Creationists going after the "atomic model"...

[hammegk]

I say that a quark is a useful concept that may be related to reality or it may not.

Er, Idealistically, or Materially?

I tend to set the bar low for life, organisms capable of reproduction and replication.

That sounds more like crystallization.

Space is around us, the confusing question is why three dimensions?

3, 4, 11, who's counting?


I note your plum-pudding Quark Containment Field smacks of being "aether". (Or is it Higgs?)

 

[Dancing David]

It would have to be stronger than pudding or aether, since you can't seperate quarks, we don't know if there is a distance effect after the hyberbolic one. I thought the current theory was a rubber band one? (So if you find a really small cigar box you can make a quark banjo)

I like to think there are three expanding fields which create the known universe(I stole that from Kabalah, there is no rational reason), quarks are held together because the universe expands around them

But isn't it a moot point, since they can't be 'naked' quarks they are relegated to the state of perpetual theory.

That would be 'materialisticaly', I don't know what an 'idealist' would think, I save my idealism for my work.

 

[hammegk]

Oh Upchurch, where are you?

 

[Upchurch]

Oh Upchurch, where are you?

Sorry, missed your response.

You believe you "know" anything with more certainty than that *you* think? How?

Here we go again. I didn't say knew anything with more certainty than "I think". I said that "I think" is still only an assumption. You are holding things to a double standard of evidence. You're saying that you don't know that anything is true or real because it could be an illusion, but you're confident that "hammegk thinks" isn't an illusion with no more evidence than anything else. Ultimately, if you leave the option open that everything might be an illusion, you must also consider that you, yourself, might also be an illusion. Especially since you cannot know with 100% certainty who "hammegk" is and what it means to "think", as experessed earlier.

The tautology that *I* think, or conversely *Ithink* is the thought of another seem apparent. What other "possibility" do you suggest? (Remember, *I* think all of us homo saps -- & probably all "life" "thinks".)

Well, just as I said, that the concept of self (or "I") is just an illusion or that thought, itself, is not really thought but the illusion of thought. I'm not saying it's true, but I am saying that with the level of scrutiny that you're applying, it's just as much a possibility as "hammegk thinks"

It is irrelevent, because your point is that you are 100% sure that "I [hammegk] thnk" not whether "Upchurch thinks".

A strange position. You intend to live your life according to "hammegk" thinking? Weird!

I would agree if that were my position. However, once again, that isn't what I said. You said that the only data point you had that was 100% certain was that "I [hammegk] think". I showed how you weren't 100% certain of that after all since you are not 100% of each of the components of that assertion. My point being, if you are going to reject science because it is not 100% knowledgable about all things in the universe and then except one concept without yourself having 100% of it, then you are a hypocrite. Further your assertion that there is something fundamentally wrong with science based on this hypocracy is incorrect.

Regarding "matter", the closer we look at it the less of it there is -- nothin' here but empty space -- which is the forest & which is the tree?

So, just because matter/energy looks differently the closer you look at it, it's no longer matter/energy? Shall we apply that logic to other situations?

But you have, at no time, shown that any premise of science is incorrect nor that science has a systemic problem that renders it invalid.

The one we are discussing is that "objective reality exists" -- your subjective judgement.

No, I believe we were talking about the foundations of science. Of which you still have shown no fundamental flaw.

96+3+1=100 is too tough to follow? The original comment I made was from an article in the Rocky Mtn News (Denver) of 2-3 weeks ago.

Explain to me then what the difference is between "dark energy" and "mysterious energy", which makes up 99% of your estimates there.

At last, a man who is going to define "energy" for me. Is a photon mass, or energy? Various flavors of neutrinos? etcetc.

I leave to someone who describes it better than I can. Energy

You're statement that "what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%" is blatently incorrect, mathematically. Thus, the Fallacy of Mathematical Error is there, as I said.

Umm, no.

Umm, yes.

100-96=4 too tough to follow? You said that according to science, 96% of the universe is comprised of unknown dark matter/dark energy. Further, that matter comprises 1% of the universe and energy comprises 3%. Since that 3% energy is not unknown, it is not dark energy, so it does not get added to the 96% of dark matter/ dark energy. Further the same science that suggests dark matter/dark energy exists also shows that matter and energy are the same thing. So, what science calls "matter" is really "matter/energy" and that comprises 100%-96%=4% of the universe

I absolutely did not say that mathematics is reality. Mathematics describe reality. It is the most descriptive language we have for describing and predicting the behavior of reality.

What sort of "matter" do we use to make math? Will math cease to exist if homo sap disappears?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Does mathematics have it's own independent existance from humanity? No more than any other language does except that mathematics has an additional basis in observations of reality rather than other languages which are based solely on subjective consensous of the users of the language.

You dislike the implication of your stance?

You forget yourself. I, unlike you, have not given anyone premision to put words in my mouth or to interpret what I mean. I mean what I say and I did not state anything about materialism. Regardless, my position on materialism has nothing to do with your assertion that science has an as yet unnamed flaw. Thus, your attempt to create a position for me is a straw man.

So, you must ask yourself, is your lack of trust in science based in a fundamental problem with science or your inability to understand it? I doubt you fully understand what the premises of science are since you can not explain to me why it is flawed.

Or you could discuss Quark Bonding.

And what, please, does one have to do with the other?

Incidently, I find you constant attempts to avoid pointing out the actual fundamental flaw in science a little tiring. Please either do so and back up your claim or lets drop it and get on with our lives, shall we? There are much more interesting threads going on right now than watching try to hem and haw your way out of this...

My worry is not with the "independently". Is yours?

Of course. It is one of the ways that objectivity and validity are assured.

 

[hammegk]

Here we go again. I didn't say knew anything with more certainty than "I think". I said that "I think" is still only an assumption. You are holding things to a double standard of evidence. You're saying that you don't know that anything is true or real because it could be an illusion, but you're confident that "hammegk thinks" isn't an illusion with no more evidence than anything else. Ultimately, if you leave the option open that everything might be an illusion, you must also consider that you, yourself, might also be an illusion. Especially since you cannot know with 100% certainty who "hammegk" is and what it means to "think", as experessed earlier.

You continue to miss the fact that if *I* think is an illusion, something, thinking, is responsible.

Well, just as I said, that the concept of self (or "I") is just an illusion or that thought, itself, is not really thought but the illusion of thought. I'm not saying it's true, but I am saying that with the level of scrutiny that you're applying, it's just as much a possibility as "hammegk thinks"

Whatever *I* might be, it has no apparent-to-me connection to "self"; self seems to be completely tied up with the perceived bag-o-bones *I* thinks of as *me*.

I would agree if that were my position. However, once again, that isn't what I said. You said that the only data point you had that was 100% certain was that "I [hammegk] think". I showed how you weren't 100% certain of that after all since you are not 100% of each of the components of that assertion. My point being, if you are going to reject science because it is not 100% knowledgable about all things in the universe and then except one concept without yourself having 100% of it, then you are a hypocrite. Further your assertion that there is something fundamentally wrong with science based on this hypocracy is incorrect.

Interesting. I don't recall ever saying that there is anything "fundamentally wrong" with science. My complaint is with scientists who overstep their bounds of knowledge. Note that I don't give you what you want which is agreement that "an objective, material, world exists".

So, just because matter/energy looks differently the closer you look at it, it's no longer matter/energy? Shall we apply that logic to other situations?

Different would be ok; the fact is that the closer & closer we look the less & less of materiality exists. "Energy" is more interesting.

No, I believe we were talking about the foundations of science. Of which you still have shown no fundamental flaw.

Just our disagreement as to correctness of your subjective, unprovable, fundamental axiom.

Explain to me then what the difference is between "dark energy" and "mysterious energy", which makes up 99% of your estimates there.

Let's see; 96% dark matter&energy, 3% energy as we think we might understand it, 1% matter as we think we understand it.

I leave to someone who describes it better than I can. Energy

Try to get your mind around "abstract concept". If I ask you to define ice-cream & you tell me it comes in vanilla, chocolate & some other flavors, did you "define" it? No.

I absolutely did not say that mathematics is reality. Mathematics describe reality. It is the most descriptive language we have for describing and predicting the behavior of reality.

At least as useful -- I'd say more so -- than "energy" (or "matter").

You forget yourself. I, unlike yourself, have not given anyone premision to put words in my mouth or to interpret what I mean. I mean what I say and I did not state anything about materialism. Regardless, my position on materialism has nothing to do with your assertion that science has an as yet unnamed flaw. Thus, your attempt to create a position for me is a straw man.

Yes, I know how difficult it is to accept your tacit understandings. Do you actually believe your stance as a "materialist" has nothing to do with this discussion?

And what, please, does one have to do with the other?

Good question that neither of us knows the answer to.

Incidently, I find you constant attempts to avoid pointing out the actual fundamental flaw in science a little tiring. Please either do so and back up your claim or lets drop it and get on with our lives, shall we? There are much more interesting threads going on right now than watching try to hem and haw your way out of this...

You choice.

Of course. It is one of the ways that objectivity and validity are assured.

And how will you demonstrate to anyones' satisfaction other than your own that you are not-- in one case -- a well programmed Turing machine, or as a meat-machine, standard issue p-zombie?

Answer: you can't.

 

[Upchurch]

You continue to miss the fact that if *I* think is an illusion, something, thinking, is responsible.

Fact? That's not a fact, or rather not a proven fact. It is another assumption you've made. And it must be an assumption on your part because you believe that "hammegk thinks". How could you know there is something else thinking if you have never not been thinking to test this hypothesis of yours?

Regardless, why must there be something else thinking in order for you to have the illusion of thought? Would it not be possible that illusion of thought is a result of natural processes?

It seems that the more we explore this, the less you sure you are that "hammegk thinks". Why else have you come up with this alternate hypothesis?

Whatever *I* might be, it has no apparent-to-me connection to "self"; self seems to be completely tied up with the perceived bag-o-bones *I* thinks of as *me*.

The "self" has to do only with the physical body, huh? So when I said, "You forget yourself", did you think I saying that you left your body somewhere?

So, what, are you just making up definitions for words now?

Interesting. I don't recall ever saying that there is anything "fundamentally wrong" with science.

Allow me to remind you then, since everything we've said is stored earlier in this thread. You said,"Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?" By questioning the basis for science, you are suggesting that there is a flaw in that basis. Remember now?

My complaint is with scientists who overstep their bounds of knowledge.

I'd love to know what legitimate scientists you think is actually oversteping the bounds of their fields, but that's a topic for another thread.

Note that I don't give you what you want which is agreement that "an objective, material, world exists".

When did I ask you for agreement for that? I'm beginning to wonder about your memory. Perhaps you should go back and reread the thread?

Different would be ok; the fact is that the closer & closer we look the less & less of materiality exists. "Energy" is more interesting.

And why do you assume that only matter, and not energy, is material? Have I not been telling you over and over that the same science that allows you to know what it is like to look closer and closer also shows that matter and energy are the same thing? That little tid bit of knowledge is almost 100 years old. Surely I'm not the only one who has told you this? Is this a hard concept for you or are you just being stubborn? Why are you selectively picking and choosing only the scientific results that support your choosen world view?

Or did I just answer my own question?

Just our disagreement as to correctness of your subjective, unprovable, fundamental axiom.

And what, pray tell, axiom is that?

Let's see; 96% dark matter&energy, 3% energy as we think we might understand it, 1% matter as we think we understand it.

So, we have the same level of understanding of energy as we do matter (which, I will point out again, is the same thing). And yet, you originally stated that science really only understood 1% of what the universe was made out of as opposed to the 4% you just described.

In case you weren't aware, 1 doesn't equal 4.

Try to get your mind around "abstract concept". If I ask you to define ice-cream & you tell me it comes in vanilla, chocolate & some other flavors, did you "define" it? No.

Now you're just being pissy.

You're telling me that if I tell you what all the incrediants of ice cream are, it's temperature, what it feels like, how it tastes, how it smells, what it looks like, etc. I haven't defined it?

Tell me then, if describing something in excruciating detail doesn't define it, what does then?

Yes, I know how difficult it is to accept your tacit understandings. Do you actually believe your stance as a "materialist" has nothing to do with this discussion?

Do you actually believe that I am a strict materialist? Do you actually believe you know what my position is? I said that "my position on materialism" has nothing to do with this discussion, not "my position as a materialist" has nothing to do with this discussion.

This is why I don't let you interpret or extrapolate what I say. You suck at it, primarily because you keep assert your own assumptions over what is presented to you.

You choice.

So, you aren't going to support your claim that the basis of science is somehow weak? Why am I not surprised?

And how will you demonstrate to anyones' satisfaction other than your own that you are not-- in one case -- a well programmed Turing machine, or as a meat-machine, standard issue p-zombie?

Answer: you can't.

That's right.

Now, how are you going to prove to yourself that you are not any of those things? According to the standard of proof that you hold for "material reality", if you are honest and consistant, the only way you can is to choose to believe the evidence that you, hammegk, actually think. So the one "data point" you have is only 100% certain because you want it to be 100% certain, not because it is 100% certain.

Now, if we're done with this maybe you can list out those scientists who are over-reaching the scopes of their fields?

 

[Upchurch]

So, you aren't going to support your claim that the basis of science is somehow weak? Why am I not surprised?

Reading back, I remembered why I wasn't surprised. I already figured this out just a little under a month ago:

Orignially posted by Upchurch on Page 1

Okay. So, hammegk doesn't have the balls to explicitely state what he thinks. Since I'm forced to interpret his statements, the one above implies that the reason he has no balls whatsoever is because he knows his philisophical stance is extremely weak and can't stand up to scrutiny.

Got it. Thanks for clearing that up, "hammie"

Alas, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it....

 

[hammegk]

[

Fact? That's not a fact, or rather not a proven fact. It is another assumption you've made. And it must be an assumption on your part because you believe that "hammegk thinks". .....It seems that the more we explore this, the less you sure you are that "hammegk thinks".

