wondering

Sunset, TX

#453 Jul 31, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
.
subduction zone do you want to make a deal? this pantyass shyt we do is doing nothing but just stirring up more flames.
i admit i am a firm believer in meeting fire with fire no matter where the fire is coming from. i will send flames back to creationists or evolutionists,,doesn't matter to me for as i have said several times i will not lie for either side but i can nitpick the hell out of both in return as they do..
the deal is if you want to actually discuss or debate things, then we will. the right answers will only be in what can be shown, not what one thinks or believes and it has to be shown with valid links if we disagree oh and newer links will trump older links,. AND the name calling has to come to a stop from you as well as me.

the choice is up to you. either concur or we will just continue on as we are. see you next time.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#454 Jul 31, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
subduction zone do you want to make a deal? this pantyass shyt we do is doing nothing but just stirring up more flames.
i admit i am a firm believer in meeting fire with fire no matter where the fire is coming from. i will send flames back to creationists or evolutionists,,doesn't matter to me for as i have said several times i will not lie for either side but i can nitpick the hell out of both in return as they do..
the deal is if you want to actually discuss or debate things, then we will. the right answers will only be in what can be shown, not what one thinks or believes and it has to be shown with valid links if we disagree oh and newer links will trump older links,. AND the name calling has to come to a stop from you as well as me.
the choice is up to you. either concur or we will just continue on as we are. see you next time.
Hey Wonder Woman, are you like desperate to be the forum's resident whiney beeyach or what?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#455 Jul 31, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
You are agreeing that abstracts or mathematical concepts / relationships do not have a cause. One example is all it takes for proof of concept. Don't confuse the fact that they are expressed with language with that they themselves are language.
To clarify that cause is not necessarily time dependent or in time just answer the question, was the cause of time in time?
The non-causality of quantum mechanics is only apparent due epistemic limitations. It's not an ontologic (ie true or real) non-causality. As a physicist you will know that quantum events are influenced by the observer so you could not eliminate observer effect from being part of the cause. The observer is not causally inert.
"Always existed" is uncontroversial straight forward parlance in logic & philosophy. It's only people not formally trained in logic & philosophy who struggle with it. Lay people don't as it happens. It's also basic knowledge that because something exists, something must have always existed. The only people I find struggling with this are those vested consciously or sub in avoidance of the implications. I don't mean this in a bad way but discussing these things frequently loses the audience especially if they are scientists. I know that Dawkins, Kraus, Hawking fail to to understand this, it's easy to tell from their responses to it. I hope I haven't lost you as well.
Yeah, you could certainly give Hawking a lesson or two.

Must be why you're so busy with baseless assertions instead of rebuttals.(shrug)
wondering

Sunset, TX

#456 Jul 31, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Wonder Woman, are you like desperate to be the forum's resident whiney beeyach or what?
if you haven't noticed i do not reply to you and said i would not many weeks ago and have not since. so i thought i would remind you of that so maybe you will save typing your nonsense and bs. you are nothing but a stupid whiny asss dipdhyt idiot thread surfing troll hypocrite dic sucking brit jack wagon. end of discussion and end of my replies to you.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#457 Jul 31, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
The "what's south of the South Pole" is a stupid refutation which I think Hawking has since distanced himself from. Iogicians see it for what it is, a device to deny the question withou actually saying anything.
BONG!!!

Projection of creationist philosophy if ever there was one.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#458 Jul 31, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
The assertion that numbers only exist in our minds is infantile reasoning & I mean that technically. Erickson's psycho-social developmental stages show that below a certain age infants cannot conceptualise existence outside of themselves. There is experimental evidence to back this. This is 101 undergrad stuff if not high school.
That chess has no independent existence is not as obvious as you think. For starters, you don't actually know. Our knowledge of the past is limited, you won't have much difficulty with the statement that you don't know everything about the past. Second the chess board & characters are incarnations of an idea, the idea of chess. It's an open question whether ideas including chess are invented or discovered. Again an infantile (in the technical sense) person would just assert ideas are discovered and place all existence in *his*(& Man's) mind. This is a narcissistic human trait which leads to false beliefs.
Numbers, not their expression by language, have always existed. Ask yourself if particles had quantity before humans walked the earth. Was that quantity numerical? To show that numbers are not language, ask yourself what the numerical difference is between "two" & "deux" or three & trois.
Then give me five barrels and two handfuls of "sevens" please. And everyone else, watch out for that "How do YOU know? Where you THERE?!?" argument. I mean NON-refutable, man.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#459 Jul 31, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
Quantity isn't a physical property. So the question itself is meaningless. We use the notion of quantity to help us understand aspects of the past, just like we do with other models we use. There is nothing 'in reality' that corresponds to the number 2, for example. We can, if we want, count things and assign the abstract idea of two to that counting, but that is what *we* do, not something the universe does.
Just a query here - I'm not agreeing with Six-D about the reality of numbers (or most the rest of his nonsense), but surely quantity is physical even if numbers aren't? Let's say long before life you had a ring system full of rocks around Sol, and a ring system full of rocks around Rigel. But (let's say) there's more rocks and mass around Sol than Rigel, therefore the 'quantity' of rocks and mass around Sol is still greater, even though there's no lifeforms around to assign specific numbers. So why is this point wrong?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#460 Jul 31, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Just a query here - I'm not agreeing with Six-D about the reality of numbers (or most the rest of his nonsense), but surely quantity is physical even if numbers aren't? Let's say long before life you had a ring system full of rocks around Sol, and a ring system full of rocks around Rigel. But (let's say) there's more rocks and mass around Sol than Rigel, therefore the 'quantity' of rocks and mass around Sol is still greater, even though there's no lifeforms around to assign specific numbers. So why is this point wrong?
We are using the language we have *now* to describe situations in the past. As such, we use mathematical language as part of our *model* of what happened in the past. To the extent this model works, we accept its language.

