Does Matter Really Exist?

[Belz...]

What, are you suggesting that the (physical) Universe exists within the parameters of something else? Yes, this has been my contention all along.

I suppose you could see it that way. However, how you interpret that "something else" is quite different from my interpretation, or from what the available evidence seems to suggest.

A good way to know if you're looking at things objectively is this: can you think of an exemple of evidence that would make you change your mind about what you believe ? If you answer "NO", then you're not being rational.

 

[Belz...]

Okay, "domain" versus "sub-domain." Or, I will consider trying to put it into those terms.

Using these terms, it would certainly appear more reasonable to say that the universe is a "sub-domain" of the spacetime foam than to say it's "inside" it.

 

[Iacchus]

Using these terms, it would certainly appear more reasonable to say that the universe is a "sub-domain" of the spacetime foam than to say it's "inside" it.

No, I do in fact believe the Universe exists inside of (the parameters of) something else. Are you saying that a "sub-domain" does not mean this?

 

[bruto]

Which in effect is an assumption on your part that I don't know what I'm talking about ... while admittedly, I agree, it may sound unbelievable.

Your continual, obstinate inability to comprehend and use the most basic building blocks of algebra and symbolic logic (i.e. the idea of what set is and what a subset is) is not an issue of being believable or unbelievable, especially when you have repeatedly asserted with a rather high degree of arrogance that your notions are correct when they are emphatically, totally, and irretrievably incorrect. It is an issue of being just plain wrong, and using terms that you do not understand: in short, not knowing what you are talking about.

I do not think it an entirely far fetched notion to suggest that if you cannot understand these basic ideas, your understanding of anything to do with logic, and any assertion you make which requires logic, can be suspected of relying on an inadequate understanding.

 

[Iacchus]

Your continual, obstinate inability to comprehend and use the most basic building blocks of algebra and symbolic logic (i.e. the idea of what set is and what a subset is) is not an issue of being believable or unbelievable, especially when you have repeatedly asserted with a rather high degree of arrogance that your notions are correct when they are emphatically, totally, and irretrievably incorrect. It is an issue of being just plain wrong, and using terms that you do not understand: in short, not knowing what you are talking about.

In the most "formal" of situations, perhaps.

I do not think it an entirely far fetched notion to suggest that if you cannot understand these basic ideas, your understanding of anything to do with logic, and any assertion you make which requires logic, can be suspected of relying on an inadequate understanding.

However, I think most people know where I'm coming from. So there really is no excuse for you to continue is there? Or, do you fail to understand what I'm saying here?

 

[bruto]

In the most "formal" of situations, perhaps.

However, I think most people know where I'm coming from. So there really is no excuse for you to continue is there? Or, do you fail to understand what I'm saying here?

Iacchus, you based an entire thread on the assertion that the expression "E=MC squared" is a set that contains as subsets, E, M and C. How "formal" does a situation have to be before you are just, plain wrong? It's you who choose the terms you use. If you actually believe that it is excessively "formal" to demand that a statement be true rather than false when read as if it were stated in standard English, I think it betrays a laxity of thought and standards too low to qualify your arguments as substantive or worthy of serious thought. For all I know you may be a thinker with brilliant insights. Your ideas may be perfect. Your philosophy may be true (I doubt all three, but acknowledge at least the possibility). But your way of expressing it is defective.

I have a feeling I do know where you're coming from. I think that you are wrong, and that much of what you are saying is nonsense. I believe what you are saying here is nonsense in part because you casually redefine common concepts and words to fit your purpose without apparently realizing or acknowledging that you are doing it, and even go so far as to demand that your errors be accepted as correct. This betrays at the very least carelessness, and suggests that you do not understand the subject you are expounding on. You cannot expect people to take such sloppy thought and expression as if it were serious and profound.

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus, you based an entire thread on the assertion that the expression "E=MC squared" is a set that contains as subsets, E, M and C. How "formal" does a situation have to be before you are just, plain wrong? It's you who choose the terms you use. If you actually believe that it is excessively "formal" to demand that a statement be true rather than false when read as if it were stated in standard English, I think it betrays a laxity of thought and standards too low to qualify your arguments as substantive or worthy of serious thought. For all I know you may be a thinker with brilliant insights. Your ideas may be perfect. Your philosophy may be true (I doubt all three, but acknowledge at least the possibility). But your way of expressing it is defective.

I amend things when necessary, and am in the process of doing so regarding this thing about "subsets." Okay?

I have a feeling I do know where you're coming from. I think that you are wrong, and that much of what you are saying is nonsense. I believe what you are saying here is nonsense in part because you casually redefine common concepts and words to fit your purpose without apparently realizing or acknowledging that you are doing it, and even go so far as to demand that your errors be accepted as correct. This betrays at the very least carelessness, and suggests that you do not understand the subject you are expounding on. You cannot expect people to take such sloppy thought and expression as if it were serious and profound.

I am a mystic. I have a different perspective, yet my source of information comes from the same source as everyone else's, from somewhere inside the mind. This "is" the beginning of the human perspective. Now, can you find fault with the way I've expressed this or, do you simply disagree with it? You really shouldn't let the one interfere with the other.

 

[Mercutio]

I amend things when necessary, and am in the process of doing so regarding this thing about "subsets." Okay?

How long ago did you write your "book"? How much have you amended since you wrote it? Have you ever amended it based on the arguments which people have given here? (You certainly should have...)

I am a mystic. I have a different perspective, yet my source of information comes from the same source as everyone else's, from somewhere inside the mind. This "is" the beginning of the human perspective. Now, can you find fault with the way I've expressed this or, do you simply disagree with it? You really shouldn't let the one interfere with the other.

If there is fault with the way you have expressed it, we cannot know if we disagree with it. This is why the words are so important.

For instance...if you rsource of information is inside your mind, how do you know that is the same source as everyone else's? How can you know, if your information is from within yourself and not of the outside world, where "everyone else" is? Of course, your solution will be to assert that "inside your mind" is where everything, including the outside world, is. When you are free to redefine words at a whim, you can make them jump through hoops if you like. But they no longer mean what they once did...

 

[Iacchus]

How long ago did you write your "book"? How much have you amended since you wrote it? Have you ever amended it based on the arguments which people have given here? (You certainly should have...)

I have not mentioned anything regarding "subsets" in my book.

If there is fault with the way you have expressed it, we cannot know if we disagree with it. This is why the words are so important.

Please ... And then again if I didn't attempt to put it into words, there would be nothing to bitch and moan about would there?

For instance...if you rsource of information is inside your mind, how do you know that is the same source as everyone else's? How can you know, if your information is from within yourself and not of the outside world, where "everyone else" is?

No, the mind is more of a receptor, of which information is "filtered through" from other sources.

Of course, your solution will be to assert that "inside your mind" is where everything, including the outside world, is.

Actually, no. The "experience" of the outside world is in there, as is the experience the mystics often claim to adhere to ... the information of which, in my opinion, is filtered in from other (external) sources. It would have to be, in order for the mystic's claim to be valid.

When you are free to redefine words at a whim, you can make them jump through hoops if you like. But they no longer mean what they once did...

Hmm ... Do you mean like dolphins jumping through hoops at Marine World?

 

[bruto]

I amend things when necessary, and am in the process of doing so regarding this thing about "subsets." Okay?

Okay. I hope that in the process of amending you also do some understanding. Your insistence on putting the word "subsets" in quotation marks suggests that you still consider its meaning putative. This is a bad habit.

I am a mystic. I have a different perspective, yet my source of information comes from the same source as everyone else's, from somewhere inside the mind. This "is" the beginning of the human perspective. Now, can you find fault with the way I've expressed this or, do you simply disagree with it? You really shouldn't let the one interfere with the other.

I simply disagree, but I also believe that what you are saying does not actually make much sense, though that may be because I am not a phenomenalist. I do not believe that I get all my information from within my mind, but that the world I inhabit is a real one which I experience as a thing which is, for the most part at least, outside of myself.

You certainly have a different perspective. Perspective is necessary to avoid being overwhelmed by undifferentiated experience, but perspective, don't forget, can be a form of distortion. Those tracks don't really meet at the horizon, you know.

In any case, I believe you rely far too much on your own mind as the source of information that is better acquired from outside. If you rely on a private lexicon to describe your private world you will make poor arguments.

Of course if you are a mystic, your position cannot really be argued. As far as I can see it cannot be disproven, but as you must have heard somewhere by now, a thing that cannot even in principle be falsified cannot in principle be proven. Your position appears to be impervious to logic. Now if you do not agree with that last sentence, feel free to challenge it, but that can be done meaningfully only by actually practicing logical discourse in a logical way, and that cannot be done using language as carelessly or as idiosyncratically as you are accustomed to doing.

By the way, do the quotation marks around "is" above demarcate it as a special kind of "is?" A Clintonian one, perhaps, open to multiple interpretations? Is even the fundamental term of existence only putative, or is this a special newfangled "is" from your private dictionary?

Just in case you have remained blissfully unaware of common usage, I will point out that, in addition to the regular denotative use of quotation marks, such as denoting an actual quotation or a word or phrase that has just been referred to (see the end of this sentence for an example of the latter), writers frequently enclose a word in quotation marks as a form of disparagement, a punctuational equivalent of the phrase "so-called." I might, for example, refer condescendingly to <Iacchus and his "philosophy"> as a way of making it clear that I think your so-called philosophy is [well, rule 8 forbids me, of course, from using the word]. If this is not your intent when you enclose words in quotation marks, you should probably drop the habit. It's a bad habit anyway.

 

[Iacchus]

Okay. I hope that in the process of amending you also do some understanding. Your insistence on putting the word "subsets" in quotation marks suggests that you still consider its meaning putative. This is a bad habit.

Really, then why did you just put the word "subset" into quotes yourself?

I simply disagree, but I also believe that what you are saying does not actually make much sense, though that may be because I am not a phenomenalist. I do not believe that I get all my information from within my mind, but that the world I inhabit is a real one which I experience as a thing which is, for the most part at least, outside of myself.

Never said this wasn't the case.

You certainly have a different perspective. Perspective is necessary to avoid being overwhelmed by undifferentiated experience, but perspective, don't forget, can be a form of distortion. Those tracks don't really meet at the horizon, you know.

I certainly have a different "set" of experiences.

In any case, I believe you rely far too much on your own mind as the source of information that is better acquired from outside. If you rely on a private lexicon to describe your private world you will make poor arguments.

I'm saying that in order for a mystical experience to be valid, it has to come from some place other than "within" the mind, meaning that there is an actual spiritual domain that the mind "tunes into."

Of course if you are a mystic, your position cannot really be argued.

Neither can the materialist's, because the "experience" of it is all in our minds.

As far as I can see it cannot be disproven, but as you must have heard somewhere by now, a thing that cannot even in principle be falsified cannot in principle be proven.

Neither can the material world, because the "experience" of it is all in our minds.

Your position appears to be impervious to logic.

And yours doesn't, because it requires "a mind" in order to reason about it.

Now if you do not agree with that last sentence, feel free to challenge it, but that can be done meaningfully only by actually practicing logical discourse in a logical way, and that cannot be done using language as carelessly or as idiosyncratically as you are accustomed to doing.

How so?

By the way, do the quotation marks around "is" above demarcate it as a special kind of "is?" A Clintonian one, perhaps, open to multiple interpretations? Is even the fundamental term of existence only putative, or is this a special newfangled "is" from your private dictionary?

Am merely stressing its significance.

Just in case you have remained blissfully unaware of common usage, I will point out that, in addition to the regular denotative use of quotation marks, such as denoting an actual quotation or a word or phrase that has just been referred to (see the end of this sentence for an example of the latter), writers frequently enclose a word in quotation marks as a form of disparagement, a punctuational equivalent of the phrase "so-called." I might, for example, refer condescendingly to <Iacchus and his "philosophy"> as a way of making it clear that I think your so-called philosophy is [well, rule 8 forbids me, of course, from using the word]. If this is not your intent when you enclose words in quotation marks, you should probably drop the habit. It's a bad habit anyway.

Bite me ...

 

[cyborg]

Hey, at least I don't find the need to resort to ad hominem attacks ... more often than not that is.

An ad hominem REPLACES an argument.

Calling you a dumbass and explaining WHY you are a dumbass isn't an ad hominem.

...and you lose the dictionary game again.

*Sigh*

 

[Belz...]

No, I do in fact believe the Universe exists inside of (the parameters of) something else. Are you saying that a "sub-domain" does not mean this?

Once again, Iacchus, you haven't been paying attention. I said:

Using these terms, it would certainly appear more reasonable to say that the universe is a "sub-domain" of the spacetime foam than to say it's "inside" it.

Which is to say that I agreed with your use of the word "domain". However, now I'm not so sure, because you don't seem to understand the term yourself. What I meant was that, if space does not exist "outside" of the universe, then it is false to say the universe exists "within" something, because that term presupposes space. Your use of the word "domain" seemed more appropriate.

 

[Belz...]

I am a mystic. I have a different perspective,

That shouldn't matter if you are using logic and reason to interpret evidence. You are not, because you are assigning a greater value to your assumptions and your subjective views than they deserve.

yet my source of information comes from the same source as everyone else's, from somewhere inside the mind. This "is" the beginning of the human perspective.

Perhaps, but not the end.

 

[Belz...]

By the way, Iacchus, have you asked yourself that question I told you to ask yourself ? What was the answer ? It could be important.

 

[Mercutio]

I have not mentioned anything regarding "subsets" in my book.

I did not mean to imply that you did. You do, however, use circular reasoning, and rely on "evidence" (see, I put it into quotes to suggest that it is a different meaning of the word--to wit, that you see it as real evidence, whereas others would vehemently disagree) that is at odds with reality. You have had your numerological examples torn apart, for instance. Have you revised anything?

Please ... And then again if I didn't attempt to put it into words, there would be nothing to bitch and moan about would there?

Can you maybe listen to yourself? I have no problem with you putting something into words; in fact, I think you should do so with much greater care and precision than you currently do. You suggest that we tear your logic apart because we disagree with your conclusion; the truth is, with your logic so faulty, no one, including yourself, can actually see a conclusion there!

No, the mind is more of a receptor, of which information is "filtered through" from other sources.

So you continue to assert.

Actually, no. The "experience" of the outside world is in there, as is the experience the mystics often claim to adhere to ... the information of which, in my opinion, is filtered in from other (external) sources. It would have to be, in order for the mystic's claim to be valid.

So, if you assume the conclusion is valid, then the steps that reach it must also be valid. Nice. Backwards, but nice.

Hmm ... Do you mean like dolphins jumping through hoops at Marine World?

A great example. Their jumping through hoops is trained up through specific steps, in a process called "shaping" (quotations here because I am calling attention to a specific technically defined term). Shaping is so successful because of the detail given to initial states, eventual goals, and the specific steps between them.

So, no. Your words are jumping through hoops of a different sort. The similarity is that the eventual behavior (of either dolphins or words) is artificial, and not at all the normal behavior of either.

 

[bruto]

Really, then why did you just put the word "subset" into quotes yourself?

I put the word "subset" into quotes because in my own sentence I was referring to it as a word you had used. My reference was to the word, not the meaning of the word. I don't suppose it should surprise me at this point that this distinction is apparently beyond you, any more than it surprises me that you presume, even to the extent of using that shoulder-shrugging little icon, that you must be right and I must be wrong. If, as with logic, you do not feel the need to learn a bit of grammar-school grammar, then you should at least drop the habit of sniping from a position of demonstrable error.

bruto: "Your position appears to be impervious to logic. Now if you do not agree with that last sentence, feel free to challenge it, but that can be done meaningfully only by actually practicing logical discourse in a logical way, and that cannot be done using language as carelessly or as idiosyncratically as you are accustomed to doing."

Iacchus: "How so?"

Well, if you cannot use logic to argue a point, does this not imply that you cannot use logic to argue the point? Is that as mysterious and contradictory an idea in the world of Iacchus as the suggestion that a set can only be a set of what it is a set of?

Of course, it's possible that what you mean is that logic might be used but that you are not competent to do the job. I would go along with that, but I suspect this is not quite the meaning you intend.

 

[Iacchus]

So, no. Your words are jumping through hoops of a different sort. The similarity is that the eventual behavior (of either dolphins or words) is artificial, and not at all the normal behavior of either.

Dolphins do love to jump though don't they?

 

[Iacchus]

That shouldn't matter if you are using logic and reason to interpret evidence. You are not, because you are assigning a greater value to your assumptions and your subjective views than they deserve.

Which type of evidence are you speaking about? The type that doesn't appear before your "physical" senses? ... albeit it is just as experiencable?

 

[Iacchus]

Which is to say that I agreed with your use of the word "domain". However, now I'm not so sure, because you don't seem to understand the term yourself. What I meant was that, if space does not exist "outside" of the universe, then it is false to say the universe exists "within" something, because that term presupposes space. Your use of the word "domain" seemed more appropriate.

I'm thinking more in terms of a circle within a circle. Is not the inner-circle a "sub-domain" of the outer-circle?