The Metaphysical Consciousness

[bruto]

You are using the term absolute motion about the entire universe, which means that in such universe any arbitrary location moves in the same speed w.r.t to any other arbitrary location.

Then you say:


bruto, if a given universe is in absolute motion and you are included in such universe, you simply can't use any kind of common sense in that universe in order to to say that anything moves around anything else according to Kepler's laws of planetary motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion) simply because in a universe with absolute motion no acceleration or deceleration are possible, in the first place.



According to the best known scientific results, the universe which we are included in it, is definitely not in absolute motion.

Because of your absolute motion model, you totally have missed once again the fact about constants (the unchanged) AND variables (the changed) as essential proprieties of the universe which we are included in it.

This fact is demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10164268&postcount=447, and I hope that this time you will reply in details to its content.

Your assertion, cited, is not a demontration. It never was, and it never will be, no matter how many times you cite it.

I do not maintain some absolute motion model. I suggest that common problems, such as the law of levers, do not depend on unmeasurable and theoretical universal stability, and function within the traditional relative model.

I do not see anything in Kepler's laws of planetary motion that prevents them from applying to objects that are themselves moving. I was under the impression that current theories have the various objects of the universe in motion, expanding after the big bang. The earth can rotate around the sun even though the sun is flying through space.

 

[doronshadmi]

Your assertion, cited, is not a demontration. It never was, and it never will be, no matter how many times you cite it.

Only from the point of view of your arguments, which are based of absolute motion model.

I do not maintain some absolute motion model.

If the entire universe is in motion, or if everything we can perceive in the universe is in absolute motion, we cannot even observe it, much less quantify it. Simple, fundamental, old hat pragmatic maxim here.

By using an understatement I'll say: You are not telling the truth, even to yourself.

 

[doronshadmi]

bruto, now I am sure that you have no basis to handle with the following (some typo corrections were done):

Now, let's examine D1*W1 = D2*W2.

The result of D1*W1 or D1*W1 is unchanged even if D1,W1,D2,W2 are changeable, which is equivalent to the unchanged c² area w.r.t a² and b² areas that are properly changeable in opposite trends w.r.t the unchanged c² area.

For purpose I have used The Pythagorean Theorem in order to demonstrate the generalization of the changed AND the unchanged as essential properties of the same system, whether it is expressed by The Law Of Lever or by The Pythagorean Theorem.

 

[Donn]

The hypotenuse changes length when either of the other two sides changes. How is this a demonstration of constancy?

 

[bruto]

Only from the point of view of your arguments, which are based of absolute motion model.


By using an understatement I'll say: You are not telling the truth, even to yourself.

As usual, you miss the point. I do not assert absolute motion. I assert that it is unknowable and irrelevant, and that a lever works in its entirety, its principle and laws unchanged, whether or not the machine is in motion relative to other things. It does not matter to the law of levers what the universe is doing. If a lever rotates about its fulcrum, the rules apply. If the fulcrum moves down when weight is applied to the lever, a more complicated set of rules apply, but it can still be worked out without relation to what the rest of the universe is doing. The motion of a seesaw whose fulcrum is on a spring would be difficult to analyze, but it would, as far as the machine is concerned, be the same whether or not it's planted on a playground or on a moving railroad car. If it is on a railroad car, its motion relative to the earth below the moving car would be even harder to analyze, but it would be possible, and as far as the relationship between the seesaw and the earth is concerned, it would not matter what the earth is doing in the universe. If you wanted to analyze the movement of the seesaw in relation to the solar system, it would be even harder to analyze, but it could be done, and its relation to the solar system would be what it is whether or not the solar system is careening through space. And so forth.

The principle of the lever, is, I maintain, one of rotation, relative motion. Whether or not there is absolute motion or stability is irrelevant. In principle.

 

[Donn]

bruto, do you understand his c squared constant thing?

 

[bruto]

bruto, do you understand his c squared constant thing?

I don't know what there is to understand, but I do understand that the ratio of C to A and B is constant. If any one of the components of the equation C^2 = A^2 + B^2 changes, the others must also change.

I do also recognize that in the youtube video which Doronshadmi loves so, the choice of dimension for side C is arbitrary, and that the demonstration, like most, occurs locally, in unquantified space.

The relationship between side C and a lever's fulcrum remains mysterious, and the relationship between the Pythagorean theorem and the principle of the lever remains also mysterious to those of us said to be handicapped in our appreciation of the empyrean grandiosities that inform the metawoozicles of the universe.

