• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Existence vs Awareness

Mercutio said:
This is an outright lie.

You build on dreams, which you say are rock. You close your eyes and cover your ears when people ask you to try to poke holes in your "rock".
Click to expand...
Do you believe that the Universe was founded upon something substantial or not? I say yes.
 
Iacchus said:
That's an ad hominem by the way. ;)
Click to expand...
Only if I used it to try to make a logical point. As is, it is not an ad hom, it is an insult. Or, perhaps more technically, an insulting truth. An insulting conclusion based on the evidence of your posting history. But not an ad hom.
 
Iacchus said:
Do you believe that the Universe was founded upon something substantial or not? I say yes.
Click to expand...

False dilemma. There's no reason to assume the universe was "founded" in the first place.
 
Iacchus said:
Do you believe that the Universe was founded upon something substantial or not? I say yes.
Click to expand...
The question is meaningless. Founded? Why that verb? It implies more than coming into existence. Substantial? how are you defining that?
 
Mercutio said:
Only if I used it to try to make a logical point. As is, it is not an ad hom, it is an insult. Or, perhaps more technically, an insulting truth. An insulting conclusion based on the evidence of your posting history. But not an ad hom.
Click to expand...
You really do like to mince words don't you?
 
sphenisc said:
.... the laws of physics are 'discovered' rather than invented.
Click to expand...
For descriptive laws, how is this even a meaningful statement? The two, it seems to me (unless I am missing something) are the same. You could call what Einstein did "inventing", in that he came up with something that others did not...or "discovering", in that he discovered a description that more accurately fit the observations.

In neither case is something imposed which changes reality, so both seem to be equivalent.

And it seems that Belz meant his statement in agreement with what I said, in case it matters.
 
Mercutio said:
For descriptive laws, how is this even a meaningful statement? The two, it seems to me (unless I am missing something) are the same. You could call what Einstein did "inventing", in that he came up with something that others did not...or "discovering", in that he discovered a description that more accurately fit the observations.
Click to expand...
You've got a real big problem man. Do you doubt that any laws even exist? This is after all what we're describing, laws, right?
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
Neither is there any reason for us to be discussing it then, correct?
Click to expand...

Just because your cosmic sky daddy didn't "found" the universe, that does not mean we cannot gain knowledge from discussing it.

[Mercutio]You are quite simply wrong.[/Mercutio]
 
Cosmo said:
Just because your cosmic sky daddy didn't "found" the universe, that does not mean we cannot gain knowledge from discussing it.

[Mercutio]You are quite simply wrong.[/Mercutio]
Click to expand...
I believe the Universe was founded upon the principles of cause-and-effect which, are something quite substantial, in my opinion.
 
Mojo said:
Substantial, eh?

What would you say their mass is?
Click to expand...
And, if you're suggesting that there is nothing substantial behind your words, then what are you (and other folks around here) getting all worked up for? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
And, if you're suggesting that there is nothing substantial behind your words, then what are you (and folks around here) getting all worked up for? :confused:
Click to expand...
The trouble is that there is no substance behind your words. For example, when I asked you if you had any evidence that God exists and is responsible for the creation of the universe, you replied:
The whole Universe is chock full of evidence that the impossible exists.
Click to expand...
Would you care to back up this assertion and actually provide some of this evidence?
 
Iacchus said:
I believe the Universe was founded upon the principles of cause-and-effect which, are something quite substantial, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. To suggest the universe was 'founded' upon anything at all is little more than the anthropocentric egoism you're known quite well for.
 
Mercutio said:
For descriptive laws, how is this even a meaningful statement? The two, it seems to me (unless I am missing something) are the same. You could call what Einstein did "inventing", in that he came up with something that others did not...or "discovering", in that he discovered a description that more accurately fit the observations.

In neither case is something imposed which changes reality, so both seem to be equivalent.

And it seems that Belz meant his statement in agreement with what I said, in case it matters.
Click to expand...

If the two are the same, then why all the fuss about Iacchus' choice of language? The laws can be viewed as descriptive, having no external existence and invented; or as proscriptive, having an external existence and discovered. In the former the laws of physics change with increasing knowledge; in the latter the laws remain the same - our description of them improves.

This seems to be the difference in philosophical viewpoint between you and Belz. Though you both seem to agree you are saying 'the same thing'.

What is it you think Iacchus is saying that isn't simply saying the same thing from another perspective? (I confess I can't work it out from his posts directly).
 
sphenisc said:
If the two are the same, then why all the fuss about Iacchus' choice of language? The laws can be viewed as descriptive, having no external existence and invented; or as proscriptive, having an external existence and discovered. In the former the laws of physics change with increasing knowledge; in the latter the laws remain the same - our description of them improves.

This seems to be the difference in philosophical viewpoint between you and Belz. Though you both seem to agree you are saying 'the same thing'.

What is it you think Iacchus is saying that isn't simply saying the same thing from another perspective? (I confess I can't work it out from his posts directly).
Click to expand...
You have a different view of "proscriptive", which you perhaps share with Iacchus, and with which I disagree. Proscriptive laws make something illegal; they do not say what is possible, but what is forbidden. You can break a proscriptive law; if caught, you will pay the penalty.

These "existant and discovered" laws you speak of are not proscriptive. Things do what they do; we cannot, without circularity, claim any sort of law governing what they do (unless we find independent evidence, which is not the case thus far for the physical laws). We are left with descriptive laws, and these are descriptive whether you speak of them as invented or discovered.

The disagreement I have with Iacchus's choice of language (and perhaps yours) is that it is wrong. The universe does not follow or obey laws, it is describable by laws. To say the former circularly requires a lawmaker, and there is no evidence for any thus far that is not merely an inference from the thing allegedly caused. Circular, in other words.

Your use of "proscriptive" is not correct here; you are trying to tease apart two different definitions of "descriptive".
 
Iacchus said:
You've got a real big problem man. Do you doubt that any laws even exist? This is after all what we're describing, laws, right?
Click to expand...

They're called laws, but they weren't penned by some omnipotent god. That's not what "laws" means in this case. Read a damn book, Dolphin-man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom