Does Matter Really Exist?

[ImaginalDisc]

You noticed I put that in italics don't you? In other words I was roughly equating his notion of "sacred" (which, in a sense means there could no other) with universal.

A) That's not at all what I meant.

B) Try looking up what sacred actually means.

C) You're proving my point.

 

[Belz...]

And maybe what you fail to realize is that all these sets and subsets are all part of a single set (singularity?) called the Universe.

The universe is not a set.

Everything is interconnected you see, and all comes from the same place.

Yes. It all comes from the Big Bang.

Indeed, how can the Universe be broken up into any other "Universal" subets if what you're saying is true? Does that mean it is not part of a set?

It is if your set is "universes", in which case it may or may not be the only member of that set.

If so, then what are you doing trying to break it up into all these other sets and subsets? How is the entirety of the Universe any less complete than a horse? What is a horse, in relation to the entirety of the Universe?

So, you haven't understood anything about sets ?

 

[Belz...]

Ah, but the only thing which can truly be considered a whole is the Universe (according to materialists anyway), and everything else is a constituent part thereof. So, how are we to look at it in that respect? Sorry.

I don't agree. There may be an infinite number of other universes. OUR universe may not be the whole.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't agree. There may be an infinite number of other universes. OUR universe may not be the whole.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "there is an indeterminate number of other universes" since we'd have no way of "knowing" "how" "many" "un*i*verses" there "are".

Forgive me, I channeled Iacchus for a moment there.

 

[Belz...]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "there is an indeterminate number of other universes" since we'd have no way of "knowing" "how" "many" "un*i*verses" there "are".

Forgot to say: even if there is only one universe, the universe itself would not be the whole of existence, since I assume we'd consider the "singularity" itself (the spacetime foam thingy) to be separate from the universe.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Forgot to say: even if there is only one universe, the universe itself would not be the whole of existence, since I assume we'd consider the "singularity" itself (the spacetime foam thingy) to be separate from the universe.

That does seem to be the case.

 

[Iacchus]

A) That's not at all what I meant.

B) Try looking up what sacred actually means.

C) You're proving my point.

The point being, at least the point I was trying to make, was that your statement sounded awfully biased.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The point being, at least the point I was trying to make, was that your statement sounded awfully biased.

There is no bias in objecting to your continued refusal to use the English language properly. I am not a native speaker of English. When I don't know what the correct word to express my meaning is, I consult a dictionary and a thesaurus. It it not unreasonable to expect you to do the same.

 

[Iacchus]

When I don't know what the correct word to express my meaning is, I consult a dictionary and a thesaurus.

And, more often than not, so do I.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

And, more often than not, so do I.

I do not think you are being entirely forthright. Is this an assumption? Hardly, here is some evidence of you making a word do whatever it is you want it to do. You are Humpty Dumpty in “Through the Looking Glass”. You make a word mean whatever you wish it to mean, regardless of what it is used customarily used for. I have concluded that you do that solely so you can slip out of any corner you are backed into.

So, what else would you call what I'm talking about then? Because I honestly don't know. I could say something like sub-"level" or sub-"group," but that still doesn't sound right. As far as the word "set" is concerned, it brings to mind something which is defined and has boundaries, and therefore seemed like the logical choice of words.

Maybe "set" is the inappropriate term here? ... I don't know, I'm still not sure?

The fact is, I know what I know, outside your "formal" parameters of trying to extinguish it.
QUOTE]

. So, why would you have a wet bar of soap change "its state" just to appease you? I have no intention of changing the way I look at things.

Just like you can define the set "human anatomy" into each individual subset and/or variable of what human anatomy entails.

Psst, here, you might want to pick up a Human Anatomy textbook, open it to the front page, and see what it says about what the definition of Human Anatomy is. Pretty much all science text books start out by explaining the nature of their topic.

And what do you mean by "rational," if it's merely a matter of getting me to agree with you?

Hey, look, “rational” is in the dictionary.

Indeed, how can the Universe be broken up into any other "Universal" subets if what you're saying is true? Does that mean it is not part of a set? If so, then what are you doing trying to break it up into all these other sets and subsets? How is the entirety of the Universe any less complete than a horse? What is a horse, in relation to the entirety of the Universe?

And did you read this? ...

Also, if you care to have people "listen" to you, might I suggest that you stop shouting?

Your cutting remark might be more effective if you stood by it strongly enough to take down those quotation marks.

And what if in the case with Johnny Pixel's example above (which, is a very good example by the way), you were to substitute "constituent parts of the whole," for the set "mammals," and substitute "constituent parts A" and "constituent parts B," etc., etc., for the various subsets of mammals? How exactly would this vary from what you're saying? Would not the "constituent parts" be a subset of "constituent parts of the whole?" ... i.e., the various "types" of mammals with respect to the "grouping" of mammals in general? I in fact see no difference.

A particularly rich example.

So what exactly do "we" use set theory for, if not to break something down with respect to its constituent parts?

So, what are the subsets then, of "cans-of-soup?"

Considering the fact that I haven't "formally" worked with set theory, I would have to give myself at least a B or a B+ here.

Of which the empty-soup-cans and the canless-soup are the subset of the cans-of-soup, correct? Have I said anything other than this, except that I was referring to the subsets of a "single" can of soup?

Who the hell said anything about "cans" of soup?

So, then, at what point does one "begin" to know? Or, are you suggesting this is not possible?

Really, and I don't see how this differs from anything that I've said. In fact that's exactly what I've said ...That the can of soup is the set, and the "can" and the "soup" are subsets of that.

Iacchus, I have only gone back through two pages of your posts. Please say something, or ask a question without resorting to placing it within quotation marks. If I had insisted on making words mean whatever I wanted them to mean when I was in elementary school, I would never have learned to speak English. Try conversing with people in good faith, using a common language. That’s what language is for.

 

[cyborg]

And, more often than not, so do I.

And yet you still lose the dictionary game even when you do.

*Sigh* It's tough being Iacchus.

 

[Bone_Vulture]

Iacchus, I have only gone back through two pages of your posts. Please say something, or ask a question without resorting to placing it within quotation marks. If I had insisted on making words mean whatever I wanted them to mean when I was in elementary school, I would never have learned to speak English. Try conversing with people in good faith, using a common language. That’s what language is for.

The reason why Iacchus relies on quotation marks is the amount of escape hatches they offer. For an example, I can state that we should "shoot" the president in the face. Once the angry replies start rolling in, I can backtrack by claiming I meant a camera shoot, or perhaps a really loud shouting match.

But that doesn't really matter, since there's hardly any consistency, or continuity in Iacchus's posts - he just keeps shifting the topic randomly as long as people keep replying to his posts.

 

[Johnny Pixels]

Well, if I worked with statistics all day long as some folks do around here, maybe I would have a greater appreciation for what you're trying to say. At the present time I don't.

I learned pretty much all I know about set theory when I was 7 or 8 years old.

If I come across anything I don't understand on this forum, I google it, and learn more. I read books too. In fact there's a lot of stuff that I believed when I was younger that I've read and learned more about, and this has changed my mind greatly, as I know more about the subject. It works so much better than the "I believe this and won't listen to anything else approach"
There's nothing wrong with having a theory on life's complexities, but theories often need to be changed in the light of evidence. Sometimes the evidence will prove you right, sometimes the evidence will prove you wrong. There is no dishonour in admitting you were wrong or mistaken. No-one is going to put you down for this, it's what most people on this forum work towards, seeking truths. Everyone makes mistakes, here's one of mine: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1329035#post1329035

 

[Iacchus]

Forgot to say: even if there is only one universe, the universe itself would not be the whole of existence, since I assume we'd consider the "singularity" itself (the spacetime foam thingy) to be separate from the universe.

What, are you suggesting that the (physical) Universe exists within the parameters of something else? Yes, this has been my contention all along.

 

[Iacchus]

There is no bias in objecting to your continued refusal to use the English language properly. I am not a native speaker of English. When I don't know what the correct word to express my meaning is, I consult a dictionary and a thesaurus. It it not unreasonable to expect you to do the same.

Then perhaps you should be a little bit more careful in the way you word things?

 

[Iacchus]

And yet you still lose the dictionary game even when you do.

*Sigh* It's tough being Iacchus.

Hey, at least I don't find the need to resort to ad hominem attacks ... more often than not that is.

 

[Iacchus]

If I come across anything I don't understand on this forum, I google it, and learn more. I read books too. In fact there's a lot of stuff that I believed when I was younger that I've read and learned more about, and this has changed my mind greatly, as I know more about the subject. It works so much better than the "I believe this and won't listen to anything else approach"

Which in effect is an assumption on your part that I don't know what I'm talking about ... while admittedly, I agree, it may sound unbelievable.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Then perhaps you should be a little bit more careful in the way you word things?

I am exceedingly careful in the way I word things. I am not responsible for your inferences.

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus, I have only gone back through two pages of your posts. Please say something, or ask a question without resorting to placing it within quotation marks. If I had insisted on making words mean whatever I wanted them to mean when I was in elementary school, I would never have learned to speak English. Try conversing with people in good faith, using a common language. That’s what language is for.

Indeed, what are the points to words without anything genuine behind them? I believe that I have made myself quite clear regardless of any "misuse" of terms. So, instead of "subset," I should probably use something like, "exists within the parameters of another domain?" But still, it seems like there should be a much easier way to explain this. And I'm surprised that nobody has developed the means by which to do so ... or, have they?

 

[Iacchus]

Domain vs Sub-Domain

Okay, "domain" versus "sub-domain." Or, I will consider trying to put it into those terms.