Creationists going after the "atomic model"...

[the_ignored]

Check out Adventure Safaris Books (http://tccsa.freeservers.com/adventure/adventure_books.html)

Design Vs. Chaos, A New Model of the Atom Based on Classical Science and a Biblical World View, 2000. (Cost $20.00 includes quiz booklet and ideas for building models )

Benefits of a New Model of the Atom

1. The spinning-ring model has the potential to explain gravity based upon electrical forces.

2. The new model defines light as a wave and explains its movement in outer space. It rejects the duality principle that light is both a wave and a particle (a logical contradiction and an assumption inconsistent with God's nature and design).
Their point #2 is shot down apparently by the photelectric effect, as someone else pointed out...so they reject a hypothosis that actually explains something, and replace it with another one that CAN'T explain the photoelectric effect, just because it goes against their religious beliefs, and those people say that they're advancing science?!


3. The new model puts physics back on a firm scientific (and biblical) basis instead of a philosophical basis.

4. The new model reduces the number of assumptions that must be made for nuclear modeling.

5. The chaos theories of the cosmos and nuclear energy are shown to be false. The spinning-ring model shows that God is a God of order, and the model is founded upon cause-and-effect classical science.

6. Five forces have been associated with theoretical physics for hundreds of years. These are electrical force, magnetic force, gravitational force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. This book will show that the theory of weak and strong nuclear forces is rejected by the spinning-ring model of the atom. The Common Sense Science team believes their model will also eventually explain gravitational force based on electromagnetism. This simplifies all forces in the universe to two: electrical and magnetic.

Design v. Chaos Review

Energy. The Grant Unification Theory (GUT)

This new model has the potential for a Grant Unification Theory of the universe. The Common Sense Science team feels they will be able to understand what causes gravity based upon this model.

Two forms of energy:

1. Energy = waves (electromagnetic)

Gen. 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

2. Energy with charge = matter [atoms] (electromagnetic waves with a charge of negative or positive to hold the atom together)

Gen. 1:4 "And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

The basis of all physical objects in the universe is electromagnetism (electricity and magnetism)

The Bohr Model of the Atom

The Bohr Model has 3 assumptions known to be wrong.

Relativity and Quantum Theory, based on the Bohr Model, cannot give a true picture of God's Creation.

Relativity and Quantum Theory, deny design and a creator God.

The New Model of the Atom (Lucas/Bergman)

The New Model (Lucas/Bergman) has a cause and effect basis.

It reduces all forces in the universe to two:

1. Electricity

2. Magnetism

Major discoveries that will help spread the Gospel can result from this new Model of the Atom

Would it be over-reacting if I said that this stuff made me uneasy?

[arcticpenguin]

6. Five forces have been associated with theoretical physics for hundreds of years. These are electrical force, magnetic force, gravitational force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. This book will show that the theory of weak and strong nuclear forces is rejected by the spinning-ring model of the atom. The Common Sense Science team believes their model will also eventually explain gravitational force based on electromagnetism. This simplifies all forces in the universe to two: electrical and magnetic.


Woo-fecking-woo. Of course electricity and magnetism were found to be related effects of the same force long ago, so I guess he's got it down to one force!

[MRC_Hans]

Pathetic.

Hans

[Brian the Snail]

Oh dear.

3. The new model puts physics back on a firm scientific (and biblical) basis instead of a philosophical basis.

Ha ha!

Energy. The Grant Unification Theory (GUT)

This new model has the potential for a Grant Unification Theory of the universe. The Common Sense Science team feels they will be able to understand what causes gravity based upon this model.

Difficult to know whether they're naming it after a dude called Grant, or they're just too clueless to know that it should be "Grand Unified Theory."

The Bohr Model of the Atom

The Bohr Model has 3 assumptions known to be wrong.

Given that the Bohr model hasn't been used for 80 years, I don't see how this is relevant.

It reduces all forces in the universe to two:

1. Electricity

2. Magnetism

Impressive, given that electricity and magnetism are the same force.

[Lord Emsworth]

It reduces all forces in the universe to two:

1. Electricity

2. Magnetism



Is God then:

a) a battery

b) a magnet

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by the_ignored
The Common Sense Science team
OMG. Franko's back and he's put together a team of uninformed woo-woos. :eek:
3. The new model puts physics back on a firm scientific (and biblical) basis instead of a philosophical basis. WTF? Since when was a biblical (i.e. religious) basis not a philosophical basis?
4. The new model reduces the number of assumptions that must be made for nuclear modeling.
I'd love to know what assumptions they are casually discarding and what their basis is for discarding them.
5. The chaos theories of the cosmos and nuclear energy are shown to be false. The spinning-ring model shows that God is a God of order, and the model is founded upon cause-and-effect classical science. :eek: again. Talk about rejecting facts to fit the theory. This is almost comical. Are you sure this isn't a parody?
6. {snip} The Common Sense Science team believes their model will also eventually explain gravitational force based on electromagnetism. This simplifies all forces in the universe to two: electrical and magnetic.This is so beyond stupidity it boggles the mind. Essentially, they are ignoring the existance of the entire field of quantum physics. But the kicker is, real physicists have been trying to find a unified theory of gravity and EM for about 50 years with the intention of addressing quantum later. The addition of quantum has not been a hinderance in the process at all. Gravity is actually the biggest hurdle in grand unified theory, not quantum forces. Stupidity on top of being uninformed.
The Bohr Model of the Atom

The Bohr Model has 3 assumptions known to be wrong.

Relativity and Quantum Theory, based on the Bohr Model, cannot give a true picture of God's Creation.

Relativity and Quantum Theory, deny design and a creator God.
Wouldn't it have been lovely if they had mentioned which three assumptions are "known to be wrong"? And I would love to know how Relativity denies "design and a creator God". At this point, I think they're just making ***** up.
Originally posted by the_ignored
Would it be over-reacting if I said that this stuff made me uneasy?
Only if it is ever seriously considred, which I'm sure it is not.

[Dancing David]

This is somewhat reminiscent of the nazu phusics of the pre war germans, yeesh,
so what happened to the other two forces and gravity?

And god said , man am I laughing!

[Crossbow]

"The Bohr Model has 3 assumptions known to be wrong.", this is quite unlike the work from the Common Sense Science team which has only one thing wrong with it: Everything!

[Upchurch]

I'd love to go through a copy of the book, but I really don't want to support them by buying a copy.

Is there anyone who would actually defend this rationalizationist carp?

[Dancing David]

Do a search on Common Sense Science

Woohoo woo woo

From quantum science:

eight view of quantom science
_________________________
There is no deep reality.
Reality is created by observation.
Reality is an undivided wholeness.
Reality consists of a steadily increasing number of parallel universes.
The world obeys a non-human kind of reasoning.
The world is made of ordinary objects.
Consciousness creates reality.
The world is twofold, consisting of potentials and actualities
______________________________

Thier disagreement is based upon philosophy not science.


Peace

[Upchurch]

Common Scence Science (http://www.commonsensescience.org/), Fitting facts to theory since 2002.

edited to add:
I think I just found my new favorite woo woo site to read when I'm board at work.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'd love to go through a copy of the book, but I really don't want to support them by buying a copy.

Is there anyone who would actually defend this rationalizationist carp?
See if you can find a used copy somewhere, that way none of your money goes directly to the authors.


I recently bought a used copy of 'psychic discoveries behind the iron curtain' or some such. Haven't read it yet, but it should be a hoot.

[Upchurch]

Makes you wonder: Was one of these men (http://www.commonsensescience.org/index.htm?scientist.htm~main) Franko? I'm guessing not since they all have too much education (reportedly).

[Yahzi]

(From the page: )
The assumptions of the Judeo-Christian worldview are compatible and generally identical with the assumptions and methods of classical science. This permits one to integrate his religion and science and have a consistent approach to life.
Does this sound familiar? Does this sound like the other side of the coin that a certain theiving coyote dog keeps yapping about? Isn't there somebody on these boards that keeps saying "the Enlightenment is over?"

:D

This is one thing me and these kooks agree on: you either go forward, or you go back. You can't stand still anymore.

[Dancing David]

There is the ' be run over' option as well, is there any credibility to the spining ring model? (sounds really whacked to me) They don't really explain like valent bonding or anything.

[c4ts]

The fools think science is some sort of opinion, like religion.

[Fade]

Couldn't have said it better myself, cats.

Common Sense Science will turn back on you eventually, because a lot of things that happen in nature don't really make much sense immediately. Nature has a way of throwing a curve ball that leaves us blinking in confusion for years and years.+

[jj]

Originally posted by Upchurch
defend this rationalizationist carp?

Hey, I think Koi are pretty. Oh, wait, you meant that dingleberry version of atomic physics.

Oh. Never mind.

They're rings. Ok, when the change size . . .

Yuh. Line splitting for why, now?

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Makes you wonder: Was one of these men (http://www.commonsensescience.org/index.htm?scientist.htm~main) Franko? I'm guessing not since they all have too much education (reportedly).

my guess: Lies or degree mills...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by blackpriester


my guess: Lies or degree mills... Very possibly. I recognize many of the schools as being creditable, but I'm not sure how one would go about tracking down these guys' credentials. Will schools give information about alumni over the phone?

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by the_ignored
Check out

Design Vs. Chaos, A New Model of the Atom Based on Classical Science and a Biblical World View, 2000.




Also known as, "A New Model of the Atom Based on Yesterday's Science and The-Day-Before-Yesterday's Mythology."


On the bright side, this new theory will allow our children to blow through physics class in nothing flat!

[Crossbow]

So I guess the lesson is:

If science does not coincide with your religion,
Then invent a new science which does!

[hammegk]

Yeah, religious attacks on other belief systems is a joke.

Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk
Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems? hammegk, dark matter is not a generally excepted theory.
Yeah, religious attacks on other belief systems is a joke.What religious attack on another belief system are you refering to?

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk
Yeah, religious attacks on other belief systems is a joke.

Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?

(shakes head)...

You've misrepresented the proposed numbers, failed to point out that a range of numbers exists, ignored the fact that falsification is possible for at least some of the sensible theories, brought up the false notion that things must be "seen",and then called it all a belief system. Your argument appears willfully deceptive to me.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
hammegk, dark matter is not a generally excepted theory.

You mean the cosmologists are all wet? In my understanding, the 96% is "current consensus". Tez? Stimpy?


What religious attack on another belief system are you refering to?
"Duh" is unbecoming, UpC. :rolleyes:



Question: Is jj's comment of sufficient substance to warrant taking him off my ignore list?

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk

Question: Is jj's comment of sufficient substance to warrant taking him off my ignore list?
His comment is unseen by you. That means it doesn't exist.

[Khalid01]

Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?

Cosmology hasn't stated that the universe is in fact composed of 96% dark matter. What has been said however, is that for the universe to be closed, and therefore stop and close in on itself again, there would have to be an unimaginable plethora of dark matter, which can't be accounted for. However, if you did ask an Astronomer if there is any darkmatter present in the universe, they would say "yes". It is presently necessary to insert dark matter into our model of galaxies and the universe because otherwise galaxies could not hold together, that matter needs to be there, somewhere, and but we can't account for it yet. This is a logical conclusion stemming from the physics of spinning gravitational bodies. Isn't that right, Tez, Stimpy?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

"Duh" is unbecoming, UpC. :rolleyes: Would you rather I assume what that you consider science a belief system or would you rather I stick to what you actually say, hammegk? If that is what you think, then have the balls to say it. I don't want to put words in your mouth for you.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk
Yeah, religious attacks on other belief systems is a joke.

Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?


Hmm, the basis for scientific belief systems is the ability tio make and replicate predictions, so what I have to ask is
Does the spining ring model have veriviable tests?

There is no matter there is only energy that fools us into calling it matter. Even worse is dark energy or the vacum energy.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc

His comment is unseen by you. That means it doesn't exist.

Gee, hgc, I didn't realize you were that dumb. Of course I know jj said something. What I asked was would it be worthwhile reading it for any reason other than to see another irrelevant inanity & probably an ad hom if it was to me?

Originally posted by Upchurch

Would you rather I assume what that you consider science a belief system or would you rather I stick to what you actually say, hammegk? If that is what you think, then have the balls to say it. I don't want to put words in your mouth for you.


Uppie, you can take a flying f*ck at a rolling donut for all I care. (Although you may be right; posts to JREF now need to be at 2nd grade comprehension level. ;) )

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by hammegk
Yeah, religious attacks on other belief systems is a joke.

Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?

You rely, once again, on the "god of the gaps" fallacy. You also wish to impugn science's epistemological privilege by the sneering reference to it as a "belief system."

Cheers,

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


You rely, once again, on the "god of the gaps" fallacy. You also wish to impugn science's epistemological privilege by the sneering reference to it as a "belief system."

Cheers,

Yeah, 99+% of reality is quite a gap. Why do you think filling that gap to the brim with scientific hubris is an epistemological privilege?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by hammegk


Yeah, 99+% of reality is quite a gap. Why do you think filling that gap to the brim with scientific hubris is an epistemological privilege?

Why are you so hostile to the scientific method and the best observations we can make from using it and existing technology?

Your hostility is really unbecoming and seriously detracts from any message you may or may not have.

Are you just an idealist like Ian? If so, then all of us can safely put you on ignore, as idealism is utterly empty and meaningless. A committed idealist really has nothing to contribute to a serious discussion about reality except to piss on everyone's cornflakes. Congratulations. I'm going to IHOP for breakfast and you're not invited (unless I've misread you again).

AS

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by hammegk

Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%,

So what's the other 3% :confused:

how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?

hammegk, cosmology isn't the only science, you know.

Edited to add: And by the way, what has dark matter and cosmology got to do with the subject of the thread (i.e. an alternative atomic theory) :confused:

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Very possibly. I recognize many of the schools as being creditable, but I'm not sure how one would go about tracking down these guys' credentials. Will schools give information about alumni over the phone?

You mean that little Joey Lucas' high school valedictorian might not be real :eek:

Seriously though, why does it matter? Surely the only point is not how many PhDs they have (believe me, PhDs are perfectly capable of junk science), but whether their theory has any merit or not.

And if you find any merit, let me know. Because I sure as hell can't find any...

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by hammegk


Yeah, 99+% of reality is quite a gap. Why do you think filling that gap to the brim with scientific hubris is an epistemological privilege?
Committing the same logical fallacy over and over again is a hallmark of militant ignorance, sir. There is no proper, non-tautological conclusion from "you don't know, therefore..." One wonders when that fact will sink in.

Cheers,

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by hammegk
Yeah, religious attacks on other belief systems is a joke.

Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?

Well hammegk, I was looking at your posts and I think that you have missed the most important point about science, and that is the thing is about science is that it is still the best tool we have for describing our universe. True, one day we may be able to find better tools, but so far none of these have been discovered.

Further, it is plainly clear that this "spinning-ring" model is clearly wrong. I see several things errors with it and to name just one, they claim that chaos theory is invalid. If that is the case, then that is fine with me, however they have not shown how the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal is in invalid which they should be able to do provided that there ideas are correct.

I hope this helps!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

Uppie, you can take a flying f*ck at a rolling donut for all I care. Okay. So, hammegk doesn't have the balls to explicitely state what he thinks. Since I'm forced to interpret his statements, the one above implies that the reason he has no balls whatsoever is because he knows his philisophical stance is extremely weak and can't stand up to scrutiny.

Got it. Thanks for clearing that up, "hammie"

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail


You mean that little Joey Lucas' high school valedictorian might not be real :eek:

Oh, the shame ....the shame of it all

Seriously though, why does it matter? Surely the only point is not how many PhDs they have (believe me, PhDs are perfectly capable of junk science), but whether their theory has any merit or not.Excellent point, Brian. I'm still curious whether schools will hand out info on alum, but it really isn't pertenant.

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk


Gee, hgc, I didn't realize you were that dumb. Of course I know jj said something. What I asked was would it be worthwhile reading it for any reason other than to see another irrelevant inanity & probably an ad hom if it was to me?

It was absolutely ad hom. I couldn't think of anyone more deserving of it than you. As for irrelevant, that's another matter. What could be less relevant, for instance, than asking other posters whether you should read something from someone you have on ignore. Do you think anyone here gives a sh*t if you read jj's posts? By the way, I noticed that you did the same thing on another thread. Get a life.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc

It was absolutely ad hom. I couldn't think of anyone more deserving of it than you. ....

I agree that thought & subtlety is not anything you provide.


Originally posted by Upchurch

Okay. So, hammegk doesn't have the balls to explicitely state what he thinks.
Uppie, I think your abilities to comprehend are sufficient to know exactly how to interpret my remarks.

Explicitly, if you have something to add, do so. Either that or continue to pule & whine.

[Upchurch]

Okay, if you're going to pretend to play, let's play with this little fallacy-rich statement below.Originally posted by hammegk
Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems? It is your contention that because science is still exploring or has yet to explain one phenomonon, it's entire basis is therefore unreliable despite its great success in other areas? Since you've told me to go ahead and make infurances from your statements, let's say that is your contention.

This, however, is a perfect example of Fallacy of False Dilemma (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/fd.htm), i.e. "science is either 100% correct or it is all wrong." There is, in fact, a third option (and probably more, actually). Science is an ongoing self-correcting process. The concept of dark matter has only been introduced within the last 70 years, or so, and only within the last 10-20 have we begun to have the technology to study it.

Which leads one to think that this statement is also guilty of the fallacy of Fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/irrelev.htm), i.e. there are things that are unknown, so the basis of science is in question. At best, the argument that science hasn't fully investigated dark matter only proves that science doesn't fully know what dark matter is. It doesn't support your contention that the basis of science isn't "firm", as you put it.

How about a good ol' fashion "Fallacy of Mathematical Error"? Your contention is that 96% of the universe is made of dark matter, therefore "what science calls 'matter' comprises less than 1%". What happend to the other 3%?

And lastly, we have the a Fallacy of Definition: Too Narrow (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/narrow.htm), i.e. 100% understanding about how the universe works can only be obtained once 100% of the universe is explored. Consider an analogy: Once the motion of a single tennis ball has been studied, must we study all basket balls to understand the motion of a tennis ball? The percentage of total understanding gained (if such a number is possible) is not termined by the percentage of the universe studied.

edited for uniformity<hr>edited to add

I never really addressed the point of the statement. I do not find the possible existance of dark matter or the fact that most of the universe is yet unexplored reason to question the methodology of science or other unrelated conclusions reached by science.

If one were to question the basis of science, one should start with the conclusions that science has reached and determine (1) if they are erroneous and (2) if the error is systemic to science or specific to the conclusion itself.

[Dancing David]

There are times where the conclusions of science fly in the face ( I don't know if they ride a donut) of the 'common' perception of the universe. It can be confounding and wonderful at the same time.
Sometimes people are unhappy with the idea that there is no matter to go bump against, that it is just magnetic repulsion.
Other people don't like the way that energy/matter can just wink in and out of the vacum (nihil ex nihilo).
Even more pople are upset with the idea that quantum mechanics says that beyong this point you just can't know.
This is all counter intuitive and so some people. like the spinning ring people, want to have an underlying system that makes common sense.
Just further proof that the Universe was created by a comittee!

[Upchurch]

bump

Didn't want to let this slip through the cracks. I'm still waiting to see if hammegk actually has the cahonees to say what he means and then to defend it.

Nothing yet....

[jj]

Originally posted by hgc

It was absolutely ad hom. I couldn't think of anyone more deserving of it than you. As for irrelevant, that's another matter. What could be less relevant, for instance, than asking other posters whether you should read something from someone you have on ignore. Do you think anyone here gives a sh*t if you read jj's posts? By the way, I noticed that you did the same thing on another thread. Get a life.

Well, he'd probably be better off ignoring them, but let him keep on, his agenda dribbles through every time he falls into the "god of the gaps" argument, etc.

As to ad-hom, well, he HAS misrepresented the numbers, etc. How is this ad-hom? He's uses so many rhetorical fallacies I've long ago lost count. The fact that he relies on them doesn't mean his ideas are wrong, of course, but he doesn't state his ideas, he just attacks others, so we have no idea what it is that he's failed to support.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
bump

Didn't want to let this slip through the cracks. I'm still waiting to see if hammegk actually has the cahonees to say what he means and then to defend it.

Nothing yet....


It is your contention that because science is still exploring or has yet to explain one phenomenon, it's entire basis is therefore unreliable despite its great success in other areas? Since you've told me to go ahead and make inferences from your statements, let's say that is your contention.
In a sense that is correct. About 110yrs ago, 2 tiny clouds existed: Michaelson-Morley & blackbody radiation. Today we have:
The Quark Containment problem, and field strength increasing with distance… that is the obverse to the electron-excluded-from-nucleus-problem which can be “predicted” by assigning quantum numbers. Not much of an “explanation” in my mind. Do those orbit “jumps” occur ftl, or just within the now-believed-impenetrable veil of Planck time?

Also, the origin of mass – and conversely, energy – continues unanswerable.

And as mentioned the dark matter/energy preponderance having as yet no analysis, and for that matter, perhaps always indetectable.


This, however, is a perfect example of Fallacy of False Dilemma, i.e. "science is either 100% correct or it is all wrong." There is, in fact, a third option (and probably more, actually). Science is an ongoing self-correcting process. The concept of dark matter has only been introduced within the last 70 years, or so, and only within the last 10-20 have we begun to have the technology to study it.
It would be easy if things either were, or were-not. I do have one 100% certain point: “*I* think”.

Nothing else meets this standard of reliability, although I’m more than happy to state that math-physics models accurately predict (aggregate) futures, and at 99.999+%.


Which leads one to think that this statement is also guilty of the fallacy of Fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion, i.e. there are things that are unknown, so the basis of science is in question. At best, the argument that science hasn't fully investigated dark matter only proves that science doesn't fully know what dark matter is. It doesn't support your contention that the basis of science isn't "firm", as you put it.
Your problem is this: you are willing to be skeptical of everything except the absolute reliability of models based on scientific methods, and in essence use axioms to "prove" themselves.


How about a good ol' fashion "Fallacy of Mathematical Error"? Your contention is that 96% of the universe is made of dark matter, therefore "what science calls 'matter' comprises less than 1%". What happened to the other 3%?
It’s there as that also currently impenetrable mystery “energy”.


And lastly, we have the a Fallacy of Definition: Too Narrow, i.e. 100% understanding about how the universe works can only be obtained once 100% of the universe is explored. Consider an analogy: Once the motion of a single tennis ball has been studied, must we study all basket balls to understand the motion of a tennis ball? The percentage of total understanding gained (if such a number is possible) is not determined by the percentage of the universe studied.
Umm, no I don’t agree that is part of my contention.

I never really addressed the point of the statement. I do not find the possible existance of dark matter or the fact that most of the universe is yet unexplored reason to question the methodology of science or other unrelated conclusions reached by science.
I’m not as concerned with “the universe” as I am with the under-our-noses problems of quark binding, and “mass”.


If one were to question the basis of science, one should start with the conclusions that science has reached and determine (1) if they are erroneous and (2) if the error is systemic to science or specific to the conclusion itself.
I think we are at heart discussing how much “self-correction” is on the horizon, and why a science with such skaky underlying understanding states that materialism is the ONLY possible answer to "what-is".

[whitefork]

Originally posted by hammegk
The Quark Containment problem, and field strength increasing with distance… that is the obverse to the electron-excluded-from-nucleus-problem which can be “predicted” by assigning quantum numbers.

Also, the origin of mass – and conversely, energy – continues unanswerable.

And as mentioned the dark matter/energy preponderance having as yet no analysis, and for that matter, perhaps always indetectable.

It would be easy if things either were, or were-not. I do have one 100% certain point: “*I* think”.

It’s there as that also currently impenetrable mystery “energy”.

Agur?

[Dancing David]

Ah, theres the rub, it is not science which staes that materialism is the only menas, it is materialists who state that science is the only means.

I'd be very willing to discuss and design models to test the idealist view point.

The only problem I see with quarks is not the fact that the binding force rises as they seperate but that they can't be sperated. This means that they are a very useful theory but there may not ever be more than a theory.

I agree though that the mass/inertia issue has yet to be explained or probed.

Science is an unending series of approximations, I think that problems occur when people say, "Here we have it at last, the ultimate explanation".

[BillHoyt]

hammy,

We've been here before. The essential problem is your absolutist position about certainty. I make no claims to 100% certainty. I know of few skeptics here who do. You, however, want to put us in this little bifurcated box. I'm sorry. I wouldn't crawl in there before and I won't crawl in there now.

When scientists reach their conclusions it is always done on a continuum. And a conclusion, no matter how certain, is always subject to change upon introduction of new evidence. The firmer the previous conclusion, the more solid the new evidence has to be to unseat it.

I feel sorry for you that you have to maintain this bifurcated mindset. I really don't understand it. But equally am I angered with you and the many others who accuse scientists and skeptics of this absolutist stance when it is you who maintain that stance. I am further angered by your fallacious attempts to put us in that box of yours or to demonstrate that our knowledge isn't truly 100% certain, and therefore... (fill in your favorite woo position here)

No dice. That dog don't hunt.

Cheers,

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Kullervo

Agur?
No. Should I SPEAK LOUDER for you?

[hgc]

hammegk:

...

It would be easy if things either were, or were-not. I do have one 100% certain point: “*I* think”.

...


hammy's magic *I* makes its appearence.

This is his real agenda; that there's no objective reality. Everything he argues is meant to shoehorn into this delusion.

Oh, that and that slavery is good for black people.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk
In a sense that is correct. About 110yrs ago, 2 tiny clouds existed: Michaelson-Morley & blackbody radiation. Today we have: *snip*True, but irrelevent. This is still falling back on the assertion that be basis of science is shaky because there are some as yet unanswered questions
Also, the origin of mass – and conversely, energy – continues unanswerable.Unanswerable or unanswered? (And I'm not sure it's either.) What is your rationel for this statement? If it were, indeed, unanswerable I'd say you might have an arguement, but I'm not aware of anything that says the origin of math is unanswerable.
And as mentioned the dark matter/energy preponderance having as yet no analysis, and for that matter, perhaps always indetectable.Except, as mentioned, the technology has begun to emerge that will allow us to begin analyzing the phenomenon. How do you justify the absolute that it will be "always indetectable"? Do you have some knowledge about the matter (pardon the pun) or is it wishful thinking?
It would be easy if things either were, or were-not. It would be easy if life was binary, but who ever told you life was supposed to be easy? Understanding takes elbow grease, metaphorically speaking.
I do have one 100% certain point: “*I* think”.And you're 100% certain of that, are you?

Even that is such a complex subject unto itself. Have you thought it all the way through? Consider, in order to come to the conclusion that "I think" with 100% certainty, one must first be 100% certain what the terms "I" and "think" mean. There is a common understanding what "I" means, but that must be a generalized (i.e. approximate) understanding rather than a specific (i.e. exact) understanding.

Do you know who "I" (i.e. hammegk) is with 100% certainty? Are you intimately familar with all aspects of your Id, Ego, and Superego? Your consciousness and subconsciousness? Are 100% aware of your physical and mental abilities and limitations. Do you know all aspects of your background that make you who you are? Are you 100% certain you are who you think you are?

Do you know what it means to "think" with 100% certainty? Do you understand all aspects that are involved in the process of "thinking" so that there is no ambiguity whatsoever? Can you descriminate between thinking and random electrochemical processess? Can you tell, with 100% certainty, that you are thinking rather than being under the illusion that you are thinking?

How can you even be sure that you understand what it means for "I" (i.e. hammegk) to "think" with 100% certainty?

(hint: this is where you get to be a real skeptic and question your own beliefs and try to justify them with more than idle speculation or wishful thinking.)
Nothing else meets this standard of reliability, although I’m more than happy to state that math-physics models accurately predict (aggregate) futures, and at 99.999+%.I'm willing to bet not even "I think" meets that standard of reliability. It's an abstract and relative concept based in the ego and, as such, means different things to different people. Math-physics models, while in themselves abstract, are based on concreate, objective, and repeatable phenomenon. That is why they can be 99.9+% accurate.
Your problem is this: you are willing to be skeptical of everything except the absolute reliability of models based on scientific methods, and in essence use axioms to "prove" themselves.First, this doen't address the issue of your Fallacy of Irrelevent Conclusion (which you quoted for this bit) and, actually, it implies that you are really trying to address your Fallacy of False Dilemma in that by my not seeing this as an either-or situation I am not acknowledging the the possibility that science itself may have a false basis. Which leads me to my second point, the fact that you've made a false dilemma in no way implies that I am not willing to acknowledge the possibility. (Remember, you've allowed me to interpret your statements. I have not allowed you to interpret mine.) In fact, at the end of my post, I went so far as to outline how one would go about showing that the basis of science is weak or even erroneous. Your claim that I'm unwilling to be skeptical of science is plainly false, as shown.
It’s there as that also currently impenetrable mystery “energy”.Given that I must extrapolate your meanings, you are saying "The remaining 3% of the universe is made of dark energy", even though earlier you said that "the universe is 96% dark matter/energy". Which would imply that you believe that 99% of the universe is made of dark matter/energy, despite the best estimates by scientist.

If, on the other hand, you really meant to say that "The remaining 3% of the universe is made of energy (the regular thuroughly studied kind)" then I have no idea what you mean by the adjectives "currently impenetrable mystery" because it surely is not.

As an aside, I find it amusing that you chastize science on the one hand but then use it as proof when you think it is to your advantage.
Umm, no I don’t agree that is part of my contention.Well that's the problem of not saying explicitely what you mean, isn't it. However, if it isn't part of you contention then you must have been exadurating when you said that "what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?" where you implied that science only had knowledge of less than 1% of the universe, what exactly did you mean?
I’m not as concerned with “the universe” as I am with the under-our-noses problems of quark binding, and “mass”. And you consider this to be a systemic problem rather than specific problems? What leads you to this conclusion? The mere existance of yet unanswered questions? Can you elaborate on your reasons for this conclusion?
I think we are at heart discussing how much “self-correction” is on the horizon, and why a science with such skaky underlying understanding states that materialism is the ONLY possible answer to "what-is". Perhaps there is a lot of change on the horizen. It certainly happened a lot in the previous century and there is no reason it couldn't happen in the current one. However, I would assert that the shakey understanding is not happening on the behalf of science but rather by those who do not understand science and its conclusions. And, just so we're being unambiguous, yes, I am referring directly to you, hammegk. Specifically, I refer to your lack of understanding of the partical-wave duality of subatomic particles, for example, which has been independently varified time after time.

