MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Existence: does it even? (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Unusually, Ishmael is correct on this occasion. Not on his estimation of your intelligence, the jury has not even been selected on this one yet, but the AEL rule is very firm: no metaphysics.

Keep it simple, keep it actual.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Every statement is subjective, in so far as it issues from a subject. But the statements we make here concern the nature of reality.

What is reality, you ask?

Reality is the nature of things as they exist for all subjects, whether those subjects believe, perceive or are aware in any way of the nature of those things: The truth that exists, independent of whether or not we think it true.

"The play is tragic," is largely true only in so far as any given subject found the play to be so. If the same play made another laugh, to that extent, the play is comic. By contrast, "The play was intended as a tragedy," is a statement concerning an objective reality. It is possible to cite evidence for this assertion and arrive at a conclusion that is more rational than an alternative.

"Two plus two equals four," is a statement concerning the nature of reality as experienced by all subjects regardless of their perception. A mental patient may not be capable of computing this equation and a sea slug may not be aware of the equation's existence; nevertheless, for all entities, two plus two equals four.

So is math subjective?

Are the laws of mathematics merely an invention of humans or do these laws express aspects of reality perceptible to rational humans despite being invisible to sea slugs?

There is only one answer that enables this discussion (or any other) to proceed.
Send private message
Nifegun



View user's profile
Reply with quote

While I can accept for the sake of this forum that we are dealing in reality as described by Ishmael, I wasn't discrediting any argument made, I was merely accepting the reality that technically everything is subjective. We all tend to draw a line between subjective and objective where subjective are things obviously left to interpretation, whereas objective things can be compared with facts alone. However when talking about reality, and more specifically physics, we must first assume a few base assumptions.

1. That the universe exists
2. You can learn something about it

Because technically we cannot dismiss those ideas neither prove them, as such everything we know is really based on assumptions and is technically subjective. Pointing this out is no different then when Ishmael stated that he does not think we have the capability to test my Universal Law Of Conservation theory. Both are simply technicalities we have to accept and move forward. I find it strange that pointing this out is causing such negativity in this forum. Especially to the point of questioning other's intelligence for doing so.

The fact remains that it is technically true that the very existence of anything is just an assumption we make based on the idea that we believe we have brains that interpret reality. Granted it's such a fundamentally required assumption that we need it to learn anything and everything we know is built on it, but that doesn't change that it is an assumption, nor does that dismiss the technicality that everything is subjective.

Don't get me wrong I hate all the hair brained ideas people come up with when they start thinking about this kinda stuff. "We're all in the matrix", "The universe could have popped into existence this very instance and we simply had all our memories built into us", etc, I'm sure you've all heard ideas like that before. I don't like accepting those because we cannot learn anything from them. This is why I accept the assumption that universe does exist and that all we know is in fact subjective. For the purpose of this forum I understand we are not wasting our time with this technicality as it gets us no where, however that doesn't mean that bringing it up makes anyone less intelligent. It is still a matter many powerful minds spend time thinking about.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Nifegun wrote:
I find it strange that pointing this out is causing such negativity in this forum. Especially to the point of questioning other's intelligence for doing so.

Because you were just being obstinate, as this post establishes.

The fact remains that it is technically true that the very existence of anything is just an assumption we make based on the idea that we believe we have brains that interpret reality.

Not so.

So long as the paradigm continues to prove useful and productive, it argues for itself. We test and confirm the assumption every time we find an experience which is the same for all who know it. Two plus two equals four is perhaps the most fundamental of all such experiences.

I don't like accepting those because we cannot learn anything from them.

They have proven to be unproductive paradigms. What is unproductive is untrue.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

NG can you give me some examples on what you are talking about?

Sorry take that back.

You have talked about fire and zero... so

Tell me what you think about Absolute Zero
Send private message
Nifegun



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Well I'm sorry I ever tried to have a little bit of fun with this forum. I'd just like to point out the ridiculous over-reaction to me stating that Grant saying "two plus two equals four is subjective" was correct. Furthermore I even conceded that this is a mere technicality and I personally never took it too seriously. In fact I was just having fun with it. The evidence for me just having fun with it can be seen in the fact that I had also just pointed out a comment that Ishmael had made was essentially a more formal phrasing of my rather sarcastic title to this thread, followed by a winky face.

Though I so deeply apologize for pointing out that at the base of all we know are a few core assumptions and that at the other end of the process everything must be interpreted with a brain that uses those assumptions and therefore everything is to a degree subjective. Despite the fact that after giving this explanation, which I'm sure was not new to anyone, I even agreed that to hold to this technicality was silly as it results in the hair brained ideas I mentioned.

The only minor difference that exists here is that I do accept that to a degree all things are subjective, though I make assumptions that allow me to simply overlook this. This allows me to use the words objective and subjective the same way everyone else here does. I even dismissed the idea of operating with the notion of all things being subjective at the end of my explanation as it is unproductive to do so. Yet somehow that got people even more upset. Again I do operate and agree with the forum's usage of objective and subjective, this entire issue stems from me merely pointing out the technicality that all things are subjective when you consider that all information must be interpreted by a mind. This does not mean I am illogical, this also wouldn't discredit any hypothesis I've presented to the forum.

Someone truly seeking knowledge would know that any hypothesis stands and falls on its own merits. If it tests well it is accurate, if it doesn't it is not. The person who stated it or their view of subjectivity will not change that. Frankly when Ishmael made a comment implying that something I'm saying now would discredit the things I've presented thus far, I lost some respect for him as an academic. You should be viewing anything I present as its own idea and testing it as best you can with your own capabilities, bringing up a technicality like all things being subject to interpretation, should not change any of the testing or analysis you've done. Granted you didn't understand that when I said "technically" I meant on a minor technicality and was honestly having some fun. Again it is a technicality that you flat out deny, whereas I simply overlook it, but in either case it means very little.

Now as for Mr. Wile E. Coyote. Fuck You.
One post I make in this forum causes a dispute and you belittle everything I've presented thus far? I mean really?
You just reduced a new way of looking at the still unexplained phenomena of abiogenesis to simply "fire", which is not only far from what I wrote but also blatantly insulting. You then reduced an elegant explanation for things being able to exist, one of the most fundamental questions in the world to just "zero". So I don't think I'm over reacting when I tell you to go fuck yourself.

This might be my last post here on Applied Epistemology. I thank those of you who provided criticism to the few concepts I posted, but I have better things to do than speak with a forum that is afraid of joking around with a commonly known and accepted technicality and far too quick to insult a mind and a mind's work for essentially no reason at all. I'll check later to see if people have stopped being stupid and consider continuing to contribute. I'll also agree to keep it simple and avoid the meta
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Now you are taking all of us too seriously. Get on with it.

Must I praise you after every post?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Nifegun wrote:
...all things are subjective


No. They are not. All things are experienced subjectively but that does not mean all things are subjective. On this distinction the whole of the modern world flounders.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Nifegun wrote:
I'll check later to see if people have stopped being stupid and consider continuing to contribute. I'll also agree to keep it simple and avoid the meta


You wouldn't have been invited here unless someone saw something of value in you. You've only confirmed that assessment with each post. But the right to sulk like a Prima Donna has yet to be earned.

You are new here.

If you want to continue to earn respect, take a moment before you respond in anger. Nothing worthwhile comes easy. Everyone here is hoping for the best from you. Your thoughts have been impressive and this is about the only place you're going to get that fair hearing you've always said you wanted.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Nifegun wrote:
Now as for Mr. Wile E. Coyote....


Coyote drives me crazy as well. But the man does have occasional flashes of genius.

When I read a post from him I don't understand (which is most of them) I just tell myself, "It's the LSD talking."
Send private message
Nifegun



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmeal, I wasn't angry when I wrote that post nor was I being a prima donna. I'd recommend you cut out the name calling and assuming other positions, it's immature. I was being completely sincere. I accepted that I was out of line when I agreed to "avoid the meta". I can understand how telling someone to fuck off would seem angry, but I did fully justify myself doing so. It takes a lot to make me angry. Furthermore when I explained that I simply overlook things being subjective, whereas this forum rejects the notion, the point was that ultimately it puts us all in the same position regardless. That was consensus, my way of saying "we agree enough to go forward". Now I'm posed in an awkward stance as I just said my previous post may be my last post and that it would depend on whether or not people are no longer being stupid.

Immediately after making that statement Ishmeal, you replied, not once but thrice. To do the following.

1) Accuse me of wanting praise after each post. Frankly I'd prefer criticism, though I do appreciate the praise I have received.
2) Again bring up the issue I have now tried to move passed twice.
3) Accuse me of being an angry Prima Donna.
4) Accuse another fellow forum member of being on LSD.

Granted you did explain that as a new member if I want respect I need to treat the forum with respect. A concept everyone knows but forgets when overwhelmed by emotions. Had I been overwhelmed by emotions like anger, this would have been an appropriate response. However those four listed points really didn't help me in maintaining respect for this forum. I'll try to end this silly dispute now by stating for the third god damn time.

I use the words OBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE the same way you all do and agree to avoid metaphysical concepts as described in the rules of AEL.
Send private message
Nifegun



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Now can we please get back to the topic at hand?

Can anyone try to build upon or criticize the following?

the total of all matter and energy in the universe is in fact 0 and that this is the case because it seems more logical to assume nothing existed, then all things avoided breaking any conservation laws, by entering into existence with their own natural inverses in lock-step.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Knifegun

You're very adept at making something out of nothing, but (to avoid breaking any conservation laws) you need to balance it by making nothing out of something.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Like
Send private message
Nifegun



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Chad. Minor detail, there is no 'K' in Nifegun and that is intentional.

Now you raise a good point. Most people seem to be ok with the idea that everything started at nothing and that all things have a natural inverse, that leaves the total value of the universe at 0. But this does also imply that these things and their inverses should be able to combine back to nothing.

I know that this has been mentioned in conversations about anti-matter, though to be quite honest I haven't read up on any of that recently.

My opinion on the matter is that we already see the concepts of this at work anyway, so even without proof I don't see much of an issue assuming this can happen. For example:

1. Gravity pulling all matter that was scattered back together
2. The general trend of things trying to be balanced. When you take an electron from an atom, it tries to find another to attain balance.
3. All of our natural constants seem to be set such that they exactly inverse the universe we can observe.

While none of this directly shows the universe is trying or even capable of performing the operation of creation backwards, it does seem to suggest that things that can balance will. As such I like to infer that all things and their natural inverses do hold the energy required to go back to nothing if they were to meet.

Granted the evidence is lacking, but that's how I see it.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Jump to:  
Page 3 of 4

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group