 

[Donn]

If any one of the components of the equation C^2 = A^2 + B^2 changes, the others must also change.

This is also my (last did math twenty five years ago) take on the matter.

I think he's trying to bolster "constancy" somehow and then equivocate it with "stability" so he can have his favourite toy back again. To this end, he is trying to dazzle us with math. Not satisfied with his mangling of Pythagorus, he's also adding more formulas.

It's a weird game of finding support for words to validate his meta-language.

(Thanks for the confirm.)

 

[doronshadmi]

its principle and laws unchanged,

Great. You have just said it (all you have to do is also to understand it).

So, after all in both cases (The Law Of Lever or The Pythagorean Theorem) the unchanged AND the changed are essential properties, exactly as demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10166253&postcount=463 (once again, you did not reply in details to its content, which means that you still do not fully comprehend your own "its principle and laws unchanged," expression).

Now back to consciousness, it also has both unchanged AND the changed aspects, such that its calm aspect is its unchanged law, which enables its changed aspects to be correlated with each other as a one harmonious phenomena.

It is simple, fundamental, and no meta-physics, mysticism or belief of any kind is involved here, as already shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10139097&postcount=180.

 

[Donn]

Harmoniums are musical instruments; pump organs.

 

[doronshadmi]

Harmoniums are musical instruments; pump organs.

Thank you Donn, it was corrected to harmonious.

 

[bruto]

Great. You have just said it (all you have to do is also to understand it).

So, after all in both cases (The Law Of Lever or The Pythagorean Theorem) the unchanged AND the changed are essential properties, exactly as demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10166253&postcount=463 (once again, you did not reply in details to its content, which means that you still do not fully comprehend your own "its principle and laws unchanged," expression).

Now back to consciousness, it also has both unchanged AND the changed aspects, such that its calm aspect is its unchanged law, which enables its changed aspects to be correlated with each other as a one harmonious phenomena.

It is simple, fundamental, and no meta-physics, mysticism or belief of any kind is involved here, as already shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10139097&postcount=180.

Like it or not, there's metaphysics in presumptions about the properties of the universe, whether or not they're right or wrong. That's what metaphysics is. If you make ontological statements, you're doing ontology, like it or not.

Nobody here has ever disputed that laws are laws and constants constant.

It does not change the fact that the law of levers and the Pythagorean theorem are entirely different and do not apply to each other, even if they both exemplify some larger principle.

To observe that the universe obeys laws is trivially true but it does not help us to understand the content of the laws, how to use them or (obviously) how to differentiate them meaningfully.

If the "stable" element of the law of levers is, as you now suggest, the law itself, then you have stated nothing about the content of the law itself, of what it does and does not do, or necessitate, or demonstrate.

Levers do demonstrate the conservation of energy, but they do not prove it, they exemplify it.

 

[doronshadmi]

even if they both exemplify some larger principle.

Once again you are using expressions without fully understand their consequences, and in this case you do not understand yet that the exemplified larger principle is exactly the changed AND the unchanged as the common principles of The Law Of Lever and The Pythagorean Theorem, where in both cases the changed variables are complements of a given constant.

To observe that the universe obeys laws is trivially true but it does not help us to understand the content of the laws, how to use them or (obviously) how to differentiate them meaningfully.

It is trivial as long as the observation misses the profound fact of the linkage among the changed AND the unchanged as general principle, where this general principle includes not less than the observed, the observer and the tool of observation.

If the "stable" element of the law of levers is, as you now suggest, the law itself, then you have stated nothing about the content of the law itself, of what it does and does not do, or necessitate, or demonstrate.

This is true as long as there is disconnection or dichotomy among the observed, the observer and the tool of observation.

Levers do demonstrate the conservation of energy, but they do not prove it, they exemplify it.

They are both the conservation of energy (the unchanged) AND they exemplify it (the changed) as essential properties of a one reality.

Moreover, you wrote "To observe that the universe obeys laws is trivially true" which is equivalent to self evident truth (an axiom), so nothing has to be proved, in this case.

This axiom (changed AND the unchanged as general principle of reality) is shown also in the case of consciousness, as written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10166489&postcount=469, and it is actually solves the Mind-body problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind–body_problem).

 

[bruto]

Once again you are using expressions without fully understand their consequences, and in this case you do not understand yet that the exemplified larger principle is exactly the changed AND the unchanged as the common principles of The Law Of Lever and The Pythagorean Theorem, where in both cases the changed variables are complements of a given constant.

It is trivial as long as the observation misses the profound fact of the linkage among the changed AND the unchanged as general principle, where this general principle includes not less than the observed, the observer and the tool of observation.


This is true as long as there is disconnection or dichotomy among the observed, the observer and the tool of observation.


They are both the conservation of energy (the unchanged) AND they exemplify it (the changed) as essential properties of a one reality.

Moreover, you wrote "To observe that the universe obeys laws is trivially true" which is equivalent to self evident truth (an axiom), so nothing has to be proved, in this case.

The fact that laws exist may not have to be proved, but the laws themselves do. You can't just make up a law and say "the universe obeys laws, so it must obey this one."

I highlight above, first because you presume, wrongly I believe, that disagreement is the same as misunderstanding. I hate to sound like some old curmudgeon of a positivist, but the consequences of vaguely stated universal principles are exactly nothing. You might just as well be speaking of tychism, agapism and synechism. The observation that several laws obey a common principle is just that, an observation.

The third highlight is because the constant involved is the ratio. All the terms in either the Pythagorean formula or the law of levers are variables. The constants are relationships, not quantities. It is my turn to suggest a lapse of understanding.

While I'm at it, I'll nitpick and point out that you can't have a dichotomy of three elements.

 

[dlorde]

The hypotenuse changes length when either of the other two sides changes. How is this a demonstration of constancy?

Well quite; and whichever side you fix, the other two sides will vary accordingly. The hypotenuse isn't special in that respect.

As usual, when the more specific vacuous nonsense is exposed, the field of view is widened and the focus blurred until its a mess of vacuous Eastern-flavoured statements about the universe.

 

[Slowvehicle]

bruto, now I am sure that you have no basis to handle with the following (some typo corrections were done):

Corrected typos or not, this is still just a reiteration of your incorrect claim about the Pythagorean Theorem and its mystaphysicothetical relationship to force and motion; and "stability" and "instability"; and the "function" of the fulcrum.

Multiple posters (myself included) have invited you to support your incorrect claims with evidence; you have made free to do no more than simply quote yourself, and quote your quote, and re-iterate your quotation.

You have yet to offer a scintilla of support.

Now would be a really, really god time (it is, in fact, past time) to do so; draining the swamp instead of simply railing against the alligators.

The fulcrum is a "place"; a point on the lever.

C² is not a constant.

The Pythagorean Theorem does not comprise force and motion, nor work and energy.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Great. You have just said it (all you have to do is also to understand it).

So, after all in both cases (The Law Of Lever or The Pythagorean Theorem) the unchanged AND the changed are essential properties, exactly as demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10166253&postcount=463 (once again, you did not reply in details to its content, which means that you still do not fully comprehend your own "its principle and laws unchanged," expression).

No.

You are merely quoting yourself again. Do you have an assigned word count?

When all you have done is iterate and re-iterate self-quotations of your own words, "still no" is, in fact, a "response in detail".

Now back to consciousness, it also has both unchanged AND the changed aspects, such that its calm aspect is its unchanged law, which enables its changed aspects to be correlated with each other as a one harmonious phenomena.

It is simple, fundamental, and no meta-physics, mysticism or belief of any kind is involved here, as already shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10139097&postcount=180.

Again, you offer no support for the mysticaphysical metacitistic claims that you believe, other than your own claims.

 

[Yah]

I have little doubt that, with extensive practice, certain unusual patterns of brain activity can be achieved, and interesting experiences can result. It's all in the mind.

dlorde, atoms and planets and time and space are in the mind, in the experience of our senses and measurements. As to what reality causes these manifestations, we have to go beyond the manifestations for a coherent explanation. Physics has itself come up with some, which defy experience and commonsense, yet this is no bar to science enthusiasts.

 

[Yah]

Well said! As you said, by definition not an easy process to verbalise!

 

[Yah]

They are only secret insofar as people don't realize they have them. They are there, operating under the threshold of conscious awareness of everyone.

That means science is too clumsy and limited to handle "secret powers", because science is based, in part, on the assumption that a scientist can't unconsciously use his unconscious "secret powers" to interfere with a demonstration or experiment. But he can and does, and science is none the wiser.

And thus are "The great Secrets" perfectly protectled!