Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 141
I Define Physics As Believing Things On FaithPage 4 of 13    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)

I'm going to say this for the 3rd time:

And it made no more sense then than it did the first time. Because saying something and then not offering anything in logic to support it is far from reasoned. It's only a "because I said so" statement.

Of course, on the Internet, speaking aggressively from ignorance is quite common.

You've done a great job demonstrating that. Thanks.

But I made a stronger statement too, when I said that Materialism is disqualified from consideration by its belief in an arbitrary ultimate reality.

Arbitrary by who's standard? Compared to what? Again, you offer nothing to support your position other than "because I say so." It gets quite dizzying trying to follow your circular logic!

I merely told how IM makes more sense than Materialism.

Again, no supporting logic for that position. Simply saying it doesn't count.

Contrary to your claim, a few things can be said about ultimate reality, based on considerations such as arbitrariness, elegance, parsimony, aesthetics, etc.

Of which, you've provided nothing in the way of supportive logic. Using the words in an effort to look clever doesn't count.

Remember that this isn' t physics, and we're not talking about proof, though, as I said, a sufficiently silly metaphysics, such as Materialism, can be disproved, or at least convincingly or compellingly disqualifiled.

By someone far more qualified and capable than you, I'm sure.
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 143
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/29/2010 4:42:27 PM

No, I didn't say that he intentionally was referring to himself when he said that, but it still can be taken as disclosing his technique.

That's your best one yet, App.
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 146
I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith
Posted: 3/29/2010 5:04:35 PM

You keep saying that, but you're contradicted by the record of the posts.

The record of the posts indicates you are just posting for the sake of posting and being contrary. You invent your own definitions for terms that already have well defined meanings in order to continue babbling incoherently.
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 147
I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith
Posted: 3/29/2010 5:08:20 PM

You keep saying that, but you're contradicted by the record of the posts. But I guess that doesn't bother the Star Reporter, in his noble search for truth.

Why offer straight answers when obfuscation and ad hominem will do, eh?

By being one possible configuration, out of many possible configurations, of a complicated physical system. The question could be asked, "Why that particular configuration?"

That's arbitrary, Stargazer.

Sadly, that's just avoiding the question with a hypothetical scenario. Also known as obfuscation.

Oh, for your benefit, here's a definition of "obfuscate."

verb (used with object),-cat·ed, -cat·ing. confuse, bewilder, or stupefy. make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information. darken.
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 149
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 3/29/2010 5:28:42 PM
Dude, need a blog, ...this isn't working out as a discussion thread. The site frowns on blog threads, ...just a heads up.
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 151
Science doesn't contradict Materialism or support the alternatives
Posted: 3/29/2010 5:38:05 PM
I feel the need to point out that this thread can also be titled thusly: ^^^

Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 152
Science doesn't contradict Materialism or support the alternatives
Posted: 3/29/2010 5:54:53 PM
I feel the need to point out that this thread can also be titled thusly: ^^^
*cough*-blog thread*-cough*

and one idiot even

Personal attacks via name-calling usually means a short stay, looking at your posting history, it seems to be the second most common ploy in your replies (after the contextual/equivocation thang). I'd also suggest you read some of the other forum rules/guidelines, like "excessive sequential replies".

Seriously, there ARE free blogs where this stuff doesn't break the rules.

Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 163
I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith
Posted: 3/31/2010 6:51:06 PM
I couldn't resist~ I've been reading this thread and tried so hard not to say anything but this is me alright~ deal with it~

I experience the innermost interactions based on a fundamental framework of learning, and that is an ultimate reality that has nothing to do with logic or materialism.
It's pure physics (physical anyway).
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 164
What is real
Posted: 4/1/2010 1:14:59 PM

The fact that some people have not directly experienced any of these things does not mean that they don't exist.

Certainly reasonable. Absence of evidence is certainly not evidence of absence.

Of course, the hardline materialsts would say otherwise because they argue in the circles that we are discussing such that materialsm proves itself because none of materialism's techniques prove otherwise (nor could they, which is where the reasoning falls apart).

So then, let's try it from the opposite angle. If the "spiritual" or the "numinous" exists and can interact with what we consider "real" then we can say it is having an effect on the physical world. If it can interact with the physical world, then it can be measured and confirmed by a variety of independent methods either including today's technology or through scientific and technological methods in the future. If that is the case, we don't have to rely on rhetorical devices to convince others of its potential "existence." We simply have to point to a particular thing, say a blip on an oscilloscope or a stop frame on a video replay and say "there it is." It will be unequivocal. It will be observable. And the effect will be repeatable.

If you are simply inclined to say something "might" or "could" exist, well, if it can't be observed to be having an effect on our reality, it's reality or lack thereof is entirely immaterial. Hey, I could have a giant purple with pink polkadots-coloured elephant in my back yard? Can't see it? It's invisible. But you can't prove it doesn't exist. In fact, your definition of "elephant" and "back yard" and even "exists" could all be flawed, depending on your useage. Don't agree with me? You're an ass.

This has been the extent of the logic thus far in this thread.
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 165
view profile
What is real
Posted: 4/1/2010 3:35:52 PM
After a certain point, continuing to feed trolls becomes a joke in and of itself. Just saying, is all.
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 166
What is real
Posted: 4/1/2010 4:36:47 PM

As much as the stochastic sorcery that is quantum mechanics

Exactly what about quantum mechanics is sorcery? The reason quantum theory exists is because classical theory is not capable of explaining what is observed.
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 170
What is real
Posted: 4/2/2010 1:18:33 PM

pinheads like navelgazer

Ah Scorpio, do you think things like this add to your credibility or is it possible that it just serves to make you look like a petulant child? I'll leave you to figure that one out on your own. Don't worry. There's lots of grownups here to help.

Don't agree with me? You're an ass.

Ah yes, more examples of the civil discourse that is so sought. The world is probablistic and unexplainable: 300 million sperm and that is the one that started this travesty of debate known as stargazer1000? You are just a thermodynamic miracle!

Wow, when you miss a point, you go out of your way to miss it. Referring to others as "ass" or "pinhead" or any other cutesy manipulation of their nom de plume was what I was referring to. So thanks for making my point for me. Actually, this discussion was a travesty from the beginning, starting first as a vanity-based blog post by App and continuing further with you and your schoolyard bully tactics.

Oh, by the way, "probablistic and unexplainable?" Wow, good job since that's clearly a contradiction in terms. Credibility going....going....!

That's precisely what I'm saying because that is what the original post was about. Now if you will concede that I am correct then we can move on. Especially since the original post was a fair bit more convoluted than that and continues to remains as such. However, why would I say you were "correct" about anything when you say the following.

What you are saying is that if it can't be empirically observed through the scientific method then it is immaterial (or "meaningless" as Logical Positivists would say). Which again proves my point that your logic is circular. You assume X and then use that very assumption to claim that Y (which is inconsistent with X) cannot be proven.

It's something like asking that if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around, does it make a noise, and then answering that it doesn't because there was no readings on your microwave radio telescope.


We know a tree makes a "noise" when it falls in the forest because we have sufficient understanding of gravity, mass, and the propagation of energy in the form of sound waves through a medium a.k.a air. Your logic seems far rounder than mine since it seems to indicate that, because we cannot prove something non-existent, we must hold the possibility of it with the same level of regard as we do established principles such as gravity, mass and sound.

And that, dear boy, is logic even a pretzel would envy.
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 172
What is real
Posted: 4/2/2010 1:38:09 PM

And, though science doesn't assume that, a lot of people at this forum believe that the two are the same.

Constantly repeating something doesn't make it true, App. When are you going to learn that?
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 174
What is real
Posted: 4/2/2010 6:52:22 PM

It doesn't do anything to my credibility directly. Your's is another story: people look back and go "OMG, he IS a pinhead!"

Note to self: don't feed the trolls. Do not feed the trolls.
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 177
I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith
Posted: 4/3/2010 11:20:51 AM
Excuse me but maybe some animals like to bark "more"...
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 179
I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith
Posted: 4/3/2010 4:06:44 PM

Yes, but we'd like some of them to learn to bark nice.

Try leading by example. For a change.
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 180
What is real
Posted: 4/3/2010 8:08:56 PM

So thanks for making my point for me.

Pointing out that you are a pinhead? You are welcome.

So this is the best you've got? When you've got nothing actually intelligent to add to the discussion, no actual logical arguments, you resort to insults. Yeah, I used to take part in "debates" like the third grade. Time to grow up there, Scorp.

Your credibility just keeps falling, and falling...

Funny, it seems more like the yelpings of a pinhead who's entire identity is wrapped up in being right such that they ignore the debate at hand, insult others and then whine like a dog beaten on the nose with a newspaper when somebody responds in kind and will not tolerate their crap.

And they just keep on coming! You're impressed with yourself though. I'll give you that. Clearly, you are a credit to self love.

Look in the mirror, pinhead. I'm not the bully: I stood up to the bully who has proven a coward, not just a rhetorical coward who is cowed in an otherwise civil slander rumble, but an intellectual coward.

I've yet to actually see anything intellectual come from you. Seems the best you have to offer is "you're a pinhead." Pathetic really.

And there is nothing circular or twisted about my analogy, it's just that pinheads can't understand it.

Bottom line, you're a troll. And not a very bright one at that.
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 184
view profile
I Define Physics As Believing Things On Faith
Posted: 4/7/2010 1:32:06 PM
There are some interesting fringe theories by physicists and cosmologists if one were to snoop around a bit. One that stands out to me is the anthropic principle. This is a theory made a while back to explain why the universe seems to be perfectly suitable for us to live in it. Later on, people used the multiverse theory to show that of course the universe is perfect for us: it is literally MADE for us. In some other universe, gravity might work vastly differently so we couldn't exist there.
This is an attempt by some to explain an exceedingly confusing aspect of our universe with reverse logic. It most certainly stumbles right into metaphysics while claiming to make sense scientifically. However neat the concept is, it has no place in the world of science.
Joined: 3/20/2009
Msg: 188
What is real
Posted: 4/9/2010 1:04:04 AM
Apps I have not had the time to respond to your response given much earlier (I apologize) and since the thread has taken a different turn I shall try to keep it updated. This response is more general in that I think you have failed to consider certain generalities. (please note that I am using the term reality instead of ultimate reality to save time and to make it easier to address.)

You seem to suggest that because it is possible that reality could be different that it is arbitrary. However, this is a big assumption given that contrary to what you posted it is arguable that reality is not just possible but actual (my input). You said reality is only possible, but it is more than only possible but actual given experience which you do place a high emphasis on. If it is actual then to understand reality the question is not of arbitrariness but in what way it became actual. The argument of reality being arbitrary cannot be addressed until we attempt to question and answer what made reality actual. Before you sound silly, please note that what is actual includes those things that lie out of what actual conscious beings will experience such as an atom that we will never experience.

You also fail to realize that if experience is reality then we are still led to a question of why these sets of experiences and not others and so succumb to being arbitrary. It is arbitrary given that we experience what is physical and so the innermost self is arbitrary. Whatever answer you provide can also be applied in favor of materialism....(please note if you accept reality as being actual materialism wins the bout)...a smile for the good gals and guys

Please also note that even if we conceptualize reality as being 0nly possible because we cannot understand why it is actual only concludes us being ignorant and illogical to assert reality being arbitrary.
Joined: 3/20/2009
Msg: 190
What is real
Posted: 4/11/2010 7:58:31 PM
I am quite perplexed by you stating that this world is only possible and not actual. This seems to imply that we experience only what is possible except for this innerself. Since in the past you have stated that experience is the innerself and so by extension Reality, Reality is partly only possible and so part is not Reality. This shows that your definition of Reality is not unitary but multiple. The only means to avoid this conclusion is for you to argue that the possible and actual are one and the same thing. This however implies that this world is also not just possible but actual. I understand you have not taken it this far, but obviously you have not considered the ramifications of what you are stating.

You also have to show how this world is only possible. By simply stating that it could have been otherwise and so only possible does nothing more than state it could have been otherwise. There is very little room for you to even logically conclude that it is not actual but only possible. Not even Berkley would go so far.

By saying that possibility worlds are only possible including this one neglects the fact that we experience this 'possible world' and by experiencing this possible world, logically implied by what you said before, this world becomes actual. If you cannot adequately argue besides saying it could have been different or possiblity worlds are possibility worlds and so this world is only a possibility world then I care not to continue the conversation for it obvisiouly shows that you lack the rigor of an honest debate. The assertion that Reality is absolute also must be defended in response to the obvious emprical realization that things change including the mental framework of the self. Your position is so counter-intuitive that it bears the extra burden of not only showing its plausability but its truthfullness (evidence). In this regard Materialism does much better since Materialism appeals to evidence to believe those things that are counter-intuitive.

Again you have to show how because this world is only one possibility world out of an infinite number of possible worlds this means something or better put why it matters since I argue from the empirical position that this world is also actual with change as a fundamental feature. This has enough evidence to make me believe that this is true and I feel this position has had wonderful affects since I was a babe. Learning to potty train and so how to hold my pottty was a wonderful change for me.

Neurology and Evolution can explain your condition with its emphasis on possibility. It can be argued that evolution favored those of us who can weigh possible outcomes for future events. This is a skill that many predators have such as judging the possible courses the prey may take while fleeing and which prey is more likely to be separted from the herd, who will be easier to catch, etc. Humans have a higher level of performance in attempts to determine possible outcomes becaue of our higher brain. The rational parts of the brain such as recognizing patterns, emotional centers, language, etc all play a part. I would recommend seeing help for your condition as I am sure that it may be treated.

Also note by saying that "no, this is not what I said" when I am refering to what your position implies completely avoids the issue that I am bringing up. You do this quite often and I venture to say why the thread is dying.
Joined: 3/20/2009
Msg: 191
What is real
Posted: 4/11/2010 8:05:42 PM
Please note that the last part is only a joke, but it does highlight specific problems when experience fails such as people that are mentally dead. It also leads to a problem of those that are not aware of their experience and you have to show how their experience is innermost self when it is not truly an experience if experience is much like a piece of paper. Suppose someone gets into an accident and becomes brain dead. They are innermost self Reality experience and then no experience so no Reality, or they are both innermost self Reality and not innermost Reality simultaneously.

I am not sure how many ways I can attack your position and I hope you can actually explain your position better than simply restating it.
Joined: 3/20/2009
Msg: 196
What is real
Posted: 4/13/2010 12:08:59 PM

you use misquotes, and unsupported personal opinions about "implications" and "ramifications".

I didn't quote anything so it is quote impossible to misquote. I did argue that you fail to see what your IM implies. For instance, you claim that Experience is Reality and you also claim that we experience this possibility world. Your claims suggest that Experience does not consist of experience. If Experience experiences then it implies a relationship and so Experience has a relationship to this possibility world...If that relationship is not a property of Experience then you have to explain why it is not. If you argue that the relationship is a property of Experience then you forced into a rather odd position of a relationship to particular possibilities and still not arbitrary.

I've said all along that this world is real and actual to its inhabitants, including the persons at this forum. What more do you want? You seem to want more than that. You want it to have some kind of _absolute_ reality and actuality, and concreteness--and with none of the other possibility worlds having that

That is what I want except in regards to absolute actuality for it makes much more sense to argue that this world is actual and has the property of existing than something that is only possible (that possible something does not exist unless it has physical properities or relations). However, I would not argue for an absolute actuality because that makes as little sense as your belief. Given physical processes and relations what is actual is always changing with actuality a human concept to understand the physical world. It may appear to be arbitrary but there are processes and relations that make what takes place actual and so is not arbitrary.

if this world is actual, and if all the other possibililty worlds aren't, then why is it that this one is actual, instead of one of the other ones?

Possibilities are only possibilities that is why they are only possibilities. They have not come into existence. It is possible that I never wrote this, but I have wrote this. This is why something that is actual is not just possible. Scientists are trying to answer the questions of how reality came to be as such and they are making wonderful progress and thankfully they do not say that it appears arbitrary so let us take up IM. They are doing the hardwork for us and not spending their life under a tree.

You keep saying that I should prove things, but I've repeatedly said that metaphysicses can't be proved, though some, like Materialism can be disproved

If metaphysical systems cannot be proved why take up IM. It would be just as beneficial and safe to argue in a sun god as being the source of Reality. You also have not disproved Materialism, but have only focused on how you want to see Materialism and I might add poorly at that.

Well, why should this particular possibility for a world be actual, and all the others not? And, if this world, as Materialists believe, is all of reality, then they believe that ultimate reality is arbitrary.

A materialist does not have believe that there is Reality, but only hold that whatever has physical relations has physical relations and so measured, etc. You are also asking the wrong question on why this world is actual as compared to others that are possibilities. This world is actual because of the processes and relations of its history...nothing arbitrary about that. If I wanted to be arbitrary I could ask your question of what makes possibilities and actualities different. However, because of limited resources it makes little sense to ponder a world where Bruce Wayne is Superman and is a non-fictional superhero or the other infinite number of possibility worlds. Your position is a cop-out because it avoids tackling the questions of how, what, where, who, why but simply dismisses them outright.

Complete unarbitrariness is enough to make IM a lot more plausible than Materialism.

Your version of IM is arbitrary since it postulates the fundamental feature of Reality as being Experience or the innermost self. It assumes that there is an innermost self that is not perceivable and non-physical. We might as well argue that Reality is the mind of a Demon and it will hold up just as well as your IM. In fact the mind of the Demon would be more fundamental than your Experience. This Reality that is the mind of the Demon is possible and so even Reality can be said to be only possible because we can conceive of possible Realities, making your argument against Materialism moot.

You could also argue that Experience is not Reality but non-experience is Reality. Possibility worlds that are outside of experience is non-experienced and are infinite in number. Non-Experience is the funamental feature of Reality because there are a far greater number of possibilities that are Non-Experienced and Expereince is what is non-experienced but only what experiences. Thus Non-Experience is Reality not Experience.

As you can see your Reality is just as arbitrary as anything else because Reality could be something else and Reality is only one of infinite number of possibilities. Shall we call Reality

What evidence? Physics experiments? As I said, they say nothing about Materialism vs IM. That there's a physical world? IM accounts for the physical world in a natural and unarbitrary way.

Evidence as in that we have experienced this world and so it goes beyond mere possibility and that we have yet to experience anything outside a physical relation since experience shows that what we experience is physical (physical properties that can be measured) and we have relations to it. Your version of IM is like taking a multiple choice test and choosing every option. Your defense of choosing all possible answers- the possible answers are answers to possible questions and so valid. By choosing every option is unarbitrary and unitary since it leaves nothing out, not even possibilities. However, there are only a limited number of correct answers and we should select those even if it appears the questions and their answers are arbitrary.

Anyway, all this talk distracts from Materialism's big problem, so let me say it one more time: When you say that this material world is all of reality, you're saying that it's the ultimate reality--though it's one arbitrary configuration of a physical system with many possible configurations. Do you really believe in an arbitrary ultimate reality?

I don't believe in an ultimate reality and in the past I have shown that materialists do not have to believe in ultimate reality. It is you are saying that I have to believe in an ultimate reality and that it is wrong. This is one reason why many materialists get frustrated with religious, spiritualists, mystics, and also certain kinds of metaphysicians.

For instance suppose we are discussing the innerself. A materialist will approach the question of physical relations and so restrict the study to say brain states to see how x and y and z relate to each other. What others will do is assert a 'ghost in the machine' or a dual nature that we can only speculate on. The materialist restricts themselves to what can have evidence of, while your position begins with a speculation and remains in speculation...that of an Experiencer and then equating it with Ultimate Reality.
Joined: 3/20/2009
Msg: 197
What is real
Posted: 4/13/2010 12:16:08 PM

To compare Materialism, it was necessary to mention IM, and its explanation for the worlds and lives. For our purposes, it isn't necessary to try to talk about Experience other than in those instances.

It is in the scope of this thread because you are asserting that IM is better able to describe Reality and if Reality is Experience then it should hold up to Experience becoming non-Experience. Materialism can easily explain brain-dead states, and if your position is better is must be able to explain brain-dead states as well...arguing that brain-dead states are a physical condition and so outside of innermost self avoids how Experience no longer experiences. You asserted that Experience is Reality, because it is what experiences so when Experience no longer experiences you have to explain how that happens.
Joined: 3/20/2009
Msg: 199
What is real
Posted: 4/13/2010 8:13:42 PM

Physical science explains everything that happens, in regards to its physical explanation and origin. That's why I say that physics explains everything--as far as it goes. I don't disagree with whatever physical science says about brain-dead states, or actual death of the body.

Its good that you say that because that is where many materialists end and make no claim further than physical explanations. To go beyond those physical/materialist explanations is mere speculation and not needed.

Materialism doesn't explain those things. Physical science does, as far as it goes. Neither Materialism nor IM, nor any metaphysics explains the events of the physical world. Physical science does that. Materialism is not physical science.

Materialsim as a physical belief system does answer with physical answers using evidence provided by the natural and other sciences. It is impossible to separate the two because science as a process works from a materialist position and materialism as physical belief system uses scientific evidence to establish belief concerning that physical system. Even though materialism and science are different in some way, they are both dependent and inseparable from each other.

Because the brain isn't the origin of the Self, or of Experience, I never said that Experience no longer experiences. But I say again that death and unconsciousness are subjects not very amenable to words. What happens then, and what is it like? Who knows? It's a bit unfair, therefore, to ask someone to explain those things here.

I don't find this unfair at all given you are arguing for a system that is supposedly better at explaining Reality through Experience and innermost self. You have argued that Experience and experiences are the most fundamental feature and if that ends what happens? A materialist can answer how the body functions, go through stages of biological shutting down of the body, etc and end by stating that there is no physical evidence that anything beyond this takes place so until further evidence this is the best explanation of death....similarly for brain-dead states. In fact brain-dead states are not even a problem in materialism, but it is for your position as you said above.

You did not say that Experience no longer experiences, I find that implied by Experience experiencing your possibility world hypothesis and that this possibility world has brain-dead states. If you care to respond to it please explain Experience's relation to a brain-dead state. A physical entity that once was used as tool of experiencing for the Experience has become dysfunctional and is no longer experiencing.

And one more thing: Materialists _do_ believe in an ultimate reality. They believe that the universe is all of reality. That would make it the ultimate reality.

As I have shown they do not have to make a claim of Ultimate Reality but is only required to accept a physical account of the physical world....anything beyond is either not needed or unfounded speculation.
Joined: 1/8/2007
Msg: 203
What is real
Posted: 4/14/2010 12:30:31 PM

I don't know the nature of death. How could I? Are there any living persons who know death? If I don't know its nature, then I don't know what I'd be explaining if I explained death. How can I explain that which I don't know the nature of? If I knew death, then I wouldn't be available to explain it to you.

I will give it a shot. Death is the result of the body no longer having enough energy to sustain cellular regeneration at a pace that keeps ahead in time of cellular decay. Meaning having enough time and energy for the body to heal its damaged or decaying condition.

Is that what you mean by nature? meaning the physical reasons for death to happen?

Or were you talking about the stuff that is not measurable like we are a spirit living made of energy in a body that some call life force, spirit, soul, or any other many different assumptions that usually mean the same or similar?

Or are you talking about that whole prove the soul exists like the people trying to measure death by trying to weigh it as death happens or other similar experiments attempting to discover scientific proof of a non-scientific concept ie can a soul be seen and/or measured by scientific instruments?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >