Existence

[Phil]

The level of my physics knowledge is irrelevant here, . . .
All of this nonsense about spheres with a boundless surface is irrelevant. Unless there is something or nothing to mark the boundary of that sphere's surface, at that surface, then the surface of a sphere cannot even be distinguished. Hence the surface of a sphere has to be enveloped by something or nothing.
And so, since 'nothing' cannot embrace an entity with tangible existence, it is possible to state that existence cannot be finite... and that it must, therefore, be absolutely boundless.

Absolute boundlessness is a singularity of being.

Lifegazer, I've been having a good time following this thread, but I think there is a disconnect that will prevent it from progressing any further. The idea of the 'shere' is one that many skeptics with a physics background have presented to counter some of your statements, but now you seem to want to treat it as irrelevent. And that's going to bring us all to an impass.

I hate to make judgements on what you might be thinking, but it appears you're not understanding the concept others are offering. A boundless sherical existence as it has been presented in the vein of physics is not the sphere I think you're thinking of.

RussDill said earlier in the thread:

But there is a problem, you are comparing the 2d surface of a sphere, to the 3d space you live in. For this comparison to be fair, you need to compare a 2d plane, to a sphere. Is one more surrounded by nothing than the other? no. Both are mearly a mathematical concept that can help show us what the space we live in is like. These models have limits. Also, note that we can increase the dimensions of these models as high as you want.

If you do not increase the dimensions to account for the concept of a sherical existence, as we are suggesting as an example of a boundless yet finite universe, we're just going to go back and forth; your 'singularity' philosophy and our physics.

The thing is, science demands such close scrutiny. If a concept is countered, revisions are made, and the concept is scrutinized again. Philosophy does not work the same way. We've countered your concept, now you're refusing to either revise it or abandon it altogether.

And if that continues to be the case, the discussion is over.

 

[lifegazer]

You understand that this is philosophy and not science, correct?

Of course.

 

[Suezoled]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TLN


You understand that this is philosophy and not science, correct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Of course.

Really? You realize philosophy is subjective and won't convince anyone here whatever your message might be, right?

According to Lifegazer something is always keeping things in motion. You know what would really suck? If Ed had to concentrate on the function of everything, from planetary motion to the functioning of white blood cell cells in rabbits. And he sneezed once. Cuz then we'd all be screwed. (Don't ever sneeze Ed, okay?)

 

[Ed]

Really? You realize philosophy is subjective and won't convince anyone here whatever your message might be, right?

According to Lifegazer something is always keeping things in motion. You know what would really suck? If Ed had to concentrate on the function of everything, from planetary motion to the functioning of white blood cell cells in rabbits. And he sneezed once. Cuz then we'd all be screwed. (Don't ever sneeze Ed, okay?)

Good news: I don't sneeze
Bad news: I have psychcotic breaks occasionally

 

[asthmatic camel]

Like you sensing an odor that doesn't actually exist?

Good point well made. I'd enjoyed the thread until it became a discussion about nothing and the properties of nothing. Talk about an empty conversation ......

Regards,

AC.

 

[Ed]

Good point well made. I'd enjoyed the thread until it became a discussion about nothing and the properties of nothing. Talk about an empty conversation ......

Regards,

AC.

It's like a Sienfeld plot.

 

[lifegazer]

Really? You realize philosophy is subjective and won't convince anyone here whatever your message might be, right?

Correction: Most philosophy is subjective. Some statements can be made with absolute authority.
Example: Something has existence.
This statement is unquestionably correct regardless of whether I define this thing that has existence or not.

Reason has the capacity to know things about existence.
The behaviour of perceived-existence, for example, can be understood so well (by reason) that humanity has been able to manipulate his environment for his own benefits. Science - through reason coupled with observation - has been able to determine much understanding about existential behaviour.
Emphasis added to 'behaviour' as opposed to actual causality. No scientist knows the absolute-cause of anything. Scientists can only tell us about forces and consequences that exist - but not where those forces of order come from.

You guys have given too much trust to science. 'Things' (perceived) are the consequences of forces - not the cause of those forces. A thing is the sum of the forces and charges which constitute to make that thing occur in spacetime.
I want all of you skeptics to realise how precarious your faith rests upon the shoulders of science. For science cannot bring you an explanation for universal-forces via any thing seen within perception. Those forces emanate from a source which is not a 'thing' as we know 'things' - through perception. The source is necessarily different from those things. Beyond perception.
And only philosophy can reasonably carry you across the threshold of perceived reality, and talk about things similar to the things I like to discuss.
You've got one life. You owe it to yourself to be sincere in your quest for truth (if you have such a desire). Mocking me might be fun for you. But I actually feel sorry for you because the door of your mind is closed so tight, it would literally take a miracle to wake you up.
Nobody owes you a miracle.

 

[TLN]

Correction: Most philosophy is subjective. Some statements can be made with absolute authority.

Yes. We call those statements science. What you're engaged in is philosophy, which is a fun pastime, but gets us no closer to facts.

Everything you assert is your opinion and has no empirical truth to it.

You can quit now. Come back when you have some science to discuss.

 

[lifegazer]

Yes. We call those statements science. What you're engaged in is philosophy, which is a fun pastime, but gets us no closer to facts.

I have engaged in reason. So has science. Even you should know that science, like mathematics, is a product of philosophical enquiry.
In the case of science, we are talking about the philosophical (reasonable) enquiry into existential (universal) behaviour. Hence, science is the philosophy of existential order, as seen through the perceptions.
To consider science as greater than philosophy is akin to considering ones arms as greater than the rest of the body & mind. For philosophy emanates from reason. And reason begat mathematics... begat science... begat languages... begat politics... begat religion even.
This is not to say that all reason is true. Some is built upon the back of assumed premises. That's why there's a diversity of religions. And that's why there are materialists.

Everything you assert is your opinion and has no empirical truth to it.

I had a hunch you were intelligent. Please tell me you read & understood my previous post. Now please tell me why this statement of yours bares any resemblance to intelligent thought in response to that post. Or are you not really interested in responding to a challenge to your own ideology?

You can quit now. Come back when you have some science to discuss.

Squire, I have little interest in discussing behaviour here. Rather, I want to discuss behavioural-origin.
Enter the rationalists.

 

[TLN]

Let's try this again...

lifegazer, philosophy is a nice pastime, but it cannot bring us facts. Not "truth" or some other vague philosophical construct, facts. Science can and does. Let me know when you have some science to discuss instead of your speculations.

All your words are pure speculation. They've nice poetry, but they have no ability to bring us closer to facts.

 

[lifegazer]

Let's try this again...

lifegazer, philosophy is a nice pastime, but it cannot bring us facts. Not "truth" or some other vague philosophical construct, facts. Science can and does. Let me know when you have some science to discuss instead of your speculations.

All your words are pure speculation. They've nice poetry, but they have no ability to bring us closer to facts.

Science brings us facts about universal-behaviour, as explained in my previous post.
Only philosophy can bring us facts about existence beyond her behaviour.

In this thread, I bring facts about beyond-behaviour-existence, derived from reason.

Feel free to discuss those facts or continue to be fooled by the establishment about the ability of science to answer questions which only philosophy can answer. But you cannot fool me. I know the limits of science.

 

[Suezoled]

Science brings us facts about universal-behaviour, as explained in my previous post.
Only philosophy can bring us facts about existence beyond her behaviour.

In this thread, I bring facts about beyond-behaviour-existence, derived from reason.

Feel free to discuss those facts or continue to be fooled by the establishment about the ability of science to answer questions which only philosophy can answer. But you cannot fool me. I know the limits of science.

Who said only philosophy can bring facts about existence beyond behavior? Whose reason? Your reason, Lifegazer?
And who are you tell God what to do? <------(Swiped from Niels Bohr)
Oh sure, I'm pretty certain you'll say you don't tell god what to do, but you seem pretty dang confident to the point where you're willing to spread a message about truth that no one but you seems to believe. It's your reasoning, your conclusion, and in that way, you are telling your god what to do.

 

[Tricky]

Science brings us facts about universal-behaviour, as explained in my previous post.
Only philosophy can bring us facts about existence beyond her behaviour.

In this thread, I bring facts about beyond-behaviour-existence, derived from reason.

Funny thing about those facts. Everybody seems to have a different set, all derived from reason. If your "facts" conflict with my "facts", how do we decide whose are right?

 

[lifegazer]

Funny thing about those facts. Everybody seems to have a different set, all derived from reason. If your "facts" conflict with my "facts", how do we decide whose are right?

The argument is simple. It's founded upon the realisation that Something has a definite existence. And I have argued why existence cannot be bounded - meaning that existence is boundless. This means that existence is a singularity.

Now if you don't think my conclusions are factual, at least state why. Prove that my reasoning is faulty. Join in the discussion properly. Please.

 

[TLN]

Now if you don't think my conclusions are factual, at least state why. Prove that my reasoning is faulty. Join in the discussion properly. Please.

You have no foundation in empirical data. Your reasoning is not science, but worthless philosophy.

 

[Tricky]

The argument is simple. It's founded upon the realisation that Something has a definite existence. And I have argued why existence cannot be bounded - meaning that existence is boundless. This means that existence is a singularity.

Now if you don't think my conclusions are factual, at least state why. Prove that my reasoning is faulty. Join in the discussion properly. Please.

What definition of "singularity" are you using? It certainly doesn't match any that I have ever seen.

I also am not sure what you mean by "existence". But let me just say that in my philosophy, existence is bounded, because it all eminated from the big bang at a single point. That is a fact. Now, how do we go about proving whose "fact" is correct?

 

[lifegazer]

What definition of "singularity" are you using? It certainly doesn't match any that I have ever seen.

A singularity is a realm where there are no distinctions to be made anywhere or anywhen within that realm. Otherwise, it cannot be a singularity.

I also am not sure what you mean by "existence".

Reality is not 'nothing'. We can know that an entity or entities has definite being. Something definitely exists and is the source of all known forces and effects.

But let me just say that in my philosophy, existence is bounded, because it all eminated from the big bang at a single point. That is a fact. Now, how do we go about proving whose "fact" is correct?

You say that existence occured at a single point. So do I. The point I see is bounded by a Mind at boundless-singularity.
But if you want to believe that existence can be real and enveloped by nothing, then you have alot of explaining to do to me...
"Unless there is something or nothing to mark the boundary of that sphere's surface, at that surface, then the surface of a sphere cannot even be distinguished. Hence the surface of a sphere (a point can be considered a sphere) has to be enveloped by something or nothing.
And so, since 'nothing' cannot embrace an entity with tangible existence"

There is no reason which can support the notion of a real point of existence and enveloped by nothing. That nothing can be stretched along the sphere's own surface gives life to that nothing. It too becomes something real. Existence has to be boundless because it cannot be embraced by non-existence.

 

[RussDill]

free your mind

The argument is simple. It's founded upon the realisation that Something has a definite existence. And I have argued why existence cannot be bounded - meaning that existence is boundless. This means that existence is a singularity.

I've stated many times why and how your reasoning is flawed, you never respond. Also, it makes no sense to attempt to derive fact about reality be using the definitions of english words. It makes no sense to attempt such a feat. "Something", "Existence", etc, are all just english words with a generally western infulence on meaning.

Now if you don't think my conclusions are factual, at least state why. Prove that my reasoning is faulty. Join in the discussion properly. Please.

I have, you haven't responded. I know many disagree with materialists because we assume that nature does follow a pattern, and that there isn't some omniprecent being controlling our carefully though out experiments. However, I would ask you to look at the scoreboard of accomplishments and predictions (religion 0, science...well, I think its uncountable)

Anywho, if you really want to understand what I'm talking about with meaning of words, worldview influence, etc, I highly recommend nothingness, ISBN 0-7382-0061-1
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...68109/sr=11-1/ref=sr_11_1/102-8880319-2432933
you can get the paperback for a little more than 5 dollars, it discusses the history of exactly what you are talking about, the philosophy, the religion, etc, etc, etc.

 

[TLN]

You have no foundation in empirical data. Your reasoning is not science, but worthless philosophy.

Lizegazer, do you have any empirical data to offer, yes or no? Please, just yes or no.

 

[hgc]

lifegazer's worldview:

The level of my physics knowledge is irrelevant here, especially as no physicist knows what gravity is, as of yet. Not to mention 'space'.

Translation: "No one knows anything, so my random arrangement of words and phrases is just as good as any other knowledge."

I have engaged in reason. So has science. Even you should know that science, like mathematics, is a product of philosophical enquiry.

Translation: "What I do is the same as science, and I know what I'm doing, so science be damned!"