My argument against materialism

[dlorde]

Sadly, 'Vevo' (whoever they are) has blocked that video on copyright grounds in this country.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Paper, On What?

Write a paper and submit it for peer review. Can you show me your maths for the above? It's nonsense,but I would be interested in seeing your equations.

People write scientific papers to report research or to introduce something new. I, as some others, would love to do it someday. There isn't anything really new in what I've presented, it's just a short explanation of mainstream physics for the benefit of some woo-theorists like you.

I suggested that PixyMisa write a paper because what she and others on this thread are saying is totally outside of known physics. She disagrees and insists that it's not new and commonly known to physicists. Okay, how come she can't cite a single specific reference. Here's the headline: "EM repulsion prevents Jupiter from becoming a neutron star." All I can say is "woo!"

I wrote in English, none of these ideas require any mathematics to convey. If you think I'm wrong, okay ... respond in English. Oh yes, ... include all of the mathematics you think you need to make your case. Your quick with the boos and insults ... now let's see what you can say about the physics in question.

After the posts are in ... this is going to SMT for evaluation and review.

 

[PixyMisa]

I suggested that PixyMisa write a paper because what she and others on this thread are saying is totally outside of known physics.

You couldn't be more wrong. Well, okay, you could be more wrong, as we've seen from others in this thread, but you couldn't be more wrong while still constructing a coherent sentence.

She disagrees and insists that it's not new and commonly known to physicists.

Not commonly. Universally.

Okay, how come she can't cite a single specific reference. Here's the headline: "EM repulsion prevents Jupiter from becoming a neutron star." All I can say is "woo!"

I did. All of mechanics is electromagnetism and gravity. What is planetary structure if not mechanics?

You accept that there's gravity at work on Jupiter, right? The gravitational force, attracting the matter inward?

By Newton's Laws of Motion, that inward force, if not counterbalanced, will result in an inward acceleration. That inward acceleration, if not counterbalanced, will not stop until Jupiter is reduced to a point mass - a black hole.

This isn't happening, so clearly there is a counterbalancing force.

What is that force?

It's not a hard question, kenkoskinen. There's only four forces, and three of them can't possibly be right.

What does that leave? Hmm?

 

[Robin]

You are of course free to believe that.

You believe it too because you say exactly the same thing in the next paragraph:

I no more know what an idealist's ideas are made of than you know what a materialist's quarks and bosons (the current "atom" level ala Democritus) are made of.

Exactly. Idealism is not an ontology. Materialism is not an ontology. Just as I said

What one chooses to believe at that level is one's of choice of ontology.

Name me one ontology that we have to choose from. You already ruled out Idealism and Materialism in the previous paragraph. What else do you think is an ontology?

 

[Trent Wray]

Sadly, 'Vevo' (whoever they are) has blocked that video on copyright grounds in this country.

That video needs to be let loose from the noose then.

 

[Robin]

I do understand your point, however I am seeking a "truth" of existence, this is what I am alluding to. In order to further this aim, I go beyond what the limitations of theory can say on this.

You will have to admit that both your question and you proposed method of answering it are pretty vague.

Should you ever find this truth, do you have in mind any method for verifying that it is, in fact, the truth?

Unfortunately due to a lack of time, my library currently in storage and living in a house I am renovating I have not been able to research this. I will eventually, as it should not be a difficult task.

I will just have to wait then.

Maybe one day, even, there will be a mystic who triumphantly comes up with the answer - "reality is X!".

Then I will ask "and what is X?".

And so the search will continue...

 

[laca]

I suggested that PixyMisa write a paper because what she and others on this thread are saying is totally outside of known physics. She disagrees and insists that it's not new and commonly known to physicists. Okay, how come she can't cite a single specific reference. Here's the headline: "EM repulsion prevents Jupiter from becoming a neutron star." All I can say is "woo!"

That is a strawman. IIRC, PixyMisa even acknowledged that there is not enough mass "near" Jupiter for a neutron star to form. The claim is that EM repulsion prevents Jupiter from collapsing/imploding into a black hole. Even though I'm not a physicist, the explanations given by PixyMisa and others have all been intuitively obvious and match my recollections from earlier physics classes.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yep. The question of course is, why does more mass make a difference? Just saying "not enough mass" is not any sort of answer.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Ontology is the philosophical discipline dedicated to answering the question "What the hell does 'ontology' mean?"

I was just thinking to myself, 'Hmmm, I must remember to look up 'ontology' again and see if I can remember what it means and be able to use it correctly. So your post made me laugh!!

 

[PixyMisa]

Ontology recapitulates philology.

 

[punshhh]

You will have to admit that both your question and you proposed method of answering it are pretty vague.

Should you ever find this truth, do you have in mind any method for verifying that it is, in fact, the truth?

I will just have to wait then.

Maybe one day, even, there will be a mystic who triumphantly comes up with the answer - "reality is X!".

Then I will ask "and what is X?".

And so the search will continue...

Yes this last point is an obstacle, I find myself coming full circle out of this consideration of what existence is or is made of and back to my position that existence is an illusion and that the concept of more than one* thing in existence is nonsensical.

*I don't actually mean one thing I mean no thing**, as one thing is actually two things, the thing and what is not the thing.

** by no thing I don't mean nothing, I mean a unity as opposed to a duality.

This unity by a mysterious process generates the illusion of existence.

 

[punshhh]

Talk about poisoning the well. Have you stopped beating your wife? What does the event horizon of the formless mean and why are you avoiding that question? Are you ready to admit that is a meaningless phrase? If not,please elucidate.

I am serious we see existence through monkey coloured glasses.

Ok, the event horizon of the formless is one way of describing an idea I use which is trying to reconcile the infinite and the finite. By imagining the middle ground between the two, you have infinity in the middle like a black hole or singularity or a worm hole.

This has an event horizon around it which in a multi dimensional sense contains all finite forms and the whole thing looks a bit like an ear horn.

Now we just need babel fish to translate this into scientific terminology.

I'm off on a walking holiday now "see" you in a weeks time.

 

[PixyMisa]

I am serious we see existence through monkey coloured glasses.

Baloney. The reason you have such desperate trouble with science is precisely because it addresses reality as we observe it, rather than what you might like to think reality is.

Ok, the event horizon of the formless is one way of describing an idea I use which is trying to reconcile the infinite and the finite. By imagining the middle ground between the two, you have infinity in the middle like a black hole or singularity or a worm hole.

No, you just have drivel.

This has an event horizon around it which in a multi dimensional sense contains all finite forms and the whole thing looks a bit like an ear horn.

No.

Now we just need babel fish to translate this into scientific terminology.

There is no translation from nonsense to sense. Translating sense into nonsense is, unfortunately, all too easy.

 

[punshhh]

Baloney. The reason you have such desperate trouble with science is precisely because it addresses reality as we observe it, rather than what you might like to think reality is.

No, you just have drivel.

No.

There is no translation from nonsense to sense. Translating sense into nonsense is, unfortunately, all too easy.

My point about monkey coloured glasses is regarding the philosophical discipline of materialism, not science.

Science is objective, so to a large extent immune to this influence.

I am not surprised that you are unable to appreciate thought constructs for the purposes of contemplation. You should try it sometime its great fun.

One of my favourite ones is the dice in the singularity of the BBE, with an infinte number of sides which it can land on. I wonder if God really does play dice afterall.

 

[laca]

Yes this last point is an obstacle, I find myself coming full circle out of this consideration of what existence is or is made of and back to my position that existence is an illusion and that the concept of more than one* thing in existence is nonsensical.

*I don't actually mean one thing I mean no thing**, as one thing is actually two things, the thing and what is not the thing.

** by no thing I don't mean nothing, I mean a unity as opposed to a duality.

This unity by a mysterious process generates the illusion of existence.

Just one question for you, punshhh. Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

 

[PixyMisa]

My point about monkey coloured glasses is regarding the philosophical discipline of materialism, not science.

Science is objective, so to a large extent immune to this influence.

The problem is that you have no grasp of what materialism is, as shown by your incessant asking of questions that are meaningless under materialism.

I am not surprised that you are unable to appreciate thought constructs for the purposes of contemplation.

You haven't proposed any thought constructs. You've proposed thought failures. It's not that I can't appreciate them, it's that they are meaningless.

You should try it sometime its great fun.

No, it's not fun. It's not anything, except a waste of time.

 

[PixyMisa]

laca, that's an excellent question.

punshhh?

 

[SusanB-M1]

Ontology recapitulates philology.

*takes a quick look at wikipedia before responding*

Thank you! I'll read more later.
I do enjoy reading your replies of course, and I'm beginning to consider whether I might even just have a try at answering those questions.......!!

 

[dafydd]

I am serious we see existence through monkey coloured glasses.

Ok, the event horizon of the formless is one way of describing an idea I use which is trying to reconcile the infinite and the finite. By imagining the middle ground between the two, you have infinity in the middle like a black hole or singularity or a worm hole.

This has an event horizon around it which in a multi dimensional sense contains all finite forms and the whole thing looks a bit like an ear horn.

Now we just need babel fish to translate this into scientific terminology.

I'm off on a walking holiday now "see" you in a weeks time.

I don't think that babel fish can translate babble.

 

[dafydd]

My point about monkey coloured glasses is regarding the philosophical discipline of materialism, not science.

Science is objective, so to a large extent immune to this influence.

I am not surprised that you are unable to appreciate thought constructs for the purposes of contemplation. You should try it sometime its great fun.

One of my favourite ones is the dice in the singularity of the BBE, with an infinte number of sides which it can land on. I wonder if God really does play dice afterall.

First you have to prove that this god exists. Are you talking about the christian god,Allah,or maybe one of the Hindu pantheon?