We invented counting to deal with situations exactly like this. It would be quite surprising if small numbers of rocks violated the rules we set up to help in for this situation. Now, if we go to larger collections, where rocks can break (for example), it is quite possible for the 'rules of mathematics' to no longer hold: if you start with 100 rocks and pile on another 100 rocks, it is quite possible you may get 202 rocks, depending on the physics involved. Once again, it is a matter of the applicability of the mathematical model.

Next, the fact that we have four rocks doesn't in any way imply that the number 4 itself exists somewhere. The number 4 is an abstract concept we apply to a great many situations to help us model them. It has no independent existence from our abstractions.

Finally, we have found that a great number of 'intuitively obvious' ideas are, in fact, wrong. Velocities do not 'add' using the usual rules of addition: If I see you go past at 1/2 the speed of light, and you see someone else go past at 1/2 the speed of light, I will see that third person as going past at 80% of the speed of light, NOT 1/2 +1/2=1 times the speed of light. Again, whether the abstract mathematical system applies in the real world is determined by testing and observations.

Even simple relations like 'more' or 'less' depend on the types of measurements done and the way *we* classify things. In the case of the rocks, are there 6 rocks or 1 collection of rocks? SO are there 6 or 1? I tis a matter of how *we* want to use the language.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#461 Jul 31, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
We are using the language we have *now* to describe situations in the past. As such, we use mathematical language as part of our *model* of what happened in the past. To the extent this model works, we accept its language.
We invented counting to deal with situations exactly like this. It would be quite surprising if small numbers of rocks violated the rules we set up to help in for this situation. Now, if we go to larger collections, where rocks can break (for example), it is quite possible for the 'rules of mathematics' to no longer hold: if you start with 100 rocks and pile on another 100 rocks, it is quite possible you may get 202 rocks, depending on the physics involved. Once again, it is a matter of the applicability of the mathematical model.
I get the rest, but in terms of quantity we still have a greater amount of individual rocks, or greater mass, until particular physical forces act upon them to change the quantity - such as planet formation turning lots of rocks into a single entity, or colliding rocks smashing together to make even more rocks - in which case there is phenomena to account for this. But until those physical forces have had chance to have (or complete) their effect we are still left with one ring system with a greater quantity of individual rocks, no?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#462 Jul 31, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
The assertion that numbers only exist in our minds is infantile reasoning & I mean that technically. Erickson's psycho-social developmental stages show that below a certain age infants cannot conceptualise existence outside of themselves. There is experimental evidence to back this. This is 101 undergrad stuff if not high school.
That chess has no independent existence is not as obvious as you think. For starters, you don't actually know. Our knowledge of the past is limited, you won't have much difficulty with the statement that you don't know everything about the past. Second the chess board & characters are incarnations of an idea, the idea of chess. It's an open question whether ideas including chess are invented or discovered. Again an infantile (in the technical sense) person would just assert ideas are discovered and place all existence in *his*(& Man's) mind. This is a narcissistic human trait which leads to false beliefs.
Numbers, not their expression by language, have always existed. Ask yourself if particles had quantity before humans walked the earth. Was that quantity numerical? To show that numbers are not language, ask yourself what the numerical difference is between "two" & "deux" or three & trois.
I think you are confusing numbers with numerals. Quantities have always existed. Numerals are the various symbols assigned to represent quantities/values.

"2" is a numeral. "Two" is the word for that symbol in English. Number is a rather vague term that can apply to any form of it.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#463 Jul 31, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
so you admit even though the thread was dead with no post for 6 hours you just lay back hitting that refresh button and when you saw me post you thought you needed to reply. yep that proves you live here and this is your life. LMMFAO.
good day dipshyt idiot jack wagon.
I've already explain why you are wrong about this.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#464 Jul 31, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Just a query here - I'm not agreeing with Six-D about the reality of numbers (or most the rest of his nonsense), but surely quantity is physical even if numbers aren't?
Agreed!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#465 Jul 31, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I get the rest, but in terms of quantity we still have a greater amount of individual rocks, or greater mass, until particular physical forces act upon them to change the quantity - such as planet formation turning lots of rocks into a single entity, or colliding rocks smashing together to make even more rocks - in which case there is phenomena to account for this. But until those physical forces have had chance to have (or complete) their effect we are still left with one ring system with a greater quantity of individual rocks, no?
In our standard model, yes. The point is that the question of whether there is 'conservation of number of rocks' is a question for observation and testing. Whether arithmetic (the language and techniques of calculation) applies is a matter of science, not of logic. Underlying this 'conservation of rocks' is a deeper conservation law: the conservation of mass. THAT conservation law applies even if the rocks break up, but it fails for nuclear reactions. In each case, our mathematical model has limitations. We use the model when those limitations are not significant.

The point is that the number of rocks is a meaningful thing *because* of the physics of the situation: the rocks tend to move together as a unit because of the internal stresses of the rocks. But if you start looking at things at the atomic level, pieces are evaporating off, and the 'rock' is a dynamic entity. Even defining what you mean by 'one rock' at this level can be tricky.

I would also point out that terms like 'force' are actually part of our models. And there are models, even of classical dynamics, that don't use the term 'force' at all, yet are quite able to describe the motions of things around us (Lagrangian mechanics).

This actually gets to another issue which I find interesting: that we can have philosophically *very* different scientific theories of the same phenomena, that agree in every observable. Newtonian mechanics (using forces) and Lagrangian mechanics (no forces, only potentials) is one example. Another is the Schrodinger formulation of quantum mechanics (which uses wave functions) and the Heisenberg formulation (which does not). In terms of observational predictions, these are completely equivalent. Any measurable prediction made by one formulation will also be made by the other. Yet at the philosophical level they are *quite* different.

The resolution in scientific circles is to simply accept the two viewpoints as observationally equivalent and make calculations with whichever one is simpler to use for any given case. The philosophical differences are seen as irrelevant and, because they cannot be observed, ultimately meaningless.

This is one of the reasons I am quite skeptical about speculative philosophy: it tends to get bogged down in differences between 'explanations' that have absolutely no observational consequence. For me, no observational difference means no difference.
In Six Days

Preston, UK

#466 Jul 31, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not. Mathematics is a formal language.
<quoted text>
Time is uncaused.
<quoted text>
You are misunderstanding quantum mechanics and its impact. In particular, you are simply wrong: quantum events are, in fact ontologically uncaused in your sense. Yes, there is an influence on the probabilities from the design of the experiment (which is often attributed wrongly to an observer), but specific events are *still* inherently probabilistic, unpredictable even in theory, and hence uncaused.
<quoted text>
So, do you think that time has 'always existed' or that it had a beginning?
Again, mathematical concepts are uncaused. I'm afraid you are still following a red herring, language. Language is not maths, maths is expressed in language & one is not the other. You are violating Leibniz's law of indiscernible identicals.

I'm not sure you've quite got the meaning of ontologic. Uncaused existence is existence that cannot not exist. If quantum events are in the universe, then they once did not exist which disqualifies them from being uncaused. "Probability" is another red herring. Also, if the events are subject to something, design of the experiment as you say, then they are not self-existant. Whether I confuse the mechanics of quantum events or not doesn't matter. "Mechanics" is not a thing but a process, my issue is things or stuff not mechanisms.

I think you've missed my point about time on a few occasions now. Time has not & cannot have always existed. You keep missing the point about traversing infinity. Perhaps you could explain how infinity is traversed.

Here's another reason time cannot be eternal. It's tied up with matter which is not eternal. If you have time without matter, what happened in that time or what was in it? If you have matter without time, when was the matter. It's the same with space. Imagine matter without space, where would you put it? That's shy you physics say space-time.
In Six Days

Preston, UK

#467 Jul 31, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are confusing numbers with numerals. Quantities have always existed. Numerals are the various symbols assigned to represent quantities/values.
"2" is a numeral. "Two" is the word for that symbol in English. Number is a rather vague term that can apply to any form of it.
OK, quantities. What caused them?
In Six Days

Preston, UK

#468 Jul 31, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but I am not a Platonist when it comes to abstract concepts. In fact, I think that Plato committed one of the worst logical mistakes of philosophy.
Yes, numbers only exist in our minds: they have no independent existence any more than, say, the game of chess does. We generally agree on certain assumptions about numbers and that means we tend to agree on many of their properties, but that is ultimately because we agreed upon the rules. But those rules were *our* choice.
I would suggest you have not really looked into the philosophy of math, which I have done as an aspect of my profession.
<quoted text>
Yes, chess was invented by people. We even know approximately when it was invented.
<quoted text>
Wrong. They don't exist in the sense that, say, a chair exists. They are abstract ideas that *we* have formulated to help us explain the world around us.
<quoted text>
Quantity isn't a physical property. So the question itself is meaningless. We use the notion of quantity to help us understand aspects of the past, just like we do with other models we use. There is nothing 'in reality' that corresponds to the number 2, for example. We can, if we want, count things and assign the abstract idea of two to that counting, but that is what *we* do, not something the universe does.
<quoted text>
More accurately, numbers are part of a formal system (like chess) that we have created. Particles existed, yes, but numbers did not. We use language *now* to help us understand the past. But, for example, we can invent other analogies that help us to understand things without those analogies pertaining to actually existent objects.
I'm afraid Erickson & Plato have nothing to do with each other. Neither have I referenced any of Plato's work. You are free to say that Plato made logical mistakes but unless you say what huge mistakes are you are talking nonsense. Anyone can say Plato, Newton or Obama made logical mistakes but without examples this is just empty words.

You claim quantities are physical. OK, give their physical properties - mass, velocity, location etc. Otherwise they are not physical, Mr Physics.

How do you know chess did not exist before whoever you think "invented" it did? How far back in time does your knowledge extend, does it go to infinity?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#469 Jul 31, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, quantities. What caused them?
They are merely a result of things existing.

If you want to know what is the ultimate cause of the universe we will honestly say that we do not know. We may never know. That does not even begin to imply the existence of a god.
In Six Days

Preston, UK

#470 Jul 31, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
BS. The 'idea' of chess was invented by a person. It was then used to make an actual chess board, but the idea was certainly NOT 'eternal' and it was clearly invented. What is more controversial, but still true, is that mathematical ideas are *also* invented. More specifically, we invent the rules that we play by when we do mathematics. We formulated those rules to agree with some intuitions we have, but whether those rules apply in any particular situation is determined by observation and testing.
For example, the statement that 1+1=2 can be proven, given the appropriate definitions, in any system with iteration. Whether it actually applies to, say, mixing liquids, is a matter of testing. And, in fact, if you mix one quart of water and one quart of alcohol, you will NOT get two quarts of the resulting mixture, but slightly less.
<quoted text>
And that is NOT my claim. My claim is that all complex ideas are *invented*. The only ideas that I would say are NOT invented are those associated with the senses. In general, are used by us to help us understand the world, but their only actual existence is in our brains.
I certainly do NOT argue that there is nothing outside of our brains. But I *am* saying that existence is ultimately determined by observation and testing of hypotheses. In other words, the scientific method.
It's a tautology to say it is not eternal because it was invented. In other words, it's not eternal because it's not eternal & it was invented because it was invented.

You may claim mathematical quantities are man made. Really? Before Man, was there a quantity of time, how much time (a quantity) passed before Man? Careful you don't tie yourself in knots.

Explain what you mean by ideas associated with our senses Vs those not associated with our senses. You may not be explicitly claiming that ideas only exist in you ie infantile (Erickson, not Plato - one is psychology, the other is philosophy) but your ideas are. You can't conceive of reality without Man, that's the narcissism Erickson located in the child.

Reality is determined by our observations? Did reality exist before Man, his hypotheses & scientific method? You will have to say no! There was nothing before Man. I hope you can see where your ideas re taking you.
In Six Days

Preston, UK

#471 Jul 31, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
They are merely a result of things existing.
If you want to know what is the ultimate cause of the universe we will honestly say that we do not know. We may never know. That does not even begin to imply the existence of a god.
Don't know & may never know have got to be better than God. What ultimately this is about is clear: Anything but God!

G K Chesterton said, whey they stop believing in God it's not that they believe in nothing. They will believe anything.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#472 Jul 31, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't know & may never know have got to be better than God. What ultimately this is about is clear: Anything but God!
G K Chesterton said, whey they stop believing in God it's not that they believe in nothing. They will believe anything.
I really do not care what some ignorant fool said. Believing in fairy tales is foolish. If you want to claim your God exists then it is up to you to show evidence for his existence. The reason that Christians hate this extremely reasonable demand is that they know they have no evidence for their God and that their beliefs are pure superstition.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 29 min One way or another 14,654
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 48 min Igor Trip 142,708
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 10 hr The Dude 952
Why natural selection can't work 11 hr The Dude 27
Last ditch bid to ban creationism in Scottish c... 17 hr paul porter 3
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) Wed karl44 796
Stephen King: Universe 'Suggests Intelligent De... (May '13) Wed Kong_ 455
More from around the web