• 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?

I see no refutation here. All I see is an unwillingness to acknowledge what I'm saying.
 
Mojo said:
No, 1 is not a subset of 2. They are both members of the set "positive integers", for example, but one is not a subset of the other.
Click to expand...
Try thinking of it in terms of a pie which, you imaginarily slice in two. Now you have two pieces of pie, which (since they are only imaginarily sliced), are subsets of the pie as a whole. Or, if that doesn't work, try thinking of a whole pack of cigarettes versus a half a pack of cigarettes, where each cigarette is part of the package as a whole.

Wrong. 2 does not equal 1 x 1 (and that was after you edited the post!).
Click to expand...
Thanks, I was unable to correct it in time here but, corrected it in the other thread ...

No. It does not imply that any of these is a subset of any of the others. It just states the relationship between them.
Click to expand...
Are you at all familiar with ohm's law? It's all about the properties of electricity, is it not?
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
What Mercutio said, Iacchus. An absence of arguments doesn't require any refutation.
Click to expand...
And why don't you just admit it, you have no means of refuting what I have to say. While I am sure there are other folks on this forum who are quite capable of validating it. So I guess we'll just have to wait and see now won't we?
 
Iacchus said:
Try thinking of it in terms of a pie which, you imaginarily slice in two. Now you have two pieces of pie, which (since they are only imaginarily sliced), are subsets of the pie as a whole.
Click to expand...
But integers are not the same as pies. Why not think instead about birds. A parrot and a budgie are both members of the set "birds", but if you cut a parrot in half you do not get two budgies, or indeed two of any kind of bird. You just get a dead parrot.

Are you at all familiar with ohm's law? It's all about the properties of electricity, is it not?
Click to expand...
It is indeed. It describes the relationship between power, voltage, current and resistance, which are properties of electricity. The E in the equations for Ohm's law represents voltage, not "electricity", by the way.
 
Iacchus said:
Or, if that doesn't work, try thinking of a whole pack of cigarettes versus a half a pack of cigarettes, where each cigarette is part of the package as a whole.
Click to expand...
OK, lets think about a pack of fags. If you cut a fag in half, you do not get a different fag from the same packet. You get two halves, one with a filter and one without.
 
Iacchus said:
And yet if what I were saying were true, it would not be cirular, correct?
Click to expand...
Wrong. If what you were saying were true, you would be able to demonstrate that truth with either logic or evidence or both. The circular argument you gave here would be (as it is now) totally irrelevant, and it would still be circular. If this is the only "evidence" you have, then you have no evidence at all.

You are quite simply wrong.
 
Iacchus said:
So, if you insist on saying I am "quite simply wrong," please tell us how I am wrong or, admit that you have no means of refuting it, please.
Click to expand...
Iacchus, your blather has been refuted so many times that it is not worth the effort to do so, especially considering that you will ignore anything that is said to you. I can't even remember which of your measely number of "ideas" we are supposed to be refuting. Is it the "knowledge comes from inside" one, or perhaps the "all religions are based on the sun" one? Have you trotted out the old "all things are based on some absolute" idiocy, or maybe the "consciousness creates reality" one. All of those (and their many variations) have been shown to be non-evidence, circular or totally incoherant by dozens of different posters.

But if you are eager to be slapped down once more, please state, very clearly (without metaphor) what it is you think hasn't been refuted (again).
 
Iacchus said:
So, what if you took a number, say the number 2, and divided it in half. You would get 1 + 1 = 2 or, 1 x 2 = 2, correct? So, doesn't this suggest that either half of 2, is a subset of the whole of 2? Sure it does, so long as each half is considered in context with the whole. Hence we can say, 2 = 1 + 1 or, 2 = 1 x 1, correct? So, in what way does this differ with respect to the letter "E," in the equation E = MC2? How does "E" not refer to the whole, and the rest of the equation to the constituent parts thereof? Even if you were to say M = E/C2 or, C2 = E/M, it still shows that both are properties of "E."

So, if you insist on saying I am "quite simply wrong," please tell us how I am wrong or, admit that you have no means of refuting it, please.
Click to expand...
As Mojo already said, describing the relationship between matter and energy does not make one a subset of the other. You are as ignorant of mathematics as you are of science or of philosophy.

Your claims have been refuted. If you understood more about what it is that you, yourself, are saying, perhaps you would understand why it is so easily refuted. You have been shown how you are wrong. You have also been told it would help your understanding to learn a bit about logic. And science. And philosophy. And now, math. Seriously, and introductory textbook in any of these subjects would demonstrate to you how far off base your rantings are, and how they have, indeed, been refuted. Your failure to understand this is sad, but it is not a failure of refutation.

You are quite simply wrong.
 
Iacchus said:
Try thinking of it in terms of a pie which, you imaginarily slice in two. Now you have two pieces of pie, which (since they are only imaginarily sliced), are subsets of the pie as a whole.
Click to expand...
On second thoughts, let's think about your pie.

Take your pie, and cut it into halves A and B. You now have two pieces of pie which are subsets of the whole pie. Now cut half A into two again. The halves of piece A are not the same as piece B.
 
Iacchus said:
And why don't you just admit it, you have no means of refuting what I have to say. While I am sure there are other folks on this forum who are quite capable of validating it. So I guess we'll just have to wait and see now won't we?
Click to expand...

Iacchus, every time anyone here refutes what you say, you simply ignore them and continue to post random ramblings. Repeat after me : ignoring evidence does not make the evidence false.

You are quite simply wrong.
 
Iacchus said:
So, in what way does this differ with respect to the letter "E," in the equation E = MC2? How does "E" not refer to the whole, and the rest of the equation to the constituent parts thereof? Even if you were to say M = E/C2 or, C2 = E/M, it still shows that both are properties of "E."

So, if you insist on saying I am "quite simply wrong," please tell us how I am wrong or, admit that you have no means of refuting it, please.
Click to expand...
You seem to be hung up on the multiplication/division thing. You are suggesting that because M = E divided by something, M must be a subset, or "constituent part", as you put it, of E. Let's look at the equation:

E = M x C2
So M = E/C2
This is the same as saying that M = E x 1/C2
Now let's define 1/C2 as a new constant, D.

We can now write the equation M = E/C2 as:

M = E x D

And E = MC2 as E = M/D

E now is equal to M divided by something. By your erroneous reasoning, this would mean that E is a subset of M.

But of course, all these equations are doing is describing a relationship between E and M, not saying that one is a subset of the other.
 
Iacchus said:
Try thinking of it in terms of a pie which, you imaginarily slice in two. Now you have two pieces of pie, which (since they are only imaginarily sliced), are subsets of the pie as a whole. Or, if that doesn't work, try thinking of a whole pack of cigarettes versus a half a pack of cigarettes, where each cigarette is part of the package as a whole.

Thanks, I was unable to correct it in time here but, corrected it in the other thread ...

Are you at all familiar with ohm's law? It's all about the properties of electricity, is it not?
Click to expand...

A pack of cigarettes is made up of individual cigarettes; it cannot be said to have existed at all before the individual cigarettes were made; it is diminished when one cigarette is gone and is no longer a pack of cigarettes; when you've smoked them all you are left not with a pack of cigarettes but a small piece of trash.

That seems a very poor metaphor to use for God and the world unless you're a deist.
 
bruto said:
A pack of cigarettes is made up of individual cigarettes; it cannot be said to have existed at all before the individual cigarettes were made; it is diminished when one cigarette is gone and is no longer a pack of cigarettes; when you've smoked them all you are left not with a pack of cigarettes but a small piece of trash.

That seems a very poor metaphor to use for God and the world unless you're a deist.
Click to expand...
A package of cigarettes is a package of cigarettes, before you've done anything to them. Now, if it was meant for the cigarettes to remain in the box, and never be smoked -- for example, in the way some people carry a full pack of cigarettes around to prove that they've quit smoking -- you still have a full pack of cigarettes. ;)
 
Last edited:
And, as long the cigarette remains within the pack, it's still a subset of that pack.
 
Iacchus said:
And, as long the cigarette remains within the pack, it's still a subset of that pack.
Click to expand...
Even when you choose the metaphors, they work against you. Cigs are made, and exist individually, before they are packaged. A pack is built from the bottom up--it does not spring a fully armoured Athena from the head of Zeuss. Your metaphor ignores the reality, uses an idealized cigarette pack that was never anything less than that, and then proceeds.

Once again, your readers understand your examples better than you do yourself. Once again...

you are quite simply wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom