• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

The nature of things

2 + 2 = 4

There, you have just observed it.



Ooh, let me try!

For exsanguination purposes, I navigate to philately.

Hey, this is fun! ;)

Actually no, I have seen a representation of the concept of two surmised with itself through a process of equation somehow create a new concept of four. You have shown me numbers, not the concepts- which are unobservable.
 
If there are things which exist an things which don't exist, what is it that prevents those things from existing? Is it because they simply aren't possible?


The problem is that you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of "energy." The things you want energy to do are simply not possible. Now, having a philosophical debate is all well and good, but if the very premises on which the debate is based are impossible, then the debate has no meaning.

For example, I once got into a very, very heated exchange with someone about whether the Enterprise was "powered" by dilithium crystals. I contended that the Enterprise was powered by an antimatter-matter reaction; dilithium just held the antimatter before the reaction. However, this debate was meaningless. It could not possibly result in any sort of "right" answer or any deeper understanding of anything because dilithium does not exist.

Similarly, "complex" energy does not exist. My advice to you is that you invest in a library card and learn all about the nature of electricity, light and other types of energy. Then you'll have a real, factual basis on which to build a philosophy.


The step from matter to life is certainly a big one- but (might) occurs far more frequently (maybe?) then the step from life to sentient life. At any event, the step to sentient life is a big one, and it seemed reasonable at the time to try and accredit it to what seemed the process of adding complexity to energy via the concurrently (by necessity) developing matter.


You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of matter. Life is not more complex than non-life and sentient life is not more complex than regular life. As far as the universe is concerned, everything is just clumps of atoms. The idea that we are at the pinnacle of the evolution of the universe is an anthropomorphic fallacy. The fact that we exist does not mean that our existance is special. It only means that we exist.

Grab some physics textbooks and get to work. It looks like you've got a lot of reading to do.
 
I'm just curious LTABN.
Have you noticed a theme as to...well, just about everyone's advice to you?
 
That's pretty spot on- though I don't know about the therefore God part.

If there are things which exist an things which don't exist, what is it that prevents those things from existing?
Now that depends there is possible, plausible, highly unlikely and impossible.

So some things arenj't there just because they didn't, some aren't there because they can't.

Some things we doubt exist because there is no evidence.
Is it because they simply aren't possible? That's where I start to get confused, on why things can't be possible. We may be limited conceptually in what we can create or reproduce, even with umpteen thousand years more of scientific advancement, but what about the rules of the universe prevents raw energy from forming in ways which would be seemingly inconsistent with the rest of the universe?
Nothing, however it doesn't appear to happen, the laws of the universe seem to be very consistent back in time, as such things can be measured.
Or, have they simply not occurred yet?
depends if they are highly unlikely or impossible.
I don't know, but trying to boil down some identifiable properties or patterns that were consistent not only at the most basic level, but through out the chain of creation seemed a good place to begin a string of theories, or even simple SWAGs off of.

The step from matter to life is certainly a big one- but (might) occurs far more frequently (maybe?) then the step from life to sentient life. At any event, the step to sentient life is a big one, and it seemed reasonable at the time to try and accredit it to what seemed the process of adding complexity to energy via the concurrently (by necessity) developing matter.

Huh, I can't don't get that.

Complexity of interaction within the arrangement of matter?
 
Actually no, I have seen a representation of the concept of two surmised with itself through a process of equation somehow create a new concept of four. You have shown me numbers, not the concepts- which are unobservable.

Well, except it doesn't matter, you don't know your concepts either, you communicate them with yourself, but you can be no more sure of taht than your ability to communicate them with others.

No human thought, words, construct or concept is true or real, they are all approximate models of the behavior of reality.

So all human words and thoughts are equally true and equally false, some are very valid descriptions of reality, others are not.
 
Actually no, I have seen a representation of the concept of two surmised with itself through a process of equation somehow create a new concept of four. You have shown me numbers, not the concepts- which are unobservable.

So when you said this:

I am a philosopher. I have no shame in admitting to belief beyond the observable, as not all things are observer-able. I absolutely love meta-physics and meta-ethics; and am posting under the philosophy string of the forum.

You were talking about mathematics?
 

Back
Top Bottom