Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9049 total)
91 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 90 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps, DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 887,669 Year: 5,315/14,102 Month: 236/677 Week: 41/54 Day: 24/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Sudden Dawn of the Cosmos and the Constancy of Physical Laws
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6032
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 226 of 244 (888560)
09-20-2021 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Christian7
09-20-2021 6:44 PM


Re: Is this hard to grasp?
Now that was quite understandable and sensible. So, it can be done. You can clearly, if rather uniquely, get your point across.

I understood you, every word, every juxtaposition and the flow of your ideas. Now, I have to wonder if the prior disconnects were you or me.

Ok, I've stopped wondering. They were you.

Go get some good learning and thinking and I'll try to not be so testy when you get back.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Christian7, posted 09-20-2021 6:44 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4715
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 227 of 244 (888561)
09-20-2021 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Percy
09-20-2021 5:29 PM


Dark matter's effects have been observed, mostly in galaxies, but dark matter itself has never been detected. We don't know what it is.

etc

Perhaps electricity and the history of the development of electrical theory would make more sense to him. Even though his mind might reflexively shut down at the first mention of Ohm's Law (since he might misunderstand that too as being Eastern mysticism).

We had long observed electricity in the forms of lightning and as static electricity, though without making the necessary connection between the two. Experiments with static electricity led to the idea that there were two different kinds of electricity: one produced by rubbing amber with fur and the other by rubbing glass with silk. Even though they didn't know what static electricity was nor even had any kind of good guess (ie, they though it was two different kinds of "subtle fluid" or whatever would serve as carriers of electrical charge, which we later learned is wrong), they still made excellent observations of how it behaved and developed techniques and equipment (eg, Leyden jars) to work with it. IOW, not knowing what it was did not stop them from learning how it behaved and how to work with it.

I had been taught that it was Benjamin Franklin who figured out that those "two different kinds of subtle fluids" were actually greater and lesser amounts of the same charge carrier and furthermore formed the hypothesis that lightning was actually static electricity. Regardless of who actually came up with the idea, it was Franklin who conducted his famous kite experiment in which he collected the electric charge in a thunderstorm into a Leyden jar (which serves as a capacity, AKA "condenser", to store an electrical charge) in order to demonstrate that it behaves just like static electricity.

Even though he now knew a lot more about that charge carrier, Franklin still didn't know what the charge carrier was, nor which "kind" of static electricity was due to more charge as opposed to less charge. So he mentally flipped a coin and decided that the glass/silk static electricity contained more charge carriers -- hence declaring its charge to be positive (+) -- and the amber/fur type lacked charge carriers -- hence declaring its charge to be negarive (-). It turns out that he had gotten it wrong, but that wasn't discovered until a century later.

Franklin's research, along with Volta's invention of the battery, led to the development of electrical theory filled with mathematical analyses of electrical circuits, including Ohm's Law, which electrical engineers and technicians still learn and apply in their work. That also led to the development and invention of electrical devices (eg, the telegraph) which not only worked but they still work even though the inventors still did not know what that mysterious charge carrier was. Obviously, not knowing what it was did not keep us from learning how it worked and how to use it.

It was one of those devices, the cathode ray tube (CRT), which led to the identification of that mysterious charge carrier, the electron, and the embarrassing fact that its charge is negative.

In a similar manner, we can observe the effects of something and measure them and work out a theory of how that something works. Furthermore, we can make good use of that knowledge even though we do not know what that something is. One type of that something that has one kind of effect we call "dark matter" and another something that has another kind of effect we call "dark energy." And even though we don't know what they are, that does not keep us from studying them and figuring out how they work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 5:29 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2583
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 228 of 244 (888562)
09-20-2021 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Christian7
09-20-2021 6:44 PM


Re: Is this hard to grasp?
OK, of course, it's Yoda.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Christian7, posted 09-20-2021 6:44 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6032
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 229 of 244 (888564)
09-20-2021 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Percy
09-20-2021 5:51 PM


Re: Uncertainty
I assumed that quantum uncertainty underlay quantum fluctuations.

Yes, it does. You are correct.

It's a math thing. Using the uncertainty principle the math showed the possibility of such accounting machinations with energy as to create the virtual pair. Turns out the math of virtual particles was super useful in explaining a lot of unexplained transitions between particles in the labs.

Then comes Feynman with his hand scribbling stick figures and the case was sealed. Virtual particles have to be real, at least for a brief moment. We say this because the equations generated by the Feynman diagrams with virtual particle interactions included, not just match but predict the values generated in the lab.

As for precise mechanism, well, that's still in dispute.

I am amazed by how much we know. But this quantum fluctuation thing is another hole in our knowledge along with so many others. It's kinda like mother nature is sprinkling goodies to all the physicists and cosmologists and mathematicians.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : Ok, I'm done


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 5:51 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20334
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 230 of 244 (888568)
09-21-2021 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Christian7
09-19-2021 1:55 PM


Re: gobbledygook
There is no evidence that consciousness is the result of brain activity.

Do you have any examples of consciousness in the absence of brain activity?

If consciousness were the consequence of brain activity, then the brain would be not be a purely physical organ, for consciousness is not a physical construct.

Again, do you have any examples of consciousness in the absence of brain activity?

Consciousness is not even a thing which alone is required for person-hood; it is merely a property of a soul.

A soul is not a physical object.

By "not a physical object" do you mean not part of the natural world? If so, since you're part of the natural world and souls are not, how did you learn about them?

Physical objects do not have the ability to have qualitative experiences. There is nothing it is like to be a physical object.

Your terminology is still horrible and very confusing. You've been using the word physical to distinguish between the natural and supernatural worlds, but now you're using it to distinguish between life and non-life. Make up your mind.

True, non-life cannot have experiences like life, but why do you say "qualitative experiences." Are you implying that non-life could have "quantitative experiences?"

You mangled the second sentence, who knows what you meant.

There is no amount of computational trickery that will create a visual field isolated in the centerhood of a physical process.

Christian, come on, even as you were typing this you must have known it would make no sense to anyone. You're not even trying.

All physical processes, as far as qualia is concerned, can only produce information or states to represent it. There is no actual production nor possession of it by these processes.

Let me restate one of the things this says so you can see how little sense it makes: "A physical process produces information about itself but nothing is produced."

The precise mechanism by which qualia is created by brain in a subjective fashion has not been demonstrated. I have never read in the news that it has been. Qualia is not merely a state of a physical process or represention created by the arrangement of informational units. A computer screen does not have visual qualia.

Your nonsense just goes on and on. Who knows what you mean.

If consciousness is at all physical, it must be a property of physical things to begin with; it cannot be an emergent property of things which have no property leading to consciousness.

What you actually said after eliminating the garbage: "If consciousness is physical then it's not really physical but is instead a property of the physical. Consciousness cannot be a property of things which aren't conscious."

Nonsense followed by a tautology. Brilliant!

Anything resembling logic is not logic,...

More brilliance.

This means that logic did in fact exist before we created it,...

Something that existed before its creation. More brilliance.

If my mind is just chemicals then it is not a mind.

One way of looking at the difference between the brain and the mind is to consider the brain as the physical part consisting of living tissue, and the mind as an emergent property of the brain stemming from electrical impulses and changing connections between neurons. This view has its problems. Aren't electrical impulses physical? Isn't the changing of connections between neurons physical? When people experience love or fear or when they dream aren't different parts of the brain stimulated, as measured by an MRI?

The best that can be said about thinking of brain and mind as separate and independent is that it has its problems.

A house is not a house without a mind. A mind is not a mind without a mind. Chemicals are not chemicals without a mind. In fact, they have no qualitative property at all.

Absurd. The universe did not wait to exist until we came around. The universe is over 13 billion years old, humankind only a couple hundred thousand.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 1:55 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Parasomnium, posted 09-21-2021 4:39 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20334
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 231 of 244 (888569)
09-21-2021 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Christian7
09-20-2021 11:15 AM


Re: gobbledygook
Christian7 writes:

Are you confident about all that?

I write 282 words in Message 212, and you respond with a single pointless question? Can I ask you again to have respect and regard for other people? Yes, Christian, I'm confident about all that, now please answer Message 212 and stop wasting people's time.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Christian7, posted 09-20-2021 11:15 AM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20334
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 232 of 244 (888571)
09-21-2021 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Christian7
09-20-2021 6:44 PM


Re: Is this hard to grasp?
Christian7 writes:

First, the language I speak is English, and I speak no language besides it;

In that case it would be more accurate to say you speak no language, since there is apparently no language in which you're able to communicate your ideas to others.

And I don't really buy that you're a native speaker of English. To speak the way you do would mean spending your formative years with people who speak that way, and no one speaks that way. Either some foreign language is your native language, or you've suffered some traumatic brain injury, or you have a mental disability. The last guy here who had as much difficulty expressing himself had schizophrenia, see Brad McFall.

Presumably you have to talk to people at work, so what kind of work do you do? It doesn't seem possible that you could talk this way at work and maintain a job, so you must speak normally at work. Maybe if you talk about what you do for a living you'll start making sense.

so the thing that Percy was willing to bet on, even that claim is false.

I wasn't willing to bet on anything. The phrase I used is a figure of speech indicating one thinks something likely.

To make sense in English I am fully able,...

Your very wording makes my case. If you were a native speaker of English then you wouldn't write this way. You would have said something like, "I'm fluent in English."

...but I wrote my posts with the purpose of style, and rushed through every one.

You're just blowing smoke. If you abandoned your supposed "purpose of style" and took your time you'd still write the same way. Prove me wrong.

Also in logic there is lack of skill in me,...

A native speaker of English would have said something like, "I'm unskilled at logic" or "I'm no good at logic." Anything but what you said.

...although in a course on the same I attained an A, seeing that most of what I learned, that I also forgot.

Is that what they told you, that it was a course in logic and that you got an A? Did you put the crayons back when you were done?

We treated Brad McFall with kindness and compassion while he was here, which was for nearly a decade. If you've got some kind of mental condition or disability we should know about then tell us so we can get on the right wavelength. Brad told us about his condition, though we did have to fill in a few of blanks ourselves. Without that kind of information we can only assume you're some unfortunate combination of ignoramus and asshole.

Another member who like you joined when fairly young was TrueCreation - he designed the logo for the site. He went through a period where like you he insisted on using language in odd ways, but it was a side effect of his determination to use technical language he didn't quite understand.

But when I need not to compose an argument, I am well able to write with sense.

It hasn't happened yet.

Despite what it seems, with no intent have I hidden in my words a single thought.

You just said you've hidden no thought in your words. I think what you meant to say is that you never tried to hide even a single thought from us.

I am unready to debate with you all, so to study what is needful I will take a break.

Good idea.

For with me is no argument, nor knowledge, nor evidence, by which I am able to persuade your minds; having made these posts mostly with arguments formed by the mind that is in myself.

It's been obvious all along that you were making it up. You claimed to have done some reading, but that was never apparent.

So a break will I take to advance my knowledge, of logic, of science, and of defending the faith.

If God is real and as you say then he needs no defending. Spread the word, not nonsense.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Christian7, posted 09-20-2021 6:44 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
Christian7
Member
Posts: 627
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


(3)
Message 233 of 244 (888575)
09-21-2021 1:14 PM


Yes, I'm actually schizophrenic, but my disability doesn't prevent me from using English, my natural language, correctly, seeing I'm on medication. I was simply trying to achieve certain stylistic qualities in my posts, having trouble choosing words conveying my meaning precisely, uncertain of the meaning of the words. Since I didn't have enough time to phrase my words clearly and rhythmically enough, I wasn't able to accomplish my purpose. I was also unintentionally careless with my words.

I'm not going to stop with the stylistic efforts, but I will make sure that in the rest of my posts here, my language will be clear and correct, not shunning to use rhetorical devices, some of which interrupt grammar.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by nwr, posted 09-21-2021 2:13 PM Christian7 has not yet responded
 Message 235 by Tangle, posted 09-21-2021 3:32 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5810
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 234 of 244 (888576)
09-21-2021 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Christian7
09-21-2021 1:14 PM


Yes, I'm actually schizophrenic

Thanks for being open about that.

I was simply trying to achieve certain stylistic qualities in my posts

Your posts might be stylistic, but they lack quality.

Since I didn't have enough time to phrase my words clearly and rhythmically enough, I wasn't able to accomplish my purpose.

Most people don't take time to phrase their words. They just blurt out what they want to say. And, most of the time, that turns out okay, though perhaps the wording can give some unintended laughs.

I'm not trying to criticize you here. Rather, I'm suggesting that you try to be more relaxed and stop concerning yourself with matters of style. Just communicate as best you can, and we will deal with that as best we can.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Christian7, posted 09-21-2021 1:14 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8209
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 235 of 244 (888577)
09-21-2021 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Christian7
09-21-2021 1:14 PM


Christain7 writes:

I was simply trying to achieve certain stylistic qualities in my posts

Personally, I was reading your posts and thinking that it is Yoda that you are.

Just use simple, straightforward language; a hell of a lot easier it is.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Christian7, posted 09-21-2021 1:14 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2199
Joined: 07-15-2003


(1)
Message 236 of 244 (888580)
09-21-2021 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Percy
09-21-2021 9:05 AM


Re: gobbledygook
Christian7 writes:

There is nothing it is like to be a physical object.

Percy writes:

You mangled the second sentence, who knows what you meant.

Percy, think Thomas Nagel, who famously asked: "What is it like to be a bat?", by which he meant to ask what kind of experience you would have if you were a bat.

I guess Christian7 is saying that purely physical objects do not have any experiences at all. The question "what is it like to be a bat?" can possibly be answered, whereas the question "what is it like to be a rock?" probably can't.

I agree with you that Christian7 is using confusing terminology, thinking that 'physical' and 'non-living' are interchangeable concepts, as are, in his view, 'non-physical', 'mental', and 'living'. He's all about the mind (or rather the 'soul') being non-physical.

However, he didn't botch that sentence. I do not agree with it, because I think I am a physical object having an experience - of being me - but I understand what he meant by it.

As for his playful use of English: he was probably just trying to have some fun with unorthodox word order. Has later post proves his fluency in what I think is his native language.

Edited by Parasomnium, : Spelling


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Percy, posted 09-21-2021 9:05 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Christian7, posted 09-22-2021 11:28 AM Parasomnium has responded

  
Christian7
Member
Posts: 627
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 237 of 244 (888588)
09-22-2021 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Parasomnium
09-21-2021 4:39 PM


Re: gobbledygook
For this I apologize, that I've not studied science in these past days, nor logic, nor defense of the faith, whereby I may formulate sound and valid arguments. But now I will argue the best I can, being as clear as I can, in the hope that this will be good enough for you all. And for not replying to many comments, I ask you to forgive me. I will answer a point conveyed within them.

I say that all things, physical things, possess both behavior and properties, which in nature are not beyond the spatial and temporal. For in space do they move, and in space do they change; likewise through time do they do these things. And all things from interaction among them, emerge from their working together. And without emergence from their working together, they have no emergent property.

Now a mind is sentient, and experiences sight, feeling, thought, and more, which things from our point of view are composed of qualia, something possessed by no things indivisible. For these things are quanta, with behaviors and properties, not in themselves having qualia.

Therefore seeing that from things indivisible, there is no grouping of their working together, which is able to generate things we know as qualia, how it is possible this is a property emerging from physical processes? For the physical processes depend on components, which themselves depend on the physical; at the lowest level is dependence on things indivisible, which have no property with resemblance to qualia. Therefore how does the qualia emerge, which, by no steps of grouping nor working together, can be the result of the things of which they consist.

Sorry for any lack of clarity. By no means was it intended, neither in a style more plain would my mind explain it more easily.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Parasomnium, posted 09-21-2021 4:39 PM Parasomnium has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2021 11:48 AM Christian7 has not yet responded
 Message 240 by nwr, posted 09-22-2021 11:59 AM Christian7 has not yet responded
 Message 241 by Parasomnium, posted 09-22-2021 3:18 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8209
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 238 of 244 (888589)
09-22-2021 11:48 AM


Ouch, that hurts.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17009
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 239 of 244 (888590)
09-22-2021 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Christian7
09-22-2021 11:28 AM


Re: gobbledygook
Firstly, introducing unclear terms without explanation is not a good idea. “Things indivisible” has no clear meaning at all.

The fundamental problem of the argument is that it is rooted in ignorance. Not your personal ignorance - nobody understands where consciousness comes from or how it works - at all. Simply insisting that it can’t be produced by physical objects when we lack that understanding is guessing. We don’t know.

The evidence we do have indicates that the operation of the brain does produce the mind. You assert that there is no evidence of that - but does that mean that you are aware of and can refute the main lines of evidence ? If not, that is a very presumptuous assertion, and one you should not make.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Christian7, posted 09-22-2021 11:28 AM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5810
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 240 of 244 (888591)
09-22-2021 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Christian7
09-22-2021 11:28 AM


Re: gobbledygook
Now a mind is sentient, and experiences sight, feeling, thought, and more, which things from our point of view are composed of qualia, something possessed by no things indivisible.

The better statement would be that humans are sentient and experience sight, feeling, and thought. And it appears that this also applies to other animals - probably most mammals, birds, and perhaps octopus.

There's no actual evidence that minds exist, except as an abstraction.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Christian7, posted 09-22-2021 11:28 AM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021