Comparatively, how often has it been independently varified that "I [hammegk] think"? :D

edited to fix tag problem

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

The essential problem is your absolutist position about certainty. I make no claims to 100% certainty.

Originally posted by hgc

hammy's magic *I* makes its appearence.

This is his real agenda; that there's no objective reality. Everything he argues is meant to shoehorn into this delusion.

Your choice is, *you* exist: ergo you think. Yes, I choose the alternative. (Again, with *I* think -- to me -- a tautology.)

Who has an absolutist problem?


Oh, that and that slavery is good for black people.
You are wrong. I say that blacks in the US (whose ancestors were slaves) should be thankful to have an opportunity set that does not exist elsewhere on this planet.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk

Your choice is, *you* exist: ergo you think. Yes, I choose the alternative. (Again, with *I* think -- to me -- a tautology.)


It's interesting that you get to define what others' choices are, but you don't want them doing the same for you.

Do you understand your statement "Yes, I choose the alternative." to mean that you deny the existance of others? It would seem to be weakly indicated by context but your statement is far from clear.

If you stand on the surface of the earth like you usually do, hold a brick over your left toe, and let go, what happens?

Does the brick therefore exist, or are you, in absolute solipcism, hurting yourself? If so, what would that indicate?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj


It's interesting that you get to define what others' choices are, but you don't want them doing the same for you.

Do you understand your statement "Yes, I choose the alternative." to mean that you deny the existance of others? It would seem to be weakly indicated by context but your statement is far from clear.
Well, unplonk jj, anyway. There is a bit of substance there.

Yes, the choice is either/or in that the Discourses of Stimpy -- for me -- rule out dualism as a logical possibility. (Win says otherwise, but I've never understood his logic.)


If you stand on the surface of the earth like you usually do, hold a brick over your left toe, and let go, what happens?

Does the brick therefore exist, or are you, in absolute solipcism, hurting yourself? If so, what would that indicate?
Yeah, *me* as a perceiving mechanism certainly signals "pain".

BTW, can you disprove solipsism with you as the solipsist?


Originally posted by Upchurch

True, but irrelevant. This is still falling back on the assertion that the basis of science is shaky because there are some as yet unanswered questions.

Umm. Versus the alternative: Science is self-correcting, and it’s irrelevant that the most basic parts of “what-is” are suppositions rather than facts?

Unanswerable or unanswered? (And I'm not sure it's either.) What is your rationale for this statement? If it were, indeed, unanswerable I'd say you might have an arguement, but I'm not aware of anything that says the origin of math is unanswerable.
Certainly unanswered. Interesting typo anyway. “Math” does become a basic discussion problem.

Except, as mentioned, the technology has begun to emerge that will allow us to begin analyzing the phenomenon. How do you justify the absolute that it will be "always indetectable"? Do you have some knowledge about the matter (pardon the pun) or is it wishful thinking?
Note that I said “perhaps undetectable”. Will technology advance to allow meaningful analysis of < Planck length?


It would be easy if life was binary, but who ever told you life was supposed to be easy? Understanding takes elbow grease, metaphorically speaking.
We agree on that anyway.

And you're 100% certain of that, are you?
Actually, yes I am. How about you?

Even that is such a complex subject unto itself. Have you thought it all the way through? Consider, in order to come to the conclusion that "I think" with 100% certainty, one must first be 100% certain what the terms "I" and "think" mean. There is a common understanding what "I" means, but that must be a generalized (i.e. approximate) understanding rather than a specific (i.e. exact) understanding.
Semantics problems will imo always be with us. *I* think is a tautology for me, and I suspect for you as well.


Do you know who "I" (i.e. hammegk) is with 100% certainty? Are you intimately familar with all aspects of your Id, Ego, and Superego? Your consciousness and subconsciousness? Are 100% aware of your physical and mental abilities and limitations. Do you know all aspects of your background that make you who you are? Are you 100% certain you are who you think you are?
The *me* -- bag-of-bones, highly complex neural system – certainly adds difficulty separating the *I* from the *me*, but for my purposes I feel I do separate them. (I have no confidence that Id, Ego etcetc exist without all the *me* complexness.)


Do you know what it means to "think" with 100% certainty? Do you understand all aspects that are involved in the process of "thinking" so that there is no ambiguity whatsoever? Can you descriminate between thinking and random electrochemical processes?
Interesting question, but to my satisfaction, yes. *Me* seems to generate a lot of “thinking” that *I* has the ability to follow, or ignore. If you feel that “free will” is a meaningless concept, that would make it easier to disagree.


Can you tell, with 100% certainty, that you are thinking rather than being under the illusion that you are thinking?
No.

How can you even be sure that you understand what it means for "I" (i.e. hammegk) to "think" with 100% certainty?
Are you The Solipsist?

I'm willing to bet not even "I think" meets that standard of reliability. It's an abstract and relative concept based in the ego and, as such, means different things to different people.
Sorry if I don’t agree to ignore my most certain data point.


First, this doen't address the issue of your Fallacy of Irrelevent Conclusion (which you quoted for this bit) and, actually, it implies that you are really trying to address your Fallacy of False Dilemma in that by my not seeing this as an either-or situation I am not acknowledging the the possibility that science itself may have a false basis. Which leads me to my second point, the fact that you've made a false dilemma in no way implies that I am not willing to acknowledge the possibility. (Remember, you've allowed me to interpret your statements. I have not allowed you to interpret mine.) In fact, at the end of my post, I went so far as to outline how one would go about showing that the basis of science is weak or even erroneous. Your claim that I'm unwilling to be skeptical of science is plainly false, as shown.
And you are missing the forest looking at trees.

Logical thinking starting with incorrect premises is worthless.


Given that I must extrapolate your meanings, you are saying "The remaining 3% of the universe is made of dark energy", even though earlier you said that "the universe is 96% dark matter/energy". Which would imply that you believe that 99% of the universe is made of dark matter/energy, despite the best estimates by scientist.
And here I thought I’d said 96% dark matter/energy & less than 1% “matter”. Hmm. The remainder is “energy”.


If, on the other hand, you really meant to say that "The remaining 3% of the universe is made of energy (the regular thoroughly studied kind)" then I have no idea what you mean by the adjectives "currently impenetrable mystery" because it surely is not.
Kewl. You are going to define “energy” for me. (Did you say math IS reality?)


As an aside, I find it amusing that you chastize science on the one hand but then use it as proof when you think it is to your advantage.
Me too…..


Well that's the problem of not saying explicitly what you mean, isn't it. However, if it isn't part of you contention then you must have been exaggerating when you said that "what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?" where you implied that science only had knowledge of less than 1% of the universe, what exactly did you mean?

I believe I’ve now addressed this point.

And you consider this to be a systemic problem rather than specific problems? What leads you to this conclusion? The mere existence of yet unanswered questions? Can you elaborate on your reasons for this conclusion?
I consider the three areas I’ve mentioned crucial problems for Materialists – those who state that science will provide ALL answers, or at least that questions not answerable by science are meaningless. Like “life” at one level, morality at another.

Perhaps there is a lot of change on the horizon. It certainly happened a lot in the previous century and there is no reason it couldn't happen in the current one. However, I would assert that the shaky understanding is not happening on the behalf of science but rather by those who do not understand science and its conclusions. And, just so we're being unambiguous, yes, I am referring directly to you, hammegk.
Er, ok. As Dancing Dave mentioned, Materialists must state that science is the only truth; Science does not state that materialism is the only answer.

Specifically, I refer to your lack of understanding of the particle-wave duality of subatomic particles, for example, which has been independently verified time after time.
Well, we agree the world of perception continues to demonstrate that attribute. And you feel you “understand” it. I’m not quite so comfortable that I do, but will point out that Idealism offers possible solutions materialism must rule out.

Comparatively, how often has it been independently verified that "I [hammegk] think"?
Either I do, or you ARE The Solipsist.

BTW, thanks for providing some interesting questions. I appreciate it. Have *you* thought them through?

(hint: this is where you get to be a real skeptic and question your own beliefs and try to justify them with more than idle speculation or wishful thinking.) :p

[BillHoyt]

hammy,

Have you only arguments from ignorance to offer? Are you so afraid of the essential weakness of your argument that you must persist with this preposterous debate style?

The essence of your argument is "you don't know, therefore..." That is the argument from ignorance. Along the way, you take swipes at science because it doesn't answer ultimate questions to your satisfaction. So what? Because "energy" is not defined suficiently for you, it becomes irrelevant or a "supposition?" No, it is a working concept that has been refined over the centuries. It works well, and works within an overall theoretical framework that works quite well, thank you. If you don't like it, then get off the internet, sell your computer, sell your car and have your lights turned off.

Now try, please, to make several paragraphs with substance. No more swipes and drive-by assertions. Tough it out. Duke it out. State your assertions and follow the arguments. Knock off the *I* *me* *you* bullsh.

Let us start with your fundamental objection: that there are things / definitions / axioms of science that are unprovable. Yes. Most certainly. So what? The twentieth century also has brought to light the mathematical/logical fact that that will always be so. Now we've discussed this before at length, but you seem to still be distressed over it. Get over it. There is no framework possible that does not have this fault. Period.

Cheers,

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

Umm. Versus the alternative: Science is self-correcting, and it’s irrelevant that the most basic parts of “what-is” are suppositions rather than facts?Ultimately, is there an alternative? The basis of your "what-is" is just as much of an assumption as mine. The difference is, science, when it finds a flaw in its assumptions seeks to correct it, no matter how basic. Are you willing to discount your most basic premise, "I think" if it turns out to be so? (As if you could, if it is not)
Note that I said “perhaps undetectable”. No, hammegk. You can not have it both ways. You either say what you mean or make me interpret, but don't get upset if I interpret you what you mean incorrectly. You said, "perhaps always indetectable." If that bothers you than say what you mean.
And you're 100% certain of that ["I think"], are you?

Actually, yes I am. How about you?
Really? My beliefs on the matter are irrelevent. But it seems to me, later you said,
Can you tell, with 100% certainty, that you are thinking rather than being under the illusion that you are thinking?

No.It seems to me you aren't 100% certain that you are thinking, are you? Otherwise, you would know that you are thinking rather than under the illusion that you are thinking. So, ultimately, you are on just as shakey ground as you claim science is. Further, you cling to your beliefs as hard as you claim I do. Note:
Sorry if I don’t agree to ignore my most certain data point.Most certain, perhaps. But not 100% certain, is it?

I have to run. I will finish later.

[Dancing David]

I think the fact that the current thories say the universe is made of energy, it is 100% energy, matter is energy, science is only a tool for predicting the behavior of the universe.

Description is tool for prediction, it does not have to find an ultimate cause. If the description of the universe is that all the universe is energy, and that description leads to dependable predictions then science is doing it's thing.

HammeGK: It seems that you would like for there to be an ultimate cause or explanation? I don't think that that is a goal of science. (Some scientists perhaps)

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk

Well, unplonk jj, anyway. There is a bit of substance there.

Substance ::= question I want to answer
Lack thereof ::= question I don't want to answer.

Either I do, or you ARE The Solipsist.

I can't seem to imagine you away, so I'm not. :)

As I have said before, one must reject ultimate solipcism in order to conclude that anything external exists.

That has to be done at least partly on faith, either a simple rejection on faith, or faith that one is not insane enough to imagine either you :) or the obvious inconsistancy of human beings .

On the other hand, once past that rejection, it's very hard to argue against the scientific method.

As always there is no proof, just like there is no proof of evolution, or no proof of "no deity".

There is only a preponderance of evidence.

[Quasi]

Originally posted by jj


As always there is no proof, just like there is no proof of evolution, or no proof of "no deity".

There is only a preponderance of evidence.

I object to the "evolution" remark. Anyone on earth can replicate the experiments done to discover that evolution is real, and based on the results must reach the same conclusion as the original scientists because the evidence is not ambiguous taken as a whole. Further there does not exist an alternative explanation for life on earth, given the evidence.
As for no proof of no deity bit, yes I agree. But that is in of itself a circular argument. As Karl Popper stated, circular arguments have no value whatsoever because you can never know anything further than there is no evidence there is no God/God exists. Question, how do you know about the concept of God in the first place- someone told you so. Beliefs are learned behaviors. Many humans have accepted the God concept 100% based on someone merely saying it exists (including the Bible.) Given that the deity theory has no value, why bother debating a circular argument? Why believe in it anyway? It can have no practical, moral, or ethical implications in your life. If you are a moral person you will act so regardless of your belief in circular arguments. This depends on not only your genes, but upbringing and the choices you make in life. If you are a sociopath you are likely to be an evil, conspiring person, regardless of your circular beliefs or upbringing. If you were not raised well, you may also be a sleaze. This is the classical argument: Why should people believe in circular arguments at all (religion etc.)?

[jj]

Originally posted by Quasi
I object to the "evolution" remark. Anyone on earth can replicate the experiments done to discover that evolution is real, and based on the results must reach the same conclusion as the original scientists because the evidence is not ambiguous taken as a whole.

Why are you objecting?

You just agreed with me that the preponderance of evidence lies gigantically on the side of evolutionary theory.

And, no, I don't have to reach exactly the same results as other scientists. In my own field, I've been there, done that, won the debate.

(But this does not mean I would argue against evolution, that's not my field of research, and besides, all I would argue there would be specifics, which are very much open to discussion.)

[Quasi]

I will try to clarify:

I will agree that in a scientific construct, nothing is 100 proven, however science continues toward, perhaps, some fundamental truths might be found, although that may never happen. In a philosophical context, if one considers the "no God" proof vs the "evolution" proof, you are comparing a circular argument to one which is not. Evolution is falsifiable, metaphysical concepts such as God are not.
If you are speaking from the solipist perspective then evolution/santa clause/John Edwards are all on the same level of proof and are equally probable, as they are formed by you and not entities in their own right.
And herein lies my point: the philosophy that nothing can be proven, and that solipism is an equal belief system to science is just plain wrong, as Karl Popper pointed out.
An example:
Psychotherapy based on Id, Ego, or Superego or other metaphysical concepts do not work nearly as well as Cognitive Therapy, which is based on scientific principles.

[jj]

Originally posted by Quasi
IIn a philosophical context, if one considers the "no God" proof vs the "evolution" proof, you are comparing a circular argument to one which is not. Evolution is falsifiable, metaphysical concepts such as God are not.


I will agree that the statement "evolution never occurs" is not only falsifiable but also falsified. We (mankind) have observed it.

However, the statement "evolution is all there is" is falsifiable, but is not proven, and can not be, because that would require proof of a negative assertion. So my point is that we can never have absolute proof, and that insisting on absolute proof is roughly the same as denying the existance of knowledge.

This is not to say that there is any evidence whatsoever for anything else BUT evolution, mind you...

Personally I do cheerfully drop Occam on people who give us stuff like what I call 'tautological creationism', i.e. "god set it up to make it look like evolution did it all, even though we were just created this morning". That's not proof, though, that's simply a statement that I think the parsomonious reasoning is usually better when there is no contrary evidence.


And herein lies my point: the philosophy that nothing can be proven, and that solipism is an equal belief system to science is just plain wrong, as Karl Popper pointed out.

I hope you're not thinking I disagree with that statement. Perhaps, though, we need to discuss the meaning of "proven" vs. "plausible"?

An example:
Psychotherapy based on Id, Ego, or Superego or other metaphysical concepts do not work nearly as well as Cognitive Therapy, which is based on scientific principles.

I won't speak for cognative therapy because I haven't studied it well enough to know if it can measureably affect brain chemistry in appropriate fashions. Fraudianism is not science, we agree. Of there was ever a call for a DBT, well ... (and I'm leaving out all the Victorian/etc baggage that came along with it. Hysteria my (*(*&)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Ultimately, is there an alternative? The basis of your "what-is" is just as much of an assumption as mine. The difference is, science, when it finds a flaw in its assumptions seeks to correct it, no matter how basic. Are you willing to discount your most basic premise, "I think" if it turns out to be so? (As if you could, if it is not)
Note the problem here, for you. *I* think remains no matter what assumptions are made, or not made.


No, hammegk. You can not have it both ways. You either say what you mean or make me interpret, but don't get upset if I interpret you what you mean incorrectly. You said, "perhaps always indetectable." If that bothers you than say what you mean.
Damn semantics .....


And you're 100% certain of that ["I think"], are you?

Can you tell, with 100% certainty, that you are thinking rather than being under the illusion that you are thinking?

It seems to me you aren't 100% certain that you are thinking, are you?

Ya got me there. All I can say with 100% certainty is that *I* think, or that *I think* is The Solipsist .... "thinking".


Really? My beliefs on the matter are irrelevent.
A rather strange stance ... what is relevant if not what YOU think?


I have to run. I will finish later.
Please do.....

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Have you only arguments from ignorance to offer? Are you so afraid of the essential weakness of your argument that you must persist with this preposterous debate style?
A debate would imply that I wanted you to change your worldview to mine. I don't.

Because "energy" is not defined suficiently for you, it becomes irrelevant or a "supposition?" No, it is a working concept that has been refined over the centuries. It works well, and works within an overall theoretical framework that works quite well, thank you.
Implication being it is "defined sufficiently" for you? Please share.

Perhaps you will do better than your expositions on "color".

If you don't like it, then get off the internet, sell your computer, sell your car and have your lights turned off.
Ummm, nah, but thanks for the suggestion though.

Knock off the *I* *me* *you* bullsh.
Not until I am given a more viable alternative.

There is no framework possible that does not have this fault. Period.
Or perhaps you will be able to revise the logic that underlies that "assertion" by Godel?

Originally posted by jj


As I have said before, one must reject ultimate solipcism in order to conclude that anything external exists.

That has to be done at least partly on faith, either a simple rejection on faith, or faith that one is not insane enough to imagine either you or the obvious inconsistancy of human beings .
We agree on the faith aspect required to reject solipsism, but disagree that that allows the conclusion that "an objective external world exists independent in itself".

On the other hand, once past that rejection, it's very hard to argue against the scientific method.
I don't argue with the scientific method. I only point out that agnosticism -- in ALL things -- is the most logical stance.

[the_ignored]

Well, as long as we're playing with semantics and interpretations:

http://www.angryflower.com/goinaf.gif

(of course, part of the humor is that here, the IDist actually has provided Positive Evidence of his belief!)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:Ya got me there. All I can say with 100% certainty is that *I* think, or that *I think* is The Solipsist .... "thinking".
I'm not sure you can say "I think." The thinking could be an illusion, just like my head or the wall that I'm banging it against. I think the most you can say is that I am an agent available to the illusionist.

~~Paul

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by the_ignored
Well, as long as we're playing with semantics and interpretations:


(of course, part of the humor is that here, the IDist actually has provided Positive Evidence of his belief!)

Bob! I enjoy. I had the fortune of meeting the cartoonist and having a few beers with him several years ago. I am pleased that he is having so much success with his comic.

[jj]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Okay. So, hammegk doesn't have the balls to explicitely state what he thinks. Since I'm forced to interpret his statements, the one above implies that the reason he has no balls whatsoever is because he knows his philisophical stance is extremely weak and can't stand up to scrutiny.

Got it. Thanks for clearing that up, "hammie"

I've had the same problem. He won't state HIS opinion, he simply hangs out to deny those of others. When asked for substance, he waffles, weaves, and relies on his ultimate solipcism.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj


I've had the same problem. He won't state HIS opinion, he simply hangs out to deny those of others. When asked for substance, he waffles, weaves, and relies on his ultimate solipcism.

Sorry, bubby; if there is A Solipsist it must be you, not *I*.

As to unanswered questions:

What was your response to my earlier comment "the choice is either/or in that the Discourses of Stimpy -- for me -- rule out dualism as a logical possibility. (Win says otherwise, but I've never understood his logic.)"?

I must've missed your thoughts here.


Continuing:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillHoyt

The essential problem is your absolutist position about certainty. I make no claims to 100% certainty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hgc

hammy's magic *I* makes its appearence.

This is his real agenda; that there's no objective reality. Everything he argues is meant to shoehorn into this delusion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


hammegk: "Your choice is, *you* exist: ergo you think. Yes, I choose the alternative. (Again, with *I* think -- to me -- a tautology.)

Who has an absolutist problem?"

