My argument against materialism

[punshhh]

It has nothing to do with materialism. It has to do with the limitations of the kinds of things we can shove into our heads and accuse of being "true".

Feynman explains it partially here:

I am in agreement with your point and Feynman.

 

[punshhh]

So, by 'materialists', you meant 'this specific group of materialists who have been arguing with me'?

If infinity is inconceivable, why can we discuss it?

We can discuss it as a concept, as we provide our own parameters in thought.

An infinity which exists in the physical universe is unimaginable, as we would have to factor in all the laws of nature and time and space. Plus an infinite amount of unknown and unknowns unknowns aswell.

 

[yy2bggggs]

We can discuss it as a concept, as we provide our own parameters in thought.

An infinity which exists in the physical universe is unimaginable,

No it's not.

as we would have to factor in all the laws of nature and time and space.

No we wouldn't.

Plus an infinite amount of unknown and unknowns unknowns aswell.

Wouldn't necessarily exist.

All there need be is a symmetry. Then the entire infinite object can be understood in terms of simple rules. We can aggregate. That's why we know there are infinites in the first place. It's why, in a single post, I can show you a proof that there's a metric to compare infinite quantities and some are bigger than others.

I can do that because there's a symmetry, and I can understand symmetries. That's one of the things we can shove in our heads.

 

[dafydd]

We can discuss it as a concept, as we provide our own parameters in thought.

An infinity which exists in the physical universe is unimaginable, as we would have to factor in all the laws of nature and time and space. Plus an infinite amount of unknown and unknowns unknowns aswell.

You are lost again. Fun to watch though.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Crazy Toys

I did some research and discovered the answers. If you are such a hot shot scientist it should be no bother to you to answer them,it's all basic stuff. I don't think that it's right to advertize personal sites or blogs here. I don't have your need for self aggrandisement. Your website looks like bilge to me. Win a Nobel prize and prove me wrong.

I really don't think it's the reason you won't share your link, many post such links, or haven't you noticed? You're in hiding ... if you shared your link then people would know who you really are. And ... that would be terrible ... I suppose. Instead you take repeated shots at my website (not just once which I would accept ... no one's creation pleases everybody). It led me to think you must have visited my site more than your now famed one time "lost 5 minute session." Based on your obsession that's hard to believe. You've probably surfed there more than once, but won't admit it! I've merely offered free articles on issues related to the context of a discussion. So what ... it's a common practice on the forum. I guess you missed that action as well ... huh?

Here's a heads up: website evaluation isn't the business of the Noble committee. Where do you get all of those crazy toys!

 

[punshhh]

No it's not.

No we wouldn't.

Wouldn't necessarily exist.

All there need be is a symmetry. Then the entire infinite object can be understood in terms of simple rules. We can aggregate. That's why we know there are infinites in the first place. It's why, in a single post, I can show you a proof that there's a metric to compare infinite quantities and some are bigger than others.

I can do that because there's a symmetry, and I can understand symmetries. That's one of the things we can shove in our heads.

Yes I concede this point about symmetries, such symmetries are useless in the way I was suggesting in my point.

How do you imagine an infinite object which has 3 dimensional extension.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Phony Philosopher

I know you like clowns,you have a comedy website and a false beard.

Keep booing ... it makes good comedy. My beard is real but the games you and PixyMisa play are BS and boring.

I've never heard of a real philosopher, past or present, who didn't create something. It's called a school of philosophy! You can't/won't do that since what all boo-ers mainly do is boo what others say & create! I think you need a new handle. I suggest "pseudo-philosopher" or "wanda-be-philosopher" or "phony philosopher"! Gee, these are all good choices but I suggest "phony philosopher"! What do you think?

 

[yy2bggggs]

Yes I concede this point about symmetries, such symmetries are useless in the way I was suggesting in my point.

How do you imagine an infinite object which has 3 dimensional extension.

The same way I imagine the number line.

ETA: This is a "how" question.

 

[The Norseman]

Again, none of the sources say anything about EM being globally repulsive, preventing planets from becoming neutron stars (see your post #1867). I'm not surprised by that. I'd say you're on your own on this therefore it's clearly a new theory. Even a new interpretation of physics has value. I suggest you write the paper and have it peer reviewed. It would be pretty cool if you could add a few stitches to the quilt of physics! Why resist good advice?

Why do you need me to answer your questions? I have already seen a flaw in your theory and there are others. See my first post to Pure Ardent but I'm sure you probably read it. You can get someone else to answer your questions or answer them yourself. Or write a paragraph explaining your theory or thinking if you prefer. I don't get your insistence? Unless this is all some kind of head game. In any case, I'm not playing it.

I see now you're not in the slightest bit interested in communication nor clarity of thought. Pixy stated very precisely twice why he's asking you to answer those questions.

As a lurker, I thought at first you might have some valid points to make. I stand corrected.

Its not surprising as materialists are not interested in enquiring into what anything is or why or how it exists.

Materialists are and have been interested in what everything is and why and how it exists. I would suppose that the problem for you is the answers that materialists have come up with.

I am aware of this claim, I don't accept it regarding anything which exists, only in theory.

Sometimes I'm not the brightest bulb on the Marquee, but even I finally understood a SPHERE as being finite yet unbounded. Know of any spheres in real life, punshhh? (Or maybe I should ask "How about any spheres in your illusion?")

I really don't think it's the reason you won't share your link, many post such links, or haven't you noticed? You're in hiding ... if you shared your link then people would know who you really are. And ... that would be terrible ... I suppose. Instead you take repeated shots at my website (not just once which I would accept ... no one's creation pleases everybody). It led me to think you must have visited my site more than your now famed one time "lost 5 minute session." Based on your obsession that's hard to believe. You've probably surfed there more than once, but won't admit it! I've merely offered free articles on issues related to the context of a discussion. So what ... it's a common practice on the forum. I guess you missed that action as well ... huh?

Here's a heads up: website evaluation isn't the business of the Noble committee. Where do you get all of those crazy toys!

The comedy is far better because you take yourself so seriously.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Let's Get Real!

Several actual working physicists, for a start.

If there be several working physicists who want me off this forum and onto theirs, how come they don't communicate with me? To me ... this whole thing is a surprise. You guys play and I play in return. I'd say that's fair play. I'm not calling a fowl and none of the wolves have any real grounds to say I've said something outside of their own fashion! Have I shaken up the forum ... a little? So what? ... what can be more stimulating than such action? All of the rants about how physics isn't being discussed here are groundless. Yes ... I've put you on hold ... but only on one topic that I tired on. Sometimes, to stay on the merry-go-round doesn't make sense. I've judged that if you are right ... you should prove it from references and/or a peer reviewed paper. I will not be used to prove you! I already know of several flaws in your new theory. Yes ... yours is a new theory/interpretation & there aren't any specific references to it. Let's get real!

 

[The Norseman]

I think you need a new handle. I suggest "pseudo-philosopher" or "wanda-be-philosopher" or "phony philosopher"! Gee, these are all good choices but I suggest "phony philosopher"! What do you think?

The JREF website has handles (as you put it) automatically placed unless specifically requested otherwise. They by default reflect number of posts made and nothing more.

And yes, they can sometimes be misnomers; under your name it lists "scholar" for example.

 

[yy2bggggs]

How do you imagine an infinite object which has 3 dimensional extension.

I think I can elaborate on this a bit.

I can imagine a space with elliptical geometry. I can also imagine a space with Euclidean geometry. The defining difference between these two geometries is the number of lines in a plane parallel to a given line you can draw through a point. That's a fairly complex concept, but I get it. In elliptical geometries, you cannot draw such a line. In Euclidean geometries, you can.

Considering such parallel lines in a plane, in a Euclidean geometry, I can imagine that they would never touch. I find it very easy to imagine this--I don't know exactly why I find it so easy, but the symmetry is simple to imagine. No matter where I go along the line, it looks the same. The lines aren't closer together anywhere, so they never touch.

In the same Euclidean geometry, I can imagine the two Euclidean solids formed by the set of all points less than a certain distance from either line--forming a cylindrical rod shape. Just as easily, to me, as I can imagine that the lines never touching in a Euclidean geometry, I can imagine these solids never touching.

Imbue the solids with mass, and I have a simple qualitative common model of rods in the universe. I know this isn't physically accurate, but that's okay--I can go further by imagining that they are made of iron molecules. If need be I can imagine that they are 20 degrees centigrade, very slightly rusted, and/or anything that might come into relevance for particular problems. But I cannot think of anything that would preclude me from imagining it. The "actuality" attribute to you seems to be a problem--to me it seems completely irrelevant. I measure actuality based on whether or not I find something, not whether or not I can imagine it; the act of imagining "an actual rod" to me seems to be the same exact act as imagining a rod, with the trivial addition that I ran into one.

All I'm doing here, all throughout, is applying symmetries. Beyond this I don't know what to explain. I can just say that I can imagine such a rod.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Reality is really Funny!

I see now you're not in the slightest bit interested in communication nor clarity of thought. Pixy stated very precisely twice why he's asking you to answer those questions.

The Norseman, PixieMisa doesn't need me to answer her questions to make her case. If she is sloley interested in doing so, what's stopping here from unloading? Her posts maybe used to get support, but what does her theory have to do with me? We discussed something and disagreed. I've seen the light on the subject. She still differs, okay move on ... get supportive references and/or post a paper for peer review. So now ... why am I'm the bad guy?

Materialists are and have been interested in what everything is and why and how it exists. I would suppose that the problem for you is the answers that materialists have come up with.

I don't come from any school of thought & really care less about such rigid forms. I love science but am still intuitive enough to know when someone wants to play me.

The comedy is far better because you take yourself so seriously.

I think the best comedy is a parody on what is real! Yes ... reality is funny!

 

[kenkoskinen]

By "Handle" I meant JREF Name or Identity

The JREF website has handles (as you put it) automatically placed unless specifically requested otherwise. They by default reflect number of posts made and nothing more.

And yes, they can sometimes be misnomers; under your name it lists "scholar" for example.

I wasn't referring to such "handles." I may not have used the right term but you present yourself "The Norseman" but I'm sure that isn't your given name. I guess by your usage I meant your JREF identity or name.

 

[laca]

If there be several working physicists who want me off this forum and onto theirs, how come they don't communicate with me? To me ... this whole thing is a surprise. You guys play and I play in return. I'd say that's fair play. I'm not calling a fowl and none of the wolves have any real grounds to say I've said something outside of their own fashion! Have I shaken up the forum ... a little? So what? ... what can be more stimulating than such action? All of the rants about how physics isn't being discussed here are groundless. Yes ... I've put you on hold ... but only on one topic that I tired on. Sometimes, to stay on the merry-go-round doesn't make sense. I've judged that if you are right ... you should prove it from references and/or a peer reviewed paper. I will not be used to prove you! I already know of several flaws in your new theory. Yes ... yours is a new theory/interpretation & there aren't any specific references to it. Let's get real!

Please learn about the different sub-forums here and stop embarrassing yourself. Doesn't look good for a self-proclaimed genius. You're looking foolish, to say the least.

 

[laca]

This is a usefull concept, as actually infinite is inconceivable to us. But nearly infinite may help to develop many theories.

While you have clearly shown that infinity is inconceivable to you, don't assume others suffer from the same unfortunate limitations.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Irrational Advice!

Please learn about the different sub-forums here and stop embarrassing yourself. Doesn't look good for a self-proclaimed genius. You're looking foolish, to say the least.

As an acknowledged "Master" if you have something to teach then spell it specifically out. Your comment is totally out of context to the post. Show me where you addressed anything in the quote! Please stop your foolish emoting. Skeptics, I thought were supposed to be rational. Yea ... I know ... you dished it out and I responded in kind. That means you're the good guy and I'm the bad guy! But ... wait ... that's not fair or ... should I say it again ... even rational! As a Master Poster it makes you look foolish, to say the least!

 

[laca]

As a self proclaimed "Master" if you have something to teach then spell it specifically out.

I never claimed to be a "Master" of anything. Perhaps you mean the title given automatically by the forum software according to the number of posts? Yeah, you really should have lurked just a wee bit more.

Your comment is totally out of context to the post. Show me where you addressed anything in the quote!

This is really embarrassing for you. I'll let you wallow in your incompetence.

Please stop your foolish emoting. Skeptics, I thought were supposed to be rational. Yea ... I know ... you dished it out and I responded in kind. That means you're the good guy and I the bad guy! But ... wait ... that's not fair or ... should I say it again ... even rational!

Right... *backs away slowly*

ETA: LOL. Replacing whole words and sentences then calling it "missing characters". Real classy.

 

[The Norseman]

The Norseman, PixieMisa doesn't need me to answer her questions to make her case. If she is sloley interested in doing so, what's stopping here from unloading? Her posts maybe used to get support, but what does her theory have to do with me? We discussed something and disagreed. I've seen the light on the subject. She still differs, okay move on ... get supportive references and/or post a paper for peer review. So now ... why am I'm the bad guy?

I'm not saying you're a bad guy or "the bad guy" particularly. Just that Pixy asked you several times to give your understanding on those questions to see if you were both on the same wavelength. That's how I read it and I'm still wondering why you don't simply answer and we can all move on (yes, I'm speaking on behalf of the lurkers).

Hell, I'll even answer the questions. I haven't the slightest clue what the correct answers are, but I'm willing to learn.

Wait. I'm willing to learn! Whoa! I can even learn from you if you're willing to teach.

I don't come from any school of thought & really care less about such rigid forms. I love science but am still intuitive enough to know when someone wants to play me.

Be that as it may, in my years on JREF, Pixy is pretty far down the list of people who are willing to play games, or say things just to wind you up.

It may seem that I'm "taking Pixy's side" or vilifying you. Again, I'm not particularly. I'm just to the point when I feel compelled to publicly announce my frustration at the process and I think that you're putting up more of a barrier to communication at this point.

I'm offering this as friendly (or if you may bristle at "friendly" then fill in "well meaning") input to how you're coming across to those not directly in the current debate and the ONLY reason I am doing this is that I think you can make valuable contributions and I really want to understand your position.

I wasn't referring to such "handles." I may not have used the right term but you present yourself "The Norseman" but I'm sure that isn't your given name. I guess by your usage I meant your JREF identity or name.

I thought you were referring specifically to the little title under everyone's user name. Other than that, what were you referring to?

 

[dlorde]

Who are these people? This is the first note I've seen about being referred to the "Science Med etc. forum & your the only one.

C'mon Ken, SMT (Science, Medicine & Technology). Do we really have to spell it out for you?

dlorde, I'm not the only one who has been discussing physics on this forum. Read the posts, look around ... look in the mirror!

We did suggest you take it to SMT, but you wouldn't.

The funny thing about that is I did read before I posted. Yes ... people were discussing, amongst other things, physics/cosmology, and in considerable depth. You know this is so ... what's really going on within you?

How could I possibly know you'd read the thread before you posted? and your subsequent posts gave no indication

Almost everything in this post is unreasonable. Are you emoting because of your lack of creativity?

Just trying to let you know why people were getting on your case.