Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   can science accept assertive law?
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 61 of 78 (445182)
01-01-2008 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by sidelined
01-01-2008 1:05 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
it was suggested by another poster, who is being confused as my post.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by sidelined, posted 01-01-2008 1:05 PM sidelined has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 62 of 78 (445183)
01-01-2008 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by tesla
01-01-2008 1:02 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
tesla writes:
I'm not saying you'll "get it" but the answer to your question is there.
That's not the way it works. It's up to you to make your point clear.
I've suggested before that you should try to rephrase your argument without using the word "existence" - because it's just a nonsense word the way you're using it. You might as well be saying, "God is regarded as supernatural, because phlyrbbens is regarded as supernatural. define phlyrbbens, you define God."
If you can't explain your position in another way, it appears like you don't understand your own position very clearly.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 1:02 PM tesla has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 63 of 78 (445185)
01-01-2008 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by sidelined
01-01-2008 12:35 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
quote:
Without understanding the mechanism we can make no claims as to what can or cannot be possible concerning it.
but like the law of conservation of energy, we can at least deduce the energy is there.
curently there is no ability to measure "existence"
there is however enough evidence to understand it is there.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by sidelined, posted 01-01-2008 12:35 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Rahvin, posted 01-01-2008 1:39 PM tesla has replied
 Message 67 by sidelined, posted 01-01-2008 1:44 PM tesla has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 64 of 78 (445190)
01-01-2008 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by tesla
01-01-2008 12:56 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
God is regarded as supernatural, because existence is regarded as supernatural.
define existence, you define God.
Are you trying to say that the Universe as a whole is the entity you identify as God, and that as a whole it is an intelligent being?
"Existence" is not supernatural. Existence is a state of being.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 12:56 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 1:38 PM Rahvin has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 65 of 78 (445195)
01-01-2008 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Rahvin
01-01-2008 1:32 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
quote:
Are you trying to say that the Universe as a whole is the entity you identify as God, and that as a whole it is an intelligent being?
no. I'm saying it could not be unless it was.
quote:
"Existence" is not supernatural. Existence is a state of being.
without existence, being is impossible. which is not a state of being, but how being is possible.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Rahvin, posted 01-01-2008 1:32 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Rahvin, posted 01-01-2008 1:44 PM tesla has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 66 of 78 (445197)
01-01-2008 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by tesla
01-01-2008 1:20 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
but like the law of conservation of energy, we can at least deduce the energy is there.
curently there is no ability to measure "existence"
there is however enough evidence to understand it is there.
You're literally speaking nonsense, tesla. "Existence" is not a thing. Please read a dictionary entry for the word.
Existence is the state of existing. The definition of the word "exist" is
quote:
ex·ist /gzst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ig-zist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-verb (used without object)
1. to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.
2. to have life or animation; live.
3. to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.
4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's not living, he's merely existing.
To exist is a binary operator - either a thing exists, or it does not. You cannon study that, any more than you can study "yes" or "no."
Similarly, we cannot study that which does not exist - there is nothing to study. Much like God.
You can study a thing if it exists - but you cannot study the state of existence, any more than you can study "yes." To say otherwise is nonsense, which we've all been trying to tell you for a few pages now.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 1:20 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 1:50 PM Rahvin has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 67 of 78 (445198)
01-01-2008 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by tesla
01-01-2008 1:20 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
tesla
but like the law of conservation of energy, we can at least deduce the energy is there.
Not necessarily. In the same way that there is no true edge to the sun despite it being obvious to our sense of sight it turns out to be merely an artifact of the way that light propagates.
Energy may turn out to be a similar illusion of nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 1:20 PM tesla has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 68 of 78 (445199)
01-01-2008 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by tesla
01-01-2008 1:38 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
without existence, being is impossible. which is not a state of being, but how being is possible.
Gibberish. You are not making any sense. Rereading your previous posts will not lead to enlightenment - you simply aren't making any sense.
Perhaps you should rethink what you're trying to say - either you are failing to communicate effectively, or you've tangled your thought processes in something you think is esoteric until it appears to be madness to an outside observer.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 1:38 PM tesla has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 69 of 78 (445200)
01-01-2008 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Rahvin
01-01-2008 1:39 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
quote:
Similarly, we cannot study that which does not exist - there is nothing to study. Much like God.
by saying God you admitted that God exists. that's the parable that i use for my signature to attempt to keep this debate grounded. you cannot say "not being" at at the same time it "not be"
I'm going to attempt to keep that drivel from becoming the topic of this post.
trying to understand the concept of existence philisophically is not the same as looking at it from a scientific standpoint.
scientifically, nothing can be unless something first was. the best noun we have is: existence. by reason of my last posts i have been very clear that i cannot accept that anything can have "being" and not be a part of "existence". this being said, that all things are natural by my belief, that existence is natural, not just as a state of rational, but physically as well, because physical things do not exist on the bases of something insubstantial.
therefore: existence is energy, and had to be. because without it, nothing is.
i arrived to the conclusion by asking: what was first of all things in the natural world? and found that as long as two things are, the question "before that?" is still relevant.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Rahvin, posted 01-01-2008 1:39 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by sidelined, posted 01-01-2008 1:54 PM tesla has replied
 Message 72 by ringo, posted 01-01-2008 2:08 PM tesla has not replied
 Message 73 by Rahvin, posted 01-01-2008 2:12 PM tesla has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 70 of 78 (445202)
01-01-2008 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by tesla
01-01-2008 1:50 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
tesla
by saying God you admitted that God exists.
By that logic Astrology exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 1:50 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 2:00 PM sidelined has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 71 of 78 (445204)
01-01-2008 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by sidelined
01-01-2008 1:54 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
please read my entire post sidelined.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by sidelined, posted 01-01-2008 1:54 PM sidelined has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 72 of 78 (445207)
01-01-2008 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by tesla
01-01-2008 1:50 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
tesla writes:
by reason of my last posts i have been very clear that i cannot accept that anything can have "being" and not be a part of "existence".
What's clear to you doesn't count. You have to make it clear to other people or you don't have communication. Explain it a different way.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 1:50 PM tesla has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 73 of 78 (445209)
01-01-2008 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by tesla
01-01-2008 1:50 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
by saying God you admitted that God exists. that's the parable that i use for my signature to attempt to keep this debate grounded. you cannot say "not being" at at the same time it "not be"
I'm going to attempt to keep that drivel from becoming the topic of this post.
trying to understand the concept of existence philisophically is not the same as looking at it from a scientific standpoint.
scientifically, nothing can be unless something first was. the best noun we have is: existence. by reason of my last posts i have been very clear that i cannot accept that anything can have "being" and not be a part of "existence". this being said, that all things are natural by my belief, that existence is natural, not just as a state of rational, but physically as well, because physical things do not exist on the bases of something insubstantial.
therefore: existence is energy, and had to be. because without it, nothing is.
i arrived to the conclusion by asking: what was first of all things in the natural world? and found that as long as two things are, the question "before that?" is still relevant.
A monster under tesla's bed that will eat him tonight.
Ut oh. Now a monster is under your bed, tesla.
More seriously, your entire post is again meaningless garbage. You seem to really believe you are pointing out a great, esoteric truth about reality, but you're simply not making any sense to anyone but yourself.
Take this line for example:
scientifically, nothing can be unless something first was.
This is either circular logic (nothing can be true unless something is true), or an insane jumble of words. Either way, it doesn't make sense. Also, I don't think you understand the word "scientifically." You can't just add that word to a meaningless mash of nonsense and expect it to suddenly be related to science in some way.
therefore: existence is energy, and had to be. because without it, nothing is.
Clearly you don't understand the words "existence" or "energy." These words have actual meanings, and their definitions do not match the way you are using them. Please stop.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 1:50 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 2:42 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 74 of 78 (445227)
01-01-2008 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Rahvin
01-01-2008 2:12 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
if i knew how to make it clearer for you i would have done it.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Rahvin, posted 01-01-2008 2:12 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by tesla, posted 01-02-2008 10:52 AM tesla has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 75 of 78 (445423)
01-02-2008 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by tesla
01-01-2008 2:42 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
the only thing i believe i left out was explaining the "condition" of existence.
but existence itself is not the condition, but rather, the conditions are different in the "thing" existence.
IE: thought is a condition of existence (the existence of thought) thought is restrained in the conditions that it exists, meaning a "thought" cannot become matter unless it was to bridge a different condition of existence.
IE: matter exists in the material condition of its existence, meaning that matter cannot become thought.(unless the conditions have a bridge which cannot be stated as a definite impossibility)
this concludes the only part of the law of existence i have failed to relay, and i leave with with a short story to better explain it, and i also leave my argument about existence on this board. if no one here understands now, i can only hope one day someone in science will, and science will be better served.
setting: a large circular room filled with tapers scarabs and components. a couple target drudges and arcane devices decorate the surrounding and in the center is a large decorative carpet with no apparent origin. the candles and lit tapers cast eerie shadows on the walls. a lone mage sits in the center of the room arranging components. an unknown person watches the mage from the shadows
"malar quoshez!" pfffzzzt! the mage sat back in frustration and viewed his arrangement. he had been working on the spell for quite some time with no luck. from behind him he hears the voice of his elder. " it seems you leave to much to chance"
medwyn: it is all chance. think of the chaos theory of subatomic particles. they behave irrationally. the only way to get a desired effect form them is a repeated trial and a little bit of luck.
older elder: hmm. chaos theory is a theory for a reason.
medwyn: then you have a better theory?
older elder: when existence created all things, it created an established order. this order "appears" to break down when you get to the smallest particles of mass, beyond atoms and into the subatomic particles, but in reality, they all have a behavior that have a decided outcome if all the variables are taken into account. existence left nothing to chance. chance itself has decidable variables. when the laws of all things were written, existence wrote different laws for each element he created. and all of them have decidable values for the conditions that they exist.
medwyn: I'm afraid i don't quite follow.
OE: lets take for example, elements. all elements would appear to behave the same way to heat. that in heat they expand, and in cold retract. to warm, an elements becomes liquid, then gas, and too cold they become solids.
medwyn: how does this help the rational and irrational values?
OE: because when an element is in a solid form it is heavier than in its liquid state , and so divides with the liquid on the top and its solid form on the bottom. so when doing research with any element can you say that it will always be this way?
medwyn: it does appear to be so..but ice floats. a very important factor with water since if it sunk all life in the waters would die.
oe: quite so! and so you can understand that laws exist based on conditions, and that each was individually created or a specific purpose, and has left nothing to chance.
medwyn: i fail to see how you have proven anything. take for example the gambling houses. they arrange the games so that the chances are in the favor of the house and lead to profit. if no chance existed then an individual would be able to discern the odds, the gambling house would lose, and could not exist.
OE: because the odds are beyond your ability to be able to discern, does not mean that if you examined all conditions you would know the outcome. lets take your example in gambling. lets say the game is a sack, and in the sack is a number of marbles of different colors. if all the variables of gravity, mass, sound, and planet gravitation's were discerned, the movement could be discerned. and if the man holding and shaking the sack was to be broken down by his strength, his subconscious method of shaking the sack, and his conscious efforts to mix all put into equation, the movement of every marble would be known, and imposable to conceal.
medwyn: no one could know these things.
OE: existence does. you could not because you do not have that much awareness. but knowing that and taking into account what you are aware of you can change the probabilities in your favor with a little observation and math. the reason the alchemist have so much trouble with sub atomic particles is because they have decided is chaos and chance, and have quit searching for the other variables that are causing the apparent chaos, when in fact their is an order to the behavior, it is just not easily discerned.
medwyn: how can you say that so absolutely?
OE: existence does not take chances. order cannot be based on chaos and exist. what is only apparent to us to be chance, existence knows the variables.
medwyn: if it is beyond my ability to see, then how does knowing that help me?
OE: the same way that it would help the alchemists. they have stopped looking for the variables because they decided to embrace the theory of chaos. and for it, their research is now many years prolonged. like your spell.
this concludes my debate. God be with us all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 2:42 PM tesla has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 01-02-2008 11:27 AM tesla has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024