What are you? EvC poll

I believe it is impossible to argue the 'Many worlds theory'.
Just as it is impossible to argue the 'Brain in a vat theory'.
So your theory could be plausible.
But just because a theory is impenetrable does not mean it can not be called damn silly.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Isn't it obvious, rr? The stories we make up about gods and angels are the real reality; all this stuff you keep bumping into every day is just a fiction. Sheesh, rr, how could you miss that?

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

That is a rather limiting assumption.
Just because we experience the aquarium of matter and laws in this "universe" does not prevent other universes from existing (in which we do not and cannot experience).
And, if God exists and is all-powerful, then He must govern all universes, right? Or, maybe He is only all-powerful in this universe.As an example, if you trace-back cause-and-effect to a "beginning" (which actually may not be a beginning but rather just the end of a previous expansion/contraction), then the initial conditions that led us to this point could have had an infinite number of variations, of which we are just one. But how could you deny that the other permutations exist? You can't. You just can't experience them. But, you can't assume that other permutations do not exist, either.
Of course, there are also an infinite number of "physical law" combinations, as well.

No, of course not. I prefer Pascal's induction and work on water than the possiblity that fluxuating variation could philosophically replace mutational variations as to the smalles boundary IN BIOLOGY. Gould somehow refused and rewrote the history of national differences in biology on the idea that infinetesimal differences between the views of biologists IS NOT a matter qualified by Cantor with his demonstration of continuous motion in a discontinous space.I am not actually really a dualist when it comes right up to it. I think that the community of action of Kant still trumps any joke about how algebra helped symbolists.As Criak said,

quote:

---

"The Problems of Philosophy...There is certainly a temptation to isolate objects, processes, colours, sense-data, images and so forth just because they seem to be fairly definite resting points for our mental processes and our perception of the physical world

---

quote:

---

The Nature of Explanation

---

Gould has set up a new set "restness" that Newton in the old sense never considered as he thought that chemistry (no matter the monad or gonad or gone mad)*might* contain conspiring motions at rest. But particle physics moving beyond Mach without the biology of the supramolecular genetic aggregate there yet has not reached back into its anti-matterialism to find the Bohmian equivalent of the disjoint selected groups that can depend on the continuum hypothesis etc. So it is an unforntunate reality that I must write FROM Gould's work rather than Mayr's but Gould made too much fun of his mentor. It is not fun to still leave open the time where only Henery Morris responded to me in this life-time.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-26-2006 12:56 PM

um yeah. why is this a problem? what is it you're having difficulty with? i already said i'm a monist.i simply think it's ridiculous to assume that things such as have been regarded as 'supernatural' do not exist simply because people have assumed that they are supernatural. lack of understanding does not hold bearing on reality.

quote:

---

um yeah. why is this a problem? what is it you're having difficulty with? i already said i'm a monist.

---

And in the very next breath you contradict your stance on being a monist. By saying things like:

quote:

---

i simply think it's ridiculous to assume that things such as have been regarded as 'supernatural' do not exist simply because people have assumed that they are supernatural.

---

Im sorry but that statement deserves a Rrhain ::blink::: Did you just say what I think you said? And apparentley it also does not hold a bearing on the last several posts I addressed to you Brennakimi.
I will break it down:
Brennakimi says: " I believe that only apples exist. but i also believe that oranges exist too."
Phi says: "But if oranges exist as well then that means that apples and oranges exist."
Brenna says: "Well I only believe that apples exist, but oranges could exist in other dimentions. we just dont know about them. or know if they are there."
Phi says: "But if this is true then it does not matter; if the other dimentions have no bearing on our reality they're existance is moot."
Brennakimi says: "Well just because oranges are beyond our reality does not mean they are not there. but i still only believe that apples exist.,,,but maybe oranges too...whats your problem?"
No Problem I am just confusing apples and oranges.

no silly. you are saying that only apples exist. i'm saying that green apples exist.i'm saying that things could exist that are very natural, people just don't understand them and they seem supernatural. something like a dimensional rift that could cause "ghosts". it's simply a misunderstood phenomenon.you're tripping over your own definitions and assuming that they are mine. you keep assuming i'm talking about supernatural things. i think they're entirely natural. merely our current perception which is very limited keeps us from knowledgable interaction.

ok then.

Imo, by definition the term universe includes all that exists, period. That eliminates the possibility of anything else. Nobody knows how big the universe is. Our knowledge of it is that which is within the range of our telescopes. You can't have more than one of (abe: everything existing.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 04-28-2006 10:15 PM

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Emphasis added.But you could have more than one local neighorhood from which there appears to be a universe.Even within our own "universe," because of its accelerating expansion, there are receding locations from which we will never garner light or info; the photons of our stars will never cross. The universe they see from there does not look like the universe we see from here.If, at some vaster remove, dimensionally or otherwise, there exist other expanding regions of time and space, why wouldn't we call them universes?To insist that universe means everything that exists, and therefore such questions are moot, just waves the question away.

I would be a materialist (monist).I have seen ample evidence that matter/energy exists, but none that suggests other types of substances exist. Not to say that spiritual stuff doesn't exist, I just haven't seen any reason to believe it does. I pretty much have the same stance regarding God and every other magical thing.

You cannot flatly state that as fact.
You and some other Creationists want to insist on that stance, however, because once you realize that other universes are possible, and perhaps even likely, then the whole idea of purpose of existence due to uniqueness and "this couldn't be random" is weakened.

By your definition I must be a Monist because I fail to understand how it would be possible to separate spiritual substances from material substances. Is there a contradiction? I assume substances are stuff and are therefore measurable (according to practical scientists?).If you are thinking of spiritual stuff as nonmaterial then I am still of the opinion that material and nonmaterial stuff cannot be separated: rather that human minds still find it difficult to imagine (conceive) of the entire universe as being the stuff of one Big Bang that has, from the beginning of everything, continued to expand, mutate, grow and evolve from whatever stuff was packed into the amazing firecracker we call the Big Bang.You probably know that scientists are pretty excited at being able to identify and even measure ”black matter’, the stuff they think fills all the ”empty’ space between galaxies, etc.I wonder if ”black matter’ might fill the tiny space between a neutron and positrons within the ”solar system’ of an atom. Can anyone tell me, please?

Is it really necessary to be one or the other...Monist or Dualist?Do we yet have the knowledge to make such a choice?Is there a divide between the "natural" and the "supernatural"?It might come down to what is really meant by the terms, natural and supernatural.
If anything that is known and explainable is natural, and that which is not is supernatural; then the choice is simple, and Monism is the answer. Unless there are some things that can never be explained; in which case, there will always be a supernatural element...which allows one to argue for Dualism.Another scenario would be that "natural" has other qualifying characteristics.
What if there was an intrinsic difference between natural and supernatural? This might lead one toward Dualism. However, such an intrinsic difference opens the door to the possible existence of entities that are intrinsically different to both natural and supernatural entities; in which case the choice ceases to be dichotomous.

---

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

Maybe "supernatural" means "incorporeal." So if one thought the mind were incorporeal, then it would be supernatural (dualism), whereas if one thought the mind were physical, it would be natural (monism).This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-04-2006 10:29 AM