Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reality doesn't exist; Science is inessential

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 4:18:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Philosophers like Kant and even as far back as Plato have denied the existence of the material world well before modern science yielded the plethora of evidence to seemingly confirm it.

The microscope showed us solid matter wasn't quite as solid as it seemed. Big deal, matter is porous. But looking down further, we see matter isn't just porous, it's made up of simple shapes: molecules. OK that's weird, but at least it's solid in some sense, right? Well, actually, each atom in that molecule is only a pea-sized entity inside a football stadium-sized haze of electron nothingness. The nucleus is made up of other particles which practically don't exist, which are now perhaps themselves made from infinitesimally-small (as small as there exists any notion for it, anyway) strings which only have the attribute of mass as an indirect quality of their vibration.

The Double-Slit experiment, in a completely different way, has confirmed this idea. A photon doesn't go through the slit and hit the page, like a pebble would. That is, of course, unless you detect it directly. If you look at the photon, then it behaves as a pebble would. But if you only indirectly observe it, it takes every path possible, going through both slits and hitting the page in an interference pattern as if there were many photons. It physically demonstrates its Sum Over Histories, existing only as a distribution of possibilities. There have been other experiments which have demonstrated this principle as well: matter, if not directly observed (e.g., detecting it by firing a particle at it), will behave as if it's existence was uncertain.

When particles are cooled down to (infinitesimally-close to) zero, they don't become what you'd expect, which would be similar to an object at rest. Instead, super-cooled particles become smears which don't exist in one discrete place. The same thing seems to happen if time is slowed down to zero; particles don't settle-down as you'd expect, they instead become chaotic. As I understand it, if you were to stop time right now and walk around (like in the movies) you wouldn't see people and objects standing still, you'd see infinite chaos; a swirl of static like an old TV set with no signal; every particle would exist everywhere at once (and, of course, not exist anywhere at all).

The Uncertainty Principle dictates that particles don't have a specific velocity and position (as well as other uncertain relationships). If it has a position, it cannot have a velocity, and vice versa. An omniscient being would be as inept as a scientist with a microscope at telling you where any particle is and how it is moving.

The list of phenomena goes on. Time is relative in all sorts of ways (depending on what direction you travel, depending on how fast you are traveling, depending on how close you are to something). Time doesn't exist, matter doesn't exist, even space doesn't exist. If you resolve the question as to why two people, each traveling at 99%c in opposite directions, only pass each other at 99%c, the answer lies in space being relative - not only the space between you, but the space you exist in as well. The most distant galaxy is closer to you than your computer monitor, but we perceive it as far away subjectively. Light isn't just massless, it has a relativistic perspective of existing for no time and traveling through no space.The only physical thing left to talk about is energy, and that never existed in the first place.

Kant spent his days in his hometown. He never traveled, had no modern scientific resources... Plato existed two thousand years before Kant. How did they know, without needing scientific confirmation, that reality is fake? When I first read Plato's Allegory of the Cave, I thought it was a quaint idea... then I learned the Uncertainty Principle and it didn't seem so quaint anymore. But they didn't need science for confirmation. Does science, then, just slow us down? Ruin our perspective? Would you believe them without the science?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 8:55:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Quantum Mechanics doesn't deny the existence of reality.

The fact that quantum mechanics describes anything at all shows it does not deny the existence of the physical world.

Kant didn't deny the physical world either. Space and time are both real and objective for Kant, they are just not "true" representations of the noumenal world. Space and time are products of our minds colliding with the noumenal, but that doesn't make them nonexistent.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 10:02:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 4:18:03 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Philosophers like Kant and even as far back as Plato have denied the existence of the material world well before modern science yielded the plethora of evidence to seemingly confirm it.

The microscope showed us solid matter wasn't quite as solid as it seemed. Big deal, matter is porous. But looking down further, we see matter isn't just porous, it's made up of simple shapes: molecules. OK that's weird, but at least it's solid in some sense, right? Well, actually, each atom in that molecule is only a pea-sized entity inside a football stadium-sized haze of electron nothingness. The nucleus is made up of other particles which practically don't exist, which are now perhaps themselves made from infinitesimally-small (as small as there exists any notion for it, anyway) strings which only have the attribute of mass as an indirect quality of their vibration.


The Double-Slit experiment, in a completely different way, has confirmed this idea. A photon doesn't go through the slit and hit the page, like a pebble would. That is, of course, unless you detect it directly. If you look at the photon, then it behaves as a pebble would. But if you only indirectly observe it, it takes every path possible, going through both slits and hitting the page in an interference pattern as if there were many photons. It physically demonstrates its Sum Over Histories, existing only as a distribution of possibilities. There have been other experiments which have demonstrated this principle as well: matter, if not directly observed (e.g., detecting it by firing a particle at it), will behave as if it's existence was uncertain.

When particles are cooled down to (infinitesimally-close to) zero, they don't become what you'd expect, which would be similar to an object at rest. Instead, super-cooled particles become smears which don't exist in one discrete place. The same thing seems to happen if time is slowed down to zero; particles don't settle-down as you'd expect, they instead become chaotic. As I understand it, if you were to stop time right now and walk around (like in the movies) you wouldn't see people and objects standing still, you'd see infinite chaos; a swirl of static like an old TV set with no signal; every particle would exist everywhere at once (and, of course, not exist anywhere at all).

The Uncertainty Principle dictates that particles don't have a specific velocity and position (as well as other uncertain relationships). If it has a position, it cannot have a velocity, and vice versa. An omniscient being would be as inept as a scientist with a microscope at telling you where any particle is and how it is moving.

The list of phenomena goes on. Time is relative in all sorts of ways (depending on what direction you travel, depending on how fast you are traveling, depending on how close you are to something). Time doesn't exist, matter doesn't exist, even space doesn't exist. If you resolve the question as to why two people, each traveling at 99%c in opposite directions, only pass each other at 99%c, the answer lies in space being relative - not only the space between you, but the space you exist in as well. The most distant galaxy is closer to you than your computer monitor, but we perceive it as far away subjectively. Light isn't just massless, it has a relativistic perspective of existing for no time and traveling through no space.The only physical thing left to talk about is energy, and that never existed in the first place.

Kant spent his days in his hometown. He never traveled, had no modern scientific resources... Plato existed two thousand years before Kant. How did they know, without needing scientific confirmation, that reality is fake? When I first read Plato's Allegory of the Cave, I thought it was a quaint idea... then I learned the Uncertainty Principle and it didn't seem so quaint anymore. But they didn't need science for confirmation. Does science, then, just slow us down? Ruin our perspective? Would you believe them without the science?

Unreality exists, because reality exists. That which is real is that which is unreal, simultaneously. It's the law of contradiction which makes sense out of our world.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 11:05:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 4:18:03 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Philosophers like Kant and even as far back as Plato have denied the existence of the material world well before modern science yielded the plethora of evidence to seemingly confirm it.

The microscope showed us solid matter wasn't quite as solid as it seemed. Big deal, matter is porous. But looking down further, we see matter isn't just porous, it's made up of simple shapes: molecules. OK that's weird, but at least it's solid in some sense, right? Well, actually, each atom in that molecule is only a pea-sized entity inside a football stadium-sized haze of electron nothingness. The nucleus is made up of other particles which practically don't exist, which are now perhaps themselves made from infinitesimally-small (as small as there exists any notion for it, anyway) strings which only have the attribute of mass as an indirect quality of their vibration.

String theory is just a hypothesis?



The Double-Slit experiment, in a completely different way, has confirmed this idea. A photon doesn't go through the slit and hit the page, like a pebble would. That is, of course, unless you detect it directly. If you look at the photon, then it behaves as a pebble would. But if you only indirectly observe it, it takes every path possible, going through both slits and hitting the page in an interference pattern as if there were many photons. It physically demonstrates its Sum Over Histories, existing only as a distribution of possibilities. There have been other experiments which have demonstrated this principle as well: matter, if not directly observed (e.g., detecting it by firing a particle at it), will behave as if it's existence was uncertain.

When particles are cooled down to (infinitesimally-close to) zero, they don't become what you'd expect, which would be similar to an object at rest. Instead, super-cooled particles become smears which don't exist in one discrete place. The same thing seems to happen if time is slowed down to zero; particles don't settle-down as you'd expect, they instead become chaotic. As I understand it, if you were to stop time right now and walk around (like in the movies) you wouldn't see people and objects standing still, you'd see infinite chaos; a swirl of static like an old TV set with no signal; every particle would exist everywhere at once (and, of course, not exist anywhere at all).

Where did you get the time thing?


The Uncertainty Principle dictates that particles don't have a specific velocity and position (as well as other uncertain relationships). If it has a position, it cannot have a velocity, and vice versa. An omniscient being would be as inept as a scientist with a microscope at telling you where any particle is and how it is moving.

For some reason when certain things are measured measuring other things becomes more inaccurate? I don't think we know if this is always the case or why it happens.


The list of phenomena goes on. Time is relative in all sorts of ways (depending on what direction you travel, depending on how fast you are traveling, depending on how close you are to something). Time doesn't exist, matter doesn't exist, even space doesn't exist. If you resolve the question as to why two people, each traveling at 99%c in opposite directions, only pass each other at 99%c, the answer lies in space being relative - not only the space between you, but the space you exist in as well. The most distant galaxy is closer to you than your computer monitor, but we perceive it as far away subjectively. Light isn't just massless, it has a relativistic perspective of existing for no time and traveling through no space.The only physical thing left to talk about is energy, and that never existed in the first place.

I don't think you can just claim that time, matter and energy don't exist from what you've said.


Kant spent his days in his hometown. He never traveled, had no modern scientific resources... Plato existed two thousand years before Kant. How did they know, without needing scientific confirmation, that reality is fake? When I first read Plato's Allegory of the Cave, I thought it was a quaint idea... then I learned the Uncertainty Principle and it didn't seem so quaint anymore. But they didn't need science for confirmation. Does science, then, just slow us down? Ruin our perspective? Would you believe them without the science?

We perceive a lot of things incorrectly. The question becomes, do we actually perceive everything incorrectly. You can believe that if you want. Science creates measurable and testable ideas along with hypothesis. Many people assume that they know what's right. They are often shown to be wrong by science. When science shows them to be correct they often claim that science or scientists are stupid, slow or unnecessary. I think that this is an ignorant belief.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 11:02:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 8:55:07 AM, Raisor wrote:
Quantum Mechanics doesn't deny the existence of reality.

Well there is no principle that states that explicitly, but if you take all these things into account, it's pretty clear what the common thread is...

The fact that quantum mechanics describes anything at all shows it does not deny the existence of the physical world.

What exactly does QM describe that exists? Quarks?

Kant didn't deny the physical world either. Space and time are both real and objective for Kant, they are just not "true" representations of the noumenal world.

We're dicing semantics here, you either accept what you are seeing or you don't. If you don't, then it's a separate conversation as to how the phenomenal and noumenal world are related. I am not prepared to debate that with you, but if you want to express your views on how close they are then we're listening.

Space and time are products of our minds colliding with the noumenal, but that doesn't make them nonexistent.

Our conscious minds spread out space for us to experience. But there is no real distance between any object. Are you familiar with the fact that objects contract in the direction they are traveling, and significantly so when traveling very fast? Space is relative. It is not absolute. From the perspective of a photon, there is zero distance. It is only from our perspective, that is created perhaps by our consciousness as an artifice for our experiences, that space has any definition.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 11:11:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 8:58:10 AM, Raisor wrote:
I really don't understand how you think the double slit experiment shows that electrons don't exist.

Our experiments don't explicitly rule out the existence of photons and other particles, but they do call into doubt that they exist as we perceive them (like pebbles). If we are watching it, it's there. If we aren't, then it sort of fades into the background, existing neither here nor there. No, it doesn't completely prove that photons don't exist in any meaning of the word, but when you take all these completely unrelated phenomena into account, the pattern is clear.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 11:15:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 11:11:22 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/22/2014 8:58:10 AM, Raisor wrote:
I really don't understand how you think the double slit experiment shows that electrons don't exist.

Our experiments don't explicitly rule out the existence of photons and other particles, but they do call into doubt that they exist as we perceive them (like pebbles). If we are watching it, it's there. If we aren't, then it sort of fades into the background, existing neither here nor there. No, it doesn't completely prove that photons don't exist in any meaning of the word, but when you take all these completely unrelated phenomena into account, the pattern is clear.

I mean this in the kindest way, you do not understand quantum mechanics. No physicist would explain QM the way you do. I encourage you to read more on the topic, provided what you read comes from a physics book not from some crappy pseudo-philosophy website. I would recommend the book "From Paradox to Reality;" it gives a good overview of complicated physics concepts with some of the mathematical background in a way that most people can understand.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 11:16:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 10:02:02 AM, s-anthony wrote:

Unreality exists, because reality exists. That which is real is that which is unreal, simultaneously. It's the law of contradiction which makes sense out of our world.

I'm not familiar with the theory but it does seem to have some sense to it...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 11:23:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 11:05:21 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:18:03 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Philosophers like Kant and even as far back as Plato have denied the existence of the material world well before modern science yielded the plethora of evidence to seemingly confirm it.

The microscope showed us solid matter wasn't quite as solid as it seemed. Big deal, matter is porous. But looking down further, we see matter isn't just porous, it's made up of simple shapes: molecules. OK that's weird, but at least it's solid in some sense, right? Well, actually, each atom in that molecule is only a pea-sized entity inside a football stadium-sized haze of electron nothingness. The nucleus is made up of other particles which practically don't exist, which are now perhaps themselves made from infinitesimally-small (as small as there exists any notion for it, anyway) strings which only have the attribute of mass as an indirect quality of their vibration.

String theory is just a hypothesis?



The Double-Slit experiment, in a completely different way, has confirmed this idea. A photon doesn't go through the slit and hit the page, like a pebble would. That is, of course, unless you detect it directly. If you look at the photon, then it behaves as a pebble would. But if you only indirectly observe it, it takes every path possible, going through both slits and hitting the page in an interference pattern as if there were many photons. It physically demonstrates its Sum Over Histories, existing only as a distribution of possibilities. There have been other experiments which have demonstrated this principle as well: matter, if not directly observed (e.g., detecting it by firing a particle at it), will behave as if it's existence was uncertain.

When particles are cooled down to (infinitesimally-close to) zero, they don't become what you'd expect, which would be similar to an object at rest. Instead, super-cooled particles become smears which don't exist in one discrete place. The same thing seems to happen if time is slowed down to zero; particles don't settle-down as you'd expect, they instead become chaotic. As I understand it, if you were to stop time right now and walk around (like in the movies) you wouldn't see people and objects standing still, you'd see infinite chaos; a swirl of static like an old TV set with no signal; every particle would exist everywhere at once (and, of course, not exist anywhere at all).

Where did you get the time thing?

Time and space make no sense, apart from each other. Time is merely motion through space. If there is no space, there is no motion. The reverse is true, also; if there is no time, there is no space. Take, for instance, the speed of light; from a photon's perspective (if a photon had one,) the moment of emission would be the moment of absorption; the photon does not experience time, and, therefore, it does not experience space.



The Uncertainty Principle dictates that particles don't have a specific velocity and position (as well as other uncertain relationships). If it has a position, it cannot have a velocity, and vice versa. An omniscient being would be as inept as a scientist with a microscope at telling you where any particle is and how it is moving.

For some reason when certain things are measured measuring other things becomes more inaccurate? I don't think we know if this is always the case or why it happens.


The list of phenomena goes on. Time is relative in all sorts of ways (depending on what direction you travel, depending on how fast you are traveling, depending on how close you are to something). Time doesn't exist, matter doesn't exist, even space doesn't exist. If you resolve the question as to why two people, each traveling at 99%c in opposite directions, only pass each other at 99%c, the answer lies in space being relative - not only the space between you, but the space you exist in as well. The most distant galaxy is closer to you than your computer monitor, but we perceive it as far away subjectively. Light isn't just massless, it has a relativistic perspective of existing for no time and traveling through no space.The only physical thing left to talk about is energy, and that never existed in the first place.

I don't think you can just claim that time, matter and energy don't exist from what you've said.

I believe he's half right. These things exist and don't exist, simultaneously.



Kant spent his days in his hometown. He never traveled, had no modern scientific resources... Plato existed two thousand years before Kant. How did they know, without needing scientific confirmation, that reality is fake? When I first read Plato's Allegory of the Cave, I thought it was a quaint idea... then I learned the Uncertainty Principle and it didn't seem so quaint anymore. But they didn't need science for confirmation. Does science, then, just slow us down? Ruin our perspective? Would you believe them without the science?

We perceive a lot of things incorrectly. The question becomes, do we actually perceive everything incorrectly. You can believe that if you want. Science creates measurable and testable ideas along with hypothesis. Many people assume that they know what's right. They are often shown to be wrong by science. When science shows them to be correct they often claim that science or scientists are stupid, slow or unnecessary. I think that this is an ignorant belief.

Sorry. I believe just the reverse of that is true. Most people believe scientists are stupid, if science doesn't support their biases, and prejudices. I have never known anyone to believe a scientist was stupid, because the scientist's findings supported his, or her, beliefs.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 11:35:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 11:05:21 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:18:03 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Philosophers like Kant and even as far back as Plato have denied the existence of the material world well before modern science yielded the plethora of evidence to seemingly confirm it.

The microscope showed us solid matter wasn't quite as solid as it seemed. Big deal, matter is porous. But looking down further, we see matter isn't just porous, it's made up of simple shapes: molecules. OK that's weird, but at least it's solid in some sense, right? Well, actually, each atom in that molecule is only a pea-sized entity inside a football stadium-sized haze of electron nothingness. The nucleus is made up of other particles which practically don't exist, which are now perhaps themselves made from infinitesimally-small (as small as there exists any notion for it, anyway) strings which only have the attribute of mass as an indirect quality of their vibration.

String theory is just a hypothesis?

It's gained some strength but it has a ways to go, last I checked. I could be wrong.


The Double-Slit experiment, in a completely different way, has confirmed this idea. A photon doesn't go through the slit and hit the page, like a pebble would. That is, of course, unless you detect it directly. If you look at the photon, then it behaves as a pebble would. But if you only indirectly observe it, it takes every path possible, going through both slits and hitting the page in an interference pattern as if there were many photons. It physically demonstrates its Sum Over Histories, existing only as a distribution of possibilities. There have been other experiments which have demonstrated this principle as well: matter, if not directly observed (e.g., detecting it by firing a particle at it), will behave as if it's existence was uncertain.

When particles are cooled down to (infinitesimally-close to) zero, they don't become what you'd expect, which would be similar to an object at rest. Instead, super-cooled particles become smears which don't exist in one discrete place. The same thing seems to happen if time is slowed down to zero; particles don't settle-down as you'd expect, they instead become chaotic. As I understand it, if you were to stop time right now and walk around (like in the movies) you wouldn't see people and objects standing still, you'd see infinite chaos; a swirl of static like an old TV set with no signal; every particle would exist everywhere at once (and, of course, not exist anywhere at all).

Where did you get the time thing?

I can't remember where I read it but you can extrapolate it from the UP. By slowing time down you will know the exact position and velocity of the particles, and that must remain undefined.


The Uncertainty Principle dictates that particles don't have a specific velocity and position (as well as other uncertain relationships). If it has a position, it cannot have a velocity, and vice versa. An omniscient being would be as inept as a scientist with a microscope at telling you where any particle is and how it is moving.

For some reason when certain things are measured measuring other things becomes more inaccurate? I don't think we know if this is always the case or why it happens.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that it is the way it happens. Even if you were the Christian God, totally omniscient and could look at every planck-cube of space on a screen in front of you, you would not overcome the uncertainty principle. It's not, as many beginning an education in physics tend to believe, simply a coincidental hurdle that we have failed to overcome. The UP is an inherent physical attribute of the matter around you. Particles can not ever have a precise position and velocity. We can give them a lot of one at the expense of the other, but NEVER all of both. There are other uncertain relationships other than position and velocity as well that work the same way. The universe is inherently uncertain.


The list of phenomena goes on. Time is relative in all sorts of ways (depending on what direction you travel, depending on how fast you are traveling, depending on how close you are to something). Time doesn't exist, matter doesn't exist, even space doesn't exist. If you resolve the question as to why two people, each traveling at 99%c in opposite directions, only pass each other at 99%c, the answer lies in space being relative - not only the space between you, but the space you exist in as well. The most distant galaxy is closer to you than your computer monitor, but we perceive it as far away subjectively. Light isn't just massless, it has a relativistic perspective of existing for no time and traveling through no space.The only physical thing left to talk about is energy, and that never existed in the first place.

I don't think you can just claim that time, matter and energy don't exist from what you've said.

You're right, I have not proved my point, it is a matter up for discussion. What is your thoughts as to why relativity is so pervasive in our universe? If existence was so cut and dried, why can't we peer down and see something undeniably solid that we are made out of? You don't see any meaning in all this uncertainty?


Kant spent his days in his hometown. He never traveled, had no modern scientific resources... Plato existed two thousand years before Kant. How did they know, without needing scientific confirmation, that reality is fake? When I first read Plato's Allegory of the Cave, I thought it was a quaint idea... then I learned the Uncertainty Principle and it didn't seem so quaint anymore. But they didn't need science for confirmation. Does science, then, just slow us down? Ruin our perspective? Would you believe them without the science?

We perceive a lot of things incorrectly. The question becomes, do we actually perceive everything incorrectly. You can believe that if you want. Science creates measurable and testable ideas along with hypothesis. Many people assume that they know what's right. They are often shown to be wrong by science. When science shows them to be correct they often claim that science or scientists are stupid, slow or unnecessary. I think that this is an ignorant belief.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say with this, I respect science as much as anybody, if it weren't for science then I would hear Plato and the like talk about reality being an illusion and I'd scoff. But science itself, on every level, agrees with Plato. My real question is how the *&%^ did Plato figure this out without being versed in the UP?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 7:21:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 11:23:57 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/22/2014 11:05:21 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:18:03 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Philosophers like Kant and even as far back as Plato have denied the existence of the material world well before modern science yielded the plethora of evidence to seemingly confirm it.

The microscope showed us solid matter wasn't quite as solid as it seemed. Big deal, matter is porous. But looking down further, we see matter isn't just porous, it's made up of simple shapes: molecules. OK that's weird, but at least it's solid in some sense, right? Well, actually, each atom in that molecule is only a pea-sized entity inside a football stadium-sized haze of electron nothingness. The nucleus is made up of other particles which practically don't exist, which are now perhaps themselves made from infinitesimally-small (as small as there exists any notion for it, anyway) strings which only have the attribute of mass as an indirect quality of their vibration.

String theory is just a hypothesis?



The Double-Slit experiment, in a completely different way, has confirmed this idea. A photon doesn't go through the slit and hit the page, like a pebble would. That is, of course, unless you detect it directly. If you look at the photon, then it behaves as a pebble would. But if you only indirectly observe it, it takes every path possible, going through both slits and hitting the page in an interference pattern as if there were many photons. It physically demonstrates its Sum Over Histories, existing only as a distribution of possibilities. There have been other experiments which have demonstrated this principle as well: matter, if not directly observed (e.g., detecting it by firing a particle at it), will behave as if it's existence was uncertain.

When particles are cooled down to (infinitesimally-close to) zero, they don't become what you'd expect, which would be similar to an object at rest. Instead, super-cooled particles become smears which don't exist in one discrete place. The same thing seems to happen if time is slowed down to zero; particles don't settle-down as you'd expect, they instead become chaotic. As I understand it, if you were to stop time right now and walk around (like in the movies) you wouldn't see people and objects standing still, you'd see infinite chaos; a swirl of static like an old TV set with no signal; every particle would exist everywhere at once (and, of course, not exist anywhere at all).

Where did you get the time thing?

Time and space make no sense, apart from each other. Time is merely motion through space. If there is no space, there is no motion. The reverse is true, also; if there is no time, there is no space. Take, for instance, the speed of light; from a photon's perspective (if a photon had one,) the moment of emission would be the moment of absorption; the photon does not experience time, and, therefore, it does not experience space.

Where did he get that infinitesimal time periods result in infinite chaos?




The Uncertainty Principle dictates that particles don't have a specific velocity and position (as well as other uncertain relationships). If it has a position, it cannot have a velocity, and vice versa. An omniscient being would be as inept as a scientist with a microscope at telling you where any particle is and how it is moving.

For some reason when certain things are measured measuring other things becomes more inaccurate? I don't think we know if this is always the case or why it happens.


The list of phenomena goes on. Time is relative in all sorts of ways (depending on what direction you travel, depending on how fast you are traveling, depending on how close you are to something). Time doesn't exist, matter doesn't exist, even space doesn't exist. If you resolve the question as to why two people, each traveling at 99%c in opposite directions, only pass each other at 99%c, the answer lies in space being relative - not only the space between you, but the space you exist in as well. The most distant galaxy is closer to you than your computer monitor, but we perceive it as far away subjectively. Light isn't just massless, it has a relativistic perspective of existing for no time and traveling through no space.The only physical thing left to talk about is energy, and that never existed in the first place.

I don't think you can just claim that time, matter and energy don't exist from what you've said.

I believe he's half right. These things exist and don't exist, simultaneously.

Evidence?




Kant spent his days in his hometown. He never traveled, had no modern scientific resources... Plato existed two thousand years before Kant. How did they know, without needing scientific confirmation, that reality is fake? When I first read Plato's Allegory of the Cave, I thought it was a quaint idea... then I learned the Uncertainty Principle and it didn't seem so quaint anymore. But they didn't need science for confirmation. Does science, then, just slow us down? Ruin our perspective? Would you believe them without the science?

We perceive a lot of things incorrectly. The question becomes, do we actually perceive everything incorrectly. You can believe that if you want. Science creates measurable and testable ideas along with hypothesis. Many people assume that they know what's right. They are often shown to be wrong by science. When science shows them to be correct they often claim that science or scientists are stupid, slow or unnecessary. I think that this is an ignorant belief.

Sorry. I believe just the reverse of that is true. Most people believe scientists are stupid, if science doesn't support their biases, and prejudices. I have never known anyone to believe a scientist was stupid, because the scientist's findings supported his, or her, beliefs.

When scientists study things which are "common sense" and reach the "common sense" conclusion a large portion of the general public seems to think that it's stupid and a waste of money. That may or may not be the case.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 7:29:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 11:35:57 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/22/2014 11:05:21 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:18:03 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Philosophers like Kant and even as far back as Plato have denied the existence of the material world well before modern science yielded the plethora of evidence to seemingly confirm it.

The microscope showed us solid matter wasn't quite as solid as it seemed. Big deal, matter is porous. But looking down further, we see matter isn't just porous, it's made up of simple shapes: molecules. OK that's weird, but at least it's solid in some sense, right? Well, actually, each atom in that molecule is only a pea-sized entity inside a football stadium-sized haze of electron nothingness. The nucleus is made up of other particles which practically don't exist, which are now perhaps themselves made from infinitesimally-small (as small as there exists any notion for it, anyway) strings which only have the attribute of mass as an indirect quality of their vibration.

String theory is just a hypothesis?

It's gained some strength but it has a ways to go, last I checked. I could be wrong.

Just as long as we're on the same page.



The Double-Slit experiment, in a completely different way, has confirmed this idea. A photon doesn't go through the slit and hit the page, like a pebble would. That is, of course, unless you detect it directly. If you look at the photon, then it behaves as a pebble would. But if you only indirectly observe it, it takes every path possible, going through both slits and hitting the page in an interference pattern as if there were many photons. It physically demonstrates its Sum Over Histories, existing only as a distribution of possibilities. There have been other experiments which have demonstrated this principle as well: matter, if not directly observed (e.g., detecting it by firing a particle at it), will behave as if it's existence was uncertain.

When particles are cooled down to (infinitesimally-close to) zero, they don't become what you'd expect, which would be similar to an object at rest. Instead, super-cooled particles become smears which don't exist in one discrete place. The same thing seems to happen if time is slowed down to zero; particles don't settle-down as you'd expect, they instead become chaotic. As I understand it, if you were to stop time right now and walk around (like in the movies) you wouldn't see people and objects standing still, you'd see infinite chaos; a swirl of static like an old TV set with no signal; every particle would exist everywhere at once (and, of course, not exist anywhere at all).

Where did you get the time thing?

I can't remember where I read it but you can extrapolate it from the UP. By slowing time down you will know the exact position and velocity of the particles, and that must remain undefined.

Fair enough.



The Uncertainty Principle dictates that particles don't have a specific velocity and position (as well as other uncertain relationships). If it has a position, it cannot have a velocity, and vice versa. An omniscient being would be as inept as a scientist with a microscope at telling you where any particle is and how it is moving.

For some reason when certain things are measured measuring other things becomes more inaccurate? I don't think we know if this is always the case or why it happens.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that it is the way it happens. Even if you were the Christian God, totally omniscient and could look at every planck-cube of space on a screen in front of you, you would not overcome the uncertainty principle. It's not, as many beginning an education in physics tend to believe, simply a coincidental hurdle that we have failed to overcome. The UP is an inherent physical attribute of the matter around you. Particles can not ever have a precise position and velocity. We can give them a lot of one at the expense of the other, but NEVER all of both. There are other uncertain relationships other than position and velocity as well that work the same way. The universe is inherently uncertain.

But if we can know it's exact momentum or position then does it not have both? Why does measuring one affect the other? I couldn't say that we would never know both.



The list of phenomena goes on. Time is relative in all sorts of ways (depending on what direction you travel, depending on how fast you are traveling, depending on how close you are to something). Time doesn't exist, matter doesn't exist, even space doesn't exist. If you resolve the question as to why two people, each traveling at 99%c in opposite directions, only pass each other at 99%c, the answer lies in space being relative - not only the space between you, but the space you exist in as well. The most distant galaxy is closer to you than your computer monitor, but we perceive it as far away subjectively. Light isn't just massless, it has a relativistic perspective of existing for no time and traveling through no space.The only physical thing left to talk about is energy, and that never existed in the first place.

I don't think you can just claim that time, matter and energy don't exist from what you've said.

You're right, I have not proved my point, it is a matter up for discussion. What is your thoughts as to why relativity is so pervasive in our universe? If existence was so cut and dried, why can't we peer down and see something undeniably solid that we are made out of? You don't see any meaning in all this uncertainty?

Existence isn't as cut and dried as it seems. The forces combined with the matter make us solid? It does seem strange at first that we aren't a pure blob of matter, but I'm not very uncomfortable with the concept.



Kant spent his days in his hometown. He never traveled, had no modern scientific resources... Plato existed two thousand years before Kant. How did they know, without needing scientific confirmation, that reality is fake? When I first read Plato's Allegory of the Cave, I thought it was a quaint idea... then I learned the Uncertainty Principle and it didn't seem so quaint anymore. But they didn't need science for confirmation. Does science, then, just slow us down? Ruin our perspective? Would you believe them without the science?

We perceive a lot of things incorrectly. The question becomes, do we actually perceive everything incorrectly. You can believe that if you want. Science creates measurable and testable ideas along with hypothesis. Many people assume that they know what's right. They are often shown to be wrong by science. When science shows them to be correct they often claim that science or scientists are stupid, slow or unnecessary. I think that this is an ignorant belief.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say with this, I respect science as much as anybody, if it weren't for science then I would hear Plato and the like talk about reality being an illusion and I'd scoff. But science itself, on every level, agrees with Plato. My real question is how the *&%^ did Plato figure this out without being versed in the UP?

Maybe for the reasons I said? If you notice that our minds can be fooled some of the time, then why not all of the time? I'm not taking away from the intelligence of the idea by saying this, just that that's how I'd go about it.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 7:52:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 11:16:38 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/22/2014 10:02:02 AM, s-anthony wrote:

Unreality exists, because reality exists. That which is real is that which is unreal, simultaneously. It's the law of contradiction which makes sense out of our world.

I'm not familiar with the theory but it does seem to have some sense to it...

Not only are good and evil, hot and cold, light and darkness in opposition to each the other, they are the same thing. That which may appear good, from one situation or perspective, may appear evil from another. The same applies to all other opposites; that which is is that which isn't, at once; everything seen or experienced is unseen and inexperienced, simultaneously. It is that which I don't know about an object that gives an object definition. If my mind were only knowing and contained no ignorance, then, only nothing would exist.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 8:29:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 7:21:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2014 11:23:57 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/22/2014 11:05:21 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:18:03 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Philosophers like Kant and even as far back as Plato have denied the existence of the material world well before modern science yielded the plethora of evidence to seemingly confirm it.

The microscope showed us solid matter wasn't quite as solid as it seemed. Big deal, matter is porous. But looking down further, we see matter isn't just porous, it's made up of simple shapes: molecules. OK that's weird, but at least it's solid in some sense, right? Well, actually, each atom in that molecule is only a pea-sized entity inside a football stadium-sized haze of electron nothingness. The nucleus is made up of other particles which practically don't exist, which are now perhaps themselves made from infinitesimally-small (as small as there exists any notion for it, anyway) strings which only have the attribute of mass as an indirect quality of their vibration.

String theory is just a hypothesis?



The Double-Slit experiment, in a completely different way, has confirmed this idea. A photon doesn't go through the slit and hit the page, like a pebble would. That is, of course, unless you detect it directly. If you look at the photon, then it behaves as a pebble would. But if you only indirectly observe it, it takes every path possible, going through both slits and hitting the page in an interference pattern as if there were many photons. It physically demonstrates its Sum Over Histories, existing only as a distribution of possibilities. There have been other experiments which have demonstrated this principle as well: matter, if not directly observed (e.g., detecting it by firing a particle at it), will behave as if it's existence was uncertain.

When particles are cooled down to (infinitesimally-close to) zero, they don't become what you'd expect, which would be similar to an object at rest. Instead, super-cooled particles become smears which don't exist in one discrete place. The same thing seems to happen if time is slowed down to zero; particles don't settle-down as you'd expect, they instead become chaotic. As I understand it, if you were to stop time right now and walk around (like in the movies) you wouldn't see people and objects standing still, you'd see infinite chaos; a swirl of static like an old TV set with no signal; every particle would exist everywhere at once (and, of course, not exist anywhere at all).

Where did you get the time thing?

Time and space make no sense, apart from each other. Time is merely motion through space. If there is no space, there is no motion. The reverse is true, also; if there is no time, there is no space. Take, for instance, the speed of light; from a photon's perspective (if a photon had one,) the moment of emission would be the moment of absorption; the photon does not experience time, and, therefore, it does not experience space.

Where did he get that infinitesimal time periods result in infinite chaos?

As space and time are broken down, infinitesimally, they seem to violate the laws of physics. The math that applies to larger systems is inexplicable, at the quantum level; it's as though logic and everything we know about the nature of the universe were thrown out the window.





The Uncertainty Principle dictates that particles don't have a specific velocity and position (as well as other uncertain relationships). If it has a position, it cannot have a velocity, and vice versa. An omniscient being would be as inept as a scientist with a microscope at telling you where any particle is and how it is moving.

For some reason when certain things are measured measuring other things becomes more inaccurate? I don't think we know if this is always the case or why it happens.


The list of phenomena goes on. Time is relative in all sorts of ways (depending on what direction you travel, depending on how fast you are traveling, depending on how close you are to something). Time doesn't exist, matter doesn't exist, even space doesn't exist. If you resolve the question as to why two people, each traveling at 99%c in opposite directions, only pass each other at 99%c, the answer lies in space being relative - not only the space between you, but the space you exist in as well. The most distant galaxy is closer to you than your computer monitor, but we perceive it as far away subjectively. Light isn't just massless, it has a relativistic perspective of existing for no time and traveling through no space.The only physical thing left to talk about is energy, and that never existed in the first place.

I don't think you can just claim that time, matter and energy don't exist from what you've said.

I believe he's half right. These things exist and don't exist, simultaneously.

Evidence?

Reality is relative yet also absolute. In other words, subjectivity makes no sense, apart from that which is objective; one gives meaning, and value, to the other. If being only existed and nonbeing did not, making it impossible to say it is this but it's not that, things would have no meaning, or definition. In saying things exist, only, you're in effect saying at no time and in no place do they not exist; things exist and do not exist, simultaneously.




Kant spent his days in his hometown. He never traveled, had no modern scientific resources... Plato existed two thousand years before Kant. How did they know, without needing scientific confirmation, that reality is fake? When I first read Plato's Allegory of the Cave, I thought it was a quaint idea... then I learned the Uncertainty Principle and it didn't seem so quaint anymore. But they didn't need science for confirmation. Does science, then, just slow us down? Ruin our perspective? Would you believe them without the science?

We perceive a lot of things incorrectly. The question becomes, do we actually perceive everything incorrectly. You can believe that if you want. Science creates measurable and testable ideas along with hypothesis. Many people assume that they know what's right. They are often shown to be wrong by science. When science shows them to be correct they often claim that science or scientists are stupid, slow or unnecessary. I think that this is an ignorant belief.

Sorry. I believe just the reverse of that is true. Most people believe scientists are stupid, if science doesn't support their biases, and prejudices. I have never known anyone to believe a scientist was stupid, because the scientist's findings supported his, or her, beliefs.

When scientists study things which are "common sense" and reach the "common sense" conclusion a large portion of the general public seems to think that it's stupid and a waste of money. That may or may not be the case.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 8:35:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 8:29:33 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/23/2014 7:21:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2014 11:23:57 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/22/2014 11:05:21 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:18:03 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:



The Double-Slit experiment, in a completely different way, has confirmed this idea. A photon doesn't go through the slit and hit the page, like a pebble would. That is, of course, unless you detect it directly. If you look at the photon, then it behaves as a pebble would. But if you only indirectly observe it, it takes every path possible, going through both slits and hitting the page in an interference pattern as if there were many photons. It physically demonstrates its Sum Over Histories, existing only as a distribution of possibilities. There have been other experiments which have demonstrated this principle as well: matter, if not directly observed (e.g., detecting it by firing a particle at it), will behave as if it's existence was uncertain.

When particles are cooled down to (infinitesimally-close to) zero, they don't become what you'd expect, which would be similar to an object at rest. Instead, super-cooled particles become smears which don't exist in one discrete place. The same thing seems to happen if time is slowed down to zero; particles don't settle-down as you'd expect, they instead become chaotic. As I understand it, if you were to stop time right now and walk around (like in the movies) you wouldn't see people and objects standing still, you'd see infinite chaos; a swirl of static like an old TV set with no signal; every particle would exist everywhere at once (and, of course, not exist anywhere at all).

Where did you get the time thing?

Time and space make no sense, apart from each other. Time is merely motion through space. If there is no space, there is no motion. The reverse is true, also; if there is no time, there is no space. Take, for instance, the speed of light; from a photon's perspective (if a photon had one,) the moment of emission would be the moment of absorption; the photon does not experience time, and, therefore, it does not experience space.

Where did he get that infinitesimal time periods result in infinite chaos?

As space and time are broken down, infinitesimally, they seem to violate the laws of physics. The math that applies to larger systems is inexplicable, at the quantum level; it's as though logic and everything we know about the nature of the universe were thrown out the window.

At time periods shorter than a Plank time our Physics doesn't work. How does that equate to infinite chaos?






The Uncertainty Principle dictates that particles don't have a specific velocity and position (as well as other uncertain relationships). If it has a position, it cannot have a velocity, and vice versa. An omniscient being would be as inept as a scientist with a microscope at telling you where any particle is and how it is moving.

For some reason when certain things are measured measuring other things becomes more inaccurate? I don't think we know if this is always the case or why it happens.


The list of phenomena goes on. Time is relative in all sorts of ways (depending on what direction you travel, depending on how fast you are traveling, depending on how close you are to something). Time doesn't exist, matter doesn't exist, even space doesn't exist. If you resolve the question as to why two people, each traveling at 99%c in opposite directions, only pass each other at 99%c, the answer lies in space being relative - not only the space between you, but the space you exist in as well. The most distant galaxy is closer to you than your computer monitor, but we perceive it as far away subjectively. Light isn't just massless, it has a relativistic perspective of existing for no time and traveling through no space.The only physical thing left to talk about is energy, and that never existed in the first place.

I don't think you can just claim that time, matter and energy don't exist from what you've said.

I believe he's half right. These things exist and don't exist, simultaneously.

Evidence?

Reality is relative yet also absolute. In other words, subjectivity makes no sense, apart from that which is objective; one gives meaning, and value, to the other. If being only existed and nonbeing did not, making it impossible to say it is this but it's not that, things would have no meaning, or definition. In saying things exist, only, you're in effect saying at no time and in no place do they not exist; things exist and do not exist, simultaneously.

That doesn't mean that time, matter and energy both exist and don't exist simultaneously.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 11:03:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 7:29:15 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

But if we can know it's exact momentum or position then does it not have both?

It absolutely does not. The UP is NOT about an incidental inability of ours to detect a particle's position and velocity simply because it just so happens that we need to bounce a particle off it to move it and thus disturb it. This phenomenon doesn't cause uncertainty, it is the universe's uncertainty which causes this phenomenon. Uncertainty is an inherent attribute of the universe. Particles do not behave like pebbles.

Why does measuring one affect the other? I couldn't say that we would never know both.

I can say that, and if you consult your local physics professor they will say it as well. Uncertainty must be conserved. As far as "why," well, that's what I created this thread for :P I believe that the reason why all this weirdness exists is because the universe is a creation of consciousness for our purposes of living in. There is no universe really here, as evidenced by the fact that nothing really exists. If this universe is real, we'd look down with our microscopes and reinforce our expectations of the solidity of matter. The opposite has actually happened, however. No matter what we look at - time, space, matter, energy - we find nothing fundamentally real about any of them. The closer you look at them, the more chaotic and uncertain they become.



The list of phenomena goes on. Time is relative in all sorts of ways (depending on what direction you travel, depending on how fast you are traveling, depending on how close you are to something). Time doesn't exist, matter doesn't exist, even space doesn't exist. If you resolve the question as to why two people, each traveling at 99%c in opposite directions, only pass each other at 99%c, the answer lies in space being relative - not only the space between you, but the space you exist in as well. The most distant galaxy is closer to you than your computer monitor, but we perceive it as far away subjectively. Light isn't just massless, it has a relativistic perspective of existing for no time and traveling through no space.The only physical thing left to talk about is energy, and that never existed in the first place.

I don't think you can just claim that time, matter and energy don't exist from what you've said.

You're right, I have not proved my point, it is a matter up for discussion. What is your thoughts as to why relativity is so pervasive in our universe? If existence was so cut and dried, why can't we peer down and see something undeniably solid that we are made out of? You don't see any meaning in all this uncertainty?

Existence isn't as cut and dried as it seems. The forces combined with the matter make us solid? It does seem strange at first that we aren't a pure blob of matter, but I'm not very uncomfortable with the concept.

So you think it's simply a matter of complexity? We will have to become smarter to figure it all out? Occam's Razor seems to be on my side...



Kant spent his days in his hometown. He never traveled, had no modern scientific resources... Plato existed two thousand years before Kant. How did they know, without needing scientific confirmation, that reality is fake? When I first read Plato's Allegory of the Cave, I thought it was a quaint idea... then I learned the Uncertainty Principle and it didn't seem so quaint anymore. But they didn't need science for confirmation. Does science, then, just slow us down? Ruin our perspective? Would you believe them without the science?

We perceive a lot of things incorrectly. The question becomes, do we actually perceive everything incorrectly. You can believe that if you want. Science creates measurable and testable ideas along with hypothesis. Many people assume that they know what's right. They are often shown to be wrong by science. When science shows them to be correct they often claim that science or scientists are stupid, slow or unnecessary. I think that this is an ignorant belief.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say with this, I respect science as much as anybody, if it weren't for science then I would hear Plato and the like talk about reality being an illusion and I'd scoff. But science itself, on every level, agrees with Plato. My real question is how the *&%^ did Plato figure this out without being versed in the UP?

Maybe for the reasons I said? If you notice that our minds can be fooled some of the time, then why not all of the time? I'm not taking away from the intelligence of the idea by saying this, just that that's how I'd go about it.

Well I obviously agree we're being fooled. It appears to me that we are fooling ourselves, intentionally even.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 12:58:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 11:03:04 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/23/2014 7:29:15 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

But if we can know it's exact momentum or position then does it not have both?

It absolutely does not. The UP is NOT about an incidental inability of ours to detect a particle's position and velocity simply because it just so happens that we need to bounce a particle off it to move it and thus disturb it.

I didn't suggest that.

This phenomenon doesn't cause uncertainty, it is the universe's uncertainty which causes this phenomenon. Uncertainty is an inherent attribute of the universe. Particles do not behave like pebbles.

But we can know position or momentum, right? And the more accurate one is measured to, the less accurate we can measure the other?


Why does measuring one affect the other? I couldn't say that we would never know both.

I can say that, and if you consult your local physics professor they will say it as well. Uncertainty must be conserved.

Maybe not by direct measurement, people are quite crafty though.

As far as "why," well, that's what I created this thread for :P I believe that the reason why all this weirdness exists is because the universe is a creation of consciousness for our purposes of living in.

Ok.

There is no universe really here, as evidenced by the fact that nothing really exists.

Lol.

If this universe is real, we'd look down with our microscopes and reinforce our expectations of the solidity of matter. The opposite has actually happened, however.

Lol. Because the universe is confusing it isn't real?

No matter what we look at - time, space, matter, energy - we find nothing fundamentally real about any of them. The closer you look at them, the more chaotic and uncertain they become.

Uncertain isn't the same as unreal.




The list of phenomena goes on. Time is relative in all sorts of ways (depending on what direction you travel, depending on how fast you are traveling, depending on how close you are to something). Time doesn't exist, matter doesn't exist, even space doesn't exist. If you resolve the question as to why two people, each traveling at 99%c in opposite directions, only pass each other at 99%c, the answer lies in space being relative - not only the space between you, but the space you exist in as well. The most distant galaxy is closer to you than your computer monitor, but we perceive it as far away subjectively. Light isn't just massless, it has a relativistic perspective of existing for no time and traveling through no space.The only physical thing left to talk about is energy, and that never existed in the first place.

I don't think you can just claim that time, matter and energy don't exist from what you've said.

You're right, I have not proved my point, it is a matter up for discussion. What is your thoughts as to why relativity is so pervasive in our universe? If existence was so cut and dried, why can't we peer down and see something undeniably solid that we are made out of? You don't see any meaning in all this uncertainty?

Existence isn't as cut and dried as it seems. The forces combined with the matter make us solid? It does seem strange at first that we aren't a pure blob of matter, but I'm not very uncomfortable with the concept.

So you think it's simply a matter of complexity? We will have to become smarter to figure it all out? Occam's Razor seems to be on my side...

Well it's a very new discovery. The most simple explanation is that nothing's real?




Kant spent his days in his hometown. He never traveled, had no modern scientific resources... Plato existed two thousand years before Kant. How did they know, without needing scientific confirmation, that reality is fake? When I first read Plato's Allegory of the Cave, I thought it was a quaint idea... then I learned the Uncertainty Principle and it didn't seem so quaint anymore. But they didn't need science for confirmation. Does science, then, just slow us down? Ruin our perspective? Would you believe them without the science?

We perceive a lot of things incorrectly. The question becomes, do we actually perceive everything incorrectly. You can believe that if you want. Science creates measurable and testable ideas along with hypothesis. Many people assume that they know what's right. They are often shown to be wrong by science. When science shows them to be correct they often claim that science or scientists are stupid, slow or unnecessary. I think that this is an ignorant belief.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say with this, I respect science as much as anybody, if it weren't for science then I would hear Plato and the like talk about reality being an illusion and I'd scoff. But science itself, on every level, agrees with Plato. My real question is how the *&%^ did Plato figure this out without being versed in the UP?

Maybe for the reasons I said? If you notice that our minds can be fooled some of the time, then why not all of the time? I'm not taking away from the intelligence of the idea by saying this, just that that's how I'd go about it.

Well I obviously agree we're being fooled. It appears to me that we are fooling ourselves, intentionally even.

Lol.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 1:22:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 8:35:50 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/23/2014 8:29:33 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/23/2014 7:21:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2014 11:23:57 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/22/2014 11:05:21 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:18:03 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:



The Double-Slit experiment, in a completely different way, has confirmed this idea. A photon doesn't go through the slit and hit the page, like a peble would. That is, of course, unless you detect it directly. If you look at the photon, then it behaves as a pebble would. But if you only indirectly observe it, it takes every path possible, going through both slits and hitting the page in an interference pattern as if there were many photons. It physically demonstrates its Sum Over Histories, existing only as a distribution of possibilities. There have been other experiments which have demonstrated this principle as well: matter, if not directly observed (e.g., detecting it by firing a particle at it), will behave as if it's existence was uncertain.

When particles are cooled down to (infinitesimally-close to) zero, they don't become what you'd expect, which would be similar to an object at rest. Instead, super-cooled particles become smears which don't exist in one discrete place. The same thing seems to happen if time is slowed down to zero; particles don't settle-down as you'd expect, they instead become chaotic. As I understand it, if you were to stop time right now and walk around (like in the movies) you wouldn't see people and objects standing still, you'd see infinite chaos; a swirl of static like an old TV set with no signal; every particle would exist everywhere at once (and, of course, not exist anywhere at all).

Where did you get the time thing?

Time and space make no sense, apart from each other. Time is merely motion through space. If there is no space, there is no motion. The reverse is true, also; if there is no time, there is no space. Take, for instance, the speed of light; from a photon's perspective (if a photon had one,) the moment of emission would be the moment of absorption; the photon does not experience time, and, therefore, it does not experience space.

Where did he get that infinitesimal time periods result in infinite chaos?

As space and time are broken down, infinitesimally, they seem to violate the laws of physics. The math that applies to larger systems is inexplicable, at the quantum level; it's as though logic and everything we know about the nature of the universe were thrown out the window.

At time periods shorter than a Plank time our Physics doesn't work. How does that equate to infinite chaos?

Because, at the quantum level, things become unpredictable; they are not ordered, by physical laws. Does this mean they have an order, all their own, an order that violates our mathematical formulas yet is still ordered, by that which appears to be chaos? I believe chaos is indeed ordered.







The Uncertainty Principle dictates that particles don't have a specific velocity and position (as well as other uncertain relationships). If it has a position, it cannot have a velocity, and vice versa. An omniscient being would be as inept as a scientist with a microscope at telling you where any particle is and how it is moving.

For some reason when certain things are measured measuring other things becomes more inaccurate? I don't think we know if this is always the case or why it happens.


The list of phenomena goes on. Time is relative in all sorts of ways (depending on what direction you travel, depending on how fast you are traveling, depending on how close you are to something). Time doesn't exist, matter doesn't exist, even space doesn't exist. If you resolve the question as to why two people, each traveling at 99%c in opposite directions, only pass each other at 99%c, the answer lies in space being relative - not only the space between you, but the space you exist in as well. The most distant galaxy is closer to you than your computer monitor, but we perceive it as far away subjectively. Light isn't just massless, it has a relativistic perspective of existing for no time and traveling through no space.The only physical thing left to talk about is energy, and that never existed in the first place.

I don't think you can just claim that time, matter and energy don't exist from what you've said.

I believe he's half right. These things exist and don't exist, simultaneously.

Evidence?

Reality is relative yet also absolute. In other words, subjectivity makes no sense, apart from that which is objective; one gives meaning, and value, to the other. If being only existed and nonbeing did not, making it impossible to say it is this but it's not that, things would have no meaning, or definition. In saying things exist, only, you're in effect saying at no time and in no place do they not exist; things exist and do not exist, simultaneously.

That doesn't mean that time, matter and energy both exist and don't exist simultaneously.

So, are you saying time, matter, and energy exist, beyond definition, there are no limits to their existence, in other words, at no time or place could I say this is not time, matter, or energy?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 1:38:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Kant wasn't a material idealist, if that's what you think. Kant's transcendental idealism doesn't deny the material world in any way, only the idea that we can experience it noumenally.
"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)
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 2:27:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 1:22:33 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/23/2014 8:35:50 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/23/2014 8:29:33 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/23/2014 7:21:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2014 11:23:57 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/22/2014 11:05:21 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:18:03 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:



The Double-Slit experiment, in a completely different way, has confirmed this idea. A photon doesn't go through the slit and hit the page, like a peble would. That is, of course, unless you detect it directly. If you look at the photon, then it behaves as a pebble would. But if you only indirectly observe it, it takes every path possible, going through both slits and hitting the page in an interference pattern as if there were many photons. It physically demonstrates its Sum Over Histories, existing only as a distribution of possibilities. There have been other experiments which have demonstrated this principle as well: matter, if not directly observed (e.g., detecting it by firing a particle at it), will behave as if it's existence was uncertain.

When particles are cooled down to (infinitesimally-close to) zero, they don't become what you'd expect, which would be similar to an object at rest. Instead, super-cooled particles become smears which don't exist in one discrete place. The same thing seems to happen if time is slowed down to zero; particles don't settle-down as you'd expect, they instead become chaotic. As I understand it, if you were to stop time right now and walk around (like in the movies) you wouldn't see people and objects standing still, you'd see infinite chaos; a swirl of static like an old TV set with no signal; every particle would exist everywhere at once (and, of course, not exist anywhere at all).

Where did you get the time thing?

Time and space make no sense, apart from each other. Time is merely motion through space. If there is no space, there is no motion. The reverse is true, also; if there is no time, there is no space. Take, for instance, the speed of light; from a photon's perspective (if a photon had one,) the moment of emission would be the moment of absorption; the photon does not experience time, and, therefore, it does not experience space.

Where did he get that infinitesimal time periods result in infinite chaos?

As space and time are broken down, infinitesimally, they seem to violate the laws of physics. The math that applies to larger systems is inexplicable, at the quantum level; it's as though logic and everything we know about the nature of the universe were thrown out the window.

At time periods shorter than a Plank time our Physics doesn't work. How does that equate to infinite chaos?

Because, at the quantum level, things become unpredictable; they are not ordered, by physical laws. Does this mean they have an order, all their own, an order that violates our mathematical formulas yet is still ordered, by that which appears to be chaos? I believe chaos is indeed ordered.

I thought we just didn't have a theory for what happens yet.








The Uncertainty Principle dictates that particles don't have a specific velocity and position (as well as other uncertain relationships). If it has a position, it cannot have a velocity, and vice versa. An omniscient being would be as inept as a scientist with a microscope at telling you where any particle is and how it is moving.

For some reason when certain things are measured measuring other things becomes more inaccurate? I don't think we know if this is always the case or why it happens.


The list of phenomena goes on. Time is relative in all sorts of ways (depending on what direction you travel, depending on how fast you are traveling, depending on how close you are to something). Time doesn't exist, matter doesn't exist, even space doesn't exist. If you resolve the question as to why two people, each traveling at 99%c in opposite directions, only pass each other at 99%c, the answer lies in space being relative - not only the space between you, but the space you exist in as well. The most distant galaxy is closer to you than your computer monitor, but we perceive it as far away subjectively. Light isn't just massless, it has a relativistic perspective of existing for no time and traveling through no space.The only physical thing left to talk about is energy, and that never existed in the first place.

I don't think you can just claim that time, matter and energy don't exist from what you've said.

I believe he's half right. These things exist and don't exist, simultaneously.

Evidence?

Reality is relative yet also absolute. In other words, subjectivity makes no sense, apart from that which is objective; one gives meaning, and value, to the other. If being only existed and nonbeing did not, making it impossible to say it is this but it's not that, things would have no meaning, or definition. In saying things exist, only, you're in effect saying at no time and in no place do they not exist; things exist and do not exist, simultaneously.

That doesn't mean that time, matter and energy both exist and don't exist simultaneously.

So, are you saying time, matter, and energy exist, beyond definition, there are no limits to their existence, in other words, at no time or place could I say this is not time, matter, or energy?

That doesn't mean they both exist and don't exist, just that they don't exist in all places.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 3:13:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 2:27:37 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:22:33 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/23/2014 8:35:50 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/23/2014 8:29:33 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/23/2014 7:21:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2014 11:23:57 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/22/2014 11:05:21 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:18:03 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:



The Double-Slit experiment, in a completely different way, has confirmed this idea. A photon doesn't go through the slit and hit the page, like a peble would. That is, of course, unless you detect it directly. If you look at the photon, then it behaves as a pebble would. But if you only indirectly observe it, it takes every path possible, going through both slits and hitting the page in an interference pattern as if there were many photons. It physically demonstrates its Sum Over Histories, existing only as a distribution of possibilities. There have been other experiments which have demonstrated this principle as well: matter, if not directly observed (e.g., detecting it by firing a particle at it), will behave as if it's existence was uncertain.

When particles are cooled down to (infinitesimally-close to) zero, they don't become what you'd expect, which would be similar to an object at rest. Instead, super-cooled particles become smears which don't exist in one discrete place. The same thing seems to happen if time is slowed down to zero; particles don't settle-down as you'd expect, they instead become chaotic. As I understand it, if you were to stop time right now and walk around (like in the movies) you wouldn't see people and objects standing still, you'd see infinite chaos; a swirl of static like an old TV set with no signal; every particle would exist everywhere at once (and, of course, not exist anywhere at all).

Where did you get the time thing?

Time and space make no sense, apart from each other. Time is merely motion through space. If there is no space, there is no motion. The reverse is true, also; if there is no time, there is no space. Take, for instance, the speed of light; from a photon's perspective (if a photon had one,) the moment of emission would be the moment of absorption; the photon does not experience time, and, therefore, it does not experience space.

Where did he get that infinitesimal time periods result in infinite chaos?

As space and time are broken down, infinitesimally, they seem to violate the laws of physics. The math that applies to larger systems is inexplicable, at the quantum level; it's as though logic and everything we know about the nature of the universe were thrown out the window.

At time periods shorter than a Plank time our Physics doesn't work. How does that equate to infinite chaos?

Because, at the quantum level, things become unpredictable; they are not ordered, by physical laws. Does this mean they have an order, all their own, an order that violates our mathematical formulas yet is still ordered, by that which appears to be chaos? I believe chaos is indeed ordered.

I thought we just didn't have a theory for what happens yet.

We don't. In fact, it doesn't even appear to make sense; it's very confusing, to us; it appears, to be chaotic.









The Uncertainty Principle dictates that particles don't have a specific velocity and position (as well as other uncertain relationships). If it has a position, it cannot have a velocity, and vice versa. An omniscient being would be as inept as a scientist with a microscope at telling you where any particle is and how it is moving.

For some reason when certain things are measured measuring other things becomes more inaccurate? I don't think we know if this is always the case or why it happens.


The list of phenomena goes on. Time is relative in all sorts of ways (depending on what direction you travel, depending on how fast you are traveling, depending on how close you are to something). Time doesn't exist, matter doesn't exist, even space doesn't exist. If you resolve the question as to why two people, each traveling at 99%c in opposite directions, only pass each other at 99%c, the answer lies in space being relative - not only the space between you, but the space you exist in as well. The most distant galaxy is closer to you than your computer monitor, but we perceive it as far away subjectively. Light isn't just massless, it has a relativistic perspective of existing for no time and traveling through no space.The only physical thing left to talk about is energy, and that never existed in the first place.

I don't think you can just claim that time, matter and energy don't exist from what you've said.

I believe he's half right. These things exist and don't exist, simultaneously.

Evidence?

Reality is relative yet also absolute. In other words, subjectivity makes no sense, apart from that which is objective; one gives meaning, and value, to the other. If being only existed and nonbeing did not, making it impossible to say it is this but it's not that, things would have no meaning, or definition. In saying things exist, only, you're in effect saying at no time and in no place do they not exist; things exist and do not exist, simultaneously.

That doesn't mean that time, matter and energy both exist and don't exist simultaneously.

So, are you saying time, matter, and energy exist, beyond definition, there are no limits to their existence, in other words, at no time or place could I say this is not time, matter, or energy?

That doesn't mean they both exist and don't exist, just that they don't exist in all places.

Saying, "...(T)hey don't exist in all places." is saying they don't exist. You can't say they only exist and then say they don't exist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 12:26:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you think about it, there is no basis for thinking a material world exists at all. All you have are experiences. You have an experience of a computer in front of you, the experience of touch, like when you pound the keys. But experience is purely mental/ conscious. One blindly assumes that there is an actual computer "out there" causing my conscious sight of one, or my conscious touch of one, but there are metaphysical problems with such an assumption and it is unwarranted.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 4:56:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 12:26:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If you think about it, there is no basis for thinking a material world exists at all. All you have are experiences. You have an experience of a computer in front of you, the experience of touch, like when you pound the keys. But experience is purely mental/ conscious. One blindly assumes that there is an actual computer "out there" causing my conscious sight of one, or my conscious touch of one, but there are metaphysical problems with such an assumption and it is unwarranted.

Explanatory power.

There is no basis for thinking a black hole exists other than the indirect experiences, which could be explained in terms of non-black hole things we already know. But... It adds a lot of explanatory power for a very small assumption to assume it is there.

Likewise that is my position on matter.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 5:47:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/23/2014 3:13:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:27:37 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:22:33 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/23/2014 8:35:50 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/23/2014 8:29:33 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/23/2014 7:21:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2014 11:23:57 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/22/2014 11:05:21 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:18:03 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:



The Double-Slit experiment, in a completely different way, has confirmed this idea. A photon doesn't go through the slit and hit the page, like a peble would. That is, of course, unless you detect it directly. If you look at the photon, then it behaves as a pebble would. But if you only indirectly observe it, it takes every path possible, going through both slits and hitting the page in an interference pattern as if there were many photons. It physically demonstrates its Sum Over Histories, existing only as a distribution of possibilities. There have been other experiments which have demonstrated this principle as well: matter, if not directly observed (e.g., detecting it by firing a particle at it), will behave as if it's existence was uncertain.

When particles are cooled down to (infinitesimally-close to) zero, they don't become what you'd expect, which would be similar to an object at rest. Instead, super-cooled particles become smears which don't exist in one discrete place. The same thing seems to happen if time is slowed down to zero; particles don't settle-down as you'd expect, they instead become chaotic. As I understand it, if you were to stop time right now and walk around (like in the movies) you wouldn't see people and objects standing still, you'd see infinite chaos; a swirl of static like an old TV set with no signal; every particle would exist everywhere at once (and, of course, not exist anywhere at all).

Where did you get the time thing?

Time and space make no sense, apart from each other. Time is merely motion through space. If there is no space, there is no motion. The reverse is true, also; if there is no time, there is no space. Take, for instance, the speed of light; from a photon's perspective (if a photon had one,) the moment of emission would be the moment of absorption; the photon does not experience time, and, therefore, it does not experience space.

Where did he get that infinitesimal time periods result in infinite chaos?

As space and time are broken down, infinitesimally, they seem to violate the laws of physics. The math that applies to larger systems is inexplicable, at the quantum level; it's as though logic and everything we know about the nature of the universe were thrown out the window.

At time periods shorter than a Plank time our Physics doesn't work. How does that equate to infinite chaos?

Because, at the quantum level, things become unpredictable; they are not ordered, by physical laws. Does this mean they have an order, all their own, an order that violates our mathematical formulas yet is still ordered, by that which appears to be chaos? I believe chaos is indeed ordered.

I thought we just didn't have a theory for what happens yet.

We don't. In fact, it doesn't even appear to make sense; it's very confusing, to us; it appears, to be chaotic.

So we just don't understand it. It hasn't been proven to transform into "infinite chaos"?










The Uncertainty Principle dictates that particles don't have a specific velocity and position (as well as other uncertain relationships). If it has a position, it cannot have a velocity, and vice versa. An omniscient being would be as inept as a scientist with a microscope at telling you where any particle is and how it is moving.

For some reason when certain things are measured measuring other things becomes more inaccurate? I don't think we know if this is always the case or why it happens.


The list of phenomena goes on. Time is relative in all sorts of ways (depending on what direction you travel, depending on how fast you are traveling, depending on how close you are to something). Time doesn't exist, matter doesn't exist, even space doesn't exist. If you resolve the question as to why two people, each traveling at 99%c in opposite directions, only pass each other at 99%c, the answer lies in space being relative - not only the space between you, but the space you exist in as well. The most distant galaxy is closer to you than your computer monitor, but we perceive it as far away subjectively. Light isn't just massless, it has a relativistic perspective of existing for no time and traveling through no space.The only physical thing left to talk about is energy, and that never existed in the first place.

I don't think you can just claim that time, matter and energy don't exist from what you've said.

I believe he's half right. These things exist and don't exist, simultaneously.

Evidence?

Reality is relative yet also absolute. In other words, subjectivity makes no sense, apart from that which is objective; one gives meaning, and value, to the other. If being only existed and nonbeing did not, making it impossible to say it is this but it's not that, things would have no meaning, or definition. In saying things exist, only, you're in effect saying at no time and in no place do they not exist; things exist and do not exist, simultaneously.

That doesn't mean that time, matter and energy both exist and don't exist simultaneously.

So, are you saying time, matter, and energy exist, beyond definition, there are no limits to their existence, in other words, at no time or place could I say this is not time, matter, or energy?

That doesn't mean they both exist and don't exist, just that they don't exist in all places.

Saying, "...(T)hey don't exist in all places." is saying they don't exist. You can't say they only exist and then say they don't exist.

Just because reality isn't an apple doesn't mean that apples don't exist. Apples exist. You can't say they also don't exist because they don't exist everywhere and everytime etc.

For most things existence and non-existence appear to be mutually exclusive. If something exists anywhere then it exists and if it stops existing then it used to exist but doesn't anymore.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:21:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 4:56:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/24/2014 12:26:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If you think about it, there is no basis for thinking a material world exists at all. All you have are experiences. You have an experience of a computer in front of you, the experience of touch, like when you pound the keys. But experience is purely mental/ conscious. One blindly assumes that there is an actual computer "out there" causing my conscious sight of one, or my conscious touch of one, but there are metaphysical problems with such an assumption and it is unwarranted.

Explanatory power.

There is no basis for thinking a black hole exists other than the indirect experiences, which could be explained in terms of non-black hole things we already know. But... It adds a lot of explanatory power for a very small assumption to assume it is there.

Likewise that is my position on matter.

I disagree, it seems metaphysically impossible for something material to have causal effects on consciousness. They don't share any vital properties which would allow for such an interaction. Consciousness for example doesn't take up space, like a box for example. They are too disconnected it seems to me to have causal influence on one another.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 11:28:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 11:21:20 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 4:56:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/24/2014 12:26:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If you think about it, there is no basis for thinking a material world exists at all. All you have are experiences. You have an experience of a computer in front of you, the experience of touch, like when you pound the keys. But experience is purely mental/ conscious. One blindly assumes that there is an actual computer "out there" causing my conscious sight of one, or my conscious touch of one, but there are metaphysical problems with such an assumption and it is unwarranted.

Explanatory power.

There is no basis for thinking a black hole exists other than the indirect experiences, which could be explained in terms of non-black hole things we already know. But... It adds a lot of explanatory power for a very small assumption to assume it is there.

Likewise that is my position on matter.

I disagree, it seems metaphysically impossible for something material to have causal effects on consciousness. They don't share any vital properties which would allow for such an interaction. Consciousness for example doesn't take up space, like a box for example. They are too disconnected it seems to me to have causal influence on one another.

That's only if you assume that mental properties are fundamentally different to physical properties. You can make exactly the same argument for mental properties, they don't apparently share properties of physical stuff, therefore we should reject that mental properties actually exist the way we think they do.

Of course I know you are itching to throw out that we can only know of mental properties, because that's our perspectives it would be epistemological suicide to reject the mental a priori.

It seems like a justified argument to make a posteriori however, that mental properties do not exist, and only the physical reality exists.

Moreover dualisms as far as I know just assert ipsie dixit. It just does interact... A brute fact.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 4:05:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 5:47:49 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/23/2014 3:13:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/23/2014 2:27:37 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/23/2014 1:22:33 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/23/2014 8:35:50 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/23/2014 8:29:33 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/23/2014 7:21:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2014 11:23:57 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/22/2014 11:05:21 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/22/2014 4:18:03 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:



The Double-Slit experiment, in a completely different way, has confirmed this idea. A photon doesn't go through the slit and hit the page, like a peble would. That is, of course, unless you detect it directly. If you look at the photon, then it behaves as a pebble would. But if you only indirectly observe it, it takes every path possible, going through both slits and hitting the page in an interference pattern as if there were many photons. It physically demonstrates its Sum Over Histories, existing only as a distribution of possibilities. There have been other experiments which have demonstrated this principle as well: matter, if not directly observed (e.g., detecting it by firing a particle at it), will behave as if it's existence was uncertain.

When particles are cooled down to (infinitesimally-close to) zero, they don't become what you'd expect, which would be similar to an object at rest. Instead, super-cooled particles become smears which don't exist in one discrete place. The same thing seems to happen if time is slowed down to zero; particles don't settle-down as you'd expect, they instead become chaotic. As I understand it, if you were to stop time right now and walk around (like in the movies) you wouldn't see people and objects standing still, you'd see infinite chaos; a swirl of static like an old TV set with no signal; every particle would exist everywhere at once (and, of course, not exist anywhere at all).

Where did you get the time thing?

Time and space make no sense, apart from each other. Time is merely motion through space. If there is no space, there is no motion. The reverse is true, also; if there is no time, there is no space. Take, for instance, the speed of light; from a photon's perspective (if a photon had one,) the moment of emission would be the moment of absorption; the photon does not experience time, and, therefore, it does not experience space.

Where did he get that infinitesimal time periods result in infinite chaos?

As space and time are broken down, infinitesimally, they seem to violate the laws of physics. The math that applies to larger systems is inexplicable, at the quantum level; it's as though logic and everything we know about the nature of the universe were thrown out the window.

At time periods shorter than a Plank time our Physics doesn't work. How does that equate to infinite chaos?

Because, at the quantum level, things become unpredictable; they are not ordered, by physical laws. Does this mean they have an order, all their own, an order that violates our mathematical formulas yet is still ordered, by that which appears to be chaos? I believe chaos is indeed ordered.

I thought we just didn't have a theory for what happens yet.

We don't. In fact, it doesn't even appear to make sense; it's very confusing, to us; it appears, to be chaotic.

So we just don't understand it. It hasn't been proven to transform into "infinite chaos"?

If something doesn't make sense, it seems to defy logic, it's not ordered, by apprehension, I would call that chaotic, at least, to us.











The Uncertainty Principle dictates that particles don't have a specific velocity and position (as well as other uncertain relationships). If it has a position, it cannot have a velocity, and vice versa. An omniscient being would be as inept as a scientist with a microscope at telling you where any particle is and how it is moving.

For some reason when certain things are measured measuring other things becomes more inaccurate? I don't think we know if this is always the case or why it happens.


The list of phenomena goes on. Time is relative in all sorts of ways (depending on what direction you travel, depending on how fast you are traveling, depending on how close you are to something). Time doesn't exist, matter doesn't exist, even space doesn't exist. If you resolve the question as to why two people, each traveling at 99%c in opposite directions, only pass each other at 99%c, the answer lies in space being relative - not only the space between you, but the space you exist in as well. The most distant galaxy is closer to you than your computer monitor, but we perceive it as far away subjectively. Light isn't just massless, it has a relativistic perspective of existing for no time and traveling through no space.The only physical thing left to talk about is energy, and that never existed in the first place.

I don't think you can just claim that time, matter and energy don't exist from what you've said.

I believe he's half right. These things exist and don't exist, simultaneously.

Evidence?

Reality is relative yet also absolute. In other words, subjectivity makes no sense, apart from that which is objective; one gives meaning, and value, to the other. If being only existed and nonbeing did not, making it impossible to say it is this but it's not that, things would have no meaning, or definition. In saying things exist, only, you're in effect saying at no time and in no place do they not exist; things exist and do not exist, simultaneously.

That doesn't mean that time, matter and energy both exist and don't exist simultaneously.

So, are you saying time, matter, and energy exist, beyond definition, there are no limits to their existence, in other words, at no time or place could I say this is not time, matter, or energy?

That doesn't mean they both exist and don't exist, just that they don't exist in all places.

Saying, "...(T)hey don't exist in all places." is saying they don't exist. You can't say they only exist and then say they don't exist.

Just because reality isn't an apple doesn't mean that apples don't exist. Apples exist. You can't say they also don't exist because they don't exist everywhere and everytime etc.

For me, apples exist and don't exist. You say apples exist and don't exist and then deny saying they don't exist.


For most things existence and non-existence appear to be mutually exclusive. If something exists anywhere then it exists and if it stops existing then it used to exist but doesn't anymore.

Ok. I don't have a problem, with that. Contradiction is very real, because things exist and don't exist. If something exists, it exists, and doesn't exist, simultaneously. If something exists, then, it doesn't exist; and, if it doesn't exists, then, it exists.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:21:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 11:28:29 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:21:20 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 4:56:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/24/2014 12:26:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If you think about it, there is no basis for thinking a material world exists at all. All you have are experiences. You have an experience of a computer in front of you, the experience of touch, like when you pound the keys. But experience is purely mental/ conscious. One blindly assumes that there is an actual computer "out there" causing my conscious sight of one, or my conscious touch of one, but there are metaphysical problems with such an assumption and it is unwarranted.

Explanatory power.

There is no basis for thinking a black hole exists other than the indirect experiences, which could be explained in terms of non-black hole things we already know. But... It adds a lot of explanatory power for a very small assumption to assume it is there.

Likewise that is my position on matter.

I disagree, it seems metaphysically impossible for something material to have causal effects on consciousness. They don't share any vital properties which would allow for such an interaction. Consciousness for example doesn't take up space, like a box for example. They are too disconnected it seems to me to have causal influence on one another.

That's only if you assume that mental properties are fundamentally different to physical properties.

They self-evidently are. For example, mental properties are knowable by introspection; physical properties aren't (assuming a physical world even exists). The mind cannot be doubted, because doubting is a mental action and presupposes the mind. A physical world can be doubted without any contradiction on the other hand. If you assume a physical world exists, then you can hold physical things, but can you hold your mind? Mental properties can be experienced first person, physical properties cannot. Need I continue?

You can make exactly the same argument for mental properties, they don't apparently share properties of physical stuff, therefore we should reject that mental properties actually exist the way we think they do.

No you can't. As you cannot doubt mental properties coherently, because doubting presupposes mental properties. I can doubt the physical world all I want without logical problems. It is a one way street because conscious is the basis for everything. Again, all we have evidence of is experiences. There is 0 evidence of a physical world.

If we think that anything exists, then that means mental properties exi


Of course I know you are itching to throw out that we can only know of mental properties, because that's our perspectives it would be epistemological suicide to reject the mental a priori.

Exactly.


It seems like a justified argument to make a posteriori however, that mental properties do not exist, and only the physical reality exists.

That is so misguided in my opinion. Everything is clearly conscious mental. When you are watching TV, all that is is a shape, and moving images, but that is all part of your experience taking place in your mind. When you touch "it", all that is a sensation, which is conscious, and mental. It seems impossible to me to actually have a good reason to believe in a physical world that is not reducible to mental properties.


Moreover dualisms as far as I know just assert ipsie dixit. It just does interact... A brute fact.

Well that is clearly false, because if dualism is true, there is interaction. My mind is causing a physical arm to type this, and the physical TV is causing my conscious experience. That just seems problematic to me. This is why I think Idealism (the view that everything is mental), is probably the best view, as I reject Dualism and Physicalism.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2014 9:25:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/24/2014 11:28:29 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/24/2014 11:21:20 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/24/2014 4:56:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/24/2014 12:26:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If you think about it, there is no basis for thinking a material world exists at all. All you have are experiences. You have an experience of a computer in front of you, the experience of touch, like when you pound the keys. But experience is purely mental/ conscious. One blindly assumes that there is an actual computer "out there" causing my conscious sight of one, or my conscious touch of one, but there are metaphysical problems with such an assumption and it is unwarranted.

Explanatory power.

There is no basis for thinking a black hole exists other than the indirect experiences, which could be explained in terms of non-black hole things we already know. But... It adds a lot of explanatory power for a very small assumption to assume it is there.

Likewise that is my position on matter.

I disagree, it seems metaphysically impossible for something material to have causal effects on consciousness. They don't share any vital properties which would allow for such an interaction. Consciousness for example doesn't take up space, like a box for example. They are too disconnected it seems to me to have causal influence on one another.

That's only if you assume that mental properties are fundamentally different to physical properties. You can make exactly the same argument for mental properties, they don't apparently share properties of physical stuff, therefore we should reject that mental properties actually exist the way we think they do.

Of course I know you are itching to throw out that we can only know of mental properties, because that's our perspectives it would be epistemological suicide to reject the mental a priori.

It seems like a justified argument to make a posteriori however, that mental properties do not exist, and only the physical reality exists.

Moreover dualisms as far as I know just assert ipsie dixit. It just does interact... A brute fact.

Also, "it just does" isn't a good explanation for anything. I would positively argue that it is impossible for them to interact. For two distinct substances to interact, they would have to share properties, but if they share properties, then they aren't distinct substances. So, Dualistic interaction is logically impossible. This is why either the mental must really be physical, or the physical must really be mental at the end of the day.