• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My argument against materialism

kenkoskinen said:
Okay ... what is the link to the music channel that pleases everyone?

As per Pixy Misa's questions. There isn't anything to gain by giving obvious answers. We've been on the merry go round on this, long enough. All I want is her references. I'll comment after I get them.
Click to expand...
If the answers are obvious, provide them. Then we'll know that we are talking about the same thing and we can proceed from a point of common understanding.
 
I did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit

You disputed this, although as far as I can see, you had no basis for doing so.

You might want to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force

Particularly this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force#Electromagnetic_phenomena

With the exception of gravitation, electromagnetic phenomena as described by quantum electrodynamics (which includes as a limiting case classical electrodynamics) account for almost all physical phenomena observable to the unaided human senses, including light and other electromagnetic radiation, all of chemistry, most of mechanics (excepting gravitation), and of course magnetism and electricity.
Click to expand...

Electromagnetic phenomena account for almost all physical phenomena observable to the unaided human senses, including most of mechanics (excepting gravitation).

The strength of planetary bodies with respect to stress is mechanics.

I'm trying to establish a common point of understanding here. If you answer those four questions - the answers are just one or two words each - then we'll have that common understanding and we can proceed.

Now, please answer the questions.
 
These four questions, kenkoskinen:


What force is it that you think makes water incompressible?

What force is it that you think binds the atoms in water molecules together?

What force is it that you think generates the phenomenon known as surface tension?

And what force is it that you think counteracts gravity and prevents planets from collapsing under their own weight?
 
Pixy Misa, sorry to disappoint you but none of the sources you cite say anything about EM being globally repulsive, preventing planets from becoming neutron stars (see your post #1867).

Keep searching. I'm not interested in only your point of view. I've heard enough of it & don't agree. (1) I need to see specific references on what I will call "your theory." I don't think you'll find anything but if you do I'll read them. (2) Why not write a paper and submit your theory for peer review? That's how new science gets done. If you write it, & post it ... & it gets reviewed, I'll read it & your reviews. Until either (1) and/or (2) happens ... the discussion about your theory is on hold. Don't waste your time, go fishing somewhere else.
 
You seem to be confused.

I don't have a theory. Nothing I am saying here is in the least bit controversial, as you would understand if you simply answered the questions:

What force is it that you think makes water incompressible?

What force is it that you think binds the atoms in water molecules together?

What force is it that you think generates the phenomenon known as surface tension?

And what force is it that you think counteracts gravity and prevents planets from collapsing under their own weight?

Why do you keep dodging these questions? There are very simple, rely on only basic physics knowledge, and can be answered in a matter of seconds.
 
PixyMisa said:
Like what? Give me a good historical example.
Click to expand...

Sorry I don't know any unknown unknowns by definition, neither does anyone else.
In an unbounded universe there must be a near infinite number of unknown unknowns by definition, or do you know better?



Why would you presume such a thing?
Click to expand...

If materialism exists in the mind of man, then it will be coloured by the particular psyche of man. This may be to the extent that man can't distinguish between this colouring and what he/she perceives to be beyond the mind, ie the actual universe.

Science has helped us to demonstrate how aspects of existence behave, however to treat these proofs as the whole picture of existence is to ignore our predicament of having no idea of how we exist in the first place or what exactly exists atall, or what existence is itself.

It would be to deny that we are in the metaphorical pea green boat.
 
dafydd said:
Punshhh,the Buddha Who Does Not Answer Questions. If the unknowns are unknown,how do you know about them? If quarks are just not another particle (your words) what are they?
Click to expand...

I don't know what the unknowns are, but I don't ingnore their presence.


Quarks are a particle, what are the made of?
 
SusanB-M1 said:
Do you think that maybe some of your ideas are, in fact, impossible?:) (i.e. fictional)
Click to expand...

Perhaps they are in the actual universe, I am talking more of the openness of the mind.
An open mind would not rule out anything, this does not mean everything is to be regarded as existing. Rather that anything might exist even on the end of ones nose.
 
punshhh said:
Sorry I don't know any unknown unknowns by definition, neither does anyone else.
Click to expand...
Which is why I said historical.

In an unbounded universe there must be a near infinite number of unknown unknowns by definition, or do you know better?
Click to expand...
First, that's a non-sequitur. Second, there's a huge difference between unknown facts and unknown principles.

If materialism exists in the mind of man, then it will be coloured by the particular psyche of man. This may be to the extent that man can't distinguish between this colouring and what he/she perceives to be beyond the mind, ie the actual universe.
Click to expand...
Or not.

Science has helped us to demonstrate how aspects of existence behave, however to treat these proofs as the whole picture of existence is to ignore our predicament of having no idea of how we exist in the first place or what exactly exists atall, or what existence is itself.
Click to expand...
Wrong question.

It would be to deny that we are in the metaphorical pea green boat.
Click to expand...
No.
 
punshhh said:
I don't know what the unknowns are, but I don't ingnore their presence.

Quarks are a particle, what are the made of?
Click to expand...
Wrong question.

punshhh said:
Perhaps they are in the actual universe, I am talking more of the openness of the mind.
An open mind would not rule out anything, this does not mean everything is to be regarded as existing. Rather that anything might exist even on the end of ones nose.
Click to expand...
Since we know that's not true, we can discard this viewpoint as worthless.
 
Robin said:
Do you persist in saying that "what is reality?" is a meaningful question?
Click to expand...

I am not asking what reality is any more, I am happy to agree that we just don't know what "reality is", or perhaps what real means.
 
PixyMisa said:
Which is why I said historical.


First, that's a non-sequitur. Second, there's a huge difference between unknown facts and unknown principles.


Or not.


Wrong question.


No.
Click to expand...

Please demonstrate the non-sequitur, how do you know what there is in an unbounded universe. Surely there is a nearly infinite quantity of everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom