Total Posts:92|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Existence

Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 12:47:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If something is comprised of atoms in the formation of a compound somatic cells do not recognize, and which does not reflect light, is immovable, and converts to the exact temperature of anything that touches it, does it exist?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 12:50:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You already said it's something. That should answer your question.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 12:51:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 12:50:19 PM, phantom wrote:
You already said it's something. That should answer your question.

Well, a unicorn is something, too, but that doesn't exist, either. Well, not in terms of the contemporary interpretation of those who continue to discuss them.

Anyway, how could you prove it?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 12:52:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 12:51:35 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:50:19 PM, phantom wrote:
You already said it's something. That should answer your question.

Well, a unicorn is something, too, but that doesn't exist, either. Well, not in terms of the contemporary interpretation of those who continue to discuss them.

Anyway, how could you prove it?

Touch it.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 12:54:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 12:52:51 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:51:35 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:50:19 PM, phantom wrote:
You already said it's something. That should answer your question.

Well, a unicorn is something, too, but that doesn't exist, either. Well, not in terms of the contemporary interpretation of those who continue to discuss them.

Anyway, how could you prove it?

Touch it.

Well, now that you have, it emits no vibrations and its temperature is undetectable, which means that your axons are unable to register it. Therefore, you don't even know for sure that you've touched it, much less that there's an "it" you've touched.

Now what?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 12:56:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 12:51:35 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:50:19 PM, phantom wrote:
You already said it's something. That should answer your question.

Well, a unicorn is something, too, but that doesn't exist, either. Well, not in terms of the contemporary interpretation of those who continue to discuss them.

Anyway, how could you prove it?

You already said it's comprised of something, and does a number of things. Hard to say that it doesn't exist.

I feel like there's probably a deeper point to this thread that you haven't yet stated
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 12:57:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 12:56:24 PM, phantom wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:51:35 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:50:19 PM, phantom wrote:
You already said it's something. That should answer your question.

Well, a unicorn is something, too, but that doesn't exist, either. Well, not in terms of the contemporary interpretation of those who continue to discuss them.

Anyway, how could you prove it?

You already said it's comprised of something, and does a number of things. Hard to say that it doesn't exist.

I feel like there's probably a deeper point to this thread that you haven't yet stated

I did indicate that it's comprised of something, and I didn't claim that it doesn't exist. I'm asking for proof of your opinion regarding whether it exists.

I didn't indicate anything that it does, but instead, listed a series of characteristics rather relevant to human interaction with it.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:01:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In fact, I should say that, perhaps, the object doesn't interact with photons at all, rather than it simply having an inability to reflect light (which leaves room for the assumption that it absorbs it instead).
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:02:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 12:54:53 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:52:51 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:51:35 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:50:19 PM, phantom wrote:
You already said it's something. That should answer your question.

Well, a unicorn is something, too, but that doesn't exist, either. Well, not in terms of the contemporary interpretation of those who continue to discuss them.

Anyway, how could you prove it?

Touch it.

Well, now that you have, it emits no vibrations and its temperature is undetectable, which means that your axons are unable to register it. Therefore, you don't even know for sure that you've touched it, much less that there's an "it" you've touched.

Now what?

Let's not get ahead of yourself. It can be touched, and it's immovable. So by coming into contact with it, the cells on my skin compress, activating pressure-sensitive axons embedded there, triggering the sensation of "touch," the lack of associated temperature sensation notwithstanding.

Also, depending on the reference point, I am moving several thousands, if not tens of thousands, kilometer's per hour with respect to this immovable object, so the hole it blasts through my body as I come in contact with it is sure to be noticeable.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:08:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You're presenting an epistemic problem, not an existential one. If you can't register it with any of your senses, it doesn't register any sort of effect on things you can sense, and there's no logical necessitation of its existence, then you don't have any epistemic reason to think it exists. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though, just that you have no way of knowing one way or another.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:11:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 12:57:58 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:56:24 PM, phantom wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:51:35 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:50:19 PM, phantom wrote:
You already said it's something. That should answer your question.

Well, a unicorn is something, too, but that doesn't exist, either. Well, not in terms of the contemporary interpretation of those who continue to discuss them.

Anyway, how could you prove it?

You already said it's comprised of something, and does a number of things. Hard to say that it doesn't exist.

I feel like there's probably a deeper point to this thread that you haven't yet stated

I did indicate that it's comprised of something, and I didn't claim that it doesn't exist. I'm asking for proof of your opinion regarding whether it exists.

I didn't indicate anything that it does, but instead, listed a series of characteristics rather relevant to human interaction with it.

As stated, the characteristics you described, clearly make it necessary that it exists.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:11:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 12:47:09 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
If something is comprised of atoms in the formation of a compound somatic cells do not recognize, and which does not reflect light, is immovable, and converts to the exact temperature of anything that touches it, does it exist?

No matter what it is that you decided to describe, it exists in some fashion now that you defined it does it not?
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:13:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:02:40 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:54:53 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:52:51 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:51:35 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:50:19 PM, phantom wrote:
You already said it's something. That should answer your question.

Well, a unicorn is something, too, but that doesn't exist, either. Well, not in terms of the contemporary interpretation of those who continue to discuss them.

Anyway, how could you prove it?

Touch it.

Well, now that you have, it emits no vibrations and its temperature is undetectable, which means that your axons are unable to register it. Therefore, you don't even know for sure that you've touched it, much less that there's an "it" you've touched.

Now what?

Let's not get ahead of yourself. It can be touched, and it's immovable. So by coming into contact with it, the cells on my skin compress, activating pressure-sensitive axons embedded there, triggering the sensation of "touch," the lack of associated temperature sensation notwithstanding.

Without the temperature sensation, how could you distinguish between this object and anything else that you know to exist that can cause pressure without a difference in temperature or an appeal to your other senses, like air?

Also, depending on the reference point, I am moving several thousands, if not tens of thousands, kilometer's per hour with respect to this immovable object, so the hole it blasts through my body as I come in contact with it is sure to be noticeable.

That sounds more as though the object would touch you. Let's work with that a moment.

You're just standing there, and suddenly, there's a hole in your body. You would then believe:

a. You were shot.

b. You spontaneously exploded.

c. You were hit by a very special object that you've never heard of before.

If c, how would you prove it?
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:14:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:11:18 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:47:09 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
If something is comprised of atoms in the formation of a compound somatic cells do not recognize, and which does not reflect light, is immovable, and converts to the exact temperature of anything that touches it, does it exist?

No matter what it is that you decided to describe, it exists in some fashion now that you defined it does it not?

Inasmuch as the vulva protruding swollenly from your forehead does, I suppose.
anonynomous
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:17:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I feel like this "substance" your talking about seems to reflect many of the properties of dark matter and/or dark energy
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:17:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:08:45 PM, socialpinko wrote:
You're presenting an epistemic problem, not an existential one. If you can't register it with any of your senses, it doesn't register any sort of effect on things you can sense, and there's no logical necessitation of its existence, then you don't have any epistemic reason to think it exists. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though, just that you have no way of knowing one way or another.

Ah, that's an interesting stance. It's unable to be proven that it exists.

Now, let's say that there were a being that has senses (or a variation of senses) which humans do not. This being can detect and interact with this object just fine, and in fact, it improves their quality of life. Humans cannot communicate with this being, but they have an inkling through inference that this object exists. Furthermore, humans could entertain these same benefits, but it would require that they assume the object exists without direct sensation, and attempt to interact with it accordingly. Would you consider the human interaction with this object predicated on "faith?"
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:18:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:17:22 PM, anonynomous wrote:
I feel like this "substance" your talking about seems to reflect many of the properties of dark matter and/or dark energy

Ah! Indeed, does an axion exist? How elusive the proof!
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:26:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:11:12 PM, phantom wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:57:58 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:56:24 PM, phantom wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:51:35 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:50:19 PM, phantom wrote:
You already said it's something. That should answer your question.

Well, a unicorn is something, too, but that doesn't exist, either. Well, not in terms of the contemporary interpretation of those who continue to discuss them.

Anyway, how could you prove it?

You already said it's comprised of something, and does a number of things. Hard to say that it doesn't exist.

I feel like there's probably a deeper point to this thread that you haven't yet stated

I did indicate that it's comprised of something, and I didn't claim that it doesn't exist. I'm asking for proof of your opinion regarding whether it exists.

I didn't indicate anything that it does, but instead, listed a series of characteristics rather relevant to human interaction with it.

As stated, the characteristics you described, clearly make it necessary that it exists.

How would you prove it?
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:33:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:17:46 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:08:45 PM, socialpinko wrote:
You're presenting an epistemic problem, not an existential one. If you can't register it with any of your senses, it doesn't register any sort of effect on things you can sense, and there's no logical necessitation of its existence, then you don't have any epistemic reason to think it exists. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though, just that you have no way of knowing one way or another.

Ah, that's an interesting stance. It's unable to be proven that it exists.

Now, let's say that there were a being that has senses (or a variation of senses) which humans do not. This being can detect and interact with this object just fine, and in fact, it improves their quality of life. Humans cannot communicate with this being, but they have an inkling through inference that this object exists. Furthermore, humans could entertain these same benefits, but it would require that they assume the object exists without direct sensation, and attempt to interact with it accordingly. Would you consider the human interaction with this object predicated on "faith?"

Actually, let me detract this, so this conversation doesn't become starkly religious.

Instead, I'll posit: is it possible for humans to discover this object?
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:43:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:14:27 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:11:18 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:47:09 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
If something is comprised of atoms in the formation of a compound somatic cells do not recognize, and which does not reflect light, is immovable, and converts to the exact temperature of anything that touches it, does it exist?

No matter what it is that you decided to describe, it exists in some fashion now that you defined it does it not?

Inasmuch as the vulva protruding swollenly from your forehead does, I suppose.

Good, I'm gad we agree it exists, whatever it is.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:45:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:43:39 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:14:27 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:11:18 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:47:09 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
If something is comprised of atoms in the formation of a compound somatic cells do not recognize, and which does not reflect light, is immovable, and converts to the exact temperature of anything that touches it, does it exist?

No matter what it is that you decided to describe, it exists in some fashion now that you defined it does it not?

Inasmuch as the vulva protruding swollenly from your forehead does, I suppose.

Good, I'm gad we agree it exists, whatever it is.

A vulva is the fleshy outer encasement of mammalian female reproductive organs.

It was an ironic statement meant to indicate that simply defining something or acknowledging it as true does not qualify its existence, and it certainly can't prove it.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:47:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:26:46 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:11:12 PM, phantom wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:57:58 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:56:24 PM, phantom wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:51:35 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:50:19 PM, phantom wrote:
You already said it's something. That should answer your question.

Well, a unicorn is something, too, but that doesn't exist, either. Well, not in terms of the contemporary interpretation of those who continue to discuss them.

Anyway, how could you prove it?

You already said it's comprised of something, and does a number of things. Hard to say that it doesn't exist.

I feel like there's probably a deeper point to this thread that you haven't yet stated

I did indicate that it's comprised of something, and I didn't claim that it doesn't exist. I'm asking for proof of your opinion regarding whether it exists.

I didn't indicate anything that it does, but instead, listed a series of characteristics rather relevant to human interaction with it.

As stated, the characteristics you described, clearly make it necessary that it exists.

How would you prove it?

How would I prove it exists? Well, in the real life I wouldn't. That's because it appears to not be accessible to my senses according your original post. But you've provided information about it, and the information implies that it does exist.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:49:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:13:35 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:02:40 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:54:53 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:52:51 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:51:35 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:50:19 PM, phantom wrote:
You already said it's something. That should answer your question.

Well, a unicorn is something, too, but that doesn't exist, either. Well, not in terms of the contemporary interpretation of those who continue to discuss them.

Anyway, how could you prove it?

Touch it.

Well, now that you have, it emits no vibrations and its temperature is undetectable, which means that your axons are unable to register it. Therefore, you don't even know for sure that you've touched it, much less that there's an "it" you've touched.

Now what?

Let's not get ahead of yourself. It can be touched, and it's immovable. So by coming into contact with it, the cells on my skin compress, activating pressure-sensitive axons embedded there, triggering the sensation of "touch," the lack of associated temperature sensation notwithstanding.

Without the temperature sensation, how could you distinguish between this object and anything else that you know to exist that can cause pressure without a difference in temperature or an appeal to your other senses, like air?

Process of elimination.


Also, depending on the reference point, I am moving several thousands, if not tens of thousands, kilometer's per hour with respect to this immovable object, so the hole it blasts through my body as I come in contact with it is sure to be noticeable.

That sounds more as though the object would touch you. Let's work with that a moment.

You're just standing there, and suddenly, there's a hole in your body. You would then believe:

a. You were shot.

b. You spontaneously exploded.

c. You were hit by a very special object that you've never heard of before.

If c, how would you prove it?

I wouldn't, I'd be dead.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:54:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:33:35 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:17:46 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:08:45 PM, socialpinko wrote:
You're presenting an epistemic problem, not an existential one. If you can't register it with any of your senses, it doesn't register any sort of effect on things you can sense, and there's no logical necessitation of its existence, then you don't have any epistemic reason to think it exists. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though, just that you have no way of knowing one way or another.

Ah, that's an interesting stance. It's unable to be proven that it exists.

Now, let's say that there were a being that has senses (or a variation of senses) which humans do not. This being can detect and interact with this object just fine, and in fact, it improves their quality of life. Humans cannot communicate with this being, but they have an inkling through inference that this object exists. Furthermore, humans could entertain these same benefits, but it would require that they assume the object exists without direct sensation, and attempt to interact with it accordingly. Would you consider the human interaction with this object predicated on "faith?"

Actually, let me detract this, so this conversation doesn't become starkly religious.

Instead, I'll posit: is it possible for humans to discover this object?

Yes. By your own admission it interacts with other matter (it can be touched), so it's just an issue of detecting anomalous observations, ruling out the behavior of that which we know, leaving behind this unseen object.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:57:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:49:44 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Does existence really exist? Is this real life?

Is this just fantasy?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:58:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:57:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:49:44 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Does existence really exist? Is this real life?

Is this just fantasy?

Caught in a landslide
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 1:58:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:54:55 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:33:35 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:17:46 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:08:45 PM, socialpinko wrote:
You're presenting an epistemic problem, not an existential one. If you can't register it with any of your senses, it doesn't register any sort of effect on things you can sense, and there's no logical necessitation of its existence, then you don't have any epistemic reason to think it exists. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though, just that you have no way of knowing one way or another.

Ah, that's an interesting stance. It's unable to be proven that it exists.

Now, let's say that there were a being that has senses (or a variation of senses) which humans do not. This being can detect and interact with this object just fine, and in fact, it improves their quality of life. Humans cannot communicate with this being, but they have an inkling through inference that this object exists. Furthermore, humans could entertain these same benefits, but it would require that they assume the object exists without direct sensation, and attempt to interact with it accordingly. Would you consider the human interaction with this object predicated on "faith?"

Actually, let me detract this, so this conversation doesn't become starkly religious.

Instead, I'll posit: is it possible for humans to discover this object?

Yes. By your own admission it interacts with other matter (it can be touched), so it's just an issue of detecting anomalous observations, ruling out the behavior of that which we know, leaving behind this unseen object.

Ah! So, in other words, the only way to discover it, though it is impossible to detect it directly, is through inference, yes? Based on what we know about other things, we can render at least some conclusions about this thing, starting with its existence.

So, tell me -- would you say that more or less of the reality that humans understand and accept derives from inference or direct empirical evidence?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 2:01:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:58:45 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:54:55 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:33:35 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:17:46 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:08:45 PM, socialpinko wrote:
You're presenting an epistemic problem, not an existential one. If you can't register it with any of your senses, it doesn't register any sort of effect on things you can sense, and there's no logical necessitation of its existence, then you don't have any epistemic reason to think it exists. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though, just that you have no way of knowing one way or another.

Ah, that's an interesting stance. It's unable to be proven that it exists.

Now, let's say that there were a being that has senses (or a variation of senses) which humans do not. This being can detect and interact with this object just fine, and in fact, it improves their quality of life. Humans cannot communicate with this being, but they have an inkling through inference that this object exists. Furthermore, humans could entertain these same benefits, but it would require that they assume the object exists without direct sensation, and attempt to interact with it accordingly. Would you consider the human interaction with this object predicated on "faith?"

Actually, let me detract this, so this conversation doesn't become starkly religious.

Instead, I'll posit: is it possible for humans to discover this object?

Yes. By your own admission it interacts with other matter (it can be touched), so it's just an issue of detecting anomalous observations, ruling out the behavior of that which we know, leaving behind this unseen object.

Ah! So, in other words, the only way to discover it, though it is impossible to detect it directly, is through inference, yes?

Technically that's the only way we discover anything (through inference).

Based on what we know about other things, we can render at least some conclusions about this thing, starting with its existence.

So, tell me -- would you say that more or less of the reality that humans understand and accept derives from inference or direct empirical evidence?

All empirical evidence is indirect/inferred. The sum of physical science can be described thusly:

Shooting sh1t at other sh1t and seeing how it bounces off.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 2:01:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 1:49:26 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:13:35 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 1:02:40 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:54:53 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:52:51 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:51:35 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/2/2013 12:50:19 PM, phantom wrote:
You already said it's something. That should answer your question.

Well, a unicorn is something, too, but that doesn't exist, either. Well, not in terms of the contemporary interpretation of those who continue to discuss them.

Anyway, how could you prove it?

Touch it.

Well, now that you have, it emits no vibrations and its temperature is undetectable, which means that your axons are unable to register it. Therefore, you don't even know for sure that you've touched it, much less that there's an "it" you've touched.

Now what?

Let's not get ahead of yourself. It can be touched, and it's immovable. So by coming into contact with it, the cells on my skin compress, activating pressure-sensitive axons embedded there, triggering the sensation of "touch," the lack of associated temperature sensation notwithstanding.

Without the temperature sensation, how could you distinguish between this object and anything else that you know to exist that can cause pressure without a difference in temperature or an appeal to your other senses, like air?

Process of elimination.

Ah, so are you telling me that you know everything about every other object you know of, enough to make conclusive claims about an object you can barely detect based on its relationship with these objects, with definite knowledge that the meager evidence you do have for this object's existence did not simply derive from another object of which you're already familiar?

See: force-field generator.

Also, depending on the reference point, I am moving several thousands, if not tens of thousands, kilometer's per hour with respect to this immovable object, so the hole it blasts through my body as I come in contact with it is sure to be noticeable.

That sounds more as though the object would touch you. Let's work with that a moment.

You're just standing there, and suddenly, there's a hole in your body. You would then believe:

a. You were shot.

b. You spontaneously exploded.

c. You were hit by a very special object that you've never heard of before.

If c, how would you prove it?

I wouldn't, I'd be dead.

Unless it hit you in the head, that death wouldn't be instant, leaving room for such considerations. However, let's assume that it hit you in the leg?