Existence vs Awareness

[Iacchus]

No. What I am saying is that the "laws of physics" do not determine how things behave; they describe how things behave.

Yes, and we can ignore how they might possibly behave, and suffer the consequences. The choice is entirely up to us ... if, we understand how they work.

 

[Mojo]

Yes, sentience is the means by which we acknowledge truth.

Nope. Sentience is the means by which we experience the universe.

 

[Mojo]

Yes, and we can ignore how they might possibly behave, and suffer the consequences.

You seem to have no trouble with ignoring anything else that doesn't suit you.

 

[Iacchus]

Nope. Sentience is the means by which we experience the universe.

What are we, but we experience? Sentience "is" our Universe.

 

[Mojo]

Once again, I suggest that you go get a dictionary.

 

[Iacchus]

You seem to have no trouble with ignoring anything else that doesn't suit you.

I have no problems understanding that I should not jump in front of an oncoming bus. Does that somehow surprise you?

 

[Iacchus]

Once again, I suggest that you go get a dictionary.

You just got through telling me that the Universe can't be determined as anything other than what we perceive it to be. So, what else is there?

 

[Mojo]

You just got through telling me that the Universe can't be determined as anything other than what we perceive it to be.

No I didn't. I asked you if you had any evidence for the existence of God, pointed out that "the laws of physics" are descriptive, not prescriptive, and provided you with a definition of the word "sentience".

 

[Iacchus]

No I didn't. I asked you if you had any evidence for the existence of God, pointed out that "the laws of physics" are descriptive, not prescriptive, and provided you with a definition of the word "sentience".

You're missing the point, I suspect because you're hung up on the word "laws". The "laws of physics" are not laws in the sense that they are something that was preordained and therefore has to be followed; they are just a man-made description. Scientists have figured out a set of rules that appear to predict how things behave; the "laws of physics" are nothing more nor less than this man-made description.

Just man-made descriptions, eh? Then what exactly are you implying, if this is not how man perceives them? Or, maybe it is you who needs to make use of the dictionary?

 

[Mojo]

Just man-made descriptions, eh? Then what exactly are implying, if this is not how man perceives them? Or, maybe it is you who needs to make use of the dictionary?

It's not a question of how man percieves them. It's just that that's what they are; a man-made description.

For example, take Newton's theory of gravity. This was securely established as part of the "laws of physics" for a couple of hundred years, and appeared to work perfectly well (and in fact on the scale that we generally deal with, it still does work perfectly well), until it was demonstrated to be not quite right by Einstein.

Einstein's development of his theories of relativity changed the "laws of physics", but this doesn't mean that the way the real universe behaved changed as a result of their development. It was just our description of the universe that changed. The map is not the territory.

 

[Iacchus]

It's not a question of how man percieves them. It's just that that's what they are; a man-made description.

Perhaps this is why it used to be forbidden to utter God's name? Because it's merely a description of that which we cannot fully fathom?

For example, take Newton's theory of gravity. This was securely established as part of the "laws of physics" for a couple of hundred years, and appeared to work perfectly well (and in fact on the scale that we generally deal with, it still does work perfectly well), until it was demonstrated to be not quite right by Einstein.

Are you suggesting that there is nothing immutable which exists? Or, is it just a matter of how we perceive what is immutable? This in fact is what I am suggesting.

Einstein's development of his theories of relativity changed the "laws of physics", but this doesn't mean that the way the real universe behaved changed as a result of their development. It was just our description of the universe that changed. The map is not the territory.

I honestly believe that the Universe is founded upon something, however. And, that that something must be immutable.

 

[Mojo]

Are you suggesting that there is nothing immutable which exists? Or, is it just a matter of how we perceive what is immutable? This in fact is what I am suggesting.

No, I'm saying that changing how we describe the universe does not change the universe itself.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I have no problems understanding that I should not jump in front of an oncoming bus. Does that somehow surprise you?

At times, yes.

 

[Mercutio]

Are you suggesting that there could have been a point when there were no "laws of physics," not even in theory?

Well, of course! There absolutely was a time before there were no laws of physics! Billions of years, in fact! There were no laws of physics until we wrote them. Of course, matter and energy did what they did perfectly well without these laws, given that the laws merely describe what they do, and do not control it. But then, you have had this explained many times. See, it's very similar. You operate just the same in ignorance of the laws of physics; you don't have to know them to have them describe you.

This is really what it all boils down to doesn't it? The only thing that would come close to describing that would be absolute nothingness.

Nope. You are quite simply wrong. If we were to describe what matter and energy were doing before we wrote the laws of physics, we would be....writing laws of physics!

If you break a traffic law, you get fined.

If you break a law of physics, they change the law.

That's how it works.

 

[Mercutio]

Perhaps this is why it used to be forbidden to utter God's name? Because it's merely a description of that which we cannot fully fathom?

By your definition, then, God = ignorance. Gotcha. You might want to ok that with other believers, though.

Are you suggesting that there is nothing immutable which exists? Or, is it just a matter of how we perceive what is immutable? This in fact is what I am suggesting.

How could we possibly know? Our experience is finite; "immutable" is beyond our ability to know.

I honestly believe that the Universe is founded upon something, however. And, that that something must be immutable.

Why must it be? Or do you believe this by faith alone?

 

[Belz...]

I would say that the universe is space and time, not that it exists outside of it,

I meant, the singularity.

 

[Belz...]

Or, if by some impossible chance it does (based upon the probability of zero of course), then what does this tell us, except that anything is possible.

It tells us that your rantings are both incoherent and irrelevant. Troll.

that God could have very easily dunnit.

What is this "god" of which you speak ?

Not even the laws of physics? This is why we call them laws isn't it, because they're set up in such a way as to direct and guide our actions?

No, they're not. Laws of physics are man-made, as Mojo said. The universe works in a certain way, but it doesn't "guide" evolution as you understand it.

They are in fact a prescription for disaster if you do not heed their significance.

WHAT? What the HELL are you talking about ? Since when CAN you do anything that DOESN'T follow the laws of physics ???

 

[Belz...]

Really? Then the Universe has always been this complex?

Yes.

Oh, yes we do. The whole Universe is chock full of evidence that the impossible exists.

There's something inside the universe that's impossible ? Pray tell, what is it ?

Do you mean like on the grand scale of the Universe and existence itself?

Now there's a way to dodge a comment.

We cannot escape the laws of physics ... at least our physical bodies can't.

Then how could you not "heed" their "significance" ?

 

[Belz...]

You do realize that the only way we can make heads or tails out of this is through sentience don't you?

Ridiculous. A non-sentient computer can understand things. Even an ant can make heads or tales of SOME things.

Are you suggesting that there could have been a point when there were no "laws of physics," not even in theory?

Yes. The laws of physics were, ostensibly, created by successive "symmetry-breakings" during the inflation period.

 

[Belz...]

Perhaps this is why it used to be forbidden to utter God's name? Because it's merely a description of that which we cannot fully fathom?

Perhaps not.

I honestly believe that the Universe is founded upon something, however. And, that that something must be immutable.

Of course you do! The problem is, you show NO interest in learning that you are WRONG!