Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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 35 of 78 (444945)
12-31-2007 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Rahvin
12-31-2007 2:08 PM


exists in universe-exists in existence.
anything outside of existence does not exist.

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 34 by Rahvin, posted 12-31-2007 2:08 PM Rahvin has not replied

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


Message 37 of 78 (444965)
12-31-2007 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Percy
12-31-2007 3:01 PM


the "existence of philosophy" only says that philosophy exists. i don't know existentialism.
when i use the word existence I'm observing that only things that "exist" are in "existence"
since everything that "is" is a part of "existence"
what is the nature of "existence" by scientific enquiry?
you can study a car, a garage, a house, a planet, a star system, a galaxy, which are all subs of a greater "thing" existence.
because science has not explored the possibility that existence is a physical thing that can be studied, the essence of what existence is has never been discovered.
but as in all science, until you ask the question, the possibility for discovery is impossible.
nothing can exist outside of existence.
so: galaxy exists in universe-universe exists in existence
existence=?

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 36 by Percy, posted 12-31-2007 3:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ringo, posted 12-31-2007 3:32 PM tesla has not replied
 Message 39 by nwr, posted 12-31-2007 4:26 PM tesla has replied
 Message 41 by Percy, posted 12-31-2007 6:18 PM tesla has replied

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


Message 40 of 78 (444974)
12-31-2007 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by nwr
12-31-2007 4:26 PM


very well. and i cannot state more clearly than what i have.
this topic may now close. (or be left open to enquiry from others within their own arguments, based on what i have already said)
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

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 39 by nwr, posted 12-31-2007 4:26 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 42 of 78 (444994)
12-31-2007 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Percy
12-31-2007 6:18 PM


quote:
and I was asking whether you were referring to the definition of existence as it might be used by science to refer to what we can detect with our senses
this was my position from the beginning.

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 41 by Percy, posted 12-31-2007 6:18 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 12-31-2007 7:12 PM tesla has replied

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


Message 44 of 78 (445008)
12-31-2007 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
12-31-2007 7:12 PM


there's no way i can argue my logic with you without repeating what ive already said.
what is matter a product of? may i ask? (generically)
so you'll go through the big bang,
ill ask, OK so where did that come from. you'll say that's not science.
what I'm suggesting must not belong to this age, or maybe not any age. but not because what I'm saying isn't true. but because science fails to recognize "existence" as a physical and real "thing" that all of everything from thought to stone has come from.
existence:n. the basis of all things that "are". it was/is the energy that was before all things that are, which was intelligent, and created all that is from itself. based on faith it was. and therefore established the state of "being" or "existing".
energy is what I'm suggesting.
perhaps if the theory of relativity was completely finished that energy could be measured.
but I'm not so stupid that i don't realize that regardless of what i suggest it has already been discredited, and i am a "fool" open to ridicule.
but by reason of my own logic, existence is a "thing" to be discovered. by reason that i explained in my other posts.
I've already admitted that "not" accepting that as law would open to debate the possibility that existing is tentative. and that ill assert is impossible.
what more do you really want from me knowing how i stand?

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 43 by Percy, posted 12-31-2007 7:12 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 8:10 AM tesla has replied
 Message 48 by Woodsy, posted 01-01-2008 9:20 AM tesla has not replied

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


Message 52 of 78 (445162)
01-01-2008 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by imageinvisible
01-01-2008 8:10 AM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
quote:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any natural means, therefore it should not exist. Energy does exist and it must have a cause, but the cause cannot be natural, because energy cannot be created or destroyed naturally. Logical/reasonable conclusion, energy didn't occur naturally. Ergo; because energy exists it must have occurred by unnatural means. Therefore God, by logical conclusion, must exist. Is this what you are trying to get at?
not correct.
my reasoning is stating more directly:
all things true are natural. natural and supernatural is decided by what is understood, and what is not understood.
just because we don't understand something does not make it supernatural.
IE: a magician to fly across the room.
at first glance it is supernatural. upon examination. the explanation is natural.
there is a natural explanation to what has been considered "supernatural" in existence. so evidence exists somewhere.
the fact that "existence" is at all has a natural explanation.
because God is superior intelligence, doesn't make him supernatural ACCEPT by the fact we cannot understand him.
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

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 45 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 8:10 AM imageinvisible has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Rahvin, posted 01-01-2008 12:49 PM tesla has replied

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


Message 56 of 78 (445175)
01-01-2008 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Rahvin
01-01-2008 12:49 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
God is regarded as supernatural, because existence is regarded as supernatural.
define existence, you define God.

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 55 by Rahvin, posted 01-01-2008 12:49 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 1:00 PM tesla has replied
 Message 59 by sidelined, posted 01-01-2008 1:05 PM tesla has replied
 Message 64 by Rahvin, posted 01-01-2008 1:32 PM tesla has replied

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


Message 58 of 78 (445177)
01-01-2008 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by jar
01-01-2008 1:00 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
just re-read my past statements jar.
I'm not saying you'll "get it" but the answer to your question 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 57 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 1:00 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 1:05 PM tesla has not replied
 Message 62 by ringo, posted 01-01-2008 1:13 PM tesla has not replied

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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