And repeating, "Who are the absolutists?". :wink:

[Upchurch]

I've totally lost track of this thread, but here goes:
Originally posted by hammegk

Note the problem here, for you. *I* think remains no matter what assumptions are made, or not made.Au contraire, "*I* think" may remain, but it remains only as an assumption and as one that has yet to be either validated or disproven.
Ya got me there. All I can say with 100% certainty is that *I* think, or that *I think* is The Solipsist .... "thinking".False Dillema. There are other possibilities that do not require hammegk nor a lone Solipsist (sp?) out there in the aether thinking. How can you be 100% (or is it 50%?) sure that a solipst is out there thinking "hammegk thinks"?
Really? My beliefs on the matter are irrelevent.
A rather strange stance ... what is relevant if not what YOU think?
It is irrelevent, because your point is that you are 100% sure that "I [hammegk] thnk" not whether "Upchurch thinks".
Please do.....
m'kay. Going back a bit....
And you are missing the forest looking at trees.Oh, hammegk. I'm glad you made me go back and finish this thought. Otherwise, I would have missed this jewel of hypocracy. You chide me for missing the point by getting bogged down in the details, missing the forest for the trees, as it were. But your very argument is science is missing information at the minute level and, therefore, science itself is flawed. In essense, this entire discussion has been centered on the trees validating the forest, not the validity of the forest despite the trees. Remember when you said:It is your contention that because science is still exploring or has yet to explain one phenomenon, it's entire basis is therefore unreliable despite its great success in other areas? Since you've told me to go ahead and make inferences from your statements, let's say that is your contention.
In a sense that is correct. About 110yrs ago, 2 tiny clouds existed: Michaelson-Morley & blackbody radiation. Today we have:
The Quark Containment problem, and field strength increasing with distance… that is the obverse to the electron-excluded-from-nucleus-problem which can be “predicted” by assigning quantum numbers. Not much of an “explanation” in my mind. Do those orbit “jumps” occur ftl, or just within the now-believed-impenetrable veil of Planck time? And now you have the hypocracy to complain that I am analyzing the details of your argument rather than simply accepting it for what it is?

Regardless, you have still have a couple of unaddressed fallacies (the points that prompted your "forest for the trees" statement) hanging over your head that you need to address at some point.
Logical thinking starting with incorrect premises is worthless.But you have, at no time, shown that any premise of science is incorrect nor that science has a systemic problem that renders it invalid.
[the remaining 3% is] there as that also currently impenetrable mystery “energy”.Given that I must extrapolate your meanings, you are saying "The remaining 3% of the universe is made of dark energy", even though earlier you said that "the universe is 96% dark matter/energy". Which would imply that you believe that 99% of the universe is made of dark matter/energy, despite the best estimates by scientist.And here I thought I’d said 96% dark matter/energy & less than 1% “matter”. Hmm. The remainder is “energy”.
whoo boy, I wish you would keep up. There are so many errors here, I'm not sure where to begin.

First, the term "dark mass/energy" refers to an mass/energy that has yet to be explored and is, thus, a mystery. To refer to the remaining 3% as "mysterious energy" is to place it under the category of "dark energy", thus the 99% dark mass/energy. Second, the subject of energy is not mysterious in any way. It is the single most studied concept in physics, if not science in general. Third, mass and energy are the same thing. You not understanding dosen't mean that scientists don't understand it and took that into account when they came up with the approx. 90% dark matter figure.

You're statement that "what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%" is blatently incorrect, mathematically. Thus, the Fallacy of Mathematical Error is there, as I said.
Did you say math IS reality?I absolutely did not say that mathematics is reality. Mathematics describe reality. It is the most descriptive language we have for describing and predicting the behavior of reality.
And you consider this to be a systemic problem rather than specific problems? What leads you to this conclusion? The mere existence of yet unanswered questions? Can you elaborate on your reasons for this conclusion?
I consider the three areas I’ve mentioned crucial problems for Materialists – those who state that science will provide ALL answers, or at least that questions not answerable by science are meaningless. Like “life” at one level, morality at another. :rub: "And you are missing the forest looking at trees."

(:roll: Couldn't resist)

This is a blatent straw man. Who has said that science will provide answers to the abstract concept that arise from the human condition?

Secondly, how do you know it won't just because it hasn't yet? I'm not saying that it will, but how do you know that it can not?

Again, you've not shown that unanswered questions is a systemic problem of science, only that there are specific yet unsolved questions.
Materialists must state that science is the only truth; Science does not state that materialism is the only answer.Another straw man fallacy. I never said that it was. I was mearly refuting your claim that science is faulty because there were unanswered questions.
Well, we agree the world of perception continues to demonstrate that attribute. And you feel you “understand” it. I’m not quite so comfortable that I do, but will point out that Idealism offers possible solutions materialism must rule out.So, you must ask yourself, is your lack of trust in science based in a fundamental problem with science or your inability to understand it? I doubt you fully understand what the premises of science are since you can not explain to me why it is flawed.Comparatively, how often has it been independently verified that "I [hammegk] think"?
Either I do, or you ARE The Solipsist.False Dillema again, hammegk, but I'll take that to mean that it's never been idependently verified that "I [hammegk] think".
BTW, thanks for providing some interesting questions. I appreciate it. Have *you* thought them through?[/b]To some extent, but that is aside from the actual point of the thread.

[Upchurch]

bumping for hammegk.

[Diamond]

Can I point out that "dark matter" is a hypothesis to explain certain experimental and observational results, as is dark energy? Since they have never been directly observed, they can and should be viewed as placeholders for missing knowledge, which may or may not be true or valid.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Diamond
Can I point out that "dark matter" is a hypothesis to explain certain experimental and observational results, as is dark energy? Since they have never been directly observed, they can and should be viewed as placeholders for missing knowledge, which may or may not be true or valid. Yup. But that's hammegk's point: We don't know what that missing *whatever* is and therefore, science itself is fundamentally flawed. I disagree.

[Dancing David]

Whats missing is any alternative explanation! Science is an iterative process of explanation.

There is no 'absolute' truth to be had by science and I think that some find the relatavist stance unerving. Since it is just a decription of otherwise random events there is no ultimate purpose.

There is no Cause to be explained, there is no Meaning to be explained. Enjoy life folks, thats about it.

[Dorman]

Originally posted by hammegk
Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?

If ``dark matter'' exists, it has to be a part of ``matter'' as used by science, by definition. This ``dark matter'' interacts with the visible matter -- it exerts a gravitational force. And therefore, it should come under the catagory of ``matter'' anyway.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I've totally lost track of this thread, but here goes:
Er, yeah. I still may get into attacking the atomic model, even if I'm not a creationist.


Au contraire, "*I* think" may remain, but it remains only as an assumption and as one that has yet to be either validated or disproven.
You believe you "know" anything with more certainty than that *you* think? How?


False Dillema. There are other possibilities that do not require hammegk nor a lone Solipsist (sp?) out there in the aether thinking. How can you be 100% (or is it 50%?) sure that a solipst is out there thinking "hammegk thinks"?
The tautology that *I* think, or conversely *Ithink* is the thought of another seem apparent. What other "possibility" do you suggest? (Remember, *I* think all of us homo saps -- & probably all "life" "thinks".)


It is irrelevent, because your point is that you are 100% sure that "I [hammegk] thnk" not whether "Upchurch thinks".
A strange position. You intend to live your life according to "hammegk" thinking? Weird!



Oh, hammegk. I'm glad you made me go back and finish this thought. ....your very argument is science is missing information at the minute level and, therefore, science itself is flawed. In essense, this entire discussion has been centered on the trees validating the forest, not the validity of the forest despite the trees. Remember when you said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a sense that is correct. About 110yrs ago, 2 tiny clouds existed: Michaelson-Morley & blackbody radiation. Today we have:
The Quark Containment problem, and field strength increasing with distance… that is the obverse to the electron-excluded-from-nucleus-problem which can be “predicted” by assigning quantum numbers. Not much of an “explanation” in my mind. Do those orbit “jumps” occur ftl, or just within the now-believed-impenetrable veil of Planck time?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now you have the hypocracy to complain that I am analyzing the details of your argument rather than simply accepting it for what it is?
Regarding "matter", the closer we look at it the less of it there is -- nothin' here but empty space -- which is the forest & which is the tree?


But you have, at no time, shown that any premise of science is incorrect nor that science has a systemic problem that renders it invalid.
The one we are discussing is that "objective reality exists" -- your subjective judgement.

whoo boy, I wish you would keep up. There are so many errors here, I'm not sure where to begin.
96+3+1=100 is too tough to follow? The original comment I made was from an article in the Rocky Mtn News (Denver) of 2-3 weeks ago.

Second, the subject of energy is not mysterious in any way. It is the single most studied concept in physics, if not science in general. Third, mass and energy are the same thing. You not understanding dosen't mean that scientists don't understand it and took that into account when they came up with the approx. 90% dark matter figure
At last, a man who is going to define "energy" for me. Is a photon mass, or energy? Various flavors of neutrinos? etcetc.


You're statement that "what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%" is blatently incorrect, mathematically. Thus, the Fallacy of Mathematical Error is there, as I said.
Umm, no.


I absolutely did not say that mathematics is reality. Mathematics describe reality. It is the most descriptive language we have for describing and predicting the behavior of reality.
What sort of "matter" do we use to make math? Will math cease to exist if homo sap disappears?


hammegk quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Materialists must state that science is the only truth; Science does not state that materialism is the only answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another straw man fallacy. I never said that it was. I was mearly refuting your claim that science is faulty because there were unanswered questions.
You dislike the implication of your stance?


So, you must ask yourself, is your lack of trust in science based in a fundamental problem with science or your inability to understand it? I doubt you fully understand what the premises of science are since you can not explain to me why it is flawed.
Or you could discuss Quark Bonding.


Comparatively, how often has it been independently verified that "I [hammegk] think"?
My worry is not with the "independently". Is yours?


To some extent, but that is aside from the actual point of the thread.
Hmm, so you do intend to live henceforth using my thoughts? How will you do that?

Originally posted by Dorman

If ``dark matter'' exists, it has to be a part of ``matter'' as used by science, by definition. This ``dark matter'' interacts with the visible matter -- it exerts a gravitational force. And therefore, it should come under the catagory of ``matter'' anyway.
So true. Why does Science currently refer to it as "dark matter"? By the Stimpy definition it is just plain old "matter", right?

Or, as Diamond points out, may not have existence in any case.

[Dancing David]

Whats wrong with quark bonding?

The fact that it is a hyperbolic inverse is no suprise, we have attraction and repulsion for electrons and protons, why should it be suprising that there is another force that appears to be merely attractive.

Is it a problem that there is less energy the closer the quarks are?Maybe quarks are just very social and they can't be alone. Or the whole universe pushes them together.

Gravity is very similar. But it does not get stronger as the masses seperate.

The real problem is that quarks are always hidden and thereofre they are really just hypothetical constructs, they can be devided out, so in a reductionist sense they will always be just a theory.

There is a simple solution hamme, there is only energy, there is no matter, there is only energy.

It doesn't need to be defined to be useful, there doesn't need to be an ultimate cause, we have approximate cause and that is the scientific method.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Whats wrong with quark bonding?

The fact that it is a hyperbolic inverse is no suprise, we have attraction and repulsion for electrons and protons, why should it be suprising that there is another force that appears to be merely attractive.

Is it a problem that there is less energy the closer the quarks are?Maybe quarks are just very social and they can't be alone. Or the whole universe pushes them together.
Your last sentence points to the "problem". You say the energy source is outside pushing in (as a possibility anyway); goodo, where does outside end & bound-quarks begin? Are we somewhere in n-space? You are the materialist needing space to have matter in if either of us are.

"Merely attractive" has nothing to do with it imo.


Gravity is very similar. But it does not get stronger as the masses seperate.
Yup, and inverse square laws do make some modicum of sense.


There is a simple solution hamme, there is only energy, there is no matter, there is only energy.
I tend to agree. Now, where does "life" begin? What did you say a quark is?

[Dancing David]

I say that a quark is a useful concept that maybe related to reality or it may not.

I tend to set the bar low for life, organisms capable of reproduction and replication.

Space is around us, the confusing question is why three dimensions?

Classical explanations fell apart and that led the the modern quantum stuuf, Plank was not real happy with it either.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I say that a quark is a useful concept that may be related to reality or it may not.
Er, Idealistically, or Materially? :D


I tend to set the bar low for life, organisms capable of reproduction and replication.
That sounds more like crystallization.


Space is around us, the confusing question is why three dimensions?
3, 4, 11, who's counting?


I note your plum-pudding Quark Containment Field smacks of being "aether". (Or is it Higgs?) :wink: :wink: :wink:

[Dancing David]

It would have to be stronger than pudding or aether, since you can't seperate quarks, we don't know if there is a distance effect after the hyberbolic one. I thought the current theory was a rubber band one? (So if you find a really small cigar box you can make a quark banjo)

I like to think there are three expanding fields which create the known universe(I stole that from Kabalah, there is no rational reason), quarks are held together because the universe expands around them

But isn't it a moot point, since they can't be 'naked' quarks they are relegated to the state of perpetual theory.

That would be 'materialisticaly', I don't know what an 'idealist' would think, I save my idealism for my work.

[hammegk]

Oh Upchurch, where are you?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

Oh Upchurch, where are you?
Sorry, missed your response.
You believe you "know" anything with more certainty than that *you* think? How?Here we go again. I didn't say knew anything with more certainty than "I think". I said that "I think" is still only an assumption. You are holding things to a double standard of evidence. You're saying that you don't know that anything is true or real because it could be an illusion, but you're confident that "hammegk thinks" isn't an illusion with no more evidence than anything else. Ultimately, if you leave the option open that everything might be an illusion, you must also consider that you, yourself, might also be an illusion. Especially since you cannot know with 100% certainty who "hammegk" is and what it means to "think", as experessed earlier.
The tautology that *I* think, or conversely *Ithink* is the thought of another seem apparent. What other "possibility" do you suggest? (Remember, *I* think all of us homo saps -- & probably all "life" "thinks".)Well, just as I said, that the concept of self (or "I") is just an illusion or that thought, itself, is not really thought but the illusion of thought. I'm not saying it's true, but I am saying that with the level of scrutiny that you're applying, it's just as much a possibility as "hammegk thinks"
It is irrelevent, because your point is that you are 100% sure that "I [hammegk] thnk" not whether "Upchurch thinks".

A strange position. You intend to live your life according to "hammegk" thinking? Weird!I would agree if that were my position. However, once again, that isn't what I said. You said that the only data point you had that was 100% certain was that "I [hammegk] think". I showed how you weren't 100% certain of that after all since you are not 100% of each of the components of that assertion. My point being, if you are going to reject science because it is not 100% knowledgable about all things in the universe and then except one concept without yourself having 100% of it, then you are a hypocrite. Further your assertion that there is something fundamentally wrong with science based on this hypocracy is incorrect.
Regarding "matter", the closer we look at it the less of it there is -- nothin' here but empty space -- which is the forest & which is the tree?So, just because matter/energy looks differently the closer you look at it, it's no longer matter/energy? Shall we apply that logic to other situations?
But you have, at no time, shown that any premise of science is incorrect nor that science has a systemic problem that renders it invalid.
The one we are discussing is that "objective reality exists" -- your subjective judgement.No, I believe we were talking about the foundations of science. Of which you still have shown no fundamental flaw.
96+3+1=100 is too tough to follow? The original comment I made was from an article in the Rocky Mtn News (Denver) of 2-3 weeks ago.Explain to me then what the difference is between "dark energy" and "mysterious energy", which makes up 99% of your estimates there.
At last, a man who is going to define "energy" for me. Is a photon mass, or energy? Various flavors of neutrinos? etcetc.I leave to someone who describes it better than I can. Energy (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Energy.html)
You're statement that "what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%" is blatently incorrect, mathematically. Thus, the Fallacy of Mathematical Error is there, as I said.

Umm, no.Umm, yes.

100-96=4 too tough to follow? You said that according to science, 96% of the universe is comprised of unknown dark matter/dark energy. Further, that matter comprises 1% of the universe and energy comprises 3%. Since that 3% energy is not unknown, it is not dark energy, so it does not get added to the 96% of dark matter/ dark energy. Further the same science that suggests dark matter/dark energy exists also shows that matter and energy are the same thing. So, what science calls "matter" is really "matter/energy" and that comprises 100%-96%=4% of the universe
I absolutely did not say that mathematics is reality. Mathematics describe reality. It is the most descriptive language we have for describing and predicting the behavior of reality.

What sort of "matter" do we use to make math? Will math cease to exist if homo sap disappears?I'm not sure what you're asking. Does mathematics have it's own independent existance from humanity? No more than any other language does except that mathematics has an additional basis in observations of reality rather than other languages which are based solely on subjective consensous of the users of the language.
You dislike the implication of your stance?You forget yourself. I, unlike you, have not given anyone premision to put words in my mouth or to interpret what I mean. I mean what I say and I did not state anything about materialism. Regardless, my position on materialism has nothing to do with your assertion that science has an as yet unnamed flaw. Thus, your attempt to create a position for me is a straw man.
So, you must ask yourself, is your lack of trust in science based in a fundamental problem with science or your inability to understand it? I doubt you fully understand what the premises of science are since you can not explain to me why it is flawed.
Or you could discuss Quark Bonding.And what, please, does one have to do with the other?

Incidently, I find you constant attempts to avoid pointing out the actual fundamental flaw in science a little tiring. Please either do so and back up your claim or lets drop it and get on with our lives, shall we? There are much more interesting threads going on right now than watching try to hem and haw your way out of this...
My worry is not with the "independently". Is yours?Of course. It is one of the ways that objectivity and validity are assured.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Here we go again. I didn't say knew anything with more certainty than "I think". I said that "I think" is still only an assumption. You are holding things to a double standard of evidence. You're saying that you don't know that anything is true or real because it could be an illusion, but you're confident that "hammegk thinks" isn't an illusion with no more evidence than anything else. Ultimately, if you leave the option open that everything might be an illusion, you must also consider that you, yourself, might also be an illusion. Especially since you cannot know with 100% certainty who "hammegk" is and what it means to "think", as experessed earlier.
You continue to miss the fact that if *I* think is an illusion, something, thinking, is responsible.


Well, just as I said, that the concept of self (or "I") is just an illusion or that thought, itself, is not really thought but the illusion of thought. I'm not saying it's true, but I am saying that with the level of scrutiny that you're applying, it's just as much a possibility as "hammegk thinks"
Whatever *I* might be, it has no apparent-to-me connection to "self"; self seems to be completely tied up with the perceived bag-o-bones *I* thinks of as *me*.


I would agree if that were my position. However, once again, that isn't what I said. You said that the only data point you had that was 100% certain was that "I [hammegk] think". I showed how you weren't 100% certain of that after all since you are not 100% of each of the components of that assertion. My point being, if you are going to reject science because it is not 100% knowledgable about all things in the universe and then except one concept without yourself having 100% of it, then you are a hypocrite. Further your assertion that there is something fundamentally wrong with science based on this hypocracy is incorrect.
Interesting. I don't recall ever saying that there is anything "fundamentally wrong" with science. My complaint is with scientists who overstep their bounds of knowledge. Note that I don't give you what you want which is agreement that "an objective, material, world exists".


So, just because matter/energy looks differently the closer you look at it, it's no longer matter/energy? Shall we apply that logic to other situations?
Different would be ok; the fact is that the closer & closer we look the less & less of materiality exists. "Energy" is more interesting.


No, I believe we were talking about the foundations of science. Of which you still have shown no fundamental flaw.
Just our disagreement as to correctness of your subjective, unprovable, fundamental axiom.


Explain to me then what the difference is between "dark energy" and "mysterious energy", which makes up 99% of your estimates there.
Let's see; 96% dark matter&energy, 3% energy as we think we might understand it, 1% matter as we think we understand it.


I leave to someone who describes it better than I can. Energy

Try to get your mind around "abstract concept". If I ask you to define ice-cream & you tell me it comes in vanilla, chocolate & some other flavors, did you "define" it? No.


I absolutely did not say that mathematics is reality. Mathematics describe reality. It is the most descriptive language we have for describing and predicting the behavior of reality.

At least as useful -- I'd say more so -- than "energy" (or "matter").


You forget yourself. I, unlike yourself, have not given anyone premision to put words in my mouth or to interpret what I mean. I mean what I say and I did not state anything about materialism. Regardless, my position on materialism has nothing to do with your assertion that science has an as yet unnamed flaw. Thus, your attempt to create a position for me is a straw man.

Yes, I know how difficult it is to accept your tacit understandings. Do you actually believe your stance as a "materialist" has nothing to do with this discussion?


And what, please, does one have to do with the other?
Good question that neither of us knows the answer to.


Incidently, I find you constant attempts to avoid pointing out the actual fundamental flaw in science a little tiring. Please either do so and back up your claim or lets drop it and get on with our lives, shall we? There are much more interesting threads going on right now than watching try to hem and haw your way out of this...
You choice.


Of course. It is one of the ways that objectivity and validity are assured.
And how will you demonstrate to anyones' satisfaction other than your own that you are not-- in one case -- a well programmed Turing machine, or as a meat-machine, standard issue p-zombie?

Answer: you can't.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

You continue to miss the fact that if *I* think is an illusion, something, thinking, is responsible.Fact? That's not a fact, or rather not a proven fact. It is another assumption you've made. And it must be an assumption on your part because you believe that "hammegk thinks". How could you know there is something else thinking if you have never not been thinking to test this hypothesis of yours?

Regardless, why must there be something else thinking in order for you to have the illusion of thought? Would it not be possible that illusion of thought is a result of natural processes?

It seems that the more we explore this, the less you sure you are that "hammegk thinks". Why else have you come up with this alternate hypothesis?
Whatever *I* might be, it has no apparent-to-me connection to "self"; self seems to be completely tied up with the perceived bag-o-bones *I* thinks of as *me*.The "self" has to do only with the physical body, huh? So when I said, "You forget yourself", did you think I saying that you left your body somewhere? :roll:

So, what, are you just making up definitions for words now?
Interesting. I don't recall ever saying that there is anything "fundamentally wrong" with science. Allow me to remind you then, since everything we've said is stored earlier in this thread. You said,"Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?" By questioning the basis for science, you are suggesting that there is a flaw in that basis. Remember now?
My complaint is with scientists who overstep their bounds of knowledge.I'd love to know what legitimate scientists you think is actually oversteping the bounds of their fields, but that's a topic for another thread.
Note that I don't give you what you want which is agreement that "an objective, material, world exists".When did I ask you for agreement for that? I'm beginning to wonder about your memory. :con2: Perhaps you should go back and reread the thread?
Different would be ok; the fact is that the closer & closer we look the less & less of materiality exists. "Energy" is more interesting. And why do you assume that only matter, and not energy, is material? Have I not been telling you over and over that the same science that allows you to know what it is like to look closer and closer also shows that matter and energy are the same thing? That little tid bit of knowledge is almost 100 years old. Surely I'm not the only one who has told you this? Is this a hard concept for you or are you just being stubborn? Why are you selectively picking and choosing only the scientific results that support your choosen world view?

Or did I just answer my own question?
Just our disagreement as to correctness of your subjective, unprovable, fundamental axiom.And what, pray tell, axiom is that?
Let's see; 96% dark matter&energy, 3% energy as we think we might understand it, 1% matter as we think we understand it.So, we have the same level of understanding of energy as we do matter (which, I will point out again, is the same thing). And yet, you originally stated that science really only understood 1% of what the universe was made out of as opposed to the 4% you just described.

In case you weren't aware, 1 doesn't equal 4.
Try to get your mind around "abstract concept". If I ask you to define ice-cream & you tell me it comes in vanilla, chocolate & some other flavors, did you "define" it? No.Now you're just being pissy.

You're telling me that if I tell you what all the incrediants of ice cream are, it's temperature, what it feels like, how it tastes, how it smells, what it looks like, etc. I haven't defined it?

Tell me then, if describing something in excruciating detail doesn't define it, what does then?
Yes, I know how difficult it is to accept your tacit understandings. Do you actually believe your stance as a "materialist" has nothing to do with this discussion? Do you actually believe that I am a strict materialist? Do you actually believe you know what my position is? I said that "my position on materialism" has nothing to do with this discussion, not "my position as a materialist" has nothing to do with this discussion.

This is why I don't let you interpret or extrapolate what I say. You suck at it, primarily because you keep assert your own assumptions over what is presented to you.
You choice.So, you aren't going to support your claim that the basis of science is somehow weak? Why am I not surprised?
And how will you demonstrate to anyones' satisfaction other than your own that you are not-- in one case -- a well programmed Turing machine, or as a meat-machine, standard issue p-zombie?

Answer: you can't. That's right.

Now, how are you going to prove to yourself that you are not any of those things? According to the standard of proof that you hold for "material reality", if you are honest and consistant, the only way you can is to choose to believe the evidence that you, hammegk, actually think. So the one "data point" you have is only 100% certain because you want it to be 100% certain, not because it is 100% certain.

Now, if we're done with this maybe you can list out those scientists who are over-reaching the scopes of their fields?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Upchurch
So, you aren't going to support your claim that the basis of science is somehow weak? Why am I not surprised?
Reading back, I remembered why I wasn't surprised. I already figured this out just a little under a month ago:
Orignially posted by Upchurch on Page 1

Okay. So, hammegk doesn't have the balls to explicitely state what he thinks. Since I'm forced to interpret his statements, the one above implies that the reason he has no balls whatsoever is because he knows his philisophical stance is extremely weak and can't stand up to scrutiny.

Got it. Thanks for clearing that up, "hammie"Alas, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it....

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
[

Fact? That's not a fact, or rather not a proven fact. It is another assumption you've made. And it must be an assumption on your part because you believe that "hammegk thinks". .....It seems that the more we explore this, the less you sure you are that "hammegk thinks".
OK, I'm willing to stipulate that you are a p-zombie, or at least a good Turing machine. No thought required for you at all.

In my own case, we will have to disagree.


The "self" has to do only with the physical body, huh? So when I said, "You forget yourself", did you think I saying that you left your body somewhere?

So, what, are you just making up definitions for words now?
Either "self" is just part & parcel of *me*, or alternate memory, mirroring brain storage has another copy. Could be, but seems over-complicated.


Allow me to remind you then, since everything we've said is stored earlier in this thread. You said,"Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?" By questioning the basis for science, you are suggesting that there is a flaw in that basis. Remember now?
Do your "assertions" have a question mark following them?


I'd love to know what legitimate scientists you think is actually oversteping the bounds of their fields, but that's a topic for another thread.
Already answered: "Materialists who say science is the only answer".


When did I ask you for agreement for that? I'm beginning to wonder about your memory. Perhaps you should go back and reread the thread?
Or perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the nuances of your stance.


And why do you assume that only matter, and not energy, is material? Have I not been telling you over and over that the same science that allows you to know what it is like to look closer and closer also shows that matter and energy are the same thing? That little tid bit of knowledge is almost 100 years old. Surely I'm not the only one who has told you this? Is this a hard concept for you or are you just being stubborn? Why are you selectively picking and choosing only the scientific results that support your choosen world view?

Or did I just answer my own question?
Well, if you consider "matter" is also an abstract concept(as your authoritive source agrees energy is) -- as I do -- what are we arguing about?


And what, pray tell, axiom is that?
Something about an existing, objective world... ring a bell?


In case you weren't aware, 1 doesn't equal 4.
So true, and thanks.


Now you're just being pissy.
No sir. I am pointing out that -- were it possible to define "energy" -- that would be of great assistance to defending a materialist world-view.


Tell me then, if describing something in excruciating detail doesn't define it, what does then?
Are you beginning to sense your problem? That's the nice thing about *I* think. I at least know first-hand what I mean. Do you have the same warm, fuzzy, thoughts about your, or anyone elses' understanding of "energy". I say again, why not state that math is reality.


Do you actually believe that I am a strict materialist? Do you actually believe you know what my position is? I said that "my position on materialism" has nothing to do with this discussion, not "my position as a materialist" has nothing to do with this discussion.
Well, goody; if you are not a materialist, what are you? I'm actually discussing a postion I "have faith in". What are you doing?


That's right.
And that is a problem I'd say you will never overcome. Again, convincing myself is my interest, thanks. And yup, "I Think". Sorry for your personal confusion about whatever is going on with *you*.

[Upchurch]

All that and no argument save "I'll believe what I want to believe, so there :p"

Good luck to you, hammegk. I hope you can keep yourself from walking into too many walls. After all, none of this really exists in your make-believe land, right?

[hammegk]

Uppie, the depth of your absolute & continual mis-understanding of my position is mind-boggling. Walk into walls! What bs on your part. I have no trouble with The 'Yahzi' ball-bat test.

I agree; enough of this, here and now anyway.

[Dancing David]

So hammegk:
I am a firm believer in the scientific method and have found that it can be useful in all areas of the human realm.

There seems to be an implicit gap here.

Why do I believe that the material world exists? (note I state that as a belief)

When someone or some loved animals dies, the world does not flicker and disappear and then reapper, it seems to survive consiousness expiring.

When I look at the Andromeda galaxy I am seeing photons that have propagated for over 30,000,000 years, long before human consiousness.

So where is the gap in the consistancy of belief in the 'objective' universe?
I have reason to believe that it existed at least thirty million years ago, I have strong reason to believe it will exist afetr I die.
Ergo there is something there, that may defy total explanation, but there is approximate explanation, ie science.

I have yet to meet a concept that can't be put to the scientific approximation.

[hammegk]

Dancing David, consider this.

What does our shared perception of human and/or animal "consciousness" have to do with Idealism? None in my view.

BTW, I think the 13-16 billion yrs is a good scientific estimate. Also, I agree a "perceived, material" world exists. You believe it based on the Material, I do not.

If your materialist views allow your answers to free-will, HPC, etc to be logically satisfying to you, so be it.

[Dancing David]

hamme I could tell you , if I understood what idealism was. the last discussion between you and Loki was beyond my ability to look at the screen, so I could only read part, I am thinking about trying to print it out.

I am glad to read that you accept the surface idea that an objective reality exists.

I probably would accept most of idealism, but Ian at least hasn't given a decent decription.

Thanks.

Edited:
PS: I am fortunatly not encumbered by the thought process, most of life and science is illogical. So I am not sure where logic fits in my life.

Like I said I save my idealism for work!