring to mind. All logical consequences of studing the real or "sensed", if you prefer, world. Short hand for talking about real world things rather than going through labourious detail each time certain concepts are needed. They are a consequence of observing reality.
And what about the math of string theories? Now there's a prime example, if ever I saw one, of what math can do or attempt to do regardless of reality. Hell, you can even invent dimensions of existence if you want.I don't know enough about string threory mathematics to comment too deeply, but what is it specifically about the mathemaitcs that you find objectionable? You mentioned "inventing dimensions", but do you understand what is meant by a "dimension" and how or why it was "invented" in this case?

Or are you, once again, rejecting it from a position of ignorance and lack of understanding?
Your problem - which you still haven't acknowledged - is that you constantly want to apply conceptual mathematics to the philosophical possibility of a specific reality. Not at all. In this specific case, you asked me to describe an "sensed world" concept. I did so using "sensed world" language. There is no philosophy needed to describe an event. It can be easily described in terms of mathematics.
Example: I ask you to define an event that can really happen in spacetime without a "thing" and you tell me that mathetical points (concepts with no substance) in spacetime are ~defined~ as events, therefore you have somehow answered my question. Not.Kiddo, just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it true. How else would define an event besides when it occurs and where?
I'm not the one saying that "things" have existence beyond my sense of them. So you don't believe that there are real events, then?

[Z]

No, Anathema, LG should be on his knees praising HIMSELF for providing himself with a sensed-awareness discussion partner helping him hone his philosophy by pointing out its logical flaws and transparent errors. Anyone goes on their knees before ME will get a knee planted in the jaw.

No, not because I'm violent, but because I'm that clumsy.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I'm not the one saying that "things" have existence beyond my sense of them.

No, you're the one saying that it's only things that you can't sense that have existence - i.e. god - because assuming that things you can sense have some relation to a real world is wrong, whereas assuming that they don't and that things you can't sense do, is not.
Have I missed something?

[RussDill]

LG, I take it this means you are unwilling/unanable to respond to my post, it does after all, contain many elements that you have been unable to respond to for months now.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
LG, I take it this means you are unwilling/unanable to respond to my post, it does after all, contain many elements that you have been unable to respond to for months now.
I owe you a good response. I'll get to it shortly, or tomorrow, I promise.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
It is made up of matter. The concepts and properties of matter seem to elude you.

What is the essence of [real] matter? The concepts and properties of matter don't really concern me here. I want to know what you think matter is. At one point, you even said that you thought matter was a "probability curve", but that's nonsense. A probability curve represents our understanding of where a particle will go - not what it is.

Even in your philosophy, you have this external reality where the laws of physics play out.

Correction: I have this "internal reality".

Your book that the great mind opens to the right page whenever we perceive something. This book is your external reality, within this book, the laws of physics play out. You've only added to the complexity, it is entirely possible that the whole of existence could be the book alone where the laws of physics play out, and we could be part of that book. But you have added the "Mind" which controls and observes the contents of the book, which if you purport exists, you must show that, otherwise, its just the book.

What the mind senses, the mind also creates.

Your argument does not apply to our reality, our laws of physics as we understand them.

My argument applies to the reality of things "out there", beyond the mind's sense of them. Your reality is sensed-reality and your physics is of sensed-reality: "in here".
Quantum physics reflects the essentially non-spatial properties of awareness, together with the fact that the Mind - the creator of the world we sense - has free will, so that the fundamental-energy of this mind is essentially non-determinable.

Cop out. You cannot point to a true logical inconsistency, so you say that even if you can't plug a god into the gaps between understanding, he exists anyway.

Inconsistency? I never said that there are any inconsistencies. I'm just pointing out that physics is the study of an illusionary world which exists within the mind.

QM is not only 100% random (is free-will merely random?)

"Random" is the worng word.
Consider that the energy of a Primal Cause must be non-determinable, by logical default.
QM - being a study of the sensed-world within the mind - is a proof that the Mind which creates that sensed-world is an absolute Primal Cause.
In fact, I might even use this proof as the basis for my next thread.

but the probability at which the events occured can be predicted with absolute certainty.

That's because the mind's energy is working towards producing the order we actually sense.

Guess what, I don't want my reality of things to be seperated by space time, I don't want reality to be anything, I'd rather study it and determine the truth.

You can only determine "the truth" of the sensed-world "in here".
Study physics for a thousand years and you will not be able to contribute towards a philosophical-discussion about the "out there".

[lifegazer]

The Mind creates its own actual sensations.
Quantum physics is a study of the mind's own non-determinable energy.
Physics is the study of "in here".

Quantum physics does not relate to a world "out there".

Scientific understanding of sensed-matter created by the mind is completely irrelevant when discussing the potential reality of "things" external to awareness.
Anybody who brings his physics book to the table in regards my OP is completely ignorant of these facts.

All we have is rationale my friends. Nothing else. And we must elevate that rationale above the limitations of what the sensed-world can tell us if we want to contemplate a world "out there".

Things "out there" either have concrete extension of being through 4 dimensions, or they do not exist... and there is no "out there".
It's as simple as that.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The Mind creates its own actual sensations.


Failed at the first premise. Every attempt you have made to show this has been disproven.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Failed at the first premise. Every attempt you have made to show this has been disproven.
No it hasn't.
Sensations are both an internal experience and an internal creation.
An entity is not obliged to feel 'pain' when it is immersed in fire. It chooses to do so. So it creates the sensation of pain for itself.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
An entity is not obliged to feel 'pain' when it is immersed in fire. It chooses to do so. So it creates the sensation of pain for itself. Oy. Are you still trotting this one out? :rolleyes:

To what end, lifegazer? It isn't, as you've tried to argue in the past, to warn us of danger, because according to your little dream world scenerio, there is no danger present. Why does one choose to feel pain?

(I would be tempted to bring up the cliff diving/truck hitting tests here, but I don't want to promote that.)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
To what end, lifegazer?

I'm trying to show that whatever it is that is having the sensed-experience of being lifegazer (or whoever) is the primal-cause of those senses.

It isn't, as you've tried to argue in the past, to warn us of danger, because according to your little dream world scenerio, there is no danger present. Why does one choose to feel pain?

The sensed-body is in danger of sensed-fire as is the sensed-body subject to the laws of gravity or as is the sensed-body subject to freezing.
The Mind imposes the sensation of 'pain' upon itself to ensure that the sensed-body stays away from sensed-fires and sensed-cliffs and sensed-freezing.
It is an internal response to an internal event.
Unless or until consciousness is sure that death is an illusion, then consciousness will continue to die to sensed-existence in response to sensed events.

(I would be tempted to bring up the cliff diving/truck hitting tests here, but I don't want to promote that.)
The Mind does not cease to exist - it just ceases to sense the world from particular vantage points, so to speak.
There is no death.

[lifegazer]

Comments about the rest of that post - quantum physics?

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The Mind imposes the sensation of 'pain' upon itself to ensure that the sensed-body stays away from sensed-fires and sensed-cliffs and sensed-freezing.

Evidence?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Unless or until consciousness is sure that death is an illusion, then consciousness will continue to die to sensed-existence in response to sensed events.

Evidence?

Originally posted by lifegazer
The Mind does not cease to exist - it just ceases to sense the world from particular vantage points, so to speak.
There is no death.

Evidence?


Sounds like you're making things up to fit in with your philosophy. Do you have any evidence to suggest that any of these assertions are in any way true?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The sensed-body is in danger of sensed-fire as is the sensed-body subject to the laws of gravity or as is the sensed-body subject to freezing.
The Mind imposes the sensation of 'pain' upon itself to ensure that the sensed-body stays away from sensed-fires and sensed-cliffs and sensed-freezing.
It is an internal response to an internal event.
Unless or until consciousness is sure that death is an illusion, then consciousness will continue to die to sensed-existence in response to sensed events.So the mind chooses to feel real pain in order to protect an illusionary body from an illusionary threat? And all this is self-inflicted by God? Riiiiiight. That's a crock.

I'm guessing that you are sure that that death is an illusion, then? Does that mean that you no longer feel pain?

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
No it hasn't.
Sensations are both an internal experience and an internal creation.
An entity is not obliged to feel 'pain' when it is immersed in fire. It chooses to do so. So it creates the sensation of pain for itself.

Show me any entity possessed of a nervous system and pain receptors that can choose to not create the sensation of pain for itself.

Likewise, show me any entity possessed of a nervous system and pain receptors, not exposed to a source of pain, that CAN create the sensation of pain for itself.

All sensations are caused externally by stimuli; a sub-class of sensation can be caused internally by memory, but only after having been previously exposed to an externally caused sensation.

Anybody who brings his physics book to the table in regards my OP is completely ignorant of these facts.

No, child, when you post information regarding real things, the only real things of which we are aware are those things which also exist within our sensed awareness; physics applies to this sensed-awareness (as you have agreed), and therefore must apply to these things you want to bring up.

Either up the quality or stop posting your tripe.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
[B]I'm trying to show that whatever it is that is having the sensed-experience of being lifegazer (or whoever) is the primal-cause of those senses.

Well, that's clearly wrong.

After all, you can't cause sensations within yourself without some external stimulus. You cannot prove any mechanism for doing so. And verifiable communication with other persons gives us reason to believe that the world we sense is a decent representation of a real, exterior world. You cannot disprove this - NONE of your 'reasoning' has given us any valid reason to NOT believe that the world we sense is a representation of a real, physical world beyond our senses.

The sensed-body is in danger of sensed-fire as is the sensed-body subject to the laws of gravity or as is the sensed-body subject to freezing.
The Mind imposes the sensation of 'pain' upon itself to ensure that the sensed-body stays away from sensed-fires and sensed-cliffs and sensed-freezing.
It is an internal response to an internal event.
Unless or until consciousness is sure that death is an illusion, then consciousness will continue to die to sensed-existence in response to sensed events.

That makes absolutely no sense - why impose upon itself these experiences at all, then? What purpose does it serve? It's illogical and unreasonable.

The Mind does not cease to exist - it just ceases to sense the world from particular vantage points, so to speak.
There is no death.

Your proof of this is what? That's right - you have no proof whatsoever.

Really - come back and talk when you have something intelligent to say, little boy.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What is the essence of [real] matter? The concepts and properties of matter don't really concern me here. I want to know what you think matter is. At one point, you even said that you thought matter was a "probability curve", but that's nonsense. A probability curve represents our understanding of where a particle will go - not what it is.


Matter exists as part of our universe, our reality. Our universe apears to be governed by a set of laws. Matter is thus governed by these laws. Matter is no more or less a thing that any other interaction within our universe (ie, fields). We just perceive it to be a solid "thing" made up of something. Our need to attribute some sort of stuff or thing property comes from our day to day interaction with our environment. We don't feel the same pull to apply some sort of "stuff" to light.

Becasue of the way our universe is structured, a probability curve describes what a particle *is*. If you can describe something with a language, does it not exist? Does the tale of mody dick exist?


Correction: I have this "internal reality".


Occording to you, the great Mind has given up self, and forgotten mind and became lifegazer. The mind has left things behind in order to do this. The reality you sense, the book, is all contained in what was left behind. Therefore, it is external to lifegazer.


What the mind senses, the mind also creates.


Thats great, but it does so by following the laws of physics, and the portion of the mind that is not the lifegazer ego does this. Your individual ego senses reality, but it does not create it. For the mind to become the lifegazer ego, it has created a reality for that ego.


My argument applies to the reality of things "out there", beyond the mind's sense of them. Your reality is sensed-reality and your physics is of sensed-reality: "in here".


You misunderstand, your argument is based on notions of reality that are 2400 years old and do not truly reflect reality.


Quantum physics reflects the essentially non-spatial properties of awareness


Please, explain what property of QM has anything to do with non-spatiality. Every element of QM I've seen relates directly to spacetime. QM would not exist if it was non-spatial, the equations of QM are described in spatial form.

QM also has absolutely nothing to say about awareness, QM could not care less if self aware beings existed, or did not exist.


together with the fact that the Mind - the creator of the world we sense - has free will, so that the fundamental-energy of this mind is essentially non-determinable.


Lets take this piece by piece, because it is a bunch of non-sensical gobily gook.

You speak of the fundamental-energy of the mind. Why does the mind need energy in the first place? I don't know what the concept of energy would mean in the concept of the mind anyway, energy is a property of our universe. But lets say its similar in some way, would it not vary? If it varies, by what way would it vary? Could it vary over time, in our universe, energy cannot be created or destroyed, so does that mean it varies over a different quantity, like a spatial one? Also, you use the term fundamental, does that mean the mind has other types of energy? What are these other types of energy and what are their properties? Do they also vary from place to place?

You are attempting to talk about a quantity of something in our reality completely different from the one we perceive. You'll have to describe it in a bit more detail for your discussion to be meaningful.

Next, non-determinable, determinable:
Capable of being determined, limited, or fixed: determinable velocities.

So, this fundamental energy cannot be "limited", which means you cannot fix it to a certain set of results. Interesting, because that energy would be completely opposite of what energy and interactions are in our reality. Electron orbits, particle interactions, decay, etc, and comptelety determinable, because their results can be limited percisely. Perhaps you mean random? Is free will mearly random? I definately don't think my disicions come about by random chance.


Inconsistency? I never said that there are any inconsistencies. I'm just pointing out that physics is the study of an illusionary world which exists within the mind.


You are trying to prove that it is logically inconsistent to say that reality is made up of divisible things seperated by space, and thus reality must exist at singularity.


"Random" is the worng word.
Consider that the energy of a Primal Cause must be non-determinable, by logical default.
QM - being a study of the sensed-world within the mind - is a proof that the Mind which creates that sensed-world is an absolute Primal Cause.
In fact, I might even use this proof as the basis for my next thread.


A Primal Cause assumes a straight timeline that extends directly through, and exists before, reality. Non-sensical and assumes some reality outside of reality that created reality at the time of "Primal Cause". QM shows that time in our reality is not straightline. If QM shows that time is an integral part of our reality, our reality exists without some need for an external timeline, and that our timeline is not a straight arrow, then a primal cause does not apply to our reality.

Also, you are talking about the "Energy of a primal cause". What energy, what form can energy as we know it take if the universe does not exist. What energy are you talking about?


That's because the mind's energy is working towards producing the order we actually sense.


AKA, the mind is ordered reality as per the laws of physics. Thats fine, you already said that, but the statement was regarding the randomness of QM pointing to a free will. The response was indicated that the randomness of QM does not point to a free will because it can be predicted, free will cannot be predicted. If I can predict what a free will can do, with absolute accuracy, then the free will has no choice.


You can only determine "the truth" of the sensed-world "in here".
Study physics for a thousand years and you will not be able to contribute towards a philosophical-discussion about the "out there".

And thus, neither can you claim to make any proof as to what exists beyond your own ego.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

There is no death.

Unless you count death of the ego. If you die, where is the lifegazer ego? If lifegazer would have made one descision, or felt a certain emotion given certain memories and sensory perception, but the mind feels something completely different in the same situation, with the same memories, the lifegazer ego and personality is gone. (Unless the mind becomes lifegazer again, in a rebirth)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
No it hasn't.
Sensations are both an internal experience and an internal creation.
An entity is not obliged to feel 'pain' when it is immersed in fire. It chooses to do so. So it creates the sensation of pain for itself.

Again, false dictotomy, you still fail to address the possibility that the entity is "born" with the ability to sense pain. In fact, for us humans, there is a gene that controls the sensation of pain to a degree. Depending on this gene, you feel more or less pain in response to a particular stimulus. You cannot choose this more or less response, your are born with it. If I could genetically engineer a human that had no ability to experience pain, what would that say to your philosophy?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Matter exists as part of our universe, our reality.

Correction: Matter is the definition we give to localised concentrations of sensed-light.

Matter is no more or less a thing that any other interaction within our universe (ie, fields). We just perceive it to be a solid "thing" made up of something.

Exactly. Note how you are defining the universe that we are sensing. Note how scientific knowledge refers directly to what we sense.

Becasue of the way our universe is structured, a probability curve describes what a particle *is*.

"A probability curve represents our understanding of where a particle will go - not what it is."

If you can describe something with a language, does it not exist? Does the tale of mody dick exist?

Tales are intangible, as is language itself. What exists and our understanding of what exists, are not the same.

Occording to you, the great Mind has given up self, and forgotten mind and became lifegazer.

The Mind hasn't become lifegazer... The Mind merely thinks that it is lifegazer. Thinking that you are something is not the same thing as becoming that thing.

The mind has left things behind in order to do this.

Only Self knowledge. Knowledge is intangible. Nothing tangible is "left behind".

Therefore, it is external to lifegazer.

lifegazer doesn't exist. He is a sensed-thing. He doesn't possess the mind but is embraced by it.
God is not external to anyone since nobody exists except God.

"My argument applies to the reality of things "out there", beyond the mind's sense of them. Your reality is sensed-reality and your physics is of sensed-reality: "in here"."

You misunderstand, your argument is based on notions of reality that are 2400 years old and do not truly reflect reality.

I don't think philosophers were talking about quantum-physics 2400 years ago, do you?
They could have been though! Why? Because the realisation that the Mind is a primal-cause leads to the conclusion that the energy of the Mind must be fundamentally non-determinable.

It is your arguments that don't reflect "reality" because I have yet to hear you acknowledge that the sensed-universe is not real in itself.

Please, explain what property of QM has anything to do with non-spatiality.

Try quantum nonlocality.
http://www.cosmopolis.com/topics/quantum-nonlocality.html
Extract:-
Our "local realistic" view of the world assumes that phenomena are separated by time and space and that no influence can travel faster than the speed of light. Quantum nonlocality proves that these assumptions are incorrect, and that there is a principle of holistic interconnectedness operating at the quantum level which contradicts the localistic assumptions of classical, Newtonian physics.

Imo, this is reflective of the essential non-spatialness of 'awareness' in which all perceived quantum-events take place.

Every element of QM I've seen relates directly to spacetime. QM would not exist if it was non-spatial, the equations of QM are described in spatial form.

You're talking about sensed-space there Russ.

QM also has absolutely nothing to say about awareness, QM could not care less if self aware beings existed, or did not exist.

Particle/wave duality and observer importance are well documented.

I need a break.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I don't think philosophers were talking about quantum-physics 2400 years ago, do you?

Not relevant because you are not talking about quantum physics today. You are talking about what you think QM is. Your concept of matter is closer to that of the atomists who were found 2400 years ago. Things have moved on a bit since then.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Not relevant because you are not talking about quantum physics today. You are talking about what you think QM is. Your concept of matter is closer to that of the atomists who were found 2400 years ago. Things have moved on a bit since then.
My concept of matter is that it does not exist. Period.


Quantum physics is a study of the mind's own non-determinable energy.
Physics is the study of "in here".

Quantum physics does not relate to a world "out there".

Scientific understanding of sensed-matter created by the mind is completely irrelevant when discussing the potential reality of "things" external to awareness.
Anybody who brings his physics book to the table in regards my OP is completely ignorant of these facts.

All we have is rationale my friends. Nothing else. And we must elevate that rationale above the limitations of what the sensed-world can tell us if we want to contemplate a world "out there".

Things "out there" either have concrete extension of being through 4 dimensions, or they do not exist... and there is no "out there".
It's as simple as that.

[Wudang]

You still haven't answered my question about why you trust memory but not perception.

[Z]

No matter how many times you copy and paste your teal false assertions, they remain false assertions.

Science tells us the order among things. That those things are detected by us via sensations is not in doubt. Whether those sensations are caused, as we observed, by the interactions of matter, energy, and our nervous systems, or whether imposed upon a uni-mind as an illusion, or whether implanted via cables from the great mechanical techno-bunny, science still tells us the order among things. Why insist on this definition? Because these are the only things which exist, as far as we can tell. If all we can detect is what our senses and, by extension, our devices, can observe and infer, then we can know absolutely nothing that does not extend from observation and inferrence. Reason in a vacuum is empty as well - no amount of reason based upon nothing at all can amount to anything at all.

Your OP related to an object. ALL objects which we have any knowledge of, whatsoever, are observed via our sensations. Ergo, since science studies the order among things within our sensations, then science relates to all objects. No object which is beyond our ability to sense or infer via sensation can be known. Perhaps the 'rock' you want to speak of, if there is such a thing as an absolute rock beyond our ability to sense it, is actually indivisible itself. Perhaps it is a 23-dimensional construct which radiates blue light and has animated tentacles. Perhaps no rock exists at all. We cannot, in any way, discuss a hypothetical rock beyond what our senses and science tell us about rocks; so if you ask to discuss a rock, you are either a) invoking science, or b) discussing something whose properties are absolutely unknowable.

we must elevate that rationale above the limitations of what the sensed-world can tell us if we want to contemplate a world "out there".

As near as I can tell, you are asking people to pretend that science knows nothing at all, and to have everyone pretty much guess about what is 'out there'. Without any sensory observation, 'out there' is absolutely unknowable.

Frankly, there are only two options: either our senses are reliable, our inferrences are reasonable, and external things exist which cause our sensations, ultimately; or nothing can be known, whatsoever, beyond our sensations - which reduces those things beyond our sensations to irrelevancy. Either way, same result.

Things "out there" either have concrete extension of being through 4 dimensions, or they do not exist... and there is no "out there".

False dichotomy. Either things out there have concrete extension of being through however many dimensions exist - even if that extension of being is equal to 0 for any given dimension - or we can know nothing about whether anything exists out there or not.

Really - you need to up the quality, young man, or go play in the sand pit with the other solipsists.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
My concept of matter is that it does not exist. Period.


Quantum physics is a study of the mind's own non-determinable energy.
Physics is the study of "in here".

Quantum physics does not relate to a world "out there".

Scientific understanding of sensed-matter created by the mind is completely irrelevant when discussing the potential reality of "things" external to awareness.
Anybody who brings his physics book to the table in regards my OP is completely ignorant of these facts.

All we have is rationale my friends. Nothing else. And we must elevate that rationale above the limitations of what the sensed-world can tell us if we want to contemplate a world "out there".

Things "out there" either have concrete extension of being through 4 dimensions, or they do not exist... and there is no "out there".
It's as simple as that.

Irrelevant. Your understanding of "sensed-matter" then is 2400 years out of date and has nothing to do with QM as explained very clearly by russdill.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Irrelevant.

IRRELEVANT?!!
You're either a fool or just anti-God. Which is it Wudang? Time to unveil the cloak and expose yourself.

Why can't you get it into your skull that scientific knowledge pertaining to sensed-things does not qualify the holder of such knowledge to discuss the nature and possible reality of "things" - beyond the sense of them - within the context of that same knowledge?
Well?
I demand an explanation or I demand that you abstain from further participation. I'm tired of judgement without reason and I'm tired of people overlooking the distinction which exists between sensed-things and real-things. I'm particularly tired of people who will not acknowledge that science is of the "in here".
It all reeks of denial at all costs.

Your understanding of "sensed-matter" then is 2400 years out of date and has nothing to do with QM as explained very clearly by russdill.
The knowledge we have of QM supports the existence of a non-spatial Creator-source with absolute free-will.
The knowledge we have of QM tells us nothing about the reality of matter.

Put your science books back on the shelf and address the OP with reason that acknowledges all this. Otherwise, your rebuttals are lame. End of story.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Correction: Matter is the definition we give to localised concentrations of sensed-light.


eh, no, sorry, we sense matter in both a lot more direct (touch, smell, taste, hot/cold) and indirect (instrumentation, particle accelerators, etc). Matter is the definition we give to any particle that has mass. (may definition may be slightly off from the high energy physics point of view, someone correct me if I have mispoken).


Exactly. Note how you are defining the universe that we are sensing. Note how scientific knowledge refers directly to what we sense.


Note how *all* knowledge refers directly to what we sense. Even recalling memories is just sensing. Memory in itself is just another sense. Dreaming is also just sensing. It is just as likely that sensations brought to us by memory is lying as sensations brought to us by what we perceive to be reality. Given this, I fail to see how you can hope to prove that we do not exist in a universe governed by the laws of physics, with no great mind involved.


"A probability curve represents our understanding of where a particle will go - not what it is."


I disagree, a probability curve describes exactly what a particle is and hov it interacts. Even in your philosophy this is true, the particles in the book governed by the mind are controlled by the laws of physics, and are thus nothing more than the equations that describe them.


Tales are intangible, as is language itself. What exists and our understanding of what exists, are not the same.


Your view of the word "exists" is far too narrow, something does not need to be tangible to exist. Tangibility, by definition, must refer to something that exists in our own reality. Just because something does not exist in our reality, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.


The Mind hasn't become lifegazer... The Mind merely thinks that it is lifegazer. Thinking that you are something is not the same thing as becoming that thing.

Only Self knowledge. Knowledge is intangible. Nothing tangible is "left behind".


*exactly*, that knowledge is left behind. Which means it is not part of the lifegazer ego, which means it is external to the lifegazer ego.



lifegazer doesn't exist. He is a sensed-thing. He doesn't possess the mind but is embraced by it.
God is not external to anyone since nobody exists except God.


Ok, then stop talking about internal, because then you have to admit there is an external. Nothing can have an internal without an external. Either reality is a dualism, or it isn't

A sensed thing is not the same thing as an ego. One cannot sense themselves having a different personality. Are you going to try to disprove, "I think, therefore I am"?


I don't think philosophers were talking about quantum-physics 2400 years ago, do you?


No, but your argument at the start of this thread centers around a description of reality that is 2400 years old.


They could have been though! Why? Because the realisation that the Mind is a primal-cause leads to the conclusion that the energy of the Mind must be fundamentally non-determinable.


You have completely coped out on explaining what any of this means...for MONTHS. Its complete senselessness and not even you knows what it means. You have completely avoiding any arguments regarding the statement above, but instead merely repeat it over...and over...and over...and over.... Big, meaningless words and concepts will not help you here. Not even you could have predicted QM because you have absolutely no clue what it is.


It is your arguments that don't reflect "reality" because I have yet to hear you acknowledge that the sensed-universe is not real in itself.


What is real within our own universe is what is tangible. Either we exist within the universe we perceive or we do not. The other option being that we live in a dualism, which is what you are utimately arguing. (unless you want to conceed, and say that yes, we exist within the universe we perceive).

Strange, you bring up physics from time to time, and when it is pointed out that physics do not support your point of view, you claim "but its not really reality, so it doesn't matter". Then why bring up physics in the first place?


Try quantum nonlocality.
http://www.cosmopolis.com/topics/quantum-nonlocality.html
Extract:-


Wow, a bunch of babble from uninformed philosophers about quantum entanglement. How about the hard facts behind quantum entangement, rather than the philosophical dreaming:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/


Our "local realistic" view of the world assumes that phenomena are separated by time and space and that no influence can travel faster than the speed of light. Quantum nonlocality proves that these assumptions are incorrect, and that there is a principle of holistic interconnectedness operating at the quantum level which contradicts the localistic assumptions of classical, Newtonian physics.


Note that no usable information is transmitted, and the effect of entanglement depends on the particles being at the same point in space. You cannot entangle particles that do not have spatial locality (unless you are passing quantum state with previously entangled particles, in which case, they must have locality with those particles).

Yes, many things contridict classical, newtonian physics, and yet, you seem to cling to many concepts of newtonian physics, most notably, in your discussions about relativity.


Imo, this is reflective of the essential non-spatialness of 'awareness' in which all perceived quantum-events take place.


Entanglement has no tie whatsoever to awareness. Sorry. Also, for particles to have their quantum state entangled, they must interact, and that interaction depends on their position in spacetime. No spatialness, no entanglement.


You're talking about sensed-space there Russ.


Ah, once again, you try to use physics to prove something, but when it turns against you, and the arguments become to difficult, you cop out and say it doesn't matter because it is only sensed reality. Either it matters, or it doesn't. Pick one.


Particle/wave duality and observer importance are well documented.


WTF lifegazer, we went over this, quite a few times. Wave/particle duality does not need an observer, it just needs an interaction. As soon as a particle interacts, its wave function is collapsed. By observer in these experiments, what is meant is a sensor, the sensor works by interacting with the particle. The sensor does not need to be hooked to anything for this effect to work.

Please, Please, Please, if you are so insistant that wave/particle duality has some relation to awareness, provide some evidence. Otherwise, throw out QM in your discussions, because it does not agree with you.


I need a break.

Yes, you do, start by reading up:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-decoherence/

Note specifically on the double slit experiment:

"The disappearence of the interference term, however, can happen also spontaneously, even when no ‘true collapse’ is presumed to happen, namely if some other systems (say, sufficiently many stray cosmic particles scattering off the electron) suitably interact with the wave between the slits and the screen. In this case, the interference term is not observed, because the electron has become entangled with the stray particles (see the entry on quantum entanglement and information)"

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Wudang
Irrelevant. Your understanding of "sensed-matter" then is 2400 years out of date and has nothing to do with QM as explained very clearly by russdill.

You can just call me Russ...but Russ was taken.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
IRRELEVANT?!!
You're either a fool or just anti-God. Which is it Wudang? Time to unveil the cloak and expose yourself.


sweet! Wudang, the antichrist! Can I get a cool title too? ...wait, how can god be anti himself?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
IRRELEVANT?!!
You're either a fool or just anti-God. Which is it Wudang? Time to unveil the cloak and expose yourself. Quit being so melodramatic, you big drama queen.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
IRRELEVANT?!!
You're either a fool or just anti-God. Which is it Wudang? Time to unveil the cloak and expose yourself.

Why can't you get it into your skull that scientific knowledge pertaining to sensed-things does not qualify the holder of such knowledge to discuss the nature and possible reality of "things" - beyond the sense of them - within the context of that same knowledge?
Well?
I demand an explanation or I demand that you abstain from further participation. I'm tired of judgement without reason and I'm tired of people overlooking the distinction which exists between sensed-things and real-things. I'm particularly tired of people who will not acknowledge that science is of the "in here".
It all reeks of denial at all costs.

The knowledge we have of QM supports the existence of a non-spatial Creator-source with absolute free-will.
The knowledge we have of QM tells us nothing about the reality of matter.

Put your science books back on the shelf and address the OP with reason that acknowledges all this. Otherwise, your rebuttals are lame. End of story.

Your argument is irrelevant as you do not have an understanding of QM. This is an established fact and is not in debate.
I have acknowledged umpteen times, as you well know, that I assume, and I use that precisely, that the material world is essentially as it appears.
You are the one in denial as you do not acknowledge that you assume that the external world is not as it appears.
My position is not anti-anything, it is pro-honesty, much like Russ and Upchuch my fellow-spawn. (oops!)

[Wudang]

And by the way, LG, why do you trust your memory telling you that have had dreams when you don't trust your senses?

[uruk]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lifegazer
IRRELEVANT?!!
You're either a fool or just anti-God. Which is it Wudang? Time to unveil the cloak and expose yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Don't do it wudang! You could be charged with a misdemeanor, or a felony if you expose yourself in front of a minor.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Your argument is irrelevant as [b]you do not have an understanding of QM. This is an established fact and is not in debate.

Listen good: it wouldn't matter if I knew NOTHING about QM. Why? Because as I said, any scientific knowledge pertaining to sensed-existence is irrelevant when considering the possible reality and nature of "things" beyond sensed-existence.

Whatever it is that I am is the Primal Cause of the sensations it experiences.
Therefore, the energy of this primal-cause has to be essentially non-determinable.
Consequently, the science of fundamental-energy is just a verification of the fact that the creator of the sensations is the primal-cause of those sensations.

My position is not anti-anything, it is pro-honesty, much like Russ and Upchuch my fellow-spawn. (oops!)
666

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Listen good: it wouldn't matter if I knew NOTHING about QM. Why? Because as I said, any scientific knowledge pertaining to sensed-existence is irrelevant when considering the possible reality and nature of "things" beyond sensed-existence.


...which would mean QM is irrelevent to your argument...which would mean you are just wasting electrons.


Whatever it is that I am is the Primal Cause of the sensations it experiences.
Therefore, the energy of this primal-cause has to be essentially non-determinable.
Consequently, the science of fundamental-energy is just a verification of the fact that the creator of the sensations is the primal-cause of those sensations.


Still spewing useless crap without any attempt at defining it I see.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
...which would mean QM is irrelevent to your argument...which would mean you are just wasting electrons.

I was talking about the argument in the OP. But as I said as an aside, QM proves the existence of a primal-cause.

Still spewing useless crap without any attempt at defining it I see.
Which word didn't you know?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I was talking about the argument in the OP. But as I said as an aside, QM proves the existence of a primal-cause.


See, if you understood QM, you'd understand that QM actually points to there being no primal-cause, in fact, QM is not compatible with the notion of a primal-cause.


Which word didn't you know?

I've already laid out my set of questions in regard to "Whatever it is that I am is the Primal Cause of the sensations it experiences.
Therefore, the energy of this primal-cause has to be essentially non-determinable. "

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
See, if you understood QM, you'd understand that QM actually points to there being no primal-cause, in fact, QM is not compatible with the notion of a primal-cause.

Energy has a source.
Non-determinable energy has a source with free-will.
A source with free-will is a primal-cause.

[lifegazer]

So, now, is anyone here willing to address the OP without relating knowledge of sensed-things (QM) to that post?

Remember this:
Things "out there" either have concrete extension of being through 4 dimensions, or they do not exist... and there is no "out there".
It's as simple as that.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Energy has a source.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Powerplants are not a source of energy, they merely convert stored energy to electrical energy. There is no such thing as a source of energy, just as there is no such thing as a source of an electrical charge.


Non-determinable energy has a source with free-will.


In this universe, there is no such thing as "non-determinable energy". There is only energy. There are no different kinds of energy in this universe, energy is energy is energy.


A source with free-will is a primal-cause.


And, once again, the concept of a primal-cause is not compatible with QM.

Add to this, that in your philosophy, both matter and energy are IMAGINED properties. Not only are they not real in your philosophy, but they also have absolutely no bearing on the reality of the mind.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
So, now, is anyone here willing to address the OP without relating knowledge of sensed-things (QM) to that post?

Remember this:
Things "out there" either have concrete extension of being through 4 dimensions, or they do not exist... and there is no "out there".
It's as simple as that.

Wait...you are trying to argue that sensed things (QM) prove your point, but you are insisting that any counter arguments not reference sensed things?


Are you willing to address yesterday's post?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Remember this:
Things "out there" either have concrete extension of being through 4 dimensions, or they do not exist... and there is no "out there".
It's as simple as that.
I wonder if it would just be worth it to make a new tag for the board that just prints the words "False dichotomy" or "You're lack of understanding on how physics works is truly astounding"? Would it actually save any time? hm...

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Wait...you are trying to argue that sensed things (QM) prove your point, but you are insisting that any counter arguments not reference sensed things?

QM proves the existence of a primal-cause, but that is an aside from the OP.

Are you willing to address yesterday's post?
I want to get back on track. I think my OP is a very credible proof for the non-existence of an external reality.
I do intend to discuss QM in greater detail in the near future.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I wonder if it would just be worth it to make a new tag for the board that just prints the words "False dichotomy" or "You're lack of understanding on how physics works is truly astounding"? Would it actually save any time? hm...
What's physics got to do with it? Have you not been reading these posts, or what?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
What's physics got to do with it? Have you not been reading these posts, or what? You said, and I quote,Things "out there" either have concrete extension of being through 4 dimensions, or they do not exist... and there is no "out there".This is not only referring to physics, but it is referring to it out of gross incompetence of the subject matter. Even more so, I suppose, if you don't even realize you were referring to physics.

I feel a skit coming on...

L: (points at chair) look at that chicken!
U: Boy, you don't know much about poultry.
L: Who is talking about poultry? I'm talking about that chicken! (points at chair again)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Upchurch

L: (points at chair) look at that chicken!
U: Boy, you don't know much about poultry.
L: Who is talking about poultry? I'm talking about that chicken! (points at chair again)

well put.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I wonder if it would just be worth it to make a new tag for the board that just prints the words "False dichotomy" or "You're lack of understanding on how physics works is truly astounding"? Would it actually save any time? hm...

You could make a 'no understanding of physics' smily.

[lifegazer]

Well?
99.99% of the people here think that an external reality exists.

Will one of you please tell me what they think it is. It must be tangibly real, so none of this "It's a probability graph" nonsense, please.
How can you believe in a reality and not know what it is you believe in?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Well?
99.99% of the people here think that an external reality exists.


They find a monism model of reality best fits the evidence. They see no need to throw in some great mind, unless they find evidence that points that way. I can also say that 99.99% of people here don't think ceramic tea cups are currently orbiting neptune. If someone starting claiming so, I think they would need to provide some good evidence.


Will one of you please tell me what they think it is. It must be tangibly real


Tangible simply means that it is part of our reality, part of our universe.


so none of this "It's a probability graph" nonsense, please.


So now QM is nonsense too? I'm really confused.


How can you believe in a reality and not know what it is you believe in?

come again?

[monkboon]

Ahh. Sorry guys, I needed a break. After a week of work, I'm refreshed and ready for a new thread. Yet I see it's the same old thing. Whatever.


Originally posted by lifegazer
I think my OP is a very credible proof for the non-existence of an external reality. I do intend to discuss QM in greater detail in the near future.


I must* say, your OP is an interesting thought experiment, but it's hardly proof of anything, and it really doesn't lead very far.

Your argument fails pretty much from the beginning, when you conclude without proof that the final particle of whatever it was you divided into ever smaller pieces must of necessity occupy null spacetime. Prove that first, then we can address the remaining flaws. Remember, show your work.


Aw hell, why wait? Let's address one of the other flaws too.

Some might object: "What happens if all objects are infinitely divisible?"
The simple answer to that is that if this is the case, then no singular finite objects actually exist in reality. Either they do or they don't. If they don't, then bang goes your reality of singular entities separated by spacetime

Again, a huge leap from premise to conclusion. What is it about my reality that relies upon your definition of singular entities separated by spacetime? By my reality I'm of course referring to what appears to me to be real, the sensed universe as you so fondly put it. Give me a concrete reason to accept that what I experience as the universe is merely an illusion created by sensation internal only to myself. Saying that a reality outside of myself isn't necessary is not the same as proving that it doesn't exist. If you want me to accept your philosophy, you have to provide evidence convincing enough for me to reject the universe I seem to already know. I'd be willing to believe you if you were to present a convincing, continuous progression from premise to conclusion, but you haven't yet, and frankly I don't believe you can.

*I'm just being polite here, I didn't really have to say it.

[Z]

Note, once more, how his OP directly relates to science and physics - they being the study of the order between sensed-things - since he asked, specifically, about a 'thing' whose only existence is that which we have 'sensed'. But he doesn't want science or physics brought into the discussion!

Note, also, how he astutely ignores addressing the points raised by myself and others, and simply tries to get people to play by his own rules.

"Here, fellows, we're going to play baseball. But I'm the only one who can use a bat, ball, glove, or run the bases; you guys just stand there and cheer. OK? Now, I can beat you all in baseball!!! See?"

Yep - it's that simple.

BTW - LG - You are not the 'primal cause' of your sensations. You are the receptor, processor, and experiencer of said sensations, which are biochemical signals processed by the neural system within the body that is you, in response to / caused by series of external stimuli that act upon specific bodily systems which you possess. In other words, things beyond you are the cause of your sensations.

If you reject this concept, you must demonstrate what the cause of said sensations are, in a concrete and tangible fashion. Further, you must define and demonstrate, in a concrete and tangible fashion, the mechanism of the generation, transmission, translation, and experience of said sensations, concretely and tangibly. If you insist on rejecting reality as experienced through the senses, you must provide concrete and tangible evidence of a reality beyond the senses, and this must be incontravertable, logical, and consistant evidence. Now, I agree that reason and logic are the only tools one has to determine the nature of things beyond our senses of them; however, if you also remove sensory experience from the foundations behind reason and logic, you are left with nothing at all.

At best, you are trying, hope against hope, to demonstrate logical inconsistancies in this reality (your 'sensed-reality') - yet EVERY attempt you have made to do so has shown that you lack a fundamental grasp of logic, reason, or even the basics of the very concepts you attempt to argue against.

LG - "Look, reality cannot exist because clearly one plus one cannot equal 19."
US - "But one plus one equals two!"
LG - "Yes, but in my definition of sensed-reality, one plus one equals 19 - which it clearly cannot do, therefore, sensed reality is false!!"
US - "... what?"

Case in point: infinite space and the implications of distance between fixed points.

Case in point: the existence of hypothetical objects whose dimensions are less than the spacetime they hypothetically occupy.

Case in point: difficulties reconciling a non-dimensional mathematical 'point' with real objects occupying infinite points in real spacetime.

And the list goes on and on and on...

If I wanted to argue the qualities of baroque architecture versus gothic architecture, I'd first have to fully understand and appreciate both styles of architecture. If you want to argue the qualities of physics, mathematics, QM, and the science of the sensed-reality, then you have to first fully understand and appreciate these things. Until you do - you are arguing from the void, a voice of ignorance bleating like a lamb in the field.

"On yer knees, plonker."

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Note, once more, how his OP directly relates to science and physics - they being the study of the order between sensed-things - since he asked, specifically, about a 'thing' whose only existence is that which we have 'sensed'. But he doesn't want science or physics brought into the discussion!

Time to end this stupidity...

Quantum physics refers to the fundamental energy of the entity which creates the sensations and why that energy is essentially non-determinable.
Awareness is essentially non-spatial which accounts for quantum non-locality of sensed-effects within awareness.
In other words, quantum-physics - relating to sensed existence in a non-spatial awareness - cannot relate to a REALITY of space beyond the sense of it.
Quantum physics cannot relate to a world "out there"!!

You keep asserting that those trees and stars and people you sense actually ALSO exist BEYOND your perception of them: "out there".
... If you believe this, then you must believe in the concrete reality of matter in real spacetime. There is no other option. Quantum considerations do not apply.

Hence, address my OP or give-up on your beliefs in the "out there".

[AWPrime]

Lifegazer, 您的強姦物�!

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Time to end this stupidity...

Quantum physics refers to the fundamental energy of the entity which creates the sensations and why that energy is essentially non-determinable.
Awareness is essentially non-spatial which accounts for quantum non-locality of sensed-effects within awareness.
In other words, quantum-physics - relating to sensed existence in a non-spatial awareness - cannot relate to a REALITY of space beyond the sense of it.
Quantum physics cannot relate to a world "out there"!!

You keep asserting that those trees and stars and people you sense actually ALSO exist BEYOND your perception of them: "out there".
... If you believe this, then you must believe in the concrete reality of matter in real spacetime. There is no other option. Quantum considerations do not apply.

Hence, address my OP or give-up on your beliefs in the "out there".

So why do you keep trying to use your garbled misunderstanding of QM as a proof of your so-called philosophy?

By the way, why do you trust your memory telling you that you have dreamed when you don't trust your senses?

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Time to end this stupidity...

Quantum physics refers to the fundamental energy of the entity which creates the sensations and why that energy is essentially non-determinable.
Awareness is essentially non-spatial which accounts for quantum non-locality of sensed-effects within awareness.
In other words, quantum-physics - relating to sensed existence in a non-spatial awareness - cannot relate to a REALITY of space beyond the sense of it.
Quantum physics cannot relate to a world "out there"!!

You keep asserting that those trees and stars and people you sense actually ALSO exist BEYOND your perception of them: "out there".
... If you believe this, then you must believe in the concrete reality of matter in real spacetime. There is no other option. Quantum considerations do not apply.

Hence, address my OP or give-up on your beliefs in the "out there".

Note, once again, the subject changes the... er... subject. I never mentioned quantum physics - just physics and science - yet he harps upon QM in his reply.

Also, I never said anything other than that I believe that those trees and stars exist as actual matter in a reality of real spacetime. I never mentioned quantum considerations.

In his desperation, he ends up making even more of an ass of himself. Funny - all we have to do is feed him rope, and he fashions his own noose!

[lifegazer]

You're hot favourite for winning plonker of the year, 2004.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
So, now, is anyone here willing to address the OP without relating knowledge of sensed-things (QM) to that post?

Remember this:
Things "out there" either have concrete extension of being through 4 dimensions, or they do not exist... and there is no "out there".
It's as simple as that.

Lifegazer, in the second case the universe is an illusion in four dimensions. God presents a 4-D space to our senses, therefore, to us it is a 4-D space in every way discernable. In it, all things can hold positions in all four presented dimensions.
This presented space must either be continuous or discrete. In the former case it is infinitely divisible, in the latter it is not.
Whether it is or not does not affect its potential to exist.

The real question is: What is the difference between a real external universe and an imaginary and apparently external universe?

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're hot favourite for winning plonker of the year, 2004.

And here, Noble Reader, the subject demonstrates the heights of his intellectual capacity for rational discussion: when faced with great adversity, resort to insults.

Quite clearly, the subject is unable to answer the charges levelled against him.

Now, if the subject had any honor whatsoever, he would address the very excellent point made by H'ethetheth:What is the difference between a real external universe and an imaginary and apparently external universe?

----

Just as an aside, note that the subject's choice of insult, 'plonker', is yet more Cockney Rhyming slang, generally considered the mark of the uneducated and ignorant street person of England. Somewhat akin to having a philosophy discussion in America with someone who resorts to Eubonics when ruffled. Fo' shizzle mah nizzle....

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Now, if the subject had any honor whatsoever, he would address the very excellent point made by H'ethetheth:

You flatter me, but as you know I'm certainly not the first to ask this question.
It would be nice if lifegazer would tell us the difference though.
So I have a related question for lifegazer:

What is a space? I.e. what do you think a space is?

Take time to ponder the above, then read the following.

In my head a space is a thing that offers the possibility to its occupants to differ in some respect.
If the dimensions of a space are length, the difference is in position.
Your God presents us with the possibility to imagine we differ in position, does he not? What then is this imagined distance other than a spatial distance?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
The real question is: What is the difference between a real external universe and an imaginary and apparently external universe?
I thought it was pretty obvious:-

A real universe
If a real universe exists beyond the sense of one, then "things" really do exist and are really separated from one another by space & time.
The universe has no purpose or meaning, and neither does humanity. In fact, 'self-awareness' is some kind of brain-generated illusion - there is no 'self'. It's a free-for-all where you should grab as much money and have as much fun as you possibly can before you melt away into the irrelevant end.

An illusory universe
'You' are God. You are not the "thing" you perceive yourself to be within the illusion. Fundamentally, 'You' created this illusion for a purpose and all of your choices are meaningful.
Nobody else but God exists. This is truly significant and your future should be devoted to eradicating all selfishness, war and injustice.

Those, briefly, are the primary differences.

[Jellby]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I thought it was pretty obvious:-

A real universe
If a real universe exists beyond the sense of one, then "things" really do exist and are really separated from one another by space & time.
The universe has no purpose or meaning, and neither does humanity. In fact, 'self-awareness' is some kind of brain-generated illusion - there is no 'self'. It's a free-for-all where you should grab as much money and have as much fun as you possibly can before you melt away into the irrelevant end.

An illusory universe
'You' are God. You are not the "thing" you perceive yourself to be within the illusion. Fundamentally, 'You' created this illusion for a purpose and all of your choices are meaningful.
Nobody else but God exists. This is truly significant and your future should be devoted to eradicating all selfishness, war and injustice.

Those, briefly, are the primary differences.


Why?

Why in an illusory universe you should eradicate selfishness, war and injustice, if they are all illusory as well? Why can't you just try to have as much fun as possible? If you're God, you can control your own illusion, why should you care about anything else?

If the universe is real, and the other beings you see are real and, you could guess, feel something similar to what you feel... why shouldn't you try to have as much fun as possible while at the same time trying to be nice to others and eradicate war and injustice?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Jellby
Why?

Why in an illusory universe you should eradicate selfishness, war and injustice, if they are all illusory as well?

God is aware of everything that God creates. If there is pain and suffering in the world, then it is God who experiences it since there is nobody else.
The borders and gold that cause war are illusory, but the suffering and pain had by God because of the choice to fight, are not.

Why can't you just try to have as much fun as possible?

If you can have fun without harming anyone, then I'd agree.

If you're God, you can control your own illusion, why should you care about anything else?

How should God "control" that illusion?

If the universe is real, and the other beings you see are real and, you could guess, feel something similar to what you feel... why shouldn't you try to have as much fun as possible while at the same time trying to be nice to others and eradicate war and injustice?
It's impossible to eradicate war and injustice whilst, ultimately, everybody cares more about themselves (and their own family and their own friends and their own nation) than anyone else.

There are only two ways of seeing the Self:
(1) As you perceive or sense yourself, in relation to all others and every "thing" else.
(2) As God - the only existing entity.

Consequently, there are, essentially, only two ways to act:
(1) For your ego (the sensed-self).
(2) For God.

Only when the world recognises itself as God having that worldly experience, can one truly "Love thy neighbour as thyself."
... And only then can war, borders, poverty, injustice, inequality, racism and crime become obsolete.
... Only then can love and equality reign supreme.

[Wudang]

"How should God "control" that illusion?"

Well since you said he's the underlying principle of QM, pretty easily.


Of course it all relies on your theory that god can dream and since the evidence for dreams is a lot less solid than the evdience for a material world then I'm afaid we can't allow it.

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by lifegazer
A real universe
If a real universe exists beyond the sense of one, then "things" really do exist and are really separated from one another by space & time.

Agreed, up until this point.

Originally posted by lifegazer
The universe has no purpose or meaning, and neither does humanity. In fact, 'self-awareness' is some kind of brain-generated illusion - there is no 'self'. It's a free-for-all where you should grab as much money and have as much fun as you possibly can before you melt away into the irrelevant end.

Utter foolishness. Please provide *any* reason - the smallest scrap will do - of why you jumped from "things really do exist" to "let's kill each other". You have miserably failed to do so in the past; I suspect this will continue to be the case in the future.

Originally posted by lifegazer
An illusory universe
'You' are God. You are not the "thing" you perceive yourself to be within the illusion. Fundamentally, 'You' created this illusion for a purpose and all of your choices are meaningful.
Nobody else but God exists. This is truly significant and your future should be devoted to eradicating all selfishness, war and injustice.

How do you know all this? What evidence do you base these assertions on? Do you have any reason to think this to be true other than the fact that it works well with your "philosophy"? Once again, your failure to answer in the past leaves me thinking that these questions are in vain, but you can't blame a guy for trying. :)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Cosmo
Utter foolishness. Please provide *any* reason - the smallest scrap will do - of why you jumped from "things really do exist" to "let's kill each other".

Please show the members of this forum where I advocate the indifferent destruction of people and "things".
Stop telling lies.

Do you have any reason to think this to be true other than the fact that it works well with your "philosophy"?

Why would I say anything within my philosophy if it didn't make sense within that philosophy as a whole?
I'm not in the business of making things up. My philosophy begins with facts and works from there. If I conclude that Only God exists, then I am bound - by reason - to state these things.

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Please show the members of this forum where I advocate the indifferent destruction of people and "things".
Stop telling lies.

Quit being so dramatic. You know exactly what I meant, so respond to it.

Originally posted by lifegazer
My philosophy begins with facts

Debatable.

Originally posted by lifegazer
and works from there. If I conclude that Only God exists, then I am bound - by reason - to state these things.

Are you also bound - by reason - to insult, belittle, and ignore those who don't agree with your conclusions?

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I thought it was pretty obvious:-

A real universe
If a real universe exists beyond the sense of one, then "things" really do exist and are really separated from one another by space & time.
The universe has no purpose or meaning, and neither does humanity. In fact, 'self-awareness' is some kind of brain-generated illusion - there is no 'self'. It's a free-for-all where you should grab as much money and have as much fun as you possibly can before you melt away into the irrelevant end.

An illusory universe
'You' are God. You are not the "thing" you perceive yourself to be within the illusion. Fundamentally, 'You' created this illusion for a purpose and all of your choices are meaningful.
Nobody else but God exists. This is truly significant and your future should be devoted to eradicating all selfishness, war and injustice.

Those, briefly, are the primary differences.

Okido, that clears up a lot, but apparently you misunderstood.
You see, my question was about space and physics if you will (you know, the order of the observed), seeing how this thread is about indivisibility.
What I can distill out of the above answer is that the only difference between the two universes, observable from the inside of either universe, is that your universe somehow 'cares'.

Is this what you meant or do you think there are other - e.g. physical - differences, observable from within?

Let's say you're right, the universe cares. What are the consequences of living a good or bad life, beside making the universe happy or sad respectively?
And apparently, some of God's imagined creatures live an evil life, so is your concept of God at least partly evil?
When we die, is that when we realise we were God all along?
And what about animals? Should they be nice to (other) animals? Or are they not part of the group of beings that God imagines he is, but only imagines them to exist?
Interesting stuff.

Second edit to add: About observing from the inside: How does one observe that the universe cares? I wrote it down, but didn't actually think it through completely.

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I thought it was pretty obvious:-

A real universe
If a real universe exists beyond the sense of one, then "things" really do exist and are really separated from one another by space & time.
The universe has no purpose or meaning, and neither does humanity. In fact, 'self-awareness' is some kind of brain-generated illusion - there is no 'self'. It's a free-for-all where you should grab as much money and have as much fun as you possibly can before you melt away into the irrelevant end.

An illusory universe
'You' are God. You are not the "thing" you perceive yourself to be within the illusion. Fundamentally, 'You' created this illusion for a purpose and all of your choices are meaningful.
Nobody else but God exists. This is truly significant and your future should be devoted to eradicating all selfishness, war and injustice.

Those, briefly, are the primary differences.

LG,

Judging by your definitions, would it be fair to label a "Real Universe" as one of orderliness and an "Illusory Universe" as arbitrary?

Also, why are you so particularly biased to believe that the illusory Universe is more real than the real Universe? Some things are clearly beyong your control, you cannot 'will' yourself to fly or make material objects disappear - there must be fundametally "real" laws at work that prevent your will from doing certain things.

[monkboon]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If I conclude that Only God exists, then I am bound - by reason - to state these things.

You are bound by reason to show how you came to that conclusion, yet after repeated requests for your rationale, you have yet to provide it. You ask us to accept your philosophy, yet you go from asserting that a real universe isn't necessary for sensation to provide us with the illusion of one to concluding that we are God. There's a big gap from premise to conclusion that it is incumbent upon you to fill in.

I'll repeat my summary of the last thread - by your reasoning, God is arguing with himself over the nature of reality.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Time to end this stupidity...

Quantum physics refers to the fundamental energy of the entity which creates the sensations and why that energy is essentially non-determinable.


hey lifegazer, how about you explain what the hell you mean by this, eh? Otherwise, it is completely meaningless, because everything I have read about QM has never refered to "fundamental energy" or energy being "essentially non-determinable".


Awareness is essentially non-spatial which accounts for quantum non-locality of sensed-effects within awareness.


again, I explained your misunderstand of "quantum teleportation"


In other words, quantum-physics - relating to sensed existence in a non-spatial awareness - cannot relate to a REALITY of space beyond the sense of it.
Quantum physics cannot relate to a world "out there"!!


...right, because of a bunch of meaningless phrases, you are right.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Okido, that clears up a lot, but apparently you misunderstood.
You see, my question was about space and physics if you will

Oh... does this mean that the differences between being a meaningless human and a God are irrelevant in comparison to what it all means for physics? LOL

(you know, the order of the observed), seeing how this thread is about indivisibility.

Yep... and "indivisibility" leads to the fact that only God exists.

What I can distill out of the above answer is that the only difference between the two universes, observable from the inside of either universe, is that your universe somehow 'cares'.

Not so. I was just citing the important differences. What it all means for physics is completely insignificant in relation to what I wrote.

Is this what you meant or do you think there are other - e.g. physical - differences, observable from within?

I've told you what it means for science elsewhere:-
Everything we sense emanates from God. That includes the sense of the universe, thoughts, feelings, life.
This kinda has an effect on the time & resources employed by science in seeking the causality of what we sense. For example, string-theories are a waste of time and resources. Likewise, research into how 'the brain' creates thought and feeling - because it doesn't.

Let's say you're right, the universe cares. What are the consequences of living a good or bad life, beside making the universe happy or sad respectively?

Correction: God cares - the universe is not an entity and has no feelings.
The consequences of allowing evil & selfishness to conquer good and selflessness are that God will die to all sense of being. I.e., armageddon awaits.

And apparently, some of God's imagined creatures live an evil life, so is your concept of God at least partly evil?

Yes. God has the capacity to act evil in ignorance of Self-identity.

When we die, is that when we realise we were God all along?

'We' don't live or die. God lives and cannot die except to the sense or perception of being somebody else.

And what about animals? Should they be nice to (other) animals? Or are they not part of the group of beings that God imagines he is, but only imagines them to exist?
Interesting stuff.

God is whatever is aware but only the awareness of being human endows God with the capacity to actualise Self-realisation.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor
Judging by your definitions, would it be fair to label a "Real Universe" as one of orderliness and an "Illusory Universe" as arbitrary?

No. The universe we sense - the "illusory universe" - is one of orderliness. Our laws of physics mirror the order present in the universe that we sense.

Also, why are you so particularly biased to believe that the illusory Universe is more real than the real Universe?

Biased? The only experience of existence is the sense of one, with the associated thoughts & feelings that are had.
The sense of the universe occurs "in here" (within whatever it is that I am). However, if there is a real universe, it must be "out there", beyond me and beyond my sense of it all.

I seek the truth via fact. That is the only bias I exhibit in my philosophy. Those facts include the above paragraph and the knowledge that scientific-facts relate to what is sensed.
That's why I keep telling people here that quantum-physics (relating to non-determinable energy) is a consequence of the fact that it is the fundamental-energy of whatever it is that I am (the creator of sensed "things") and would not apply to a real world full of real objects.
That's why I keep asking people to address my OP with a reason which acknowledges this.

Some things are clearly beyong your control, you cannot 'will' yourself to fly or make material objects disappear - there must be fundametally "real" laws at work that prevent your will from doing certain things.
If God is all that exists - and God COMPLETELY awakes to this realisation in 'this dream', then there is nothing that God cannot do.

"Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."
[Matt; 17:10, King James]

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

That's why I keep telling people here that quantum-physics (relating to non-determinable energy) is a consequence of the fact that it is the fundamental-energy of whatever it is that I am (the creator of sensed "things") and would not apply to a real world full of real objects.
That's why I keep asking people to address my OP with a reason which acknowledges this.

If God is all that exists - and God COMPLETELY awakes to this realisation in 'this dream', then there is nothing that God cannot do.


But you can't tell us that because it is patently obvious that you don't understand quantum physics, in fact you don't even understand any physics and your ideas are 2400 years out of date.
So we have to address your OP by acknowledging that your mangling of QM is correct? LOL. Pull the other one.
What makes you think that anyone dreams, let alone God? Prove it to the level that you require of materialists but not of your own half-baked ideas.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
But you can't tell us that because it is patently obvious that you don't understand quantum physics, in fact you don't even understand any physics and your ideas are 2400 years out of date.

You're like a parrot who keeps saying the same things but lacks the capability to comprehend new ideas and/or the sincerity to care.
Firstly, show this forum a reference to any past philosopher who has produced the same argument as I posted (paste his argument).
Secondly, once you have failed to do this, explain to this forum which aspects of quantum physics I fail to understand which will affect anything I have said in recent posts.

So we have to address your OP by acknowledging that your mangling of QM is correct? LOL. Pull the other one.

QM deals with sensed effects, the energy of which is fundamentally non-determinable and which emanates from the creator of the sensations.

What makes you think that anyone dreams, let alone God?

A dream is when One is lost within a world that is not in itself real.
Welcome to the dream of the world.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're like a parrot who keeps saying the same things but lacks the capability to comprehend new ideas and/or the sincerity to care.

I have to repeat the question because you don't answer the question


Firstly, show this forum a reference to any past philosopher who has produced the same argument as I posted (paste his argument).
Secondly, once you have failed to do this, explain to this forum which aspects of quantum physics I fail to understand which will affect anything I have said in recent posts.

QM deals with sensed effects, the energy of which is fundamentally non-determinable and which emanates from the creator of the sensations.

A dream is when One is lost within a world that is not in itself real.
Welcome to the dream of the world.

QM is a coherent theory which,as Russ has pointed out, is intimately (i.e. the equations are all expressed in terms of) spacetime, QED. You fail to understand all of QM.

Please do not bring dreams into this without proving their existence with the same rigour that you demand of us.
You have said that we cannot prove our senses do not completely lie therefore we cannot refer to them. Why then can we trust our memories?
Almost everyone reading this forum has the wit to understand my question.
Almost everyone reading this forum has seen how vastly out of your depths you are when discussing science.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Oh... does this mean that the differences between being a meaningless human and a God are irrelevant in comparison to what it all means for physics? LOL
No It means that your refutation of four dimensional space is meaningless. Therefore, the whole "indivisibility-therefore-only-God-argument" is bogus. Space can exist, regardless whether it is presented to us bij God's imagination or not.
Yep... and "indivisibility" leads to the fact that only God exists. Nope, it doesn't, at least not using any logic I'm familiar with.
Not so. I was just citing the important differences. What it all means for physics is completely insignificant in relation to what I wrote. See above.

I've told you what it means for science elsewhere:-
Everything we sense emanates from God. That includes the sense of the universe, thoughts, feelings, life.
This kinda has an effect on the time & resources employed by science in seeking the causality of what we sense. For example, string-theories are a waste of time and resources. Likewise, research into how 'the brain' creates thought and feeling - because it doesn't. Again, this is not what I wanted to know regarding indivisibility.

Correction: God cares - the universe is not an entity and has no feelings.
The consequences of allowing evil & selfishness to conquer good and selflessness are that God will die to all sense of being. I.e., armageddon awaits. But God is the universe, so the universe cares. The 'occupants' of this apparent space see only a universe, not a God. Therefore, the only difference between your universe and the materialistic universe is that yours is a moral one, which we should keep in mind in case we do bad things.
However we do not get punished during our lifetime, and God cannot be observed other than being the universe, and God cannot be observed to care.

Ergo, there are no differences observable from the inside, between your universe and 'mine'. Your God is a matter of faith, and oh golly, that's novel!

Yes. God has the capacity to act evil in ignorance of Self-identity. Do you really not see that this is about the lamest way one could possibly explain anything?
Do you think this satisfies my curiosity about a moral universe? Think again.

'We' don't live or die. God lives and cannot die except to the sense or perception of being somebody else. So by any definition we have of death, we die. We cease to exist as the moral agents we were. We are no longer there. We become yesterday's dream. We're dead.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
QM is a coherent theory which,as Russ has pointed out, is intimately (i.e. the equations are all expressed in terms of) spacetime, QED. You fail to understand all of QM.

QM deals with sensed effects in sensed spacetime, the energy of which is fundamentally non-determinable because it emanates from the creator of the sensations.
If you choose to ignore this again, then I request that you stop participating in this thread.
Also, I asked you to explain to this forum which aspects of quantum physics I fail to understand which will affect anything I have said in recent posts. You have failed to do this.

Please do not bring dreams into this without proving their existence with the same rigour that you demand of us.

A dream is when One is lost within a world that is not in itself real.
There are no experiences that cannot be classed as a dream since the sensed-world is not real in itself.
Deal with this very credible response or go away. I'm tired of you ignoring everything I say to you.

Now, what happened to the other BS you were preaching about my argument being 2400 years out of date? Could you not find an argument the same as mine from 2400 years ago? Thought not. Just another example of the way you make things up and lie.

Are you just here to wind me up? And how low will you go to do it?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Space can exist, regardless whether it is presented to us bij God's imagination or not.

If you don't yet understand the distinction between sensed-space within whatever it is that I am, and real space beyond whatever it is that I am, then you're never going to get very far in a discussion like this.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If you don't yet understand the distinction between sensed-space within whatever it is that I am, and real space beyond whatever it is that I am, then you're never going to get very far in a discussion like this. It's actually your misunderstanding of the dependence between sensed-space and real space (that is, there is none) that is keeping the discussion from going anywhere.

[Z]

Sorry, folks, I've been hard at work lately so I missed my chance to jump on this chimera when it first appeared...

LG will be thrilled to see me return, I'm sure...

Originally posted by lifegazer
I thought it was pretty obvious:-

A real universe
If a real universe exists beyond the sense of one, then "things" really do exist and are really separated from one another by space & time.

Fine, up to this point.

The universe has no purpose or meaning, and neither does humanity. In fact, 'self-awareness' is some kind of brain-generated illusion - there is no 'self'. It's a free-for-all where you should grab as much money and have as much fun as you possibly can before you melt away into the irrelevant end.

This does not logically follow. The universe may well have been created, even with a purpose (though the majority of evidence says otherwise) by God. God may very well be a creator external to its creation; it may also be a creator whose very body is the universe as well, or even an unreal entity whose properties are unknowable to us as of yet.

However, skipping whether or not the universe has purpose - why do people tend to categorize self-awareness into 'soul' and 'non-existence' in such a dichotomous manner? Self-awareness obviously does exist for each of us - the 'self' is the totality of the dynamic brain/body existence of each of us. The 'self' is the completion of the brain, its senses, its body, what the body is wearing, etc. 'Self' is a dynamic state - something continuously redefined from moment to moment - connected to previous self-states through memory.

Further, the theory that a lack of spiritualism infers a state of moral anarchy is also, clearly, false reasoning. Humans, for whatever purpose, feel such things as love, respect, honor, etc. Even without a 'supreme morality' at work, each person finds reasons to make life as decent as possible - or they don't, even with morality. Many, MANY followers of faith are miserable cusses who do anything to further their own goals and desires; many, MANY atheists work hard on humanity-oriented issues, positive causes, etc. For my own part, I work hard to ensure that the world I leave for my children is in some way better than the world I inherited. Now, does that help everyone on Earth? No, of course not - and sometimes, what I want for my children may conflict with what someone else needs or wants somewhere else; but we each of us do the best we can, within those limits we set for ourselves.

An illusory universe
'You' are God. You are not the "thing" you perceive yourself to be within the illusion. Fundamentally, 'You' created this illusion for a purpose and all of your choices are meaningful.
Nobody else but God exists. This is truly significant and your future should be devoted to eradicating all selfishness, war and injustice.

This does not follow from any reason or logic. If the universe was created at all, it either was created for a purpose, or it wasn't; whether it is an 'illusion' or not is irrelevant. And certainly, not every choice made by every entity is relevant; most don't mean diddly-squat in the universe. Besides, if your future should be devoted to eradicating these things, why bother creating the illusion with such things in the first place? Are you claiming that God first creates the source of his suffering, then relies on his ignorant avatars to end his suffering? Ridiculous and unreasonable.

Those, briefly, are the primary differences.

They make no sense at all.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Also, I asked you to explain to this forum which aspects of quantum physics I fail to understand which will affect anything I have said in recent posts. You have failed to do this.

A dream is when One is lost within a world that is not in itself real.
There are no experiences that cannot be classed as a dream since the sensed-world is not real in itself.
Deal with this very credible response or go away. I'm tired of you ignoring everything I say to you.

Now, what happened to the other BS you were preaching about my argument being 2400 years out of date? Could you not find an argument the same as mine from 2400 years ago? Thought not. Just another example of the way you make things up and lie.

Are you just here to wind me up? And how low will you go to do it?

To clarify your obfuscation and evasion

1 - I do not need to identify which parts of QM you have a problem with because you fail to understand all parts of QM. If there is some nuance of the word "all" you fail to understand please let me know.

2 - I said the so-called science you were preaching here was 2400 years old and when I first did so I referred to one of the founders of the Atomist school who flourished around 440BC - Leucippus.

Funny - reviewing this can anyone see a lie of mine or just lies of yours?

And you cannot use dreams as proof of anything as you have not established dreams as real beyog our memory of them, which must be regarded as on much less firm footing than our immediate sensations of an external world, by "logical default".

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
QM deals with sensed effects in sensed spacetime, the energy of which is fundamentally non-determinable because it emanates from the creator of the sensations.
If you choose to ignore this again, then I request that you stop participating in this thread.


If its so central to your argument, why can't you even explain what it means?


Now, what happened to the other BS you were preaching about my argument being 2400 years out of date? Could you not find an argument the same as mine from 2400 years ago?

indivisibility at the ramifications thereof are very old ideas. While its true that no one has used indivisibility to attempt to prove the universe does not exist, they have used it to point out many inconsistencies. Unfortunately, the ideas that bring about these eventualities, and the ones you use for your agument, are outdated, and supplanted by QM.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
1 - I do not need to identify which parts of QM you have a problem with because you fail to understand all parts of QM. If there is some nuance of the word "all" you fail to understand please let me know.

You've just made that up too. You don't know what I know or don't know about QM. Since I've done a fair bit of reading on the subject and since I've had a fair few discussions about it, your judgement that I know "nothing" is clearly a load of tripe.

2 - I said the so-called science you were preaching here was 2400 years old and when I first did so I referred to one of the founders of the Atomist school who flourished around 440BC - Leucippus.

The problem here is that you're too dense to understand my argument.
QM deals with sensed effects in sensed spacetime, the energy of which is fundamentally non-determinable because it emanates from the creator of the sensations.

I made a specific request of you, relating to this:
"If you choose to ignore this again, then I request that you stop participating in this thread."

Now, will you please stop posting as it is clear you lack both the intelligence and sincerity to progress any further here.

And you cannot use dreams as proof of anything as you have not established dreams as real beyog our memory of them

For the third time:-
A dream is when One is lost within a world that is not in itself real.
There are no experiences that cannot be classed as a dream since the sensed-world is not real in itself.

There is only whatever it is that I am and the dream of this world that I am having.

We are not experiencing real things or real space. By logical default, we must be dreaming.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
If its so central to your argument, why can't you even explain what it means?

Sorry, teaching you simple English is not one of my objectives here.

are outdated, and supplanted by QM.
QM relates to sensed-things NOT "real things".
Since the argument ponders the actual reality of things, QM is not even relevant.
In other words, whoever told you that such arguments are "outdated" because of QM is a complete blunderpuss.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
We are not experiencing real things or real space. By logical default, we must be dreaming.

Prove it.

In order to do so, you must truly prove that our sensations are abstract - that they, in fact, represent no real thing. If, however, our sensations represent real things, then we are truly experiencing real things. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to prove, completely and logically, that real things do not exist beyond our sensations of those things.

In order to do this, you must further prove that no individual human experience exists - that is, that confirmation of the external nature of things through communication with other individuals is in some way faulty or flawed. Further, you must also prove that there is a flaw or error in the ability to predict new things in real-space based on information gained through our senses, dealing with things which we cannot sense.

Further, you must be able to explain, logically and consistently, how this 'dream' continues if the singular experiencer ceases to exist - OR you must concede that each experiencer does exist, and therefore that the experiences had by each, if consistant and confirmable, constitutes evidence of an external reality. Further, you must disprove that external reality can in any way affect or influence an experiencer without being in any way sensed - that there are no effects caused by external things whereupon the thing itself cannot be sensed.

So far, you've failed, quite miserably, in doing so.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Sorry, teaching you simple English is not one of my objectives here.

QM relates to sensed-things NOT "real things".
Since the argument ponders the actual reality of things, QM is not even relevant.
In other words, whoever told you that such arguments are "outdated" because of QM is a complete blunderpuss.

According to you, all science relates to 'sensed things' and not real things.

However, if those sensed-things are, in fact, representative of real things, then QM does, in fact, relate to real things.

Since the argument starts with the premise that real things exist, and since the only things that we can be aware of are the things we sense or infer, then all that applies within our sensed-awareness of things also applies to real-things; else, you MUST demonstrate how science, physics, and QM do NOT relate to real things; in which case, you must ALSO demonstrate how they CANNOT relate to sensed-things; else, you must demonstrate, clearly and logically, how real-things CANNOT be represented by sensed-things.

I sense another LG failure coming on... :D

[Anathema]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I sense another LG failure coming on... :D Cue the music --- the inevitable "Dance of the Salted Slug" is about to commence.

[KingMerv00]

If reality doesn't exist...do i have to go to work tomorrow?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The problem here is that you're too dense to understand my argument.
QM deals with sensed effects in sensed spacetime, the energy of which is fundamentally non-determinable because it emanates from the creator of the sensations.
No. The problem is that you can't be bothered to explain what you mean. "The energy of which is fundamentally non-determinable because it emanates from the creator of the sensations." This is not the language of quantum mechanics. It's bibble.
I made a specific request of you, relating to this:
"If you choose to ignore this again, then I request that you stop participating in this thread."

Now, will you please stop posting as it is clear you lack both the intelligence and sincerity to progress any further here.
Way to dodge hard questions!
For the third time:-
A dream is when One is lost within a world that is not in itself real.
There are no experiences that cannot be classed as a dream since the sensed-world is not real in itself.

There is only whatever it is that I am and the dream of this world that I am having.

We are not experiencing real things or real space. By logical default, we must be dreaming.
Good enough to go in my sig for a while.

There'll be a small prize for anyone who can explain the connection between any part of this post and the OP... apart from the person making it, and that it's rubbish. Cheers.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Prove it.

In order to do so, you must truly prove that our sensations are abstract - that they, in fact, represent no real thing.

Representations of reality are distinct from and not the same as 'reality' itself.
Any experience of something that is not real is, by logical default, a dream.

If, however, our sensations represent real things, then we are truly experiencing real things.

So, by your reasoning, representations of a real war on the TV means that the TV-viewer is truly experiencing war.

In order to do this, you must further prove that no individual human experience exists

It does not matter whether you assert it forever - a sensed-thing is not a real thing... and there is a distinction between what is sensed and what is real.

The sensed-universe exists within the awareness of whatever it is that I am ("in here").
Whereas a reality of things must, obviously, exist beyond and separate from whatever it is that I am ("out there").

It's basic philosophy Z. If you cannot comprehend this then you shouldn't be here.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
No. The problem is that you can't be bothered to explain what you mean. "The energy of which is fundamentally non-determinable because it emanates from the creator of the sensations." This is not the language of quantum mechanics. It's bibble.

Way to dodge hard questions!

Good enough to go in my sig for a while.

There'll be a small prize for anyone who can explain the connection between any part of this post and the OP... apart from the person making it, and that it's rubbish. Cheers.
Are your stupid ramblings somehow disguised as intelligent participation?
Please go away and join a Mork & Mindy forum, or something.

[uruk]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When we die, is that when we realise we were God all along?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


'We' don't live or die. God lives and cannot die except to the sense or perception of being somebody else.


Then what is lost when "we" kill each other or cause suffering to others? Surly nothing "real" is dieing or suffering.
If god is omni-everything, then why can't he stop all this sufferng and evildoing. If god is "lost" in the dream, then he is not omni-anything, at least while dreamin. So god becomes ineffectual.

Anyhoo, that puts right back where we started. What's the difference?

[uruk]

Representations of reality are distinct from and not the same as 'reality' itself.
Any experience of something that is not real is, by logical default, a dream.


So, your saying there is no difference between our wakeing experiance and our dream experiance. Then why do our dream experiance have no effect on our waking experiance? Why does our wakeing experiance have a consistancy that is beyond our controll and our dreaming experiance follows no logical sequence or consistancy?

[monkboon]

Originally posted by lifegazer
A dream is when One is lost within a world that is not in itself real.
There are no experiences that cannot be classed as a dream since the sensed-world is not real in itself.

Once again stated without evidence. And once again I ask, what convincing argument do you have beyond it's not necessary do you have that what I experience, what appears to me to be a real universe, is not in fact a real universe?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You've just made that up too. You don't know what I know or don't know about QM. Since I've done a fair bit of reading on the subject and since I've had a fair few discussions about it, your judgement that I know "nothing" is clearly a load of tripe.

But the discussions have all been:
L: QM doth showeth that (whatever)
All: Oh no it doesn't!
I've been in those threads and read them and watched you avoid Russ' and others comments and explanations.

The problem here is that you're too dense to understand my argument.
QM deals with sensed effects in sensed spacetime, the energy of which is fundamentally non-determinable because it emanates from the creator of the sensations.

I made a specific request of you, relating to this:
"If you choose to ignore this again, then I request that you stop participating in this thread."

Now, will you please stop posting as it is clear you lack both the intelligence and sincerity to progress any further here.

No. I do possess the intelligence to understand that you are completely wrong about the fundamentals of QM and its implications and I have the sincerity to argue with anyone who calls me a liar.


For the third time:-
A dream is when One is lost within a world that is not in itself real.
There are no experiences that cannot be classed as a dream since the sensed-world is not real in itself.

There is only whatever it is that I am and the dream of this world that I am having.

We are not experiencing real things or real space. By logical default, we must be dreaming.

But for the umpteenth - you can only prove dreams occur by reference to memory which is logically weaker than the senses. You keep avoiding this and just restating your assumptions with no attempt to engage.

Here's another clue - calling people "plonkers" is not generally regarded as clever past the age of 6.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Are your stupid ramblings somehow disguised as intelligent participation?


Ah, feign ignorance when it comes to longstanding questions that you have no answer to. He is asking you to define your tems, just as I have been asking....over...and over...and over again.


Please go away and join a Mork & Mindy forum, or something.

..Wait? There is a mork & mindy forum? Really? Does Williams make personal apearences?

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Any experience of something that is not real is, by logical default, a dream.

Again, with your misuse of logic? Any experience of something that is not real may also be an illusion - Dreams can be seen as a type of illusion, or they can be seen as general brain activity. There are many theories, of course. But there is no 'logical default' there. Also, you have yet to prove that our sensory experiences are not of something real.

So, by your reasoning, representations of a real war on the TV means that the TV-viewer is truly experiencing war.

If one is watching a video of real war, then one is experiencing the sights and sounds of war. There is an obvious translation due to the limitations of television, just as there is an obvious translation due to our limited senses. For example, we cannot see in the ultra-violet or infrared, nor hear many sounds; but we are, nonetheless, experiencing part of the world around us. There are parts we don't experience, just like the television viewer isn't getting the experience of touch or taste or smell; but unlike your television experience, the real experiencer is interacting with his environment. Truly experiencing war, for a human being, would mean INTERACTING and experiencing with every available sense; so IMO one would not be experiencing war through television; but this is in no way relevant to sensory experience of the real world. You aren't merely WATCHING the world go by; you are INTERACTING with said world. This is the key difference between your weak pseudo-philosophical analogy and actual fact.

It does not matter whether you assert it forever - a sensed-thing is not a real thing... and there is a distinction between what is sensed and what is real.

Actually, you are the one asserting it forever. All we are saying is, disprove that sensed-things are not accurate representations of true things... and what the functional distinction is. Sensed-fire represents real fire, and real fire will burn and damage me just the same. The fact is, for us, there IS no distinction between a sensed-thing and a real-thing.

The sensed-universe exists within the awareness of whatever it is that I am ("in here").

Wrong - YOUR sensed-universe exists within your awareness. MY sensed-universe exists within MY awareness. There is limited overlap. And the vast majority of the universe exists beyond either of our awarenesses.

Whereas a reality of things must, obviously, exist beyond and separate from whatever it is that I am ("out there").

Yes - the 'sensed-universe' within you is a representation of the real universe out there.

It's basic philosophy Z. If you cannot comprehend this then you shouldn't be here.

If we base attendance on one's ability to understand, you'd have never gotten in the door. Considering the faulty nature of your reasoning and the complete lack of understanding you have of other disciplines, you'll have to excuse me if I place no trust in your 'understanding' of philosophy.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If you don't yet understand the distinction between sensed-space within whatever it is that I am, and real space beyond whatever it is that I am, then you're never going to get very far in a discussion like this.
Only when you will understand that these two situations are exactly identical to whatever it is I am, we will be able to move forward in this discussion.
There is a difference between these two views, but none of these can be observed from within the resulting universe. I refer you to something I asked you earlier:
What is a space? I.e. what do you think a space is?
[...]
In my head a space is a thing that offers the possibility to its occupants to differ in some respect.
If the dimensions of a space are length, the difference is in position. Do you agree with view of space? If not, why? If so, what is the difference beween 'God space' and 'real space'? And I mean differences observable by occupants.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Are your stupid ramblings somehow disguised as intelligent participation?
Please go away and join a Mork & Mindy forum, or something.
So, even you are unable to explain the relationship between your latest bibble and your OP. Doesn't that tell you something about the level of sheer incoherence you're reached?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
So, even you are unable to explain the relationship between your latest bibble and your OP. Doesn't that tell you something about the level of sheer incoherence you're reached?
Read the thread - nobody will address the OP because they say "Matter isn't like that as proved by QM.".
My response has been to show why QM relates to the fundamental energy of "in here" amongst a truly non-spatial awareness, the source of which is the creator of the sensations (of things). That creator is whatever it is that I am.

... As such, QM isn't a knowledge which relates to the reality of "things", but is in fact a knowledge which specifically
reflects the realisations of the above paragraph.

Since nobody will address my OP because of this, I have decided to start a new thread on this very subject which, hopefully, will clarify everything.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Read the thread - nobody will address the OP because they say "Matter isn't like that as proved by QM.".
My response has been to show why QM relates to the fundamental energy of "in here" amongst a truly non-spatial awareness, the source of which is the creator of the sensations (of things). That creator is whatever it is that I am.

... As such, QM isn't a knowledge which relates to the reality of "things", but is in fact a knowledge which specifically
reflects the realisations of the above paragraph.

Since nobody will address my OP because of this, I have decided to start a new thread on this very subject which, hopefully, will clarify everything.

Babble - show us the maths. Otherwise it's just babble. QM needs a knowledge of maths. FYI maths is something like arithmetic but a bit more complicated.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Babble - show us the maths. Otherwise it's just babble. QM needs a knowledge of maths. FYI maths is something like arithmetic but a bit more complicated.
You're clueless mate. I don't need any math to show that QM is the physics of "in here".

You're beginning to sound desperate, 666.

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're clueless mate. I don't need any math to show that QM is the physics of "in here".

You're beginning to sound desperate, 666.

You have miserably and utterly failed to show any convincing evidence why "in here" is in any way different from, seperated from, or dissimilar to "out there". You're sounding desperate yourself, LG.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're clueless mate. I don't need any math to show that QM is the physics of "in here".

You're beginning to sound desperate, 666.

Either you understand the maths or "it is a tale of sound and fury told by an idiot signifying nothing". So you don't understand QM then.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Read the thread - nobody will address the OP because they say "Matter isn't like that as proved by QM.".


Right, so if your argument does not apply, we can drop it.


My response has been to show why QM relates to the fundamental energy of "in here" amongst a truly non-spatial awareness, the source of which is the creator of the sensations (of things). That creator is whatever it is that I am.


No, your response should be to modify your argument, or show is wrong. Unless you do, your argument does not apply.

You response is to reply with the same old same old unexplained gobilygook.


... As such, QM isn't a knowledge which relates to the reality of "things", but is in fact a knowledge which specifically
reflects the realisations of the above paragraph.

Since nobody will address my OP because of this, I have decided to start a new thread on this very subject which, hopefully, will clarify everything.

I'd be a lot easier to respond to if you'd actually spell out what it is you are talking about. Time and time again, we have asked for definitions to phrases like "fundemental energy", but you have not responded.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
Either you understand the maths or "it is a tale of sound and fury told by an idiot signifying nothing". So you don't understand QM then.
The math of QM refer to sensed events occuring within whatever it is that I am.

Explain to this forum why I need to understand the math to make this observation.

Similarly, I could say that the math of relativity refer to sensed events occuring within whatever it is that I am... and I need no understanding of those math to make this observation.

You're either too dense to understand this or, as I suspect, you're just blurting out anything you can think of to try and block my progress... 666.

... Either way, you will not stop me.

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by lifegazer
... Either way, you will not stop me.

Anyone else think of LG as a mad scientist when they read this line?

"You will not stop me...muahahahhahaha!"

[Paul]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The math of QM refer to sensed events occuring within whatever it is that I am.

Explain to this forum why I need to understand the math to make this observation.OK, you can't make a definitive statement about anything without understanding what it is you're talking about.

In other words, if you think you can tell everyone what QM is or means without understanding it yourself, you, sir, are an ass, a plonker, nyaff, bozo and a drongo.
Similarly, I could say that the math of relativity refer to sensed events occuring within whatever it is that I am... and I need no understanding of those math to make this observation.Again, if you don't understand the maths, how can you make an observation that is anything but laughably useless?

Originally posted by Cosmo
Anyone else think of LG as a mad scientist when they read this line?A paranoic perhaps.

[peter lorre]I know I'm right about everything, but they won't listen...they're all out to get me...they think I'm mad but I'm not, I'm not...they just want all the glory for themselves...well they're not going toget it, I'll show them...I'll show them all...Ahahaha haaahahaahaha[/peter lorre]

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Cosmo
Anyone else think of LG as a mad scientist when they read this line?

"You will not stop me...muahahahhahaha!"

Mad sure, but scientist????