OK, I'm willing to stipulate that you are a p-zombie, or at least a good Turing machine. No thought required for you at all.

In my own case, we will have to disagree.

The "self" has to do only with the physical body, huh? So when I said, "You forget yourself", did you think I saying that you left your body somewhere?

So, what, are you just making up definitions for words now?

Either "self" is just part & parcel of *me*, or alternate memory, mirroring brain storage has another copy. Could be, but seems over-complicated.

Allow me to remind you then, since everything we've said is stored earlier in this thread. You said,"Better to ask, if the the universe is 96% dark matter/energy -- all of which can only be inferred to exist & not directly "seen"-- and what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?" By questioning the basis for science, you are suggesting that there is a flaw in that basis. Remember now?

Do your "assertions" have a question mark following them?

I'd love to know what legitimate scientists you think is actually oversteping the bounds of their fields, but that's a topic for another thread.

Already answered: "Materialists who say science is the only answer".

When did I ask you for agreement for that? I'm beginning to wonder about your memory. Perhaps you should go back and reread the thread?

Or perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the nuances of your stance.

And why do you assume that only matter, and not energy, is material? Have I not been telling you over and over that the same science that allows you to know what it is like to look closer and closer also shows that matter and energy are the same thing? That little tid bit of knowledge is almost 100 years old. Surely I'm not the only one who has told you this? Is this a hard concept for you or are you just being stubborn? Why are you selectively picking and choosing only the scientific results that support your choosen world view?

Or did I just answer my own question?

Well, if you consider "matter" is also an abstract concept(as your authoritive source agrees energy is) -- as I do -- what are we arguing about?

And what, pray tell, axiom is that?

Something about an existing, objective world... ring a bell?

In case you weren't aware, 1 doesn't equal 4.

So true, and thanks.

Now you're just being pissy.

No sir. I am pointing out that -- were it possible to define "energy" -- that would be of great assistance to defending a materialist world-view.

Tell me then, if describing something in excruciating detail doesn't define it, what does then?

Are you beginning to sense your problem? That's the nice thing about *I* think. I at least know first-hand what I mean. Do you have the same warm, fuzzy, thoughts about your, or anyone elses' understanding of "energy". I say again, why not state that math is reality.

Do you actually believe that I am a strict materialist? Do you actually believe you know what my position is? I said that "my position on materialism" has nothing to do with this discussion, not "my position as a materialist" has nothing to do with this discussion.

Well, goody; if you are not a materialist, what are you? I'm actually discussing a postion I "have faith in". What are you doing?

That's right.

And that is a problem I'd say you will never overcome. Again, convincing myself is my interest, thanks. And yup, "I Think". Sorry for your personal confusion about whatever is going on with *you*.

 

[Upchurch]

All that and no argument save "I'll believe what I want to believe, so there "

Good luck to you, hammegk. I hope you can keep yourself from walking into too many walls. After all, none of this really exists in your make-believe land, right?

 

[hammegk]

Uppie, the depth of your absolute & continual mis-understanding of my position is mind-boggling. Walk into walls! What bs on your part. I have no trouble with The 'Yahzi' ball-bat test.

I agree; enough of this, here and now anyway.

 

[Dancing David]

So hammegk:
I am a firm believer in the scientific method and have found that it can be useful in all areas of the human realm.

There seems to be an implicit gap here.

Why do I believe that the material world exists? (note I state that as a belief)

When someone or some loved animals dies, the world does not flicker and disappear and then reapper, it seems to survive consiousness expiring.

When I look at the Andromeda galaxy I am seeing photons that have propagated for over 30,000,000 years, long before human consiousness.

So where is the gap in the consistancy of belief in the 'objective' universe?
I have reason to believe that it existed at least thirty million years ago, I have strong reason to believe it will exist afetr I die.
Ergo there is something there, that may defy total explanation, but there is approximate explanation, ie science.

I have yet to meet a concept that can't be put to the scientific approximation.

 

[hammegk]

Dancing David, consider this.

What does our shared perception of human and/or animal "consciousness" have to do with Idealism? None in my view.

BTW, I think the 13-16 billion yrs is a good scientific estimate. Also, I agree a "perceived, material" world exists. You believe it based on the Material, I do not.

If your materialist views allow your answers to free-will, HPC, etc to be logically satisfying to you, so be it.

 

[Dancing David]

hamme I could tell you , if I understood what idealism was. the last discussion between you and Loki was beyond my ability to look at the screen, so I could only read part, I am thinking about trying to print it out.

I am glad to read that you accept the surface idea that an objective reality exists.

I probably would accept most of idealism, but Ian at least hasn't given a decent decription.

Thanks.

Edited:
PS: I am fortunatly not encumbered by the thought process, most of life and science is illogical. So I am not sure where logic fits in my life.

Like I said I save my idealism for work!