Does Matter Really Exist?

[Belz...]

And, when you go to the store to buy some cigarettes, you ask for a package of cigarettes, not a handful of cigarettes individually.

And so you assign to this convention of speech a metaphysical meaning ? Sheesh.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Would you care to STATE that evidence ? Maybe then we'll really be talking.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Most ? Evidence ?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

I am, of course, not even vaguely suggesting anything about a designer.

The outer shell of electrons determines many of the characteristics of an element. In particular, it determines how the element binds with other elements. Could we not think of the number of electrons in the outer shell as a code? If not, why not?

We call triplets of DNA bases a code. If we're willing to do that, but not willing to call the periodic table a code, what is the difference? The only hint of a difference I have heard is that we should be willing to call something a code only if the code is used to correct errors.

~~ Paul

 

[Tricky]

I am, of course, not even vaguely suggesting anything about a designer.

The outer shell of electrons determines many of the characteristics of an element. In particular, it determines how the element binds with other elements. Could we not think of the number of electrons in the outer shell as a code? If not, why not?

We call triplets of DNA bases a code. If we're willing to do that, but not willing to call the periodic table a code, what is the difference? The only hint of a difference I have heard is that we should be willing to call something a code only if the code is used to correct errors.

~~ Paul

This illustrates the ambiguity of the language. We routinely use the word "code" to mean "arrangement", such as the DNA bases code. I often refer to a specific organism, such as a bird being "designed" for flight. Unfortunately, these ambiguities are seized upon by theists to support their notion that there is intelligence behind their configuration.

It is simply too much trouble to have to qualify every word I use to say that when I say "designed", I mean evolved and naturally selected or to say "the natural arrangement of the characteristics of elements", rather than the periodic code.

I may have to explain myself from time to time (periodically? ) but it is worth the trouble not having to walk on eggs every time I speak.

 

[hammegk]

Or as I prefer to say, Thank Ed we are here despite beating all the monstrous odds against it happening that allow us to discuss the fact Ed does not exist.

 

[Mercutio]

Or as I prefer to say, Thank Ed we are here despite beating all the monstrous odds against it happening that allow us to discuss the fact Ed does not exist.

I dunno...the monstrous odds are there, certainly, but when I lay on my back in a field and look up at the vastness of the night sky, and realize that far beyond my sight the hubble has found countless galaxies, each with more stars than I can see with my poor eyes...the vast amount of space required to contain all that, and the only life we are certain exists is here in this infinitessimal speck of that space...

...to the best of our reckoning, nowhere in the stars that I can see unaided is there another Mercutio looking up at the night sky and wondering the same. We can suppose that there is, and I believe that there must be, but my point is that these "monstrous odds" are quite obviously applied to an even more monstrous universe. I have quite an ego, but not sufficient to think that all that wasted space was put there just for me to marvel at it.

It is so magnificent, so awe-inspiring, it forces us to come up with concepts like "god" in order to adequately express its magnitude. For me...I am happy to jettison the god concept and look directly at the universe. It is far more impressive.

 

[cyborg]

So, doesn't this suggest that either half of 2, is a subset of the whole of 2? Sure it does

No.

Hence we can say, 2 = 1 + 1 or, 2 = 1 x 1, correct?

No.

Even if you were to say M = E/C² or, C² = E/M, it still shows that both are properties of "E."

No it doesn't. It shows you can express any one of the properties with repect to the other one. In other words you can show their dependencies.

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.

I have no means of refuting someone who is clearly unable to grasp the simplest of mathmatical concepts.

 

[Bone_Vulture]

Eleven pages, more than four hundred posts. Zero progress. Iacchus repels reason like teflon does stains.

Also: 2+2=4, 2x2=4! Clearly number two is the only mathematical subset in the universe, whatever the hell that means! But ask Iacchus, he "knows"!

 

[Iacchus]

Eleven pages, more than four hundred posts. Zero progress. Iacchus repels reason like teflon does stains.

Also: 2+2=4, 2x2=4! Clearly number two is the only mathematical subset in the universe, whatever the hell that means! But ask Iacchus, he "knows"!

Yeah, it's funny the Universe would even accomodate such a numbskull. Perhaps my thinking exists "outside" of its dominion?

 

[Bone_Vulture]

Yeah, it's funny the Universe would even accomodate such a numbskull. Perhaps my thinking exists "outside" of its dominion?

Yes, you are quite clearly "way out there".

Pardon my ad hominem, back to the fruitless debate.

 

[Iacchus]

Or as I prefer to say, Thank Ed we are here despite beating all the monstrous odds against it happening that allow us to discuss the fact Ed does not exist.

Well, that's about the most sane thing anyone could say. But, noooooo ...

 

[Mercutio]

Yeah, it's funny the Universe would even accomodate such a numbskull. Perhaps my thinking exists "outside" of its dominion?

There is a more parsimonious explanation.

You are quite simply wrong.

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, you are quite clearly "way out there".

Pardon my ad hominem, back to the fruitless debate.

Indeed, maybe that's where I get my objectivity from ... my ability to stand outside of time and space.

 

[cyborg]

Unfortunately we cannot refute his statements as he cannot understand the refutations.

Argument by stupidity - I am too stupid to understand you so I'm right.

 

[Mercutio]

Indeed, maybe that's where I get my objectivity from ... my ability to stand outside of time space.

Again, the more parsimonious explanation exists...

 

[cyborg]

Indeed, maybe that's where I get my objectivity from ... my ability to stand outside of time space.

You have no such ability.

 

[Iacchus]

Once again, the alleged words of Mr. 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.

 

[Mojo]

You keep quoting that, but do you have anything to back it up with?

:

 

[Johnny Pixels]

Once again, the alleged words of Mr. Planck ...

Yeah, alleged words. Any old clown could have said that and it been attributed to Planck. Doesn't make it true though.