• 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.

Does Matter Really Exist?

Mercutio said:
It would appear that explaining dimensions to Iacchus is like explaining the global economy to a dog. There is the occasional appearance of listening, perhaps even the furrowing of a brow when a familiar word is uttered, but nothing is learned, and the poor fellow is no less likely than before to eat your garbage and take a dump on your carpet. Iacchus, I mean; the dog asks to go outside.
Click to expand...

I can see the dolphin-man tilting his head from here.
 
Belz... said:
No, Iacchus. The CORRECT answer was: "I'm wrong ? Then, please, contribute to my knowledge by explaining it to me." And then, "Really, That's really interesting. I'll now include this new knowledge into any further discussions I have for the rest of my life."
Click to expand...
No, the whole thing about spacetime is that it is both observable and, experiential. Therefore, the fifth aspect of understanding what it is, entails just that, understanding or observing what it is. ;) As for the sixth aspect, yes there's more, it entails the experience of the first five dimensions, and is more associated with one's will. And thus gives rise to the notions of synchronicity and ESP, and/or the sixth sense.
 
Iacchus said:
No, the whole thing about spacetime is that it is both observable and, experiential. Therefore, the fifth aspect of understanding what it is, entails just that, understanding or observing what it is. ;) As for the sixth aspect, yes there's more, it entails the experience of the first five dimensions, and is more associated with one's will. And thus gives rise to the notions of synchronicity and ESP, and/or the sixth sense.
Click to expand...
I suppose string theory fits in here somewhere.

Please list.... never mind...

kitten.jpg
 
Iacchus said:
No, the whole thing about spacetime is that it is both observable and, experiential. Therefore, the fifth aspect of understanding what it is, entails just that, understanding or observing what it is. ;) As for the sixth aspect, yes there's more, it entails the experience of the first five dimensions, and is more associated with one's will. And thus gives rise to the notions of synchronicity and ESP, and/or the sixth sense.
Click to expand...
Now you are merely trolling.
 
Mercutio said:
From this, we can see that the Iacchian definition differs from that which the rest of us use. This is helpful when assessing the extent to which we must heed these assertions. It would appear that the proper amount of weight we should give to this opinion is...none at all.

It would appear that explaining dimensions to Iacchus is like explaining the global economy to a dog. There is the occasional appearance of listening, perhaps even the furrowing of a brow when a familiar word is uttered, but nothing is learned, and the poor fellow is no less likely than before to eat your garbage and take a dump on your carpet. Iacchus, I mean; the dog asks to go outside.
Click to expand...
So, what is reality, without the observation and/or experience of it? Why even try to define it all?
 
Iacchus said:
So, what is reality, without the observation and/or experience of it? Why even try to define it all?
Click to expand...
I will ignore the fact that this had nothing whatsoever to do with the post you quoted, and answer it anyway.

A) one could just as easily ask "what is observation and/or experience, without a real world to observe?"

B) one could also just as easily ask "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

C) Your question, and questions A and B, cannot be answered without axiomatically assuming some things. Which means, they can never be answered absolutely. Which means, pragmatically, that they are not questions worth asking. Which, frankly, is an answer you have already received many times over.

D) Fortunately, our understanding of the workings of the world does not in any way rely upon the answer to your question or questions A or B. We can proceed just fine without a definite answer to any of them.

E) Some of us can accept that. Others make up stories and pretend that these stories give them the absolute answers they seek.

F) You fall into the latter camp.

Clear?
 
If God exists, everything exists within God's domain. Which is to say, He's perfectly capable of standing outside of, as well as within, those things that exist in His domain. Not to say that I'm refuting Hawking's claim, because I'm not. I'm speaking more in terms of the principle of induction.
Click to expand...
While I don't necessarily disagree here - that God might indeed converse with certain people (assuming someone has enough merit for him to respond), it is still a moot point bringing it up here. He doesn't interfere in world events or answer everyone's prayers, and certainly not those like Pat Robertson's.
If, in fact we all have a spirit or, a soul which, is capable of living on after death, then yes, we do have the means by which to contemplate the presence of God.
Click to expand...
We don't. Contemplating implies the neurochemical dynamics of a working brain. Upon death, this capacity is no more. Even in esoteric schools of thought and the Bible, the average remant of a dead person is not considered to be able to think deliberately or contemplate anything, just observe.
 
Iacchus said:
No, the whole thing about spacetime is that it is both observable and, experiential. Therefore, the fifth aspect of understanding what it is, entails just that, understanding or observing what it is. ;) As for the sixth aspect, yes there's more, it entails the experience of the first five dimensions, and is more associated with one's will. And thus gives rise to the notions of synchronicity and ESP, and/or the sixth sense.
Click to expand...

Dimensions are not aspects of understanding, Iacchus. I'm sure you can find a suitable dictionary in which to searsh for the proper definition.
 
Belz... said:
Dimensions are not aspects of understanding, Iacchus. I'm sure you can find a suitable dictionary in which to searsh for the proper definition.
Click to expand...
And we don't know anything other than we might be brains sitting in vats. Hence we have the first four dimensions that are perceived, and the fifth and sixth dimensions which are the perception of and, interaction with the first four. I mean what's the point in defining something which we don't ultimately participate in ... when, in fact we do? The fifth and sixth dimensions entail the presence of being in other words.
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
And we don't know anything other than we might be brains sitting in vats. Hence we have the first four dimensions that are perceived, and the fifth and sixth dimensions which are the perception of and, interaction with the first four. I mean what's the point in defining something which we don't ultimately participate in ... when, in fact we do?
Click to expand...
:notm

The concept of dimensions is independent of monism. We could be brains in vats--we could all be just the imagination of your brain in a vat, and you would still be wrong about dimensions.
 
Mercutio said:
:notm

The concept of dimensions is independent of monism. We could be brains in vats--we could all be just the imagination of your brain in a vat, and you would still be wrong about dimensions.
Click to expand...
The property of awarenes is the property of awareness, regardless. And it is the property which introduces us to the first four. In fact, this is the very thing that holds the whole shebang together, the property of awareness ... beginning at the sub-atomic level that is.
 
Last edited:
Once again, the alleged words of Max Planck ...

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
Click to expand...
 
Iacchus said:
The property of awarenes is the property of awareness, regardless.
Click to expand...
Which says nothing about it at all... X = X is all well and good, but does not define X.
And it is the property which introduces us to the first four.
Click to expand...
No. Quite arguably, it is our experience with dimensions that gives rise to awareness in the first place. And whether experience with dimensions introduces us to awareness or awareness introduces us to dimensions, the abstract concept of dimension is wholly independent of awareness. We may be aware without knowing the first thing about dimensions (I do assume you are aware, after all), or we may be unaware, but the things that lead us to form an abstraction we call dimension would still exist.
In fact, this is the very thing that holds the whole shebang together, the property of awareness ... beginning at the sub-atomic level that is.
Click to expand...
Have you run this past any particle physicists? Could you cite any peer-reviewed physics journal articles which agree with you?

Didn't think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom