Does Matter Really Exist?

[Iacchus]

I'm going to attempt to do this once more, and hopefully I won't get into trouble this time. ;)

Now, these are the words of the Nobel prize winning physicist and, father of quantum physics, Max Planck (http://www.answers.com/topic/atom) ...

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as the result of my research about atoms this much:

THERE IS NO MATTER AS SUCH!

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.Now, I can understand why the mods chose to move the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5) to the Science and Technology forum, however, please understand that Max Planck was a deeply religious man and, that the notion of the "matrix of all matter" has its religious implications as well. Which, is what I really wished to discuss.

In fact if anyone saw the "woo program," The Power of Intention (http://www.aptv.org/Learning/moredetails.asp?ID=90745&Nola=WADY), on Public TV the other night (which quoted Max Planck in full here), it might help bring it all into perspective.

Thanks!

[l0rca]

Max Plank is silly.

[billydkid]

I'm going to attempt to do this once more, and hopefully I won't get into trouble this time. ;)

Now, these are the words of the Nobel prize winning physicist and, father of quantum physics, Max Planck (http://www.answers.com/topic/atom) ...

Now, I can understand why the mods chose to move the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5) to the Science and Technology forum, however, please understand that Max Planck was a deeply religious man and, that the notion of the "matrix of all matter" has its religious implications as well. Which, is what I really wished to discuss.

In fact if anyone saw the "woo program," The Power of Intention (http://www.aptv.org/Learning/moredetails.asp?ID=90745&Nola=WADY), on Public TV the other night (which quoted Max Planck in full here), it might help bring it all into perspective.

Thanks!

I certainly am not going to argue with Max Planck, but I have always thought that contentions like "Nothing is really real" or "matter doesn't really exist" are completely nonsensical. The thing we call existence is what matter does. It is not as though we have other concept of existence other than the kind of existence that matter exhibits. The notion that matter might not really exist suggest that there some sort of more real concept of existence. What matter does is what we call existence.

[Ryokan]

I certainly am not going to argue with Max Planck, but I have always thought that contentions like "Nothing is really real" or "matter doesn't really exist" are completely nonsensical. The thing we call existence is what matter does. It is not as though we have other concept of existence other than the kind of existence that matter exhibits. The notion that matter might not really exist suggest that there some sort of more real concept of existence. What matter does is what we call existence.

Indeed, it's a fun mental and intellectual excersise, but no matter what answer we finally arrive at, it doesn't change anything.

[hodgy]

I certainly am not going to argue with Max Planck, but I have always thought that contentions like "Nothing is really real" or "matter doesn't really exist" are completely nonsensical. The thing we call existence is what matter does. It is not as though we have other concept of existence other than the kind of existence that matter exhibits. The notion that matter might not really exist suggest that there some sort of more real concept of existence. What matter does is what we call existence.

Well said. It why I have great difficulty with the 'spiritual' objections to the material. IMO its all material - it might be strange material but its still material.

[Bob Klase]

We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.

I fail to see why we must assume that.

[c4ts]

If something is intelligible and comprehensible to all of us, sensible in the same way as the same thing, and it is consistent with itself, then it's not going to make a difference whether or not it is real. What can be learned from it, is going to remain true.

[Dancing David]

Indeed, it's a fun mental and intellectual excersise, but no matter what answer we finally arrive at, it doesn't change anything.


Hear Hear!

It doesn't matter!

[Ryokan]

As I grew up I became increasingly interested in philosophy, of which they* profoundly disapproved. Every time the subject came up they repeated with unfailing regularity, "What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind." After some fifty or sixty repetitions, this remark ceased to amuse me.

- Bertrand Russel

* = His family

[Iacchus]

I certainly am not going to argue with Max Planck, but I have always thought that contentions like "Nothing is really real" or "matter doesn't really exist" are completely nonsensical.Is this what he's really saying? I'm not so sure. I think what he's saying is that matter is the extension of something else, the matrix of which we cannot begin to comprehend, unless we had some understanding that the supernatural exists. In other words, whatever it is that gives rise to matter (its form and structure) exists on the other side of it.

The thing we call existence is what matter does. It is not as though we have other concept of existence other than the kind of existence that matter exhibits.Yet the only portal we have of understanding this is through the mind which, is not directly attached to anything physical.

The notion that matter might not really exist suggest that there some sort of more real concept of existence.Yes.

What matter does is what we call existence.Meaning, that part of existence which the mind observes as "physical." Which isn't to say it doesn't exist, however, just that it owes its existence to another system (or matrix) that exists beyond it.

[Iacchus]

I fail to see why we must assume that.Well, if God existed, and we understood this to be the case, it wouldn't be so much a matter of assuming anything would it? Granted, it would be for those who had yet to become "enlightened" but, then again that's the way it works for just about anything.

[Kopji]

I'm going to attempt to do this once more, and hopefully I won't get into trouble this time. - Iacchus

Just curious but do you have any reason to think this might be the case?

We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. - Max Planck
Well he was just plain wrong about that wasn't he? Why must we assume that? Sounds like a 'god of the gaps' assertion: The mind of God must hold these quantum rascals together.

People live in the culture and beliefs of their times. Maybe if Max lived today he would say something different and new.

'Enlightened' is kind of a sucky authoritarian word. When you come to agree with me you are enlightened.

[fishbob]

We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. - Max Planck
And what happens when you assume?
You make an ASS out of U and ME.

[Donks]

Now, these are the words of the Nobel prize winning physicist and, father of quantum physics, Max Planck (http://www.answers.com/topic/atom) ...
So, have you managed to find out when he actually said this or are we still going on the word of "a woo program" and a bunch of websites with no sources?

[Iacchus]

Just curious but do you have any reason to think this might be the case?Obviously that depends.

Well he was just plain wrong about that wasn't he? Why must we assume that?Was he? And why is it that you must assume this?

Sounds like a 'god of the gaps' assertion: The mind of God must hold these quantum rascals together.Yes, this would be entirely true if, God does not exist. So, why must we assume this?

People live in the culture and beliefs of their times. Maybe if Max lived today he would say something different and new. Mabye, maybe not.

'Enlightened' is kind of a sucky authoritarian word. When you come to agree with me you are enlightened.Which, would be entirely contingent upon what we assume, now wouldn't it?

[Iacchus]

So, have you managed to find out when he actually said this or are we still going on the word of "a woo program" and a bunch of websites with no sources?Well, according to this bloke named Gregg Braden (http://newconnexion.net/article/09-01/braden.html), he gave the speech in Florence, Italy. Which, is about all I can come up with I'm afraid.

[CFLarsen]

Well, according to this bloke named Gregg Braden (http://newconnexion.net/article/09-01/braden.html), he gave the speech in Florence, Italy. Which, is about all I can come up with I'm afraid.
Book Review: Gregg Braden, Awakening to Zero Point - The Collective Initiation, by Richard Rockley (http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/braden-book.htm)

Iacchus, if I hit you in the head with a brick, would that convince you that matter exists?

[Iacchus]

Book Review: Gregg Braden, Awakening to Zero Point - The Collective Initiation, by Richard Rockley (http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/braden-book.htm)So, what does this have to do with Max Planck's speech?

Iacchus, if I hit you in the head with a brick, would that convince you that matter exists?Indeed, not if it knocked me unconscious. ;) But then again, I would have to be conscious, to know that anything existed in the first place.

[Donks]

Well, according to this bloke named Gregg Braden (http://newconnexion.net/article/09-01/braden.html), he gave the speech in Florence, Italy. Which, is about all I can come up with I'm afraid.
I'm finding it a little hard to believe that "a statement that shook the foundation of physics in his time" left no trace except for contradicting information from unreliable sources.

[Iacchus]

I'm finding it a little hard to believe that "a statement that shook the foundation of physics in his time" left no trace except for contradicting information from unreliable sources.Well, it was broadcast on Public Television the other night for everyone to see. Are you suggesting that Public Television is an unreliable source? While I agree, if in fact Planck didn't say this during his Nobel acceptance speech, it was a dumb move on the part of the people who produced the program to suggest that he did. Oh, and if you're attempting to refute that he ever said it all, let's not forget the original source (http://www.answers.com/topic/atom) that I cited it from.

[Iacchus]

Indeed, it's a fun mental and intellectual excersise, but no matter what answer we finally arrive at, it doesn't change anything.Yes it does. Because it allows for a change in our perception of reality in one fundamental way. If, in fact consciousness was the basis for all there is, then it opens up the possibility for an existence beyond the grave.

[CFLarsen]

So, what does this have to do with Max Planck's speech?

Nothing. You mentioned Braden, I linked to a review of Braden's book.

Indeed, not if it knocked me unconscious. ;)

Oh, I didn't say I would knock you out. Just hit you in the head.

But then again, I would have to be conscious, to know that anything existed in the first place.

So? Aren't you conscious now? Aren't you when I hit you with the brick?

[David Swidler]

Goddammit, Claus! Watch where you throw that thing! There are other people in this thread besides you and Iacchus, you know!

Sheesh.

[Iacchus]

Nothing. You mentioned Braden, I linked to a review of Braden's book.Nothing? Well, since you mentioned review, here's a review of my book (http://www.dionysus.org/index.htm?x0002.html). :)

Oh, I didn't say I would knock you out. Just hit you in the head.If I shot you with a gun would you bleed? Well, not if it was a squirt gun! :D

So? Aren't you conscious now?Of course.

Aren't you when I hit you with the brick?Not if it hit me hard enough to where I didn't know what hit me. Hmm ...

[Donks]

Well, it was broadcast on Public Television the other night for everyone to see. Are you suggesting that Public Television is an unreliable source? While I agree, if in fact Planck didn't say this during his Nobel acceptance speech, it was a dumb move on the part of the people who produced the program to suggest that he did. Oh, and if you're attempting to refute that he ever said it all, let's not forget the original source (http://www.answers.com/topic/atom) that I cited it from.
If they get the source wrong, then yes I would call whatever show was broadcast on Public Television unreliable. Not everything on PBS is the standard of journalism excellence. As you yourself pointed out, there are some woo programs there. And if you think a collection of dictionary and encyclopedia entries is an "original source" you are sadly mistaken. I'm not attempting to refute it, I am demanding that YOU show that YOUR evidence was not made out of whole cloth.

In any case, want to discuss matter? Fine. Matter as far as anyone can tell is mostly empty space. There is a lot of space between electrons and the nucleus. When you touch something what you feel is not the matter, but the EM repulsion.

[Iacchus]

So? Aren't you conscious now? Aren't you when I hit you with the brick?Of course I'm not denying that the "physical" sensations we experience are real, just that they originate from some other place than we think they do. Which is to say, there is "some-thing" on the other side of matter that holds things together.

[Iacchus]

If they get the source wrong, then yes I would call whatever show was broadcast on Public Television unreliable. Not everything on PBS is the standard of journalism excellence. As you yourself pointed out, there are some woo programs there. And if you think a collection of dictionary and encyclopedia entries is an "original source" you are sadly mistaken. I'm not attempting to refute it, I am demanding that YOU show that YOUR evidence was not made out of whole cloth.What, do you want it straight from horse's mouth? I'm afraid I can't help you there. I already spent 2-3 hours trying to find a source. That's not good enough?

In any case, want to discuss matter? Fine. Matter as far as anyone can tell is mostly empty space. There is a lot of space between atoms, and a lot of space between electrons and the nucleus, etc. When you touch something what you feel is not the matter, but the EM repulsion.So, what is the relation between matter and energy then?

[CFLarsen]

Of course I'm not denying that the "physical" sensations we experience are real, just that they originate from some other place than we think they do. Which is to say, there is "some-thing" on the other side of matter that holds things together.
You don't think that the physical experience you felt by hitting with a brick came from matter?

[Donks]

What, do you want it straight from horse's mouth? I'm afraid I can't help you there. I already spent 2-3 hours trying to find a source. That's not good enough?
Nope. Something that has a date and location, and maybe even the whole speech would be great. I don't know if this is a quote from Max Plank or from Max Power.
So, what is the relation between matter and energy then?
E=mc2

[Iacchus]

You don't think that the physical experience you felt by hitting with a brick came from matter?Does water have a tendency to turn into ice when it gets cold enough? So, what is matter then? Is it strictly matter or, the solidification of something else?

[CFLarsen]

Does water have a tendency to turn into ice when it gets cold enough? So, what is matter then? Is it strictly matter or, the solidification of something else?
What are you talking about??

Answer the question: Did the pain come from matter, yes or no?

[Iacchus]

Nope. Something that has a date and location, and maybe even the whole speech would be great. I don't know if this is a quote from Max Plank or from Max Power.Well, perhaps we should let other folks decide? It is plastered all over the Internet you see and, you would think that if there was some great mistake about him ever having said this, then that would be there too. And thus far I have seen no such thing. So, if you would like to continue with this (whether or not he said it in his acceptance speech which, is the only real contention here), perhaps you would like to continue it in the other thread? (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

E=mc2Yes, you have just defined (according to the symbolism) what energy is. So, what is matter in relation to energy then? Are you suggesting matter is but a subset of energy?

[Donks]

Well, perhaps we should let other folks decide? It is plastered all over the Internet you see and, you would think that if there was some great mistake about him ever having said this, then that would be there too. And thus far I have seen no such thing. So, if you would like to continue with this (whether or not he said it in his acceptance speech which, is the only real contention here), perhaps you would like to continue it in the other thread? (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
I did not continue in the other thread because you are again using the same quote in this one. Just because you create a new thread that does not mean your evidence somehow is no longer up for discussion.
Yes, you have just defined (according to the symbolism) what energy is. So, what is matter in relation to energy then? Are you suggesting matter is but a subset of energy?
Not in the slightest. Here:
m=E/c2

[Iacchus]

What are you talking about??

Answer the question: Did the pain come from matter, yes or no?No, pain comes from the conscious ability to experience pain. So, before we ask what rocks and bricks can do, perhaps we should ask about what consciousness can do ... and, moreover, where is its source?

[Iacchus]

I did not continue in the other thread because you are again using the same quote in this one. Just because you create a new thread that does not mean your evidence somehow is no longer up for discussion.Well, it sounds to me like you have to decide which thread you wish to discuss it in then, because I see no point in discussing it further ... in this thread.

Not in the slightest. Here:
m=E/c2Yet you are merely dividing the energy in order to achieve the mass. ;)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We're going to have this conversation forever, aren't we?

The world is full of "stuff" that has various properties and attributes. It doesn't matter what you call the stuff. It doesn't even matter if you divide the stuff in two or more classes. The taxonomy of the stuff has no bearing on its properties and attributes.

Trying to decide what stuff actually is will prove even more frustrating than trying to define species.

Iacchus, if you want one sort of stuff, say thought, to be the fundamental stuff, and some other sort of stuff, say material, to be subordinate, you're going to have to find evidence for your belief or come up with a logical proof of it.


Does water have a tendency to turn into ice when it gets cold enough? So, what is matter then? Is it strictly matter or, the solidification of something else?
Really bad analogy.

~~ Paul

[Donks]

Well, it sounds to me like you have to decide which thread you wish to discuss it in then, because I see no point in discussing it further ... in this thread.
Just to be perfectly clear, you have no reliable source for the quote. I'll consider the matter dropped now.
Yet you are merely dividing the energy in order to achieve the mass. ;)
You noticed? Basic algebra.

[Tricky]

So what's the point, Iacchus? Even if you were ever able to support this philosophical stance, the result would be, "Matter doesn't exist, but something else which has the exact same characteristics of matter does." You want to call matter something else? Fine. Have a good time trying to explain to others why you call it "conscioglop" or whatever you come up with. Has this philosophical exercise provided any useful insights on the real universe? A rose by any other name, Iacchus.

[Iacchus]

We're going to have this conversation forever, aren't we?I don't know, are we?

The world is full of "stuff" that has various properties and attributes. It doesn't matter what you call the stuff. It doesn't even matter if you divide the stuff in two or more classes. The taxonomy of the stuff has no bearing on its properties and attributes.What is stuff, other than the "stuff" that you are aware of? Thus far, we are only able to prove (to ourselves), that this is stuff is made up of consciousness.

Trying to decide what stuff actually is will prove even more frustrating than trying to define species.So, why do we have all these physicists trying to study it? :confused:

Iacchus, if you want one sort of stuff, say thought, to be the fundamental stuff, and some other sort of stuff, say material, to be subordinate, you're going to have to find evidence for your belief or come up with a logical proof of it.What, do you mean like dreams and visions and out of the body experiences and "stuff" like that?


Really bad analogy.

~~ PaulTell that to the Titanic! :D

Now was it the ice that caused the Titanic to sink or, whaterever the ice was comprised of that caused the Titanic to sink? You can't have ice without water can you?

[hammegk]

... if you want one sort of stuff, say thought, to be the fundamental stuff, and some other sort of stuff, say material, to be subordinate, you're going to have to find evidence for your belief or come up with a logical proof of it.

Oh, you don't find Thought to be self-evident. Hi, whatever-you-are. How do you find matter self-evident?

[RandFan]

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. So what?

We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. It doesn't follow. This fails as a logical proof. Did Max Plank make an argument that would give us a reason to agree with him? Absent such an argument then this is at best just an argument from authority? One that apparently is not held by the vast majority of Max Plank's peers who are also in authority to speak on this subject.

At present the statement is mental masturbation. If you choose to stick god into the gap of understanding as Max is so clearly doing here (assuming Max even said it and even that has not been established) then that is your prerogative but understand you have not given anyone else a reason to agree that we still need god as a place holder for knowledge and discovery.

[Iacchus]

Just to be perfectly clear, you have no reliable source for the quote. I'll consider the matter dropped now. Agreed. I think we should allow the other folks decide. However, I think it's only fair that I repost the original source (http://www.answers.com/topic/atom) from which I copied the quote.

You noticed? Basic algebra.Yes, and there's no denying that it refers to Energy in terms of the whole.

[RandFan]

I love philosophy and I love mental exercises and to consider whether or not the table is actually there or whether or not a tree falling in a forest makes a sound. In the end as others have so pointed out it doesn't MATTER. It might change the way we as individuals perceive the world but it does not change the laws of physics or the underlying foundations of science.

[Donks]

Yes, and there's no denying that it refers to Energy in terms of the whole.
Uh, it refers to the conversion ratio between matter and energy in regards to conservation laws. There is no preferential treatment to mass or energy.

[Iacchus]

I love philosophy and I love mental exercises and to consider whether or not the table is actually there or whether or not a tree falling in a forest makes a sound. In the end as others have so pointed out it doesn't MATTER. It might change the way we as individuals perceive the world but it does not change the laws of physics or the underlying foundations of science.Well, I beg to differ.

Indeed, it's a fun mental and intellectual excersise, but no matter what answer we finally arrive at, it doesn't change anything.

Yes it does. Because it allows for a change in our perception of reality in one fundamental way. If, in fact consciousness was the basis for all there is, then it opens up the possibility for an existence beyond the grave.

[RandFan]

Yes it does. Because it allows for a change in our perception of reality in one fundamental way. If, in fact consciousness was the basis for all there is, then it opens up the possibility for an existence beyond the grave. The possibility exists regardless. The possibility exists that we are but electrical impulses on some kids computer in and advanced version of Sim Earth (http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/DBM1/SimEar.html). Presumptive possibility is not a valid reason to cause most of us to change our behavior or to rethink anything because it doesn't change anything even IF it is true. Further there are many possibilities that could be made based on such assumptions. God is no more relevant or likely than any of the others.

So, I ask again, is there any reason why any of us should accept this theory?

[hammegk]

I love philosophy and I love mental exercises and to consider whether or not the table is actually there or whether or not a tree falling in a forest makes a sound. In the end as others have so pointed out it doesn't MATTER. It might change the way we as individuals perceive the world but it does not change the laws of physics or the underlying foundations of science.
I'd agree that the laws of physics or the underlying foundations of science cannot change. Any change occurs only in the way an individual interprets meaning from what is perceived.

[RandFan]

RandFan
...it does not change the laws of physics or the underlying foundations of science.

Well, I beg to differ. You can beg to differ all you want. I have conceded that it could change our individual perceptions but it does not change the laws of physics or the underlying foundations of science.

I can assume all sorts of things but to what end?

[RandFan]

I'd agree that the laws of physics or the underlying foundations of science cannot change. Any change occurs only in the way an individual interprets meaning from what is perceived. Agreed, and any belief in any diety or theory of existence that is metaphysical is as valid as anyother.

[Bob Klase]

Well, if God existed, and we understood this to be the case, it wouldn't be so much a matter of assuming anything would it? Granted, it would be for those who had yet to become "enlightened" but, then again that's the way it works for just about anything.

Well, if frogs had wings then we could assume they'd fly. But any answer that has so many 'if's' does not answer 'why must we assume'.

Apparently the answer is "if we assume this, and this and this, then we must assume that'. Which is much different than a standalone 'we must assume this'.

[Roboramma]

I read Randfan's comment not as, "would our knowing about it change the universe?", but as "would the universe be different in any meaningful way if X were true than if X were false?".

And of course his/her answer, "No."

(just trying to keep things clear - correct me if I read you wrong)

edited to clarify my own clarification

[RandFan]

...but it does not change the laws of physics or the underlying foundations of science. Tautological. It happens.

[RandFan]

I read Randfan's comment not as, "would our knowing about it change the universe?", but as "would the universe be different in any meaningful way if X were true?".

And of course his/her answer, "No."

(just trying to keep things clear - correct me if I read you wrong) No, that is exactly correct. Thank you.

[hammegk]

IMO, the best one can do is strive for the least number of logical inconsistencies in one's worldview. :)

[Iacchus]

So what?

It doesn't follow. This fails as a logical proof. Did Max Plank make an argument that would give us a reason to agree with him? Absent such an argument then this is at best just an argument from authority? One that apparently is not held by the vast majority of Max Plank's peers who are also in authority to speak on this subject.Which, is probably why (as near as I can tell) we have such a hard time finding evidence that he even said such a thing. Sorry about that Donks.

At present the statement is mental masturbation.For those who choose to masturbate, yes. You do realize that masturbation is a "physical act" don't you? :confused:

If you choose to stick god into the gap of understanding as Max is so clearly doing here (assuming Max even said it and even that has not been established) then that is your prerogative but understand you have not given anyone else a reason to agree that we still need god as a place holder for knowledge and discovery.So, what's the difference between this and saying you choose to believe the world is flat? Obviously Occam's Razor would have been completely useless at the time people believed this now wouldn't it? So, how is it possible to justify anything with respect to Occam's Razor then?

Now, just because we may choose the path of least resistence (bound by the laws of gravity no doubt), does not mean we've done anything to identify a source. For example, how did the apple get up in the tree before it fell? ;)

[CFLarsen]

No, pain comes from the conscious ability to experience pain. So, before we ask what rocks and bricks can do, perhaps we should ask about what consciousness can do ... and, moreover, where is its source?
But that wasn't the question. You asked if matter exists.

You think that your senses are not telling you if things exist or not?

[Iacchus]

So what's the point, Iacchus? Even if you were ever able to support this philosophical stance, the result would be, "Matter doesn't exist, but something else which has the exact same characteristics of matter does." You want to call matter something else? Fine. Have a good time trying to explain to others why you call it "conscioglop" or whatever you come up with. Has this philosophical exercise provided any useful insights on the real universe? A rose by any other name, Iacchus.No, I believe Mr. Planck referred to it as the underlying matrix of which matter is comprised. In which case, yes, there is a lot more to it than just matter itself.

[Moochie]

Book Review: Gregg Braden, Awakening to Zero Point - The Collective Initiation, by Richard Rockley (http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/braden-book.htm)

Iacchus, if I hit you in the head with a brick, would that convince you that matter exists?


I was thinking of a hammer, but a brick will do -- a nice, thick one.

M.

[Iacchus]

But that wasn't the question. You asked if matter exists.Which, of course is just a round about what way of asking what "is" matter? If it is not the basis of all that exists, as the materialists seem to suggest, then it doesn't really exist in "that sense" now does it?

You think that your senses are not telling you if things exist or not?Yes, but who am I -- or, what is it? -- that these "things" are speaking to? If there was no sense of "I," there would be no discussion here.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What is stuff, other than the "stuff" that you are aware of? Thus far, we are only able to prove (to ourselves), that this is stuff is made up of consciousness. All you can "prove" to yourself is that the world has a bunch of attributes, characteristics, and properties. If you want to call those consciousness, be my guest. But don't try to claim that your word is somehow more apt than material or consciglop.

So, why do we have all these physicists trying to study it? They are studying the properties. They are not trying to decide what it actually is.

What, do you mean like dreams and visions and out of the body experiences and "stuff" like that? That is evidence about the behavior of the mind. It is not evidence about what actually exists. Anyway, I can support material as the fundamental existent using the same sort of clever statement: You mean like the fact that the universe continues on even when I'm not paying attention?

Now was it the ice that caused the Titanic to sink or, whaterever the ice was comprised of that caused the Titanic to sink? You can't have ice without water can you? Uh, no, because ice is water.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh, you don't find Thought to be self-evident. Hi, whatever-you-are. How do you find matter self-evident?
What is self-evident, if anything, are certain properties of the world. It doesn't matter what you call them.

~~ Paul

[Iacchus]

Now, just because we may choose the path of least resistence (bound by the laws of gravity no doubt), does not mean we've done anything to identify a source. For example, how did the apple get up in the tree before it fell? ;)In other words, the fact that apples fall from trees is not the source of gravity.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

IMO, the best one can do is strive for the least number of logical inconsistencies in one's worldview. That is a reasonable goal. I think if you managed to strive hard enough, harder than any philosopher so far, you'd end up with a set of consistent properties of the world. Then you could make up any name you liked for those properties. I'm afraid consciglop doesn't really do it for me, though. :D

~~ Paul

[RandFan]

For those who choose to masturbate, yes. You do realize that masturbation is a "physical act" don't you? :confused: You do know what a metaphor (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metaphor) is don't you? :(

If not then you might want to avoid the bible and literature in general until you do.

So, what's the difference between this and saying you choose to believe the world is flat? Obviously Occam's Razor would have been completely useless at the time people believed this now wouldn't it? So, how is it possible to justify anything with respect to Occam's Razor then?

Now, just because we may choose the path of least resistence (bound by the laws of gravity no doubt), does not mean we've done anything to identify a source. For example, how did the apple get up in the tree before it fell? :wink: I don't know what you are saying. You seem to be making my point. Why should we assume that which we don't know? There is no reason for me to assume god has anything to do with my existence therefore I don't think god has anything to do with my existence. I DON'T make my assumptions any more complicated than they need be. Imagining an all thinking dragon who breathed fire and thus started my existence is fun and perhaps when I die I will become a fire breathing dragon but what REASON to I have to suppose that I might become a fire breathing dragon when I die?

[Iacchus]

They are studying the properties. They are not trying to decide what it actually is.What "is," is the fact that they are studying, and that's it. ;)

[CFLarsen]

Which, of course is just a round about what way of asking what "is" matter? If it is not the basis of all that exists, as the materialists seem to suggest, then it doesn't really exist in "that sense" now does it?

Yes, but who am I -- or, what is it? -- that these "things" are speaking to? If there was no sense of "I," there would be no discussion here.

:hb:

[Iacchus]

Well, if it is "all" comprised of the same thing, then it must be consciouness, because consciousness is the only "thing" that will speak to us about it.

[hammegk]

I'm afraid consciglop doesn't really do it for me, though. :D

~~ Paul
Me either, yet I await your defense of your standpoint that thought does not exist. ;)

[Iacchus]

God is no more relevant or likely than any of the others.Yes, and the earth is flat.

So, I ask again, is there any reason why any of us should accept this theory?Beyond your ability to reason about it I would say none. :eye-poppi

[Roboramma]

Yes, and the earth is flat.

Iacchus, the point about the earth being flat better supports Randfan's point than yours. Well, this is how I see it anyway:

There was a time when people didn't know much about the world. They only had so much data to go on. That data being their immediate surroundings. Their experience through their life.

The earth is a very large sphere. Any local measurement will not be precise enough to discover the curvature, especially amidst all the noise of hills and valleys.

So, from the data that they collected they could say something - the curvature of their local area, when factoring out the noise, was within certain bounds. By extension it could be hypothesized that the rest of the planet followed a similar curvature.

But the hypothesis that the earth is flat goes further. It says - our observational evidence is accurate only to this degree X, but we go beyond that and suppose that it is actually flat, rather than simply saying what the evidence can tell us, that the curvature falls within certain bounds.
The fallacy comes about from an unwillingness to admit ignorance. That some fact must be given, in spite of the fact that none is supported.

And that is exactly what you are doing with God. The evidence says that any number of things could be true. You take that to mean that God exists. It's no different from the evidence saying that curvature could fall anywhere along a spectrum and taking that to mean that it is flat, rather than simply near-flat.

[Iacchus]

That is evidence about the behavior of the mind. It is not evidence about what actually exists. Anyway, I can support material as the fundamental existent using the same sort of clever statement: You mean like the fact that the universe continues on even when I'm not paying attention?According to Mr. Planck, consciousness encourages a state of vibration, which is a state of "on" versus "off," and a state of "on" again, etc., etc. Which is to say, it's capable of accompanying a state of awareness versus the lack thereof at the same time.

[Roboramma]

You still haven't shown that Plank actually said that.

Until that's been shown, why not stop assuming that he actually did say it?

[Iacchus]

Iacchus, the point about the earth being flat better supports Randfan's point than yours. Well, this is how I see it anyway:

There was a time when people didn't know much about the world. They only had so much data to go on. That data being their immediate surroundings. Their experience through their life.Yes, and there was a time (I'm speaking about currently) when people didn't know much about God. Now, how does this differ from what you're saying? Are saying that it's already been established that God does not exist? This I'm afraid, is the only way that I can take it to mean.

[Roboramma]

No, what I'm saying is that we neither know that God exists nor that God does not exist.
This does not support making the assumption that God does exist.

We also no absolutely nothing about what attributes said God would have if it did exist. So we should not make any assumption about those either, until we have evidence for them.

Occam's razor is a way of choosing between viewpoints that have equal explanatory power on a provisional basis. It doesn't offer truth. It offers a basis for provisional belief.
I would suggest that there is evidence for the no-god-hypothesis, but I don't feel like getting into that right now, and it's not what I'm arguing.

This is: suggesting that because there is no evidence, we should assume God, or even worse, assume a God with certain qualities, is like saying that people should have assumed that the earth was a giant pyramid balanced on a dolphin's nose until they had evidence to the contrary.

[Cosmo]

I'm going to attempt to do this once more, and hopefully I won't get into trouble this time. ;)

Now, these are the words of the Nobel prize winning physicist and, father of quantum physics, Max Planck (http://www.answers.com/topic/atom) ...

Now, I can understand why the mods chose to move the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5) to the Science and Technology forum, however, please understand that Max Planck was a deeply religious man and, that the notion of the "matrix of all matter" has its religious implications as well. Which, is what I really wished to discuss.

In fact if anyone saw the "woo program," The Power of Intention (http://www.aptv.org/Learning/moredetails.asp?ID=90745&Nola=WADY), on Public TV the other night (which quoted Max Planck in full here), it might help bring it all into perspective.

Thanks!

Because no one has said it yet...

...argument from authority?

[Iacchus]

You still haven't shown that Plank actually said that.Yes, but according to Occam's Razor, it's much easier to accept the fact that he did. And no, I don't mean at his Nobel acceptance speach which, at this time, there doesn't seem to be any evidence for. I have already conceded this much. While it's rather plain to me why people would stretch things a bit to make such an association. It's not plain to you? Or, does this give you the excuse to say they made up the whole thing for the same reason?

But then again, we must also remember it's not so much a matter of who's saying it, as what's being said. Which has clearly been my point in starting this thread.

Until that's been shown, why not stop assuming that he actually did say it?So, how do you know that Christopher Columbus actually discovered America? Because you read about it in a book somewhere? This is the only evidence that I'm aware or, because of what my teahcers have told me. So, why don't we stop assuming Christopher Columbus discovered America? The history books could be wrong you know. ;)

[Iacchus]

This is: suggesting that because there is no evidence, we should assume God, or even worse, assume a God with certain qualities, is like saying that people should have assumed that the earth was a giant pyramid balanced on a dolphin's nose until they had evidence to the contrary.And what you and other folks around here fail to realize -- or, so it would seem -- is that "evidence" is in the mind of the beholder. For example, do you think a plumber, based upon what is "evident" to him (in his mind), could tell a brain surgeon how to perform brain surgery? Yet there is nothing about a plumber's experience (what he knows to be true) that is any less valid than a brain surgeon's experience is there?

[CFLarsen]

So, how do you know that Christopher Columbus actually discovered America? Because you read about it in a book somewhere? This is the only evidence that I'm aware or, because of what my teahcers have told me. So, why don't we stop assuming Christopher Columbus discovered America? The history books could be wrong you know. ;)

It's not the only source we have.

People actually live there. I've lived there. Lots of people from this board visit (at least) once a year. We have books written about America, written in America. We have movies from America. Audio recordings. Photos. You can go there, if you like.

Are you suggesting that all this evidence is merely a phantom? Just yes or no.

Now, listen to me: I don't want to hear you redefine terms. I don't want to hear your excuses. I don't want to hear anything else but a "Yes" or a "No".

[CFLarsen]

And what you and other folks around here fail to realize -- or, so it would seem -- is that "evidence" is in the mind of the beholder. For example, do you think a plumber, based upon what is "evident" to him (in his mind), could tell a brain surgeon how to perform brain surgery? Yet there is nothing about a plumber's experience (what he knows to be true) that is any less valid than a brain surgeon's experience is there?

Have you ever flown in an aeroplane?

Or driven a car?

[Iacchus]

It's not the only source we have.

People actually live there. I've lived there. Lots of people from this board visit (at least) once a year. We have books written about America, written in America. We have movies from America. Audio recordings. Photos. You can go there, if you like.Yes, I do in fact live here in America. So, what does that have to do with whether Christopher Columbus discovered it or not?

Are you suggesting that all this evidence is merely a phantom? Just yes or no.No.

Now, listen to me: I don't want to hear you redefine terms. I don't want to hear your excuses. I don't want to hear anything else but a "Yes" or a "No".Exactly.

[Iacchus]

Have you ever flown in an aeroplane?Yes, a few times.

Or driven a car?All the time.

[CFLarsen]

Yes, I do in fact live here in America. So, what does that have to do with whether Christopher Columbus discovered it or not?

Because his account was supported by others. What he found, was supported by later findings. It's not as if we have his account of America and nothing else.

Matter exists, because you get hit with the brick. It exists, because you have flown in an aeroplane and driven a car - and so have others.

Your OP is answered. But I seriously doubt that you understand.

[Iacchus]

You do know what a metaphor (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metaphor) is don't you? :(

If not then you might want to avoid the bible and literature in general until you do.Oh really, I thought that because materialists assume that only material things exist, you were only capable of taking things literally. Sorry, my mistake.

[Iacchus]

Because his account was supported by others. What he found, was supported by later findings. It's not as if we have his account of America and nothing else.Yes, this is what I read in a book and, is what my teachers told me.

Matter exists, because you get hit with the brick. It exists, because you have flown in an aeroplane and driven a car - and so have others.

Your OP is answered. But I seriously doubt that you understand.And do you remember this? ...

But that wasn't the question. You asked if matter exists.

Which, of course is just a round about what way of asking what "is" matter? If it is not the basis of all that exists, as the materialists seem to suggest, then it doesn't really exist in "that sense" now does it?Now, all I'm suggesting is that it doesn't exist in the sense that we think it exists, not that it's not there.

[Kopji]

Was he? And why is it that you must assume this?...

Because I didn't reach the same conclusion Max did even though he said I must. His conclusion seems in addition to being wrong, unimaginative. He seems like a smarter guy than that though, maybe the show took him out of context. It would be nice to see the original source material.


Yes, this would be entirely true if, God does not exist. So, why must we assume this?

Don't let me stop you from assuming God exists. I'm not the one making assertions though. So what is God like? Is he kind? Strong? Big? Small?


Which, would be entirely contingent upon what we assume, now wouldn't it?

I can agree that there is a sense in which we 'create' our world by how we view it. Attitude matters and is an agent of creative change. At a deeper level it is always good to understand how things really are, not just as we would choose to see them. That seems axiomatic: that knowledge represents understanding something as it really is and not only as it appears to be. Even if you argued that there were only 'appearances', that represents a deeper knowledge doesn't it? Solipsism and relativism seem to end in this kind of circular reasoning that refutes them.

Are ideas like 'God' simply perspectives that have served to help us survive through our evolution? If so it is good to know that is the way it is. Because this god survives on our sacrifices.

[Iacchus]

Because I didn't reach the same conclusion Max did even though he said I must. His conclusion seems in addition to being wrong, unimaginative. He seems like a smarter guy than that though, maybe the show took him out of context. It would be nice to see the original source material. Well, maybe he didn't expect people to be so affronted by what he said at that time? You know, back in the days when people were still fresh and naive, and had a spirit of wonder about things?

Don't let me stop you from assuming God exists. I'm not the one making assertions though. So what is God like? Is he kind? Strong? Big? Small? I don't know, I can't say that I know Him personally. Which, isn't to say I can't know of Him through what I am. Or, if I was to say anything, I would say that He is very patient.

I can agree that there is a sense in which we 'create' our world by how we view it. Attitude matters and is an agent of creative change. At a deeper level it is always good to understand how things really are, not just as we would choose to see them. That seems axiomatic: that knowledge represents understanding something as it really is and not only as it appears to be. Even if you argued that there were only 'appearances', that represents a deeper knowledge doesn't it? Solipsism and relativism seem to end in this kind of circular reasoning that refutes them. Yes, I believe that reality is absolute.

Are ideas like 'God' simply perspectives that have served to help us survive through our evolution? If so it is good to know that is the way it is. Because this god survives on our sacrifices.Yes, at the very least ...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well, if it is "all" comprised of the same thing, then it must be consciouness, because consciousness is the only "thing" that will speak to us about it.
I do not know what this means.


Me either, yet I await your defense of your standpoint that thought does not exist.
I can't find where I said this.


According to Mr. Planck, consciousness encourages a state of vibration, which is a state of "on" versus "off," and a state of "on" again, etc., etc. Which is to say, it's capable of accompanying a state of awareness versus the lack thereof at the same time.
I do not know what this means.

~~ Paul

[RandFan]

Yes, and the earth is flat. Not based on any objective evidence. There is objective, demonstrable, emperical data (http://www.badastronomy.com/bitesize/flatearth.html) that the world is round (spherical).

Beyond your ability to reason about it I would say none. This is non-responsive. I'm not asking about our ability to reason. I'm asking IF there is a A reason. By "reason" I mean,

A.) Demonstrable data.

B.) Logical proof.

Do you have any demonstrable data or do you have a logical proof?

Look,

1.) I have many reasons to believe the world is roughly spherical.

2.) I have reason to believe that mater is as it appears.

3.) I have no reason to believe that the world was created by a fire breathing dragon.

One more time, and let me be crystal clear is there logical *reason to suppose that god created the world? Please see the dictionary definition below for my usage of the word. Based on this definition, is there reason?
rea.son Pronunciation Key (http://forums.randi.org/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (rhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifzhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifn)
n.

An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.

[RandFan]

Oh really, I thought that because materialists assume that only material things exist, you were only capable of taking things literally. Sorry, my mistake. Perhaps you shouldn't assume what others believe.

[RandFan]

Iacchus, the point about the earth being flat better supports Randfan's point than yours. Well, this is how I see it anyway:

There was a time when people didn't know much about the world. They only had so much data to go on. That data being their immediate surroundings. Their experience through their life.

The earth is a very large sphere. Any local measurement will not be precise enough to discover the curvature, especially amidst all the noise of hills and valleys.

So, from the data that they collected they could say something - the curvature of their local area, when factoring out the noise, was within certain bounds. By extension it could be hypothesized that the rest of the planet followed a similar curvature.

But the hypothesis that the earth is flat goes further. It says - our observational evidence is accurate only to this degree X, but we go beyond that and suppose that it is actually flat, rather than simply saying what the evidence can tell us, that the curvature falls within certain bounds.
The fallacy comes about from an unwillingness to admit ignorance. That some fact must be given, in spite of the fact that none is supported.

And that is exactly what you are doing with God. The evidence says that any number of things could be true. You take that to mean that God exists. It's no different from the evidence saying that curvature could fall anywhere along a spectrum and taking that to mean that it is flat, rather than simply near-flat. Very good response.

[Iacchus]

Perhaps you shouldn't assume what others believe.Exactly.

[Iacchus]

Because I didn't reach the same conclusion Max did even though he said I must. His conclusion seems in addition to being wrong, unimaginative. He seems like a smarter guy than that though, maybe the show took him out of context. It would be nice to see the original source material. Well, it looks like we might be getting closer ... I think?

From this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/March_2004_II#Trying_to_locate_statement_by_Plank_ that_there.27s_no_matter.2C_only_energy_and_that_b ehind_everything_is_a_concious.2C_aware_mind_that_ is_the_matrix_to_tying_everything_together.)

The German version (presumably the original) is also abundantly quoted on the Web without citation, but several pages say that Planck said this in a talk entitled "Das Wesen der Materie" (the essence/nature/character of matter) he gave in 1944 in Florence:Or, try Googling this ... Max Planck, during a lecture in Florence, Italy ... matrix of all matter (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Max+Planck%2C+during+a+lecture+in+Florence%2C+It aly+...+matrix+of+all+matter&btnG=Search)

While here's the same search on AltaVista (http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=Max+Planck%2C+during+a+lecture+in+Florence%2C+It aly+...+matrix+of+all+matter&kgs=1&kls=0) ...

[RandFan]

Exactly. ? Could you be more cryptic?

[Iacchus]

? Could you be more cryptic?You have no idea where the hell I've been. So, why do you assume otherwise?

[bruto]

Iaccus, with regard to Columbus. It's just ridiculous and foolish to suggest if we doubt the Planck quotation we should doubt Coumbus's voyages because we've only read it "in a book." I have read more than one book that mentions Columbus and his discoveries, and his rather sordid subsequent history. The voyages of Columbus were of international importance when he made them, and even if details of the reporting turn out to be incorrect, it would take a wild stretch of the imagination to suggest that they didn't happen. Are you suggesting that we should discount all history because we have not lived it ourselves? Numerous persons with different agendas and different points of view have written numerous books and articles on Columbus and his history, sufficient to make it reasonable to assume that things happened more or less as reported. Maps were drawn, records kept.

One has the right to question your use of a quotation from Max Planck if you cannot come up with a better attribution, though I'm not sure it ultimately matters, since we have no more reason to consider Planck an authority on God than we do anyone else.

That being said, it's my understanding that Planck was strongly religious, and that the quotation would not be out of character. What that means for philosophy, though, is approximately nothing if, as it appears, Planck was a Christian all his life, and managed to reconcile science with religion as many have. I have found no evidence that his religious beliefs were derived from his scientific work, and if there's any evidence that Planck ever asserted that his religious convictions arose out of his scientific inquiries, or his conception of God was derived, somehow, from scientific evidence (rather than simply being found to fit in with it), I have certainly not seen it, and if you intend to imply it you'd do well to dig it up yourself.

What we have so far is a lifelong Christian who also happened to be a great physicist, stating his personal belief. I find that mildly interesting but otherwise pretty unproductive.

[Iacchus]

What we have so far is a lifelong Christian who also happened to be a great physicist, stating his personal belief. I find that mildly interesting but otherwise pretty unproductive.Yes, and of course, you are merely speaking for yourself. ;)

[RandFan]

You have no idea where the hell I've been. So, why do you assume otherwise? ? This doesn't follow from anything that I have said. I make no such assumptions. Why do you suppose that I do?

[Iacchus]

? This doesn't follow from anything that I have said. I make no such assumptions. Why do you suppose that I do?No, why do you assume that I know any less about God than you do? Why do you, and others like you, assume that nothing is known about God? Isn't this in effect what you have said? And yet you turn around and have the gall to say ...

Perhaps you shouldn't assume what others believe.So, why do you continue to promote such a fallacy? And, before you consider asking me to provide any evidence for, whatever reason must be deemed empirical, consider what I just said.

[Iacchus]

One more time, and let me be crystal clear is there logical *reason to suppose that god created the world? Please see the dictionary definition below for my usage of the word. Based on this definition, is there reason?Yes, but how can you explain such reasoning if, God does exist? Are you telling us all that you don't know God exists but, that it's okay to assume that He doesn't anyway? You see, you would much rather assume that I don't know what I'm talking about.

[Roboramma]

"Iacchus is wrong about the point he is making in this thread, as in most others." - Albert Einstein.

I have no evidence that he did in fact say this, but Occam's razor suggest that since I said it, it is most likely true. Anyway, until someone can show otherwise, I'll just treat it as though it were.

Clearly the correct asumption is that he did in fact say this.

So, Iacchus, what do you have to say to Mr. Einstein?

[Trifikas]

Oh, for crying out loud..

This is happening like clockwork.. "Another post on the nature of matter and how it proves the existance of a supernatural being and will change our perception of reality forever?..That reminds me, I need to change the batteries in my smoke detector..."

bad news: Even if God does exist, it won't change anything about our perception of the universe. What are people expecting?

"Okay, this apple is red"
"Hold on, GOD made that apple"
"uh..okay..This apple is blue"

Ain't gonna happen.

But, heck. I'm willing to give it a fair turn. Scientific Method, taken from: http://www.inquiringminds.org/education/definitions-scientific-method.html

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis.
3. Testing the hypothesis.
4. Test by others.

So, what's our step one here. What Phenomenon are we working on here?

Trifikas

[RandFan]

No, why do you assume that I know any less about God than you do? I don't know anything about god. I have always assumed that our knowledge was par.

Why do you, and others like you, assume that nothing is known about God? "Known"? Don't you mean "believed"? God is the realm of faith and not knowledge.

Isn't this in effect what you have said? In effect I'm saying that there is no demonstrable, objective or empirical evidence that god exists. In effect I'm saying that one person's belief is just as valid as anothers. If someone wants to worship a fire breathing dragon or an invisible pink unicorn that is fine. However, if I ask for a REASON to believe in a fire breathing dragon or an invisible pink unicorn then I shouldn't get a load of grief.

Iacchus
And yet you turn around and have the gall to say ...

Perhaps you shouldn't assume what others believe. Please to tell me when I ever assumed what you believed?

So, why do you continue to promote such a fallacy? WHAT FALLACY? Please stop this. Slow down, take a deep breath, re-read the thread. You are making unfounded assumptions about me. Again, please stop.

And, before you consider asking me to provide any evidence for, whatever reason must be deemed empirical, consider what I just said. I don't know where you are getting this? I ask you to stop. Please address directly what I say and not invent things in your head.

1.) I don't assume to know what you know or what you believe.

2.) I'm perfectly happy with anyone believing in god. If you choose to believe in god that is fine with me.

3.) Max Planck's conclusion doesn't follow from his premises.

4.) At best his words that you post constitute an argument from authority.

5.) Many if not most of Max's peers disagree with him. (Please see Project Steve and the Appeal to Authority (http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000095.html) )

6.) You have not provided me any reason as to why I should believe in god.

These are my positions. If you have a problem with them then address them but please stick to them and not straw men.

[RandFan]

Yes, but how can you explain such reasoning if, God does exist? {sigh} Explain WHAT reasoning? What the sam hell are you talking about?

Are you telling us all that you don't know God exists but, that it's okay to assume that He doesn't anyway?
I'm saying that I don't know if fire breathing dragons exist.
I'm saying that I don't know if invisible pink unicorns exist.
I'm saying that I don't know if fairies, leprechauns and pot's of gold at the end of the rainbow exist.
I'm saying that one belief is as good as another and until someone gives me REASON to believe then I'm not going to and I damn well hope that is okay. I'm not living in a theocracy for Ed's sake.
You see, you would much rather assume that I don't know what I'm talking about. NO, NO, NO!!!!!

This is an invention in your head. I'm not interested in making any such judgments. I only care if you can provide me or anyone else reason why I should change my mind about beliefs and superstitions. What you believe is your choice. I respect that. This is not what this discussion is about. As I have said, I like philosophy. I don't mind such discussions. Just keep in mind that at the end of the day there is no practical application to such musings.

Look Iacchus, you started a thread with a post that contained an assumption. I'm challenging that assumption.

Do you have any reason why I should change my mind? That is all that I have asked.

[Iacchus]

I don't know anything about god. I have always assumed that our knowledge was par.

Please to tell me when I ever assumed what you believed?Wow, and in the very same post. You don't even realize what you just said. That's amazing!

[Mercutio]

Iacchus, one could easily make the observation that Randfan's first "assumption" above is termed an assumption out of politeness; more accurately, it would be termed a "conclusion" based on the level of knowledge you have demonstrated in your posts. If we, as his second quote suggests, assume nothing about your belief, but instead base our understanding of your beliefs purely on what you have written here, we can easily conclude that you have no more knowledge about god than anyone else does.

And frankly, I am being charitable in that conclusion.

[bruto]

Wow, and in the very same post. You don't even realize what you just said. That's amazing!

Assuming you know nothing is not assuming you believe nothing. Is it possible that you actually cannot grasp that distinction?

[Belz...]

Is this what he's really saying? I'm not so sure. I think what he's saying is that matter is the extension of something else, the matrix of which we cannot begin to comprehend, unless we had some understanding that the supernatural exists. In other words, whatever it is that gives rise to matter (its form and structure) exists on the other side of it.


Translation: "Wouldn't it be neat if the mind was the source of existence ? Well, wouldn't it ?? Guys ?"

[Belz...]

Now, all I'm suggesting is that it doesn't exist in the sense that we think it exists, not that it's not there.

Your suggestions are pointless, Iacchus, as always, unless you can somehow show that it represents our universe better than our current conception of it.

[RandFan]

Wow, and in the very same post. You don't even realize what you just said. That's amazing! There is nothing that can be "known" about god. There is plenty to be "believed". I will repeat myself, god is not the realm of knowledge. God is the realm of faith.

To be fair I did say, "I don't assume to know what you know or what you believe." However, since one cannot know anything about god then it is safe to assume that you and I both don't know anything about god. If that is cause for contention then let me restate the above.

I don't assume to know what you know (except that which I understand is unknowable) or what you believe.

Bottom line, belief and knowledge are two differnt things. If you say you KNOW god lives or that you know any specific properties or atributes about god then I can't prove that you don't. Absent any evidence to the contrary I can only assume that you don't. I concede that I could be wrong.

My thanks to Mercutio and bruto.

[Iacchus]

Assuming you know nothing is not assuming you believe nothing. Is it possible that you actually cannot grasp that distinction?And to assume that I know nothing is strictly a matter of belief on your part. You have no idea what I know.

[Iacchus]

Something tells me that I've spent way too much time on this thread. So, in answer to your question Paul ...

We're going to have this conversation forever, aren't we?Maybe not.

[Mercutio]

And to assume that I know nothing is strictly a matter of belief on your. You have no idea what I know.
But to conclude that you know nothing is strictly a matter of being swayed by the evidence of your posts. If we have no idea what you know, it is because you have not yet demonstrated this knowledge. You evade, avoid being pinned down, and when you do make statements of fact, they are more often than not in opposition to evidence. (I can give examples of your lack of understanding of evolution and natural selection, your lack of understanding of the process of dreaming, your lack of understanding of brain processes, your lack of understanding of the dimensions of time-space, and your lack of understanding of the logical fallacies you employ despite multiple corrections. If you need more, I am sure some could be dredged up.)

Again, if we have no idea what you know, there is a simple explanation.

[Iacchus]

With experience comes knowing.

[cyborg]

With experience, comes knowing.

...of your experiences.

Your point?

[Belz...]

With experience comes knowing.

Pankakes are the yellow druids of great brains!

[Iacchus]

...of your experiences.

Your point?I know what I know. If you don't believe this, then how can you tell me otherwise?

[cyborg]

I know what I know.

So what?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

With experience comes knowing.
See my first sig quote.

~~ Paul

[Mercutio]

I know what I know. If you don't believe this, then how can you tell me otherwise?
What, then, is it that you do know? I believe that you know what you know; that statement is trivially true for everyone from the smartest to the dumbest. X knows what X knows.

So...what is it that you do know? Care to share it with us? With experience comes...well, experience. You have not yet demonstrated that experience has blessed you with "knowing"; too many things your experience has led you to believe run counter to the evidence the rest of the world has experienced.

So, please. Enlighten us, so we don't misrepresent your knowledge again. What is it that you do know?

[RandFan]

And to assume that I know nothing is strictly a matter of belief on your part. You have no idea what I know. The point is, that you do not have any knowledge of any attributes or properties of god. You have beliefs but not knowledge.

If knowledge were possible there would be few if any atheists.

[bruto]

And to assume that I know nothing is strictly a matter of belief on your part. You have no idea what I know.

I was not addressing either what you know or what you believe, but a post in which you appeared to be suggesting that they are cognate, which they are not.

I do, as a separate issue, believe that you have no knowledge of God, and like it or not that is an idea of what you know, even if it's a bad one.

[Belz...]

I know what I know. If you don't believe this, then how can you tell me otherwise?

I thought you argued that you can't know, just believe.

[Belz...]

And to assume that I know nothing is strictly a matter of belief on your part. You have no idea what I know.

I'm not even sure that YOU know what you know.

[Dancing David]

Does water have a tendency to turn into ice when it gets cold enough? So, what is matter then? Is it strictly matter or, the solidification of something else?


Take the time to study something other than the inside of your head, the only time that matter does not act like energy when it is really cold. Google Bose Einstien Condensate.

[Iacchus]

I thought you argued that you can't know, just believe.It's all part of the same process. This is why some of us call it faith.

[Iacchus]

I'm not even sure that YOU know what you know.Yes, and that's about as far as you can take it.

[hammegk]

.... the only time that matter does not act like energy when it is really cold. Google Bose Einstien Condensate.
Huh? Does that pair of unrelated comments mean something to you?

[Mercutio]

It's all part of the same process. This is why some of us call it faith.Remember, as you have been told before, there is belief because of evidence, belief in the absence of evidence, and belief against evidence. The first is not properly called "faith"; the second and third are. The last is, of course, your specialty.

I can see why you would want to call all three "faith"; it is an attempt to put the weakest belief on par with the strongest. It is, however, dishonest. It is especially dishonest when you have been shown this before.

[Iacchus]

Remember, as you have been told before, there is belief because of evidence, belief in the absence of evidence, and belief against evidence. The first is not properly called "faith"; the second and third are. The last is, of course, your specialty.

I can see why you would want to call all three "faith"; it is an attempt to put the weakest belief on par with the strongest. It is, however, dishonest. It is especially dishonest when you have been shown this before.Okay, it's all part of the "belief" process. So, what's the difference? I may in fack "know" something, when another person can only "believe" it.

[Iacchus]

So...what is it that you do know? Care to share it with us? With experience comes...well, experience. You have not yet demonstrated that experience has blessed you with "knowing"; too many things your experience has led you to believe run counter to the evidence the rest of the world has experienced.What I know is not of this world. So, if you wish to understand, perhaps you should consider it from a different point of reference? As Mr. Planck seems to imply, this matrix, exists on the other side of matter, hence the other side of time and space.

[Iacchus]

The point is, that you do not have any knowledge of any attributes or properties of god. And there you go again!

You have beliefs but not knowledge.And what if what I believed was based upon what I know? You in fact do not know what I know.

If knowledge were possible there would be few if any atheists.Only if you insist on looking outside of yourselves ...

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. ~ Luke 17:20-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=17&version=9)

[hammegk]

Huh? Does that pair of unrelated comments mean something to you?
Whoops. Sorry DD, my mistake ... Condensate ...

[Tricky]

Okay, it's all part of the "belief" process. So, what's the difference? I may in fack "know" something, when another person can only "believe" it.
So perhaps you could describe this "belief process" for us. How does a belief graduate to being knowledge? Does it require evidence? Logic? Or do you just believe it more strongly?

[RandFan]

And there you go again! Well, by all means Iacchus, give it up. Tell us about this empirical knowledge. Prove to us all once and for all that god lives. I can't wait I tell you. Please, stop keeping it all to yourself. What are these attributes or properties that you "know".

And what if what I believed was based upon what I know? You in fact do not know what I know. Well, if what you believe is based on what you know then it isn't faith based, right? If it isn't faith based then it must be based on some objective evidence, right?

Please to share with us this objective evidence?

Only if you insist on looking outside of yourselves ... Inside is subjective. Inside is subject to error. Intuition that is not supported by objective evidence is what's known as faith.

Looking inside gives us hundreds if not thousands of religions and beliefs. Everyone is certain that their belief is correct but many contradict each other and many are contradicted by objective evidence. I don't mind looking inside but when it comes to choosing what I believe between competing ideas I will look outside. If no data is available then I will have to pass.

If you claim you "know" then fine. I can't prove you don't. But I have no reason to suppose that your knowledge is better than the guy who knows that paganism is the one true religion.

[Iacchus]

So perhaps you could describe this "belief process" for us. How does a belief graduate to being knowledge? Does it require evidence? Logic? Or do you just believe it more strongly?I know that I exist, and the sensations that coincide with it. Everything else that I know is merely an extension of this. It's called experience.

[Shadownexius]

Well even if you all babble on about whether you know something or not...you really dont know anything for certain. Nothing is absolute in that not even the basic laws, concepts and theories, or definitions of anything are constant or follow any dictated rules or limitations. Example of why nothing is absolute is time. Time exists in the perspective as the lack of absolute or constant. Matter as pertaining to the original post, can't be proven to exist in that it is a concept based on interpretation. In reality their is nothing in this universe, even the universe itself as a concept, that can absolutely proven as realistic or proven a a concept rather then a misinterpreted perspective of its' inhabitants.

[Iacchus]

Inside is subjective. Inside is subject to error. Intuition that is not supported by objective evidence is what's known as faith.Ah, but the only thing that is real, and knows that it is real, is on the inside. This is how I know ... or, at the very least, know where to look.

[Iacchus]

Well even if you all babble on about whether you know something or not...So, you're another one of those folks who assumes I don't know what I'm talking about, correct?

you really dont know anything for certain. Nothing is absolute in that not even the basic laws, concepts and theories, or definitions of anything are constant or follow any dictated rules or limitations.Yet something must be absolute, otherwise what do we base our "relative" observations on? Isn't this something that Kant said, about the "thing itself," versus our observation of it?

Example of why nothing is absolute is time. Time exists in the perspective as the lack of absolute or constant. Matter as pertaining to the original post, can't be proven to exist in that it is a concept based on interpretation. In reality their is nothing in this universe, even the universe itself as a concept, that can absolutely proven as realistic or proven a a concept rather then a misinterpreted perspective of its' inhabitants."I" exist in the center of what "I" experience, and that to me, is very much real.

[Mercutio]

Well even if you all babble on about whether you know something or not...you really dont know anything for certain. Nothing is absolute in that not even the basic laws, concepts and theories, or definitions of anything are constant or follow any dictated rules or limitations. Example of why nothing is absolute is time. Time exists in the perspective as the lack of absolute or constant. Matter as pertaining to the original post, can't be proven to exist in that it is a concept based on interpretation. In reality their is nothing in this universe, even the universe itself as a concept, that can absolutely proven as realistic or proven a a concept rather then a misinterpreted perspective of its' inhabitants.
Whether or not matter exists is actually irrelevant to the claims of science. Matter appears to exist; if you emphasize the "appears", you agree with hammegk, and if you emphasize the "exist", you agree with Tricky. If you don't give the south end of a northbound rat, you agree with me. The trick is, the evidence of what goes with what, of what causes what, is independent of the nature of what "what" is. So...while the universe does not "follow any dictated rules or limitations", it is describable by rules, based on evidence. Any claims about the nature of the universe or anything in it must either be consistent with observed evidence or explain fully why the observed evidence is better explained in some other manner.

While at one level you are absolutely right, at another level there are claims that do fit the evidence, and claims that do not. "Absolutely proven" is for math and logic, and not for science. There is a world of difference between the uncertainty of axiomatic assumptions of the nature of reality and "knowing" that something is consistent with the observed evidence. To equate the two vastly different types of uncertainty is false. We can never know the first, and there can be no evidence; the second is approachable probabilistically, and there can be plentiful evidence.

[Mercutio]

I know that I exist, and the sensations that coincide with it. Everything else that I know is merely an extension of this. It's called experience.
You have never once questioned your own experience? Too bad, really; there are very real biases in our subjective experience that you could have guarded against if you had critically analyzed your "sensations that coincide with it". If you do not take steps to avoid the biases inherent in human perception, you are likely to take your dreams as reality, and believe in such stuff as, say, numerology...

Oh, that's right...

[bruto]

http://image40.webshots.com/41/9/54/97/303895497LXeSgX_ph.jpg

[Iacchus]

Well even if you all babble on about whether you know something or not...you really dont know anything for certain.Yes, but is this an absolute assessment here? Or, is it merely a guess? It seems to me like it can only be one or the other, in which case this itself becomes an absolute assessment. So yes, it is possible to know of things of a certainty.

[RandFan]

Ah, but the only thing that is real, and knows that it is real, is on the inside. This is how I know ... or, at the very least, know where to look. ? You never went to school? Read a book? Performed a scientific experiment? I've already demonstrated why looking inside is a bad idea in and of itself. Cars, medicine, trips to the moon, computers, etc. were not found by simply looking inside. Overcoming ignorance doesn't come from looking inside but by looking outside and learning to rely on more than your own understanding.

[Iacchus]

You have never once questioned your own experience?And if that were the case, then what you and everyone else on this forum has said would be completely unintelligible to me. Not to say that the vast majority of it wasn't unintelligible in the first place. But, the fact that I am able to respond, demonstrates that I'm not a living vegetable (if even that) and, am quite capable of "telling" the difference.

[Iacchus]

? You never went to school? Read a book? Performed a scientific experiment? I've already demonstrated why looking inside is a bad idea in and of itself. Cars, medicine, trips to the moon, computers, etc. were not found by simply looking inside. Overcoming ignorance doesn't come from looking inside but by looking outside and learning to rely on more than your own understanding.And what you fail to realize or, so it seems, that "someone" has to be there (at home if you will) in order to do all these things. If I didn't know what I know, what's to keep me from walking in front of an oncoming bus and getting smashed to pieces?

[Tricky]

I know that I exist, and the sensations that coincide with it. Everything else that I know is merely an extension of this. It's called experience.
But you have not in any way described how a belief becomes knowledge. You claimed it was a process. Show us the process. Your "extension" seems like nothing more than holding the belief for a long time. How does your belief develop and mature into knowledge?

[Iacchus]

But you have not in any way described how a belief becomes knowledge. You claimed it was a process. Show us the process. Your "extension" seems like nothing more than holding the belief for a long time. How does your belief develop and mature into knowledge?Really? ...

It's called experience.

[Tricky]

So, you're another one of those folks who assumes I don't know what I'm talking about, correct?
Nobody here assumes you don't know what you're talking about. That conclusion is based on large bodies of evidence that you don't know what you're talking about. You make incorrect statements about science. You make incorrect statements of logic. You contradict yourself constantly.

No, it's not an assumption. You show us more evidence every time you post.

Yet something must be absolute, otherwise what do we base our "relative" observations on? Isn't this something that Kant said, about the "thing itself," versus our observation of it?
So if you have never experienced absolute zero AND the center of a star, you are unqualified to tell anyone that the room is too cold? Relative is all you will ever know and all you can ever know, Iacchus. It is called reality. You should visit there sometime.

"I" exist in the center of what "I" experience, and that to me, is very much real.
Experience is much different from imagination and dreams. Just because you imagine that you are Dionysus does not make you him, nor does it even make him a real person, no matter how hard you wish it to be so.

[Tricky]

Really? ...
Yes, really. Saying the word "experience" does not show any sort of process. I have the 'experience' of discovering that you are intellectually bankrupt, so that makes it knowledge, by your standards.

So if two people "know" mutually contradictory things, is one right and the other wrong? Yes or no.

(I "know" you won't give a yes or no answer to that question)

[Iacchus]

Nobody here assumes you don't know what you're talking about. That conclusion is based on large bodies of evidence that you don't know what you're talking about. You make incorrect statements about science. You make incorrect statements of logic. You contradict yourself constantly.

No, it's not an assumption. You show us more evidence every time you post.At best, all you can hope to say (against anything that I've said) is that it's inconclusive. Anything else, on your part, would be an assumption.

[Iacchus]

Yes, really. Saying the word "experience" does not show any sort of process. I have the 'experience' of discovering that you are intellectually bankrupt, so that makes it knowledge, by your standards. Indeed, with the "experience" of learning comes the ability to judge and discern.

So if two people "know" mutually contradictory things, is one right and the other wrong? Yes or no.It all depends ... on who knows what.

(I "know" you won't give a yes or no answer to that question)Eh, what do you know? :D

[Elind]

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
And that is what we call matter. The problem is in the assumption, not what we call matter.

[Iacchus]

And that is what we call matter. The problem is in the assumption, not what we call matter.So, where does matter come from then? Or, is this (matter) all there is?

[RandFan]

And what you fail to realize or, so it seems, that "someone" has to be there (at home if you will) in order to do all these things. If I didn't know what I know, what's to keep me from walking in front of an oncoming bus and getting smashed to pieces? What does this have to do with anything? I've never dismissed our internal reasoning and intuition. My point is that our internal reasoning and intuition alone are not sufficient to discern the truth. Why all of the games?

1.) It is demonstrable that subjective reasoning alone leads to different beliefs.

2.) Objective and critical analysis of the observable world is the best way to find the truth.

It was this process that gave us all of the wonderful truths that we rely on every day like the car, the computer, medicine, space flight, atomic energy, etc.

[Complexity]

Iacchus - I have far to much respect for words and ideas to have much to do with you. I haven't yet decided whether you are a troll or merely ill.

If you are a troll, I'm surprised that you haven't grown tired and embarrassed. Keeping up the pose of idiocy, complete with smileys, has got to be hard work.

If you are ill, I hope that you get some help.

[Iacchus]

What does this have to do with anything? I've never dismissed our internal reasoning and intuition. My point is that our internal reasoning and intuition alone are not sufficient to discern the truth. Why all of the games?Yes, something has to exist first in order to discern the truth thereof ... either externally or, internally. Also, with respect to that which occurs internally, we must understand that it too is an external occurrence, for it, like any other external phenomenon, is merely a signal which is being impressed upon our brains.

[RandFan]

Yes, something has to exist first in order to discern the truth thereof ... either externally or, internally. Also, with respect to that which occurs internally, we must understand that it too is an external occurrence, as it, like any other external phenomenon, is merely a signal which is being impressed upon our brains. This adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. This all started with what you "know" about god. I pointed out that "knowledge" about god must come from an external source (it is true that we use our internal reasoning to understand that source). Absent external and objective evidence we are left with belief.

1.) I can't prove that you don't "know" the attributes about god as opposed to you simply believing what those attributes are.

2.) However if you did "know" then you should be able to demonstrate that "knowledge". Hey, if I have knowledge about computers or calculus I can demonstrate that in a way that others can confirm based on logic or reason and that there is little room for debate.

3.) Absent an ability to demonstrate your god knowledge in a way that leaves little room for debate then there is little reason to suppose that you actually possess such knowledge.

4.) Absent an ability for the guy at the clinic to demonstrate that he is the reincarnation of Napoleon then there is little reason to suppose that he is in all actuality, Napoleon.

Do you see the problem here?

[Iacchus]

And, as I have said before, you are looking in the wrong place ...

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. ~ Luke 17:20-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=17&version=9) If you wish to find what's on the other side of matter, then look to what's on the other side of matter.

[Roboramma]

Well, if that's what the bible says you should do...

[RandFan]

And, as I have said before, you are looking in the wrong place ...

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. ~ Luke 17:20-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=17&version=9)

If you wish to find what's on the other side of matter, then look to what's on the other side of matter. This is a quote out of the Bible. A book that has spawned many beliefs. There is almost no consensus on anything in side of it. Why should I rely on a book that is so disputed that it has caused wars over it's meaning? Why not the Koran or other religious works?

You say the truth is inside of us, if this is true then why didn't people discover Christ before any Christian missionaries traveled there? Why didn't people in the Americas discover Christ before Columbus? Why couldn't god have visted people in other parts of the world the way he visited Moses or other prophets?

Isn't it kind of odd that our internal truth is hidden until someone else tells us what that internal truth is?

Figure that one out and you will have figured out one of the most profound and important truths of humanity.

[PixyMisa]

Whether or not matter exists is actually irrelevant to the claims of science. Matter appears to exist; if you emphasize the "appears", you agree with hammegk, and if you emphasize the "exist", you agree with Tricky.

Or more simply, we define "exist" as "what matter does". The metaphysical basis of existence is irrelevant for all practical purposes, because what matter does is exist.

So the answer to the question, Does matter exist? is Yes.
And the answer to the question, Does matter really exist? is You're not paying attention, are you?

[Iacchus]

Isn't it kind of odd that our internal truth is hidden until someone else tells us what that internal truth is?Isn't it kind of odd that so many truths are held from us until someone else comes along to tell us what they are?

[RandFan]

Isn't it kind of odd that so many truths are held from us until someone else comes along to tell us what they are? But I don't claim that these truths are internal. You do. It would stand to reason that if the truth about god were internal more people would figure it out without help from others. It would also stand to reason that there would be far more consensus. And, BTW, identical discoveries have been made in different places and different parts of the world.

[Iacchus]

Or more simply, we define "exist" as "what matter does". The metaphysical basis of existence is irrelevant for all practical purposes, because what matter does is exist.

So the answer to the question, Does matter exist? is Yes.
And the answer to the question, Does matter really exist? is You're not paying attention, are you?So, does matter exist as the basis for all there is? ... Or, could there be something else?

[Iacchus]

But I don't claim that these truths are internal. You do. It would stand to reason that if the truth about god were internal more people would figure it out without help from others. It would also stand to reason that there would be far more consensus. And, BTW, identical discoveries have been made in different places and different parts of the world.The recognition of "any" truth is internal ... at least in terms of what we're speaking of here.

[RandFan]

But I don't claim that these truths are internal. You do. It would stand to reason that if the truth about god were internal more people would figure it out without help from others. It would also stand to reason that there would be far more consensus. And, BTW, identical discoveries have been made in different places and different parts of the world. They just were never made about god.

[RandFan]

The recognition of "any" truth is internal ... at least in terms of what we're speaking of here. This is one of those games. I didn't say "recognition". I said "discovery". And discoveries about the observable world have been made independently and they create consensus.

Discoveries about god differ from location to location and create chaos and disagreement.

[RandFan]

I would still like to know why, if truth is internal, people from different countries didn't discover Christ before Christian missionaries? Perhaps the truth isn't internal? Right?

[Iacchus]

I would still like to know why, if truth is internal, people from different countries didn't discover Christ before Christian missionaries? Perhaps the truth isn't internal? Right?Just a variation of the same thing. People have always believed in God.

[Iacchus]

They just were never made about god.How would you know it were true except by means of that which is internal? Is it possible that when you look at something on the outside that you're looking at something (similar) on the inside as well? And let's not forget who or what is doing the looking in the first place. What is it about the observer -- you -- which, exists on the other side of the these brain signals, that is not internal?

[Belz...]

It's all part of the same process. This is why some of us call it faith.

Oh, no. You're not sleazing your way out, this time. You said:

I know what I know. If you don't believe this, then how can you tell me otherwise?

You said KNOW. FAITH is not knowledge, Iacchus. If, for you, the two words mean the same thing, then language is meaningless and nothing you say can ever make sense.

...hummm... now that I think about it...

[Belz...]

Okay, it's all part of the "belief" process. So, what's the difference? I may in fack "know" something, when another person can only "believe" it.

What I know is not of this world. So, if you wish to understand, perhaps you should consider it from a different point of reference? As Mr. Planck seems to imply, this matrix, exists on the other side of matter, hence the other side of time and space.

And how do you propose "knowing" anything from this non-physical, non-testable universe ?

[Belz...]

And what if what I believed was based upon what I know?

Then it wouldn't be belief. Sheesh. Do you even know what these words mean ?

[Belz...]

Time exists in the perspective as the lack of absolute or constant.

Funny. And yet we can agree on how much time a second represents.

Matter as pertaining to the original post, can't be proven to exist in that it is a concept based on interpretation. In reality their is nothing in this universe, even the universe itself as a concept, that can absolutely proven as realistic or proven a a concept rather then a misinterpreted perspective of its' inhabitants.

Then I submit you don't know what "prove" means.

[Belz...]

Inside is subjective. Inside is subject to error. Intuition that is not supported by objective evidence is what's known as faith.

Ah, but the only thing that is real, and knows that it is real, is on the inside. This is how I know ... or, at the very least, know where to look.

How can you AGREE with what he said, and then say the exact opposite ?

[Belz...]

And if that were the case, then what you and everyone else on this forum has said would be completely unintelligible to me. Not to say that the vast majority of it wasn't unintelligible in the first place. But, the fact that I am able to respond, demonstrates that I'm not a living vegetable (if even that) and, am quite capable of "telling" the difference.

But those are OUTSIDE, Iacchus, not INSIDE. You don't even understand your OWN arguments.

[Belz...]

And, as I have said before, you are looking in the wrong place ...

If you wish to find what's on the other side of matter, then look to what's on the other side of matter.

There is no "side" to matter. Another meaningless post designer, I can only assume, to increase your total posts.

[Belz...]

The recognition of "any" truth is internal ... at least in terms of what we're speaking of here.

What is this "internal" of which you speak, Iacchus ?

[Belz...]

Just a variation of the same thing. People have always believed in God.

No, no they haven't. They used to believe in godS, and before that, in spirits. Spirits are not the christian god.

[Iacchus]

Oh, no. You're not sleazing your way out, this time. You said:

You said KNOW. FAITH is not knowledge, Iacchus. If, for you, the two words mean the same thing, then language is meaningless and nothing you say can ever make sense.

...hummm... now that I think about it...Oh, I never said faith could not entail believing in something blindly. That's what they call "blind faith" ... I have faith that the sun will shine tomorrow, don't you?

[RandFan]

Just a variation of the same thing. People have always believed in God. But this belief has no meaning. It is not THE truth. It will not save anyone. How is it that for two thousand years god revealed that he existed to people all over the world but couldn't quite reveal his name, the name of his church and the means to salvationto anyone except to a select few? The rest had to wait until word got out. Surely an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent diety could do better than that? This internal truth thing just doesn't fly if you have to rely on external hearsay to shore up your truth. We still have the problem that the external hearsay is largely rejected by opposing theologies.

Confuciusts tend to stay Confuciusts.
Muslims tend to stay Muslim.
Sikhs tend to stay Sighs.
Hindu tend to stay Hindu.
Mormons tend to stay Mormon.
Catholics tend to stay Catholic.
Baptists tend to stay Baptist.


The list goes on and on. What is the parsimonious reason for this? Also, why do religions mirror culture? What is the parsimonious reason for that?

[RandFan]

How would you know it were true except by means of that which is internal? This is not in dispute and is not relevant to the discussion. One more time. I concede that reasoning is an internal mechanism. But reasoning must examine the external to find the truth or ones beliefs. Otherwise there would be no need of the Bible and missionaries

Is it possible that when you look at something on the outside that you're looking at something (similar) on the inside as well? I have no reason to suppose this is true. Further it is not supported by the evidence. Why are people who grow up in a particular faith more likely to accept that faith to the exclusion of all others?

And let's not forget who or what is doing the looking in the first place. What is it about the observer -- you -- which, exists on the other side of the these brain signals, that is not internal? One more time, I don't deny that there is an internal process going on. This is a straw man that you have created to knock down. I have repeated the assertion over and over that the process for understanding the external world is internal. That there is an "internal" is not the subject for debate. What is the subject of the debate is that it is demonstrable that relying solely on the internal leads to chaos and disagreement. There is no reason to believe that relying solely on the internal one will find truth. A belief seemingly held by Christians since they hand out bible and send out missionaries.

[Belz...]

Oh, I never said faith could not entail believing in something blindly. That's what they call "blind faith" ... I have faith that the sun will shine tomorrow, don't you?

Is that blind faith or the Iacchus brand faith ?

I don't have FAITH in that. Excluding freak cosmological incidents, the sun WILL shine tomorrow. I guess you could call it a belief, but it's very strongly supported by evidence.

Besides, you were talking about KNOWLEDGE.

[Iacchus]

Confuciusts tend to stay Confuciusts.
Muslims tend to stay Muslim.
Sikhs tend to stay Sighs.
Hindu tend to stay Hindu.
Mormons tend to stay Mormon.
Catholics tend to stay Catholic.
Baptists tend to stay Baptist.

The list goes on and on. What is the parsimonious reason for this? Also, why do religions mirror culture? What is the parsimonious reason for that?And to each their own reward. So what? ... Why is there such a variation between plant species on earth, and yet only one sun in the sky? Isn't each of these indicative to its own particular brand of "faith" towards the sun? It seems to be enough to sustain the plants doesn't it?

[Mercutio]

And to each their own reward. So what? ... Why is there such a variation between plant species on earth, and yet only one sun in the sky? Isn't each of these indicative to its own particular brand of "faith" towards the sun? It seems to be enough to sustain the plants doesn't it?
15 yard penalty for illegal and inappropriate use of metaphor. Repeat the down...

[cyborg]

Why is there such a variation between plant species on earth, and yet only one sun in the sky?

Because there's more than one way to build a structure capable of photosynthesis.

Isn't each of these indicative to its own particular brand of "faith" towards the sun?

No. It's indicative that they're all plants capable of converting energy from the sun into sugars.

It seems to be enough to sustain the plants doesn't it?

That and the necessary carbon dioxide, water and various other minerals use to build the rest of the structures not directly involved in photosynthesis.

Plants without an actual sun don't live.

People without actual gods can still have a religion.

[Iacchus]

One more time, I don't deny that there is an internal process going on. This is a straw man that you have created to knock down. I have repeated the assertion over and over that the process for understanding the external world is internal. That there is an "internal" is not the subject for debate. What is the subject of the debate is that it is demonstrable that relying solely on the internal leads to chaos and disagreement. There is no reason to believe that relying solely on the internal one will find truth. A belief seemingly held by Christians since they hand out bible and send out missionaries."The kingdom of God is within." Now, you can choose to look at that from the standpoint of a bunch of gobbledygook on your computer screen or, you can choose to understand what the words mean and "look within." I am not denying that these words appear on your computer screen, however.

[cyborg]

"The kingdom of Zod is within." Now, you can choose to look at that from the standpoint of a bunch of gobbledygook on your computer screen or, you can choose to understand what the words mean and "look within." I am not denying that these words appear your computer screen, however.

[Iacchus]

Because there's more than one way to build a structure capable of photosynthesis.

No. It's indicative that they're all plants capable of converting energy from the sun into sugars.

That and the necessary carbon dioxide, water and various other minerals use to build the rest of the structures not directly involved in photosynthesis.

Plants without an actual sun don't live.

People without actual gods can still have a religion.And you folks are no better than the Christian Fundamentalists who take things too "literally." Which, is the problem with science nowadays, in its attempts to spell everything out. It excludes the very thing which gave rise to it, an inquisitive mind.

[cyborg]

And you folks are no better than the Christian Fundamentalists who take things too "literally."

Ugh. You are a dumbass. I was illustrating why your analogy is fundamentally flawed.

Which, is the problem with science nowadays, in its attempts to spell everything out. It excludes the very thing which gave rise to it, an inquisitive mind.

Did you mean to put a full-stop there?

Nonetheless what you are saying is pure rubbish. What science has done has made people like you who pontificate endlessly irrelevant - you will not determine the truth of anything merely by arguing about it.

[Iacchus]

Ugh. You are a dumbass. I was illustrating why your analogy is fundamentally flawed.

Did you mean to put a full-stop there?

Nonetheless what you are saying is pure rubbish. What science has done has made people like you who pontificate endlessly irrelevant - you will not determine the truth of anything merely by arguing about it.Now, is this the scientist speaking in you ... or, the atheist?

[cyborg]

One doesn't have to be an atheist to realise the futility of two people arguing over what the universe is when it would be a lot easier to actually go and find out what it is.

[Iacchus]

One doesn't have to be an atheist to realise the futility of two people arguing over what the universe is when it would be a lot easier to actually go and find out what it is.I think, therefore I am. And the Universe is very much a part of that ... at least as near as I can tell. ;)

[cyborg]

I think, therefore I am.

This only means you as a consciousness exists - not that your thinking literally means your material existance is assured.

And the Universe is very much a part of that ... at least as near as I can tell.

You're using an inductive argument improperly. You think, therefore you are (misapplying it to mean you literally have physical composition), the universe is, therefore it thinks.

At least as far as I can tell you haven't demonstrated that all things that are think.

Try this again when you do.

[Mercutio]

I think, therefore I am. And the Universe is very much a part of that ... at least as near as I can tell. ;)
Exactly.


Your method of knowing has not progressed since Descartes.

[Iacchus]

Exactly.

Your method of knowing has not progressed since Descartes.Being the subjective observer that we all are -- it's all relative anyway, right? -- I don't see how anyone can draw any other conclusion.

[Belz...]

And to each their own reward. So what? ... Why is there such a variation between plant species on earth, and yet only one sun in the sky? Isn't each of these indicative to its own particular brand of "faith" towards the sun? It seems to be enough to sustain the plants doesn't it?

That's a ridiculous question. The plants do not believe in a different sun.

[Mercutio]

Being the subjective observer that we all are -- it's all relative anyway, right? -- I don't see how anyone can draw any other conclusion.
And you will never see until you quit looking only within yourself. This is yet another limitation of your world view.

[Belz...]

Now, is this the scientist speaking in you ... or, the atheist?

Same difference.

[Belz...]

Being the subjective observer that we all are -- it's all relative anyway, right? -- I don't see how anyone can draw any other conclusion.

I can. Objectivity exists because we CAN reach common conclusions based on evidence, not ideas.

[RandFan]

"The kingdom of God is within." Why should I believe there is a kingdom of god? Assuming that there is a god not all religions believe that the kingdom of god is within. This is just your brand of theology and clearly looking within won't resolve the conflicts of belief. I can look inside until doomsday and I won't get anywhere. People who look inside don't find god or Christ until someone else tells them to look and THEN tells them what to find.

[RandFan]

I think, therefore I am. And the Universe is very much a part of that ... at least as near as I can tell. ;) But this tells us nothing about the universe. Why do you conclude that the universe is very much a part of that?

[RandFan]

Being the subjective observer that we all are -- it's all relative anyway, right? -- I don't see how anyone can draw any other conclusion. But we can empirically observe the universe. If our experiments could not be replicated by independent means then you would have a point. The empirical nature of the observable universe demonstrates that the universe isn't simply subjective.

[PixyMisa]

So, does matter exist as the basis for all there is?

As far as we can tell, yes.

Or, could there be something else?

As far as we can tell, no.

[Iacchus]

Why should I believe there is a kingdom of god? Assuming that there is a god not all religions believe that the kingdom of god is within. This is just your brand of theology and clearly looking within won't resolve the conflicts of belief. I can look inside until doomsday and I won't get anywhere. People who look inside don't find god or Christ until someone else tells them to look and THEN tells them what to find.Because to every inside there is an outside ... and a door.

[Belz...]

Because to every inside there is an outside ... and a door.

Really ? Is there an inside to 2-dimensional plane ? And, moving to real things, where's the door to a sheet of paper ?

[Iacchus]

I can. Objectivity exists because we CAN reach common conclusions based on evidence, not ideas.Ah, but what are the ideas "evidence" of? They must be evidence of some "form" of reality, otherwise they wouldn't exist. Neither could we claim to grasp the reality that we've claimed to grasp. How could scientists claim to understand anything if they didn't work with ideas?

[Iacchus]

Really ? Is there an inside to 2-dimensional plane ? And, moving to real things, where's the door to a sheet of paper ?What gives rise to your abiltiy to say such a thing? Where did "it" come from? Somewhere outside of yourself perhaps? How can you conceive of any dimension whatsoever if wasn't already within you to conceive? So, your experiece of three dimensions must be "internal."

[hammegk]

As far as we can tell, yes.
Or so you assume, and posit. Do you also only assume that thought exists?


Really ? Is there an inside to 2-dimensional plane ?
Why? Is your existence in 2 dimensions?

[Iacchus]

But this tells us nothing about the universe. Why do you conclude that the universe is very much a part of that?The Universe is very much a part of what I experience ... just as it's very much a part of everyone else's experience. But, of what use would it be to us (besides none, of course ;)) if we were incapable of experiencing it? So, the key to understanding the Universe, is to understand how we are capable of experiencing it. However, in order to understand anything, we must first yield to the truth of that understanding, which is to say, the understanding must be paramount even before it's discussed. Which is, after all, really all we've discovered, something that already "is."

So, what could it mean? ... except that the understanding of the Universe (the truth thereof) has always existed. The only question is, where?

The matrix of all matter perhaps? ...

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. ~ Max Planck (http://www.answers.com/topic/atom)

[Mercutio]

The Universe is very much a part of what I experience ... just as it's very much a part of everyone else's experience. But, of what use would it be to us (besides none, of course ;)) if we were incapable of experiencing it? So, the key to understanding the Universe, is to understand how we are capable of experiencing it.
Wow. I actually agree with you up to this point. Of course, the next thing to say is that understanding how we are capable of experiencing it is the territory of experimental psychology--the study of sensation, perception, memory, cognition, behavior...it is imperative that we critically examine these processes, because if we do not, we are subject to biases inherent in them, without the slightest idea that we are thus biased. We are likely to take our subjective experience at face value, not understanding that it is a terrible way of gaining understanding.

I am sure you meant to say that...instead of this:

However, in order to understand anything, we must first yield to the truth of that understanding, which is to say, the understanding must be paramount even before it's discussed. Which is, after all, really all we've discovered, something that already "is."
No. Not at all. That way madness lies. Your circularity does not allow for critical analysis; it accepts something before examining it. This is precisely what we must *not* do if we are to be certain of our findings. If we follow your reasoning, we are doomed to make no distinction between fantasy and reality...and while ignorance may be bliss, it is still ignorance.

[Belz...]

Ah, but what are the ideas "evidence" of? They must be evidence of some "form" of reality, otherwise they wouldn't exist. Neither could we claim to grasp the reality that we've claimed to grasp. How could scientists claim to understand anything if they didn't work with ideas?

They are evidence that our brain can process information by itself, once the information is there. A hypothetical person with NO experience cannot form ideas.

[Belz...]

What gives rise to your abiltiy to say such a thing? Where did "it" come from? Somewhere outside of yourself perhaps? How can you conceive of any dimension whatsoever if wasn't already within you to conceive? So, your experiece of three dimensions must be "internal."

Absolutely NOT! It arises from my EXPERIENCE of dimensions.

[Belz...]

Why? Is your existence in 2 dimensions?

That was an example, or do you know what those are ?

[Iacchus]

They are evidence that our brain can process information by itself, once the information is there. A hypothetical person with NO experience cannot form ideas.So, do you associate your "self" with your brain? Most people don't. When I speak, I certainly don't believe that I'm speaking from my brain. I believe that I'm speaking from "myself."

[Iacchus]

No. Not at all. That way madness lies. Your circularity does not allow for critical analysis; it accepts something before examining it. This is precisely what we must *not* do if we are to be certain of our findings. If we follow your reasoning, we are doomed to make no distinction between fantasy and reality...and while ignorance may be bliss, it is still ignorance.Oh really, and at what point does it not involve you "rationalizing" about it in the space between your ears? In fact, if there was no "rational" mind in the first place, to "rationalize" about the existence of anything, then who cares? The ability to rationalize must be preeminent, otherwise there is nothing to discuss. By the way, I think we all can agree (through our ability to rationalize that is) that a physical reality does exist. However, beyond our ability to rationalize, we may not be able to prove it.

[Iacchus]

However, beyond our ability to rationalize, we may not be able to prove it.If, however, we were able to prove that it were a subset of an even greater reality, then yes, because we would have the vantage of looking at it by means of that reality.

[hammegk]

That was an example, or do you know what those are ?
I take that as a "no".


Care to try another ... "Do you only assume that thought exists?"

[Mercutio]

Oh really, and at what point does it not involve you "rationalizing" about it in the space between your ears? In fact, if there was no "rational" mind in the first place, to "rationalize" about the existence of anything, then who cares? The ability to rationalize must be preeminent, otherwise there is nothing to discuss. By the way, I think we all can agree (through our ability to rationalize that is) that a physical reality does exist. However, beyond our ability to rationalize, we may not be able to prove it.
Circular. And Useless.

Again.

Learn your logic.

[Iacchus]

Circular. And Useless.

Again.

Learn your logic.Circular only if you are unwilling to accept that we are all a part of this greater process of rationalization. Is there a greater reality of rationalized thought than ours, thus including thought and matter? That is the question.

[Iacchus]

If matter is a subset of enegery, which it is, how does matter tell energy how to arrange itself?

[Complexity]

Everyone but Iacchus -

Do you think we can come up with an incantation or curse that Iacchus will fall for that will improve his relationship with reality?

Do you think we can come up with an incantation or curse that Iacchus won't fall for that will improve his relationship with reality?

[Belz...]

So, do you associate your "self" with your brain? Most people don't. When I speak, I certainly don't believe that I'm speaking from my brain. I believe that I'm speaking from "myself."

There is a veritable mountain of evidence against your belief, Iacchus. Grow up.

[Belz...]

I take that as a "no".


Care to try another ... "Do you only assume that thought exists?"

You've lost track, apparently. Or do you believe that everything has an inside, an outside, and a door ?

[kmortis]

Everyone but Iacchus -

Do you think we can come up with an incantation or curse that Iacchus will fall for that will improve his relationship with reality?

Do you think we can come up with an incantation or curse that Iacchus won't fall for that will improve his relationship with reality?


Well, in answer to this, you'd have to understand that Iacchus has no relationship with reality. He prefers his dreams to research; his own web-book to logic and monsters of the id to real people. I think it'd be easier to come up with a verifiable form of homeopathy....

[BeholdTheTruth]

PBS funds at their contributors' expense multiple three hour (as I remember it) Wayne Dwyer infomercials. Now -- That -- is what I call the power of intention!

[PixyMisa]

Or so you assume, and posit.

Well, there is the assumption of materialism (or naturalism), sure. But there is also the observation that this appears to be correct.

There are forms of idealism that predict the same observations, but they have the problem that the... predict the same observations. In other words, they are indistinguishable from materialism or naturalism.

Do you also only assume that thought exists?

Huh?

[Iacchus]

Count em'. Five posts, and not a single word to counter what I just said. So, what exactly is the difference between what I've said and what Max Planck has said? Can you prove Mr. Planck wrong? Why do you show so much disdain for me then?

[Mercutio]

Circular only if you are unwilling to accept that we are all a part of this greater process of rationalization. Is there a greater reality of rationalized thought than ours, thus including thought and matter? That is the question.
No. Circular by definition of the logical term "circular".

You are quite simply wrong.

[Mercutio]

If matter is a subset of enegery, which it is, how does matter tell energy how to arrange itself?
No. There is a relationship between matter and energy, described by Einstein's equation. Neither is a subset of the other.

You are quite simply wrong.

[Mercutio]

Count em'. Five posts, and not a single word to counter what I just said. So, what exactly is the difference between what I've said and what Max Planck has said? Can you prove Mr. Planck wrong? Why do you show so much disdain for me then?
Not a single need to counter what you said. When you say something of substance, you can expect substantive replies. When you say the tripe you do say, people will respond or not as they see fit. If your musings were as important as you seem to think they are, they would be well worth responding to. Sadly, they are not that important. They run counter to logic and evidence.

You are quite simply wrong.

[RandFan]

Because to every inside there is an outside ... and a door. Vacuous. To every up there's a down. To every black there is white. To every John Lennon there is a Paul McCartney.

This is just a cliche and doesn't provide any useful information.

To every salt there is a pepper.

[RandFan]

The Universe is very much a part of what I experience ... just as it's very much a part of everyone else's experience. But, of what use would it be to us (besides none, of course ;)) if we were incapable of experiencing it? So, the key to understanding the Universe, is to understand how we are capable of experiencing it. However, in order to understand anything, we must first yield to the truth of that understanding, which is to say, the understanding must be paramount even before it's discussed. Which is, after all, really all we've discovered, something that already "is."

So, what could it mean? ... except that the understanding of the Universe (the truth thereof) has always existed. The only question is, where? Empty rhetoric. Maybe an egg? Should I worship Pan-Gu?

[Tricky]

Vacuous. To every up there's a down. To every black there is white. To every John Lennon there is a Paul McCartney.

This is just a cliche and doesn't provide any useful information.

To every salt there is a pepper.
To every Rand fan there is a Vonnegut fan.:p

[RandFan]

To every Rand fan there is a Vonnegut fan.:p To every Tricky there is s Treaty. :p

[Iacchus]

No. Circular by definition of the logical term "circular".

You are quite simply wrong.And yet if what I were saying were true, it would not be cirular, correct?

[Iacchus]

No. There is a relationship between matter and energy, described by Einstein's equation. Neither is a subset of the other.

You are quite simply wrong.So, what if you took a number, say the number 2, and divided it in half. You would get 1 + 1 = 2 or, 1 x 2 = 2, correct? So, doesn't this suggest that either half of 2, is a subset of the whole of 2? Sure it does, so long as each half is considered in context with the whole. Hence we can say, 2 = 1 + 1 or, 2 = 1 x 1, correct? So, in what way does this differ with respect to the letter "E," in the equation E = MC2? How does "E" not refer to the whole, and the rest of the equation to the constituent parts thereof? Even if you were to say M = E/C2 or, C2 = E/M, it still shows that both are properties of "E."

So, if you insist on saying I am "quite simply wrong," please tell us how I am wrong or, admit that you have no means of refuting it, please.

[Mojo]

So, what if you took a number, say the number 2, and divided it in half. You would get 1 + 1 = 2 or, 1 x 2 = 2, correct? So, doesn't this suggest that either half of 2, is a subset of the whole of 2? Sure it does, so long as each half is considered in context with the whole. No, 1 is not a subset of 2. They are both members of the set "positive integers", for example, but one is not a subset of the other.

Hence we can say, 2 = 1 + 1 or, 2 = 1 x 1, correct? Wrong. 2 does not equal 1 x 1 (and that was after you edited the post!).

So, in what way does this differ with respect to the letter "E," in the equation E = MC2? How does "E" not refer to the whole, and the rest of the equation to the constituent parts thereof? Even if you were to say M = E/C2 or, C2 = E/M, it still shows that both are properties of "E." No. It does not imply that any of these is a subset of any of the others. It just states the relationship between them.

[Belz...]

And yet if what I were saying were true, it would not be cirular, correct?

Of course, there's a long way from here to there.

You are quite simply wrong.

[Belz...]

So, doesn't this suggest that either half of 2, is a subset of the whole of 2?

No.

[QUOTE]Sure it does, so long as each half is considered in context with the whole.

Wow. You've steeped to a new low, this time in math.

Hence we can say, 2 = 1 + 1 or, 2 = 1 x 1, correct?

Oh, yes. One times one is two. Quite logical.

So, in what way does this differ with respect to the letter "E," in the equation E = MC2? How does "E" not refer to the whole, and the rest of the equation to the constituent parts thereof?

Er... no.

You are quite simply wrong.

[Iacchus]

I see no refutation here. All I see is an unwillingness to acknowledge what I'm saying.

[Belz...]

I see no refutation here. All I see is an unwillingness on our part to acknowledge what I'm saying.

What Mercutio said, Iacchus. An absence of arguments doesn't require any refutation.

[Iacchus]

No, 1 is not a subset of 2. They are both members of the set "positive integers", for example, but one is not a subset of the other. Try thinking of it in terms of a pie which, you imaginarily slice in two. Now you have two pieces of pie, which (since they are only imaginarily sliced), are subsets of the pie as a whole. Or, if that doesn't work, try thinking of a whole pack of cigarettes versus a half a pack of cigarettes, where each cigarette is part of the package as a whole.

Wrong. 2 does not equal 1 x 1 (and that was after you edited the post!).Thanks, I was unable to correct it in time here but, corrected it in the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=49108) ...

No. It does not imply that any of these is a subset of any of the others. It just states the relationship between them.Are you at all familiar with ohm's law? It's all about the properties of electricity, is it not?

[Iacchus]

What Mercutio said, Iacchus. An absence of arguments doesn't require any refutation.And why don't you just admit it, you have no means of refuting what I have to say. While I am sure there are other folks on this forum who are quite capable of validating it. So I guess we'll just have to wait and see now won't we?

[Mojo]

Try thinking of it in terms of a pie which, you imaginarily slice in two. Now you have two pieces of pie, which (since they are only imaginarily sliced), are subsets of the pie as a whole. But integers are not the same as pies. Why not think instead about birds. A parrot and a budgie are both members of the set "birds", but if you cut a parrot in half you do not get two budgies, or indeed two of any kind of bird. You just get a dead parrot.

Are you at all familiar with ohm's law? It's all about the properties of electricity, is it not?It is indeed. It describes the relationship between power, voltage, current and resistance, which are properties of electricity. The E in the equations for Ohm's law represents voltage, not "electricity", by the way.

[Mojo]

Or, if that doesn't work, try thinking of a whole pack of cigarettes versus a half a pack of cigarettes, where each cigarette is part of the package as a whole. OK, lets think about a pack of fags. If you cut a fag in half, you do not get a different fag from the same packet. You get two halves, one with a filter and one without.

[Mercutio]

And yet if what I were saying were true, it would not be cirular, correct?
Wrong. If what you were saying were true, you would be able to demonstrate that truth with either logic or evidence or both. The circular argument you gave here would be (as it is now) totally irrelevant, and it would still be circular. If this is the only "evidence" you have, then you have no evidence at all.

You are quite simply wrong.

[Tricky]

So, if you insist on saying I am "quite simply wrong," please tell us how I am wrong or, admit that you have no means of refuting it, please.
Iacchus, your blather has been refuted so many times that it is not worth the effort to do so, especially considering that you will ignore anything that is said to you. I can't even remember which of your measely number of "ideas" we are supposed to be refuting. Is it the "knowledge comes from inside" one, or perhaps the "all religions are based on the sun" one? Have you trotted out the old "all things are based on some absolute" idiocy, or maybe the "consciousness creates reality" one. All of those (and their many variations) have been shown to be non-evidence, circular or totally incoherant by dozens of different posters.

But if you are eager to be slapped down once more, please state, very clearly (without metaphor) what it is you think hasn't been refuted (again).

[Mercutio]

So, what if you took a number, say the number 2, and divided it in half. You would get 1 + 1 = 2 or, 1 x 2 = 2, correct? So, doesn't this suggest that either half of 2, is a subset of the whole of 2? Sure it does, so long as each half is considered in context with the whole. Hence we can say, 2 = 1 + 1 or, 2 = 1 x 1, correct? So, in what way does this differ with respect to the letter "E," in the equation E = MC2? How does "E" not refer to the whole, and the rest of the equation to the constituent parts thereof? Even if you were to say M = E/C2 or, C2 = E/M, it still shows that both are properties of "E."

So, if you insist on saying I am "quite simply wrong," please tell us how I am wrong or, admit that you have no means of refuting it, please.
As Mojo already said, describing the relationship between matter and energy does not make one a subset of the other. You are as ignorant of mathematics as you are of science or of philosophy.

Your claims have been refuted. If you understood more about what it is that you, yourself, are saying, perhaps you would understand why it is so easily refuted. You have been shown how you are wrong. You have also been told it would help your understanding to learn a bit about logic. And science. And philosophy. And now, math. Seriously, and introductory textbook in any of these subjects would demonstrate to you how far off base your rantings are, and how they have, indeed, been refuted. Your failure to understand this is sad, but it is not a failure of refutation.

You are quite simply wrong.

[Mercutio]

I see no refutation here. All I see is an unwillingness to acknowledge what I'm saying.
I see no understanding here. All I see is an unwillingness to acknowledge the real world.

You are...