• 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?

Iacchus said:
I don't "work" with crystals. Sorry. ;)
Click to expand...

That's not an answer to the question. Crystals are very complex, highly regular structures demonstrating order arising from appearant chaos. No intelligent force need guide the molecules of crystals into their patterns, only the chemical properties of the molecules, and the impersonnal forces at work.

Ergo, crystals arrise without intelligent guidance.

Since there is a clear counterexample to you claim that nothing arrises without a plan, your claim must be false, unless you can refute my example logically, from evidence.
 
Are you suggesting there is no "code" written within them that tells them how to behave?
 
Iacchus said:
Are you suggesting there is no "code" written within them that tells them how to behave?
Click to expand...

That is exactly correct. The only thing which causes crystals to form so regularly is the structure of their electron obritals, and their chemical properties.
 
Er, yes. Now, about those chemical properties ... not to mention the subatomic properties ... :)
 
hammegk said:
Er, yes. Now, about those chemical properties ... not to mention the subatomic properties ... :)
Click to expand...

What of them? Those do not require any desinger either. Scientific inquiry into the nature of atoms, their subsistituents, and their behavior has never found the smeared thumb print of any god, or any characterisic which is clearly the result of a designer.
 
Some would say that signposts adequate for some fail miserably for others; I'm willing to accept as my final, fallback, position the Strong -- Very Strong -- Anthropic Principle.
 
hammegk said:
Some would say that signposts adequate for some fail miserably for others; I'm willing to accept as my final, fallback, position the Strong -- Very Strong -- Anthropic Principle.
Click to expand...

How can your positon be final (suggesting you have examined and discarded all evidence to the contrary) as well as fall back (suggesting that was your assumpting all along). Given the typical brevity of your post, I cannot follow.
 
Iacchus said:
Evidence? Evidence supports the fact that "I" am not in direct contact with the world when I'm asleep, otherwise "I" would know about it.
Click to expand...
Thus finally demonstrating why you put "I" in quotes. You are defining it according to the Iacchian dictionary.
 
Disc said:
That is exactly correct. The only thing which causes crystals to form so regularly is the structure of their electron obritals, and their chemical properties.
Click to expand...
Looking at the regularities in the periodic table, I'm tempted to call them a code.

We have had this conversation before, and I have had it with other people. We've never managed to define code in a satisfying manner as the term pertains to nature.

~~ Paul
 
Mercutio said:
Thus finally demonstrating why you put "I" in quotes. You are defining it according to the Iacchian dictionary.
Click to expand...
Does it have the same definition as the Hammegkian dictionary has for *I*?

~~ Paul
 
Mercutio said:
Thus finally demonstrating why you put "I" in quotes. You are defining it according to the Iacchian dictionary.
Click to expand...
Could be. But then again, I'm merely describing it the way most people experience it. If you don't wish to consider it evidence, then I guess that's your call.
 
Paul said:
Does it have the same definition as the Hammegkian dictionary has for *I*?
Click to expand...

Very possibly, although Iacchus (it appears to me ... whatever THAT means :) ) thinks *he* (that's his "I") Thinks.

For me it's only an axiom that "*I* Think" (or *You* Think); my axiom does not cover the perceived existents ego-id-hammegk.self-whatever. In any case the certainty remains 100% that Thought Exists.
 
Iacchus said:
Could be. But then again, I'm merely describing it the way most people experience it. If you don't wish to consider it evidence, then I guess that's your call.
Click to expand...
Actually, no. You are not describing it the way most people experience it. You are taking what most people experience, and from that you are building castles in the sky and paving heaven's streets with gold, and pretending that it all follows logically from the way most people experience existence. It does not. This is why people continually point out your circular logic, your redefinitions of words, your mistaken ideas about science and philosophy.

Even you yourself recognise that you are using the words differently from the way most people experience it. Your quotation marks give you away.
 
Iacchus said:
How can you have a can of soup without the can? So yes, the can is a subset of the can of soup. Of course one can say they had a can of soup for lunch but, that's merely figurative ... I hope. :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

Yeah, :jaw-dropp is right! Iacchus, it appears that you do not understand the basic terminology and concepts of ninth-grade set theory, but I am running out of ways to try to explain it! I am running out of emphatic fonts here. Apparently a size 7 "NO" was not emphatic enough to convince you. Should I paint it red? How about NO!

I'm sorry I cannot figure out a way to make it flash too.

You cannot have a can of soup without the can, but the fact that the can is a component of the assembly called "a can of soup" does not make the can a subset of the can of soup, and it certainly does not make the soup a subset of the can that contains it. A set is, by definition, an unordered grouping of objects which have some property in common. Please read that sentence again, so that you understand what a set is, and try also to understand the implication of the term "unordered."

The can could, of course, be a subset of the set of "things which are either cans or soup," but it is not a subset of the set of "cans of soup" because membership in that set, by definition, requires that any member of that set be a can of soup, and all subsets and members of those subsets must qualify as members of the set. An empty can is not a can of soup, so an empty can cannot be a member of the set of cans of soup. Membership in a set requires that the thing be one of the things defined as a part of the set! The set of cans of soup can contain only cans of soup as members, hence also can contain only smaller sets of cans of soup as its subsets. Have I said that in enough different ways that it begins to penetrate? A single can of soup is a subset of the set of all cans of soup. That subset is a set with one member: itself. To suggest that an empty can is a subset of a can of soup is to require that the empty can be identical to a can of soup. This is not to suggest in any way that a can is not a requisite element in the assembly of a can of soup, but it is not a matter for set theory. It is not an issue of sets. Sets are not what you are talking about when you make that observation.

Similarly, you can treat numbers as the objects in a set. The numbers IN the set are not the same as the number of members in the set. The number 2 is a set by itself - the set of the number two, and it has a single member. It is also a subset of many other sets, the set of real numbers, the set of integers, the set of positive numbers, the set of even numbers, and so forth. However, as a set, the number two is a set with one member: itself; and consequently only one subset: itself! The fact that the number one can be doubled to add up to two does not make the number one a subset of the number two, and the fact that the set of the number two has one element does not make two a subset of one either. The fact that a set of two widgets contains as subsets two individual widgets still does not make the number one a subset of the number two, because a set of widgets is a set of widgets, not of numbers. Quite apart from the above, there is another rule of sets, which is that a set cannot contain multiple copies of the same thing. It can contain multiple objects that are functionally identical, such as the cigarettes in a pack, but these objects are distinct and individual. The cigarettes in the pack are not the same cigarette counted twenty times over. The number one cannot, therefore, be a subset of the number two, because there is only one number one. The number one is unique. To suggest that the number one is a subset of the number two would require that there be two of them in the set, but there can be only one, and unless 1=2, it cannot be.

Edit: I realize I made a mistake above when I said the single element set of the number two, the can, etc. has only one subset: itself. Actually, an single element set has two subsets, itself and the null set, which is the subset of all subsets. I don't think that makes a difference, but I figured I'd better catch that before someone else does.
 
Last edited:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Looking at the regularities in the periodic table, I'm tempted to call them a code.

We have had this conversation before, and I have had it with other people. We've never managed to define code in a satisfying manner as the term pertains to nature.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

Medeleev arrainged the elements in a way which cuased patterns to appear. We've kept that system. We have chosen to do so because it makes our understanding of the phenoma easier. The periodic table of the elements was not found under a rock, it is a human construct specifically orgnanized in oder to convey a great deal of information, of course it has a "code", the table has a designer. That does not mean the elements had a designer.
 
Iacchus said:
No, I can choose not to come into contact with the "physical world."
Click to expand...

Why ? When you dream, your body ceases to exist ? I beg to differ and I offer a simple experiment to prove otherwise. You sleep, I'll poke you in the ribs with a cattle prod. Let's see what happens.
 
Iacchus said:
No, there is a greater consciousness from which the physical world and my consciousness proceed.
Click to expand...

Again, assumption. You answer my accusations of proceding from your assumptions with the SAME assumption. You're not even trying.

Again, the alleged quote by Max Planck ...
Click to expand...

Who cares what he SAID ? What... if he said the universe was laid like a giant egg by a gigantic brown chicken, you'd believe him ?
 
Iacchus said:
Actually, you were never in direct contact with it ... and by falling asleep only confirms it. Whereas if you were to take the next step, and put the body to death (of which the self is unaware of at this point), then what?
Click to expand...

Again, where's you evidence ?

Let's see. We have the brain, which we know is able to process sounds and images... and we have dreams... which are sounds and images AND that seem to be composed of bits of recent memories. I think it's a simpler explanation to assume that the BRAIN is the source of dreams.

By the way, you still haven't adressed that point about dreams beign composed of recent memories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom