It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Good remains triumphant over Evil

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt


The fact's and truth's of science




Originally posted by Produkt


The physic's of aeroplane's, a proven fact/truth, or else we wouldn't be flying!




Originally posted by Produkt


It's because we've discovered how electricity works, that we are able to put it to work. We're not wrong about it, for the simple fact that we put it to use! It's not a theory anymore, it's a fact.



there 3 times just on the 4th page alone you directly call many parts of science fact. i didnt quote more because it would be a waste of space, you can go and look at it yourself if youd like.


[edit on 10-2-2006 by grimreaper797]




posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   
The sky is appear's blue to the human eye. Fact or not?

When you get cut you feel pain. Fact or not?

The mechanics of a cumbustion engine. Fact or not?

When you throw a ball in the air, it falls back down onto the Earth. Fact or not?

The physics allowing for air travel. Fact or not?

Radio wave's existance and it's usage. Fact or not?

Let's look at the definition of a fact.



dictionary.reference.com...

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.


Now that you have an understanding of what a fact is can you show me how those above example's are not fact's.

Why do I claim many part's of science are fact's? Look at the definition.

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact.

Concerning the many theories of science, I have admitted those were not fact's. Evolution is not a fact, but in my opinion it should be. The big bang is not a fact, but in my opinion it should be considered as one. String theory is not a fact. Ad infinitum.

Your notion of individuality is based upon not fact, but theory. That is a fact.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
lol i showed you that you contradicted yourself plain and simple, if you didnt means it well...as john travolta said in the movie phenomenon "specifics bob...specifics"

you still didnt answer my questions do you believe the first law of thermodynamics and einsteins equation E=mc2 are both not fact but theory? if so why? if not then how does my theory not work as far as fundemental particles not holding the definition of individual? of course its a theory, because science hasnt dealt with it yet. tell me why my basic laws of physics which i just listed are either not fact or tell me why my theory doesnt work, even with your constant change put in? ive explained to you why it would work with basic physics proving that they apply to the definition of Individual, where all other things cannot. explain to me with detail how your theory disproves mine rather then just saying it does.

edit:
so wait let me get this straight....according to your words, many parts of science are facts...but science itself isnt a fact? ive got 3 examples of you calling parts of science known facts yet


Originally posted by Produkt
I never stated that science was fact


could you please explain to me how this worked and what you were talkin about because right here so say that you dont state science is a fact, yet on page 4 you took many times stating certian parts of science have been proven fact???


[edit on 10-2-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
also my definition of individuality is based on the misinterpretation of people in concerns to what an individual is. what i provided was scientific facts to back up why i believe this. identical twins are individuals are they not? a perfect example, we will go back to a self aware computer

make these computers look exactly alike...programmed exactly the same, identical in looks. a majority of people wouldnt call them individuals, some might since they are self aware, but most still wouldnt because they are all alike in looks. this would be wrong because they may look identical yet they at the roots, are made up with different "somethings". the somethings are identical in looks as well, but they arent the same something now are they, they are two different somethings. if there are two of them each, no matter how alike they look, are individual of eachother.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Hmm, I don't see how you equate the acceptance of theory could be wrong or how the statement's made of when something is a proven fact are contradictory, but not all people can grasp every concept known either.

If you'd like to learn more about thermodynamic's ... Thermodynamics holds true ina macroscopic sense, but not at the quantum level where you individualty would reside.



www.physlink.com...

The law you cite, applies only to 'closed systems', i.e. where nothing can be added or subtracted from the 'specimen'. Obviously if you apply the law to an empty box, then open the box and dump in a handful of sand, or quarks, or energy, you don't expect the law to apply, because the system is not 'closed'.

It is not known whether the universe as a whole is a closed system now at present. As far as conditions preceding and at the very moment of the 'big bang', we can only speculate whether the universe was closed, or open (to another, larger system), or whether the First Law (or lots of other laws) even applies under those extreme conditions.

Answered by: Grant Hallman, Ph.D., Universtiy of Toronto, 1971/1967


In the macroscopic world, the domain of ‘classical’ physics, the laws of thermodynamics are, and have always been, true.

However, on the quantum scale, it is a very different matter. Hiesenberg’s uncertainty states that there will always be a level of uncertainty when you try to make measurements of particles and other quantum scale occurrences. You can never know everything about a particle’s position and motion at any one time. This is an intrinsic uncertainty, it is not due to limitations on our measuring devices. This uncertainty of the energy of anything of the Planck scale is size allows some very bizarre phenomena to occur.



en.wikipedia.org...

General Relativity is still a theory, hence why we refer to is as the Theory of General Relativity despite any evidence in it's favor, just as evolution is still a theory, despite the evidence supporting it.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
also my definition of individuality is based on the misinterpretation of people in concerns to what an individual is. what i provided was scientific facts to back up why i believe this. identical twins are individuals are they not? a perfect example, we will go back to a self aware computer

make these computers look exactly alike...programmed exactly the same, identical in looks. a majority of people wouldnt call them individuals, some might since they are self aware, but most still wouldnt because they are all alike in looks. this would be wrong because they may look identical yet they at the roots, are made up with different "somethings". the somethings are identical in looks as well, but they arent the same something now are they, they are two different somethings. if there are two of them each, no matter how alike they look, are individual of eachother.


You just contradicted your own theory.

[EDIT] Not only just that, but you just stated you provided scientific facts after just harping on my ass over what I was calling fact's. So far, your scientific evidence has been theory and theory only, as I've shown you. String theory is called string theory for a reason. It's a theory, not a fact.




in my theory basically, whatever is the smallest most fundemental particle in existance is what holds it individuality. this reason being is stated above. nothing else has true individuality by definition. this definition is an obvious challange to the present one. i present it because if there is any change in matter or energy, not in characteristics but in actual material that was used, then this being no longer holds its individuality.

since nothing living holds this form, nothing living holds true individuality by new definition. most matter does not hold this form, only the most fundemental particles in the universe can hold its original material for an indefinate amount of time, reguardless of change in characteristics.


Onto the self aware computer issue. Where again you contradict your theory.




make these computers look exactly alike...programmed exactly the same, identical in looks. a majority of people wouldnt call them individuals, some might since they are self aware, but most still wouldnt because they are all alike in looks.





if there are two of them each, no matter how alike they look, are individual of eachother.


So, if they are self aware, and some people considered them individuals based upon this self awareness, but some wouldn't because they all look alike, does this mean twin's are not individual's? Clone's are not individual's? The only possible, and it could be an iffy, way this could be true of your computer's is if they all had the same exact experiences, enviromental interaction's, and the same exact thought's at the same exact time's.

[edit on 11-2-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   


so wait let me get this straight....according to your words, many parts of science are facts...but science itself isnt a fact? ive got 3 examples of you calling parts of science known facts yet


Let me pose this a different way, since despite the definition of fact your still appearently having trouble grasping the concept.

As shown, by the very definition of fact, most part's of science are fact's. Such as genetic engineering is a fact, as shown in the definition.

With me so far? God I hope so...


Scientific theories are still a part of science, which is why science itself isn't a fact. Science as a WHOLE isn't a fact, because alot of the theories pertaining to science are not fact's. Just as some of the evidence of a theory may be proven as fact's, the theory itself isn't a fact.

I hope this help's you gain a broader understanding.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   
So in light of all this, my theory still holds ground over your theory. There currently is no proven, factual model of physics beyond the quark/gluon level. While my model may be improbable, it's still theoreticly possible, just as string theory is. The difference is, my model take's away your notion of individuality your trying to use string theory to prove.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   
no one are individuals in the sense of the word. anything higher then fundemental particles wouldnt be individuals because the original particles that made them would not be part of them anymore. not to mention the fact we break down an are reused in other life forms and matter so this also says we dont have individuality since that cluster is constantly changing as far as its original particles go then the cluster breaks apart and forms a new cluster.

tell me where i contradicted myself. i said you did because you didnt state theories you said specifically that "i never said science was a fact" science includes those that have been proven and theories both.

twins arent individuals, you arent an individual, i am not an individual. a self aware computer isnt an individual. a fundemental particle is individule. even on the quantum scale with the same opening for energy being barrowed and put into existance with a gravitational field, that doesnt change the fact these new energies cant become part of the existing energies. the existing energies are still individual of this new energy. it also doesnt change the fact that converting energy into matter still holds a ratio where alot more energy would be needed to make matter, so energy would have to be smaller then matter. 1 of these energies cannot be bigger then 1 particle of matter simply because the ratio doesnt even out. if it did we would have matter popping up out of nowhere all the time because the ease it would be to create one particle of matter.

self awareness doesnt make any individuality on a physical level, so in the cases of computers as well, still no individual.

im starting to give up because your frame of individual constantly comes back to mental even when talkin about it in a physical sense. no experiences make any difference in somethings individuality. i told you what my defintion of challange was. thoughts have no effect on physical individuality, nor does interaction experiences. the only thing that has effect on physical individuality is if the original particles that originally made up something infanitely joined together and couldnt be broken down or changed at all under any circumstance. the only thing that cant be broken down and changed under any circumstance would be a fundemental particle.

how come whenever i attempt to show you individuality on the fundemental scale you have trouble, but when i try to show you what i mean in a way youd understand it suddenly im contradicting myself? i presented the identical twins thing to show you something that looks the same, doesnt mean its not an individual (twins would be individual to you, despite looks) and computer one was to show you even something that is programmed exactly the same way, is still individual because of the fact the two particles arent the same particle (not mean characteristically but physically)

say machine A is made up of particle 1 2 3 and 4. and machine B is made up of particle 5 6 7 and 8. both are the exact same in looks programming and all. now right now particles 1 2 3 4 arent particles 5 6 7 8, despite the fact they make up the exact same computer with the exact same functions, at the exact same time. if these machines were fundemental particles....they would be individuals. BUT since particle 1 may break apart from machine A and particle 4 may break apart from machine B, machine A could pick up particle 4 and now a part of machine A is connected with machine B. even if these two machines started this way since the begining of the universe i would not consider A or B individuals because they no longer have the same particles as when they were originated.

now, as you know, all the sciences right now are pretty much a theory. gravitation is a theory, quantum is a theory. alot of things are still theories as far as physics goes. right now you are attempting to prove me wrong with a theory, that directly conflicts with another theory and one of them MUST be wrong. unfortunately if one is wrong the other doesnt give a full explaination as to how the universe works.

keep in mind string theory and quantum are definately going to conflict since quantum and relativity cannot balance the universe. the joining theory is hopefully string theory. of course they are going to conflict...if they didnt there wouldnt be a need for string theory because the two theories wouldnt have problems co existing. since the two theories conflict, theres something definately wrong with the theories mind you.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   
ps explain in detail just how your model specifically proves my model wrong, i want details because you arent explaining it enough.

your quantum thing talks about adding material and creating it on a quantum scale, now assuming this theory is right, this still doesnt discredit my theory. its bringing in a new particle, not adding onto an existing fundemental particle, theres a huge different.

[edit on 11-2-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   


no one are individuals in the sense of the word. anything higher then fundemental particles wouldnt be individuals because the original particles that made them would not be part of them anymore. not to mention the fact we break down an are reused in other life forms and matter so this also says we dont have individuality since that cluster is constantly changing as far as its original particles go then the cluster breaks apart and forms a new cluster.


Ok... so twin's aren't individual's now ...

But wait?





also my definition of individuality is based on the misinterpretation of people in concerns to what an individual is. what i provided was scientific facts to back up why i believe this. identical twins are individuals are they not? a perfect example, we will go back to a self aware computer

make these computers look exactly alike...programmed exactly the same, identical in looks. a majority of people wouldnt call them individuals, some might since they are self aware, but most still wouldnt because they are all alike in looks.


Wha? Here they are, but identical computer's despite the (mental aspect) are not? Damn... can you say total contradiction.

In fact, your whole definition of individuality is also unfounded. As you exist in the here and now, the present, the moment, whatever you would like to call it. YES, individuality does exist.



dictionary.reference.com...

in·di·vid·u·al·i·ty
1. The aggregate of qualities and characteristics that distinguish one person or thing from others; character: choices that were intended to express his individuality; monotonous towns lacking in individuality.
2. An individual or distinguishing feature.


I'm not sure, but it'd be interesting to see one redefine the very definition of individuality and make it become widley acceptable to fit the view's of a philosophical theory.




i said you did because you didnt state theories you said specifically that "i never said science was a fact" science includes those that have been proven and theories both.


Quite right, I spoke of science as a whole, in light of science as a whole not being a fact. "The truth's and fact's of science" is a generealized statement, also, this statement in no way implies, as a whole that science is true, note the usage of plural's.





twins arent individuals, you arent an individual, i am not an individual. a self aware computer isnt an individual. a fundemental particle is individule. even on the quantum scale with the same opening for energy being barrowed and put into existance with a gravitational field, that doesnt change the fact these new energies cant become part of the existing energies. the existing energies are still individual of this new energy. it also doesnt change the fact that converting energy into matter still holds a ratio where alot more energy would be needed to make matter, so energy would have to be smaller then matter. 1 of these energies cannot be bigger then 1 particle of matter simply because the ratio doesnt even out. if it did we would have matter popping up out of nowhere all the time because the ease it would be to create one particle of matter.


Wait??? I'm getting very confused on what you consider individuality! You've already stated that people are individuals, such as twins, but now twice you've changed your story and said they aren't? Exactly how scientific is your theory?



a fundemental particle is individule. even on the quantum scale with the same opening for energy being barrowed and put into existance with a gravitational field, that doesnt change the fact these new energies cant become part of the existing energies. the existing energies are still individual of this new energy. it also doesnt change the fact that converting energy into matter still holds a ratio where alot more energy would be needed to make matter, so energy would have to be smaller then matter.


B...B...But?



this would be wrong because they may look identical yet they at the roots, are made up with different "somethings". the somethings are identical in looks as well, but they arent the same something now are they, they are two different somethings. if there are two of them each, no matter how alike they look, are individual of eachother.


Wait. So are they or or they not made up of the same something? In one instance your telling me that they aren't and this is why they hold individuality, in the next your telling me that they are made up of the same energy or something ... IDK... I'm so very confused at this point, and I suspect so are you.




self awareness doesnt make any individuality on a physical level, so in the cases of computers as well, still no individual.


Huh... interesting. I disagree however and so would 99% of humanity. Or any life form for that matter, granted it could voice it's opinion. On the physical level. it IS the physical level that give's you the ability to perform higher cognitive thought's! Brush up on chemistry, biology, and computer science, and AI theory. Also, not one person think's exactly alike, thus giving them individuality as per defined.




im starting to give up because your frame of individual constantly comes back to mental even when talkin about it in a physical sense. no experiences make any difference in somethings individuality. i told you what my defintion of challange was. thoughts have no effect on physical individuality, nor does interaction experiences. the only thing that has effect on physical individuality is if the original particles that originally made up something infanitely joined together and couldnt be broken down or changed at all under any circumstance. the only thing that cant be broken down and changed under any circumstance would be a fundemental particle.


Quite wrong. Someone's not paying attention. This isn't always leading back to just the mental. As I pointed out, the physical play's the most biggest, enourmess part concerning the mental. Not just the arrangment of all the individual atom's within the complex brain, but also the many physical variable of enviromental reaction's that shape and define the mental. To say the only thing that has an effect on the physical is at the particle level is to deny that your very own existance (in a way). That no matter what, in light of what your saying, nothing has any real effect on YOU, despite the mental and physical problem's on the macroscale of many variable's that most would take into consideration's as affectimg their inividuality.




how come whenever i attempt to show you individuality on the fundemental scale you have trouble, but when i try to show you what i mean in a way youd understand it suddenly im contradicting myself? i presented the identical twins thing to show you something that looks the same, doesnt mean its not an individual (twins would be individual to you, despite looks) and computer one was to show you even something that is programmed exactly the same way, is still individual because of the fact the two particles arent the same particle (not mean characteristically but physically)


Simply put, because your notion of what individuality is, is a contradiction. For the very reason's I've already outlined. I hope you were paying attention as I pointed them out. If you've forgotten, please take this moment of inttermission to go back over them.




say machine A is made up of particle 1 2 3 and 4. and machine B is made up of particle 5 6 7 and 8. both are the exact same in looks programming and all. now right now particles 1 2 3 4 arent particles 5 6 7 8, despite the fact they make up the exact same computer with the exact same functions, at the exact same time. if these machines were fundemental particles....they would be individuals. BUT since particle 1 may break apart from machine A and particle 4 may break apart from machine B, machine A could pick up particle 4 and now a part of machine A is connected with machine B. even if these two machines started this way since the begining of the universe i would not consider A or B individuals because they no longer have the same particles as when they were originated.


This sentance alone contradict's your notion of individuality. Computer a and computer B are both made up of different particals, but look the same, but they aren't individuals.

How so, they aren't the same at the fundamental level of what your notion of indivduality is based upon.

But ok, let's continue... So computer A and B exchange different particals... Assuming computer A picks up particle 4 from computer B, they still aren't individuals? How so? At the fundamental level, they're still made up of different particals in this example. Thus they are indeed individuals despite looking the same, as you previously stated that twins are individuals.




now, as you know, all the sciences right now are pretty much a theory. gravitation is a theory, quantum is a theory. alot of things are still theories as far as physics goes. right now you are attempting to prove me wrong with a theory, that directly conflicts with another theory and one of them MUST be wrong. unfortunately if one is wrong the other doesnt give a full explaination as to how the universe works.


Actually, Quantum Mechanics is no longer a theory ... thought I'd just point it out. Moving on however... Yes, agreed, some part's of science are just theories, and seeing as how you acknowledge this I find it rather difficult for you to not be able to grasp a concept of what you considered a contradiction of mine earlier. Quite right though, I am trying to disprove your theory of individuality with another theory. And seeing as how neither have any evidence to back either up, we can necessarily be calling your's or mine a fact, or based upon fact's as you tried saying of your theory previously, as it is based upon a theory, which you just admitted here now. Also, that's another contradiction again.




keep in mind string theory and quantum are definately going to conflict since quantum and relativity cannot balance the universe. the joining theory is hopefully string theory. of course they are going to conflict...if they didnt there wouldnt be a need for string theory because the two theories wouldnt have problems co existing. since the two theories conflict, theres something definately wrong with the theories mind you.


How do you figure? Seeing as how relativity is still a theory, some currently undefined concept could theoretically allow the two to merge in a way to better define the inner workings of the univerese. So in essence, you cannot factually state the phrase, cannot. There's only one theory in confliction, that would be relativity, as noted earlier, quantum mechanics no longer reside's on the realm of theories, but has now become a fact of life. (hope you remembered the definition of a fact.)





ps explain in detail just how your model specifically proves my model wrong, i want details because you arent explaining it enough.

your quantum thing talks about adding material and creating it on a quantum scale, now assuming this theory is right, this still doesnt discredit my theory. its bringing in a new particle, not adding onto an existing fundemental particle, theres a huge different.


Truethfully, my model has been explained fairly enough to disprove your model. As nothing hold's any sense of true individuality for any determinate length of time. I'm assuming the phrase quantum entanglement went fully over your head earlier as well. My quantum example neither add's no subtract's, just change's from one form to another. As duly noted (although not well thought out, I'm not a physicist after all.) The underlying physics at the fundamental level is a proven science. We don't know what goes on at that level. Just as the quantum level allows for many seemingly wierd thing's too occur that don't occur on a macroscale, it's safe too assume, theoretically, this could be furthur agitated at and even deeper level. Just as thermodynamics applies only on a macro scale and quantum mechanics applies on the micro scale, what of the fundamental scale? Could be completely new level of undiscovered physics. We don't know as none of it is proven fact's. So, no matter how impossibal my theory may sound, it's still very probable to be found true.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Ok... so twin's aren't individual's now ...

But wait?



first off i said my theory applies to fundemental particles. i used twins as an example that YOU could understand, trying to show it somewhat in your views of individual. if the twins were fundemental particles and could never break apart or exchange an old particle for a new one, THEN they would be individuals. they were never individuals, it was just your inablility to understand what my definition of an individual that forced me to use twins and computers.




Wha? Here they are, but identical computer's despite the (mental aspect) are not? Damn... can you say total contradiction.

In fact, your whole definition of individuality is also unfounded. As you exist in the here and now, the present, the moment, whatever you would like to call it. YES, individuality does exist.


you understand that two particles no matter how alike they look and the characteristics they hold are still two different particles right? thats what i was trying to show you, on a more obvious level for you. i used computers to show you even something that looks exactly alike and hold the exact same characteristics are still two different computers. im trying to explain it to you using what you understand because youre not grasping that individuality doesnt rely on traits but the amount of matter and the original matter used (or energy)



dictionary.reference.com...



in·di·vid·u·al·i·ty
1. The aggregate of qualities and characteristics that distinguish one person or thing from others; character: choices that were intended to express his individuality; monotonous towns lacking in individuality.
2. An individual or distinguishing feature.


I'm not sure, but it'd be interesting to see one redefine the very definition of individuality and make it become widley acceptable to fit the view's of a philosophical theory.


reguardless of a definition some person made up doesnt mean its right. its talkin about characteristically. yes characteristically you are an individual. on a physical level of matter though, you are not. characteristically though, individuality doesnt hold. characteristically individuality will change over time, so your no longer what you were before, or in constant change. as far as matter goes in te physical sense your never an individual, as far as characteristics go you could be considered a different individual at every moment. unfortunately characteristics are merely our way to describe the changes in which the cluster takes. these characteristics are made up in our mental aspect.
characteristically, you could eventually be apple rock and tree later after your mental life dies. you lose your individuality because of the characteristic change.
physically in matter, its still the same fundemental particle before no matter what characteristics or descriptive words we use to describe it are. if the particle never changes the matter in which it uses, it never loses its individuality because its still the same particle as far as original matter or energy used goes. no matter what form it takes, its still the same "something" still the same amount and still the same original particle, with only a different visual characteristic, which has no effect on the definition of individual.

your meaning of individual is based on what a person can see, and how we can describe it. if we cannot describe a difference at all between two things, its not considered individual, this is where i beg to differ. mainly because they arent the same material used, so they cant be the same thing, not on a physical scale. on a characteristic scale yes they can be considered the same since theres nothing characteristically to differentiate the two of them. physically though there is.
im saying charateristics dont define the individual, the ability to maintain originality from existance defines its individuality. if it didnt keep its originality its not the same individual as it was before, and essentially is made up of what was formerly considered an individual. you not a physical individual if you are made up of things previous individuals were made of.



Wait??? I'm getting very confused on what you consider individuality! You've already stated that people are individuals, such as twins, but now twice you've changed your story and said they aren't? Exactly how scientific is your theory?


as ive said, because you cant grip my definition of individual based on physical sense rather then a discriptive sense, i had no choice but to use something that you would understand. the fact the twins look alike but there are two of them shows that at a fundemental scale, two things that look alike characteristically and all are still individuals because they arent the same piece of matter. ive never changed my story, you fail to grip it and i cant find a way for you to understand what im trying to tell you.




B...B...But?


but what? a fundemental particle cannot change material that its made of, no matter how much new material is made, the fundemental particles since its existance must have the same material it was originally made of or else something would have to be smaller then it to change that, which cant because its the most fundemental particle already.



Wait. So are they or or they not made up of the same something? In one instance your telling me that they aren't and this is why they hold individuality, in the next your telling me that they are made up of the same energy or something ... IDK... I'm so very confused at this point, and I suspect so are you.


characteristically, fundemental particles are not considered individuals. thats why i must challange your definition of individual because to say the two particles arent individual of eachother would mean that they are one particle...cannot be true. so the definition must include a physical sense, which is what ive done. im not confused, i know exactly what im saying. characteristically they are the same thing, but they are individual of eachother. the clusters could be considered individuals characteristically, but particles cannot. the close minded definition of individual on a physical scale is what im challanging.




Huh... interesting. I disagree however and so would 99% of humanity. Or any life form for that matter, granted it could voice it's opinion. On the physical level. it IS the physical level that give's you the ability to perform higher cognitive thought's! Brush up on chemistry, biology, and computer science, and AI theory. Also, not one person think's exactly alike, thus giving them individuality as per defined.


just because we are made up of different clusters means nothing. the physical level im talkin of it doesnt. your still arguing in your definition of individuality...the sense only characteristics define the individual. mental thoughts are characteristic individuality. like i said, characteristic individuality is made up based upon how we can describe an object, which is really worthless on the physical scale. the clusters arent individual of eachother because they can switch particles and have parts of the other cluster in it.they must maintain full originality in order to be considered individual of eachother physically. this just isnt possible. mainly because any energy you lose or gain makes you void in individuality.

i never said that mentally we arent individuals, but mentally with all honesty doesnt really matter because its just a form of clusters. you are right to say our mental aspect is made up of certian complex clusters, and because they are just that...clusters...they cannot hold physical individuality. we would like to think differently because we can see many characteristics which arent the same in thinking between different people, this simply doesnt hold though. this is because the clusters which make up your mind were from a former object that was considered characteristically individual. physically unless that cluster cannot be broken ever, not even possibly, the cluster isnt an individual by physical means. if you cant graps the different between descriptive characteristic individuality and physical individuality i cant help you then. in the physical aspect of mental, even that doesnt hold individuality. mentally, using characteristic definition, yes there is. unfortunately physically comes before characteristic because physical is what needs to be in order for then one particle to exist. if we were to based individuality off of characteristics, there could be no more then one particle. two particles would have to be different characteristically in order for them to exist. if they arent physically individual of eachother, they cant exist as two particles, only one.




Quite wrong. Someone's not paying attention. This isn't always leading back to just the mental. As I pointed out, the physical play's the most biggest, enourmess part concerning the mental. Not just the arrangment of all the individual atom's within the complex brain, but also the many physical variable of enviromental reaction's that shape and define the mental. To say the only thing that has an effect on the physical is at the particle level is to deny that your very own existance (in a way). That no matter what, in light of what your saying, nothing has any real effect on YOU, despite the mental and physical problem's on the macroscale of many variable's that most would take into consideration's as affectimg their inividuality.


i dont think i need to address this because it makes little sense as to what you were trying to say and also your still talkin characteristics rather then physical individuality. you must also understand that this universe is extremely contradictive. it has many aspects that contradict themselves. the aspect that we are all the same, but the particles are not the same fits in right with the rest of the contradictive ways of the universe. in the sense, each particle is the same characteristically-so in this sense nothing is individual. each particle is different physically- in this sense all these fundemental particles hold individuality.




Simply put, because your notion of what individuality is, is a contradiction. For the very reason's I've already outlined. I hope you were paying attention as I pointed them out. If you've forgotten, please take this moment of inttermission to go back over them.


its not contradiction in completion, but in the sense of physically its not. if you try to define individual as both in characteristic and physical sense it would be. simply put your definition of individual is not good enough for a physical sense. at any moment it could change form and be a new individual, where it doesnt maintain its originality. it must maintain originality or else its not individual, its a list of everything its been. it cant be characteristically two different things and still be considered individual.




This sentance alone contradict's your notion of individuality. Computer a and computer B are both made up of different particals, but look the same, but they aren't individuals.

How so, they aren't the same at the fundamental level of what your notion of indivduality is based upon.


they arent individuals because they arent in the fundemental state. they have the uncertianty constant of possible change, and if they change they are no longer individual. anything that can be broken apart or changed from its original make up is ont individual. thats why nothing above fundemental particles can be individuals. again the computers are an attempt to understand the concept of why they arent individuals, because they can still interchange materials and change their original make up. once they change this original make up and take new particles from something else, individuality ceases to be. mostly because of probablity even clusters that have yet to ever be part of more then one thing, still hold the possiblity to break apart, so because of this possibility they arent individuals either. on a level higher then fundemental particles, its going to start sounding contradictive because youre dealing with clusters which can interchange with eachother, so that though they still have individual particles, they arent the original particles used to make the cluster. so in that sense they arent individuals as whole, but break them down into the fundemental particles and each fundemental particle is individual of eachother. thats the reason it sounds contradictive, because it loses a core trait which defines the cluster as individual, maintaining its original form. it still does in fact hold individual particles in it, but because it doesnt hold ever trait of individual it isnt an individual.



But ok, let's continue... So computer A and B exchange different particals... Assuming computer A picks up particle 4 from computer B, they still aren't individuals? How so? At the fundamental level, they're still made up of different particals in this example. Thus they are indeed individuals despite looking the same, as you previously stated that twins are individuals.


the particles are individuals, but the computers lose the aspect of maintaining originality to their form of the begining of their existance, so they cant be considered an individual. i stated for your own understanding that you would consider twins individuals, it was the only possiple way you could grip my definition, yet you still dont fully understand it




Actually, Quantum Mechanics is no longer a theory ... thought I'd just point it out. Moving on however... Yes, agreed, some part's of science are just theories, and seeing as how you acknowledge this I find it rather difficult for you to not be able to grasp a concept of what you considered a contradiction of mine earlier. Quite right though, I am trying to disprove your theory of individuality with another theory. And seeing as how neither have any evidence to back either up, we can necessarily be calling your's or mine a fact, or based upon fact's as you tried saying of your theory previously, as it is based upon a theory, which you just admitted here now. Also, that's another contradiction again.


if quantum mechanics isnt a theory, why cant it explain how everything in the universe works rather then just on a extremely small scale? if it cant then there must be something wrong with parts of quantum mechanics. theres a reason all this is considered theoretical physics. please provide examples where quantum physics was proved, mathmatically and physically. also why its fact.
i do grasp it, you made a contradiction saying science isnt fact, but certian parts of it are. if science isnt fact, then that means all of it. had you said "i never stated ALL parts of science are facts" then i wouldnt have said anything. your comment about contradiction i dont understand, what did i contradict?



How do you figure? Seeing as how relativity is still a theory, some currently undefined concept could theoretically allow the two to merge in a way to better define the inner workings of the univerese. So in essence, you cannot factually state the phrase, cannot. There's only one theory in confliction, that would be relativity, as noted earlier, quantum mechanics no longer reside's on the realm of theories, but has now become a fact of life. (hope you remembered the definition of a fact.)


provide specific examples of how quantum physics is a prove fact in all aspect, since quantum physics includes all of it, not just selective parts. general relativity deals with a large scale, quantum on a small scale. to combine the two it like going down the road and seeing two signs both saying "1 way street" pointed in different directions. they directly conflict with eachother because the two of them dont work together, its a mess. thats why string theory was the next step they took. its called the theory to combine the two of them which cannot be combined. we are trying to combine them, thats what string theory and all were meant for.





Truethfully, my model has been explained fairly enough to disprove your model. As nothing hold's any sense of true individuality for any determinate length of time. I'm assuming the phrase quantum entanglement went fully over your head earlier as well. My quantum example neither add's no subtract's, just change's from one form to another. As duly noted (although not well thought out, I'm not a physicist after all.) The underlying physics at the fundamental level is a proven science. We don't know what goes on at that level. Just as the quantum level allows for many seemingly wierd thing's too occur that don't occur on a macroscale, it's safe too assume, theoretically, this could be furthur agitated at and even deeper level. Just as thermodynamics applies only on a macro scale and quantum mechanics applies on the micro scale, what of the fundamental scale? Could be completely new level of undiscovered physics. We don't know as none of it is proven fact's. So, no matter how impossibal my theory may sound, it's still very probable to be found true.


right after you said "changes the form" i immediately understood you still have no idea what the definition of individual i used as, and im tired of repeating it.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   


you understand that two particles no matter how alike they look and the characteristics they hold are still two different particles right? thats what i was trying to show you, on a more obvious level for you. i used computers to show you even something that looks exactly alike and hold the exact same characteristics are still two different computers. im trying to explain it to you using what you understand because youre not grasping that individuality doesnt rely on traits but the amount of matter and the original matter used (or energy)


So they are individuals then? Meaning the fundamental particals?




reguardless of a definition some person made up doesnt mean its right.


Ok let's assume thousands upon thousands of scientist's have gotten the definition of individuality wrong, and you alone got it right....



characteristically, fundemental particles are not considered individuals.


But wait, you just told me they were!




the particles are individuals, but the computers lose the aspect of maintaining originality to their form of the begining of their existance, so they cant be considered an individual.


Jesus fing christ, make up your mind.




if quantum mechanics isnt a theory, why cant it explain how everything in the universe works rather then just on a extremely small scale?


For the very same reason's biology can't explain how everything in the universe works. That particular field doesn't cover that particular subject as much as say... idk, this thing called the grand unified field theory.




provide specific examples of how quantum physics is a prove fact in all aspect, since quantum physics includes all of it, not just selective parts.


Untill you can show me that you've learned to stop contradicting yourself, your best bet would not to ask me, but to pick up a text book or talk to someone who work's in the quantum mechanics field of science. They are more fully qualified to explain these thing's to you.

The Grand Unified Theory is another field of science that UNIFIES all of physics into one model. So your statement below is wrong. And on that note, there is one possible unified theory that does explain some of the thing's other current model's don't explain. There's a thread or two here on ATS about it. Search for hyperdrive, probably in the sci/tech or space explorations forum's.




general relativity deals with a large scale, quantum on a small scale. to combine the two it like going down the road and seeing two signs both saying "1 way street" pointed in different directions.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
So they are individuals then? Meaning the fundamental particals?


yes fundemental particles are the individuals. individuality doesnt mean it must be living in the physical sense.




Ok let's assume thousands upon thousands of scientist's have gotten the definition of individuality wrong, and you alone got it right....


lets assume that im going by a different definition of individual that says characteristics dont qualitify because physical characteristics dont change what particles were contained inside of the subject before and after the change (unless new clusters or particles are subtracted or added where the new form doesnt hold the same particles as before, this would be a change in both characteristics and physical property or individuality)



But wait, you just told me they were!


please try to read a bit more. i specifically said CHARACTERISTICALLY. meaning that they are not individuals by characteristics, or description of formation. i never said they werent individuals as far as MY definition listed, but by YOUR definition listed.



Jesus fing christ, make up your mind.


i did and i explained it above, please read what i say.




For the very same reason's biology can't explain how everything in the universe works. That particular field doesn't cover that particular subject as much as say... idk, this thing called the grand unified field theory.


if its wrong on a large scale then obviously there are some flaws, this should be known if you have ever read about it. if the rules of it cant apply to both sides



Untill you can show me that you've learned to stop contradicting yourself, your best bet would not to ask me, but to pick up a text book or talk to someone who work's in the quantum mechanics field of science. They are more fully qualified to explain these thing's to you.

The Grand Unified Theory is another field of science that UNIFIES all of physics into one model. So your statement below is wrong. And on that note, there is one possible unified theory that does explain some of the thing's other current model's don't explain. There's a thread or two here on ATS about it. Search for hyperdrive, probably in the sci/tech or space explorations forum's.


ok well if my statement below is wrong then youll have to bring that up with the people at PBS because i took the example directly out of one of their videos about the basics of unifying the theories together. so tell that to them.
ive never contradicted myself, i explained this, you dont comprehend it well though. and i already have and still am picking up books on physics all the time, ive watched many videos as well.



general relativity deals with a large scale, quantum on a small scale. to combine the two it like going down the road and seeing two signs both saying "1 way street" pointed in different directions.


[edit on 11-2-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   


lets assume that im going by a different definition of individual that says characteristics dont qualitify because physical characteristics dont change what particles were contained inside of the subject before and after the change (unless new clusters or particles are subtracted or added where the new form doesnt hold the same particles as before, this would be a change in both characteristics and physical property or individuality)


Well, if that's your official definition of individualty that goes against the definition of billion's, then it make's utterly no sense. If the fundamental particles don't change and are all of the same 'something', then how are they individual?

Try summing your definition to one sentance, such as the currently excepted definition.
Individuality
The aggregate of qualities and characteristics that distinguish one person or thing from others.

As it stand's I'm still not understanding your definition, perhaps a one liner definition is more appropriate.



if its wrong on a large scale then obviously there are some flaws, this should be known if you have ever read about it. if the rules of it cant apply to both sides


Untrue. Quantum mechanics does not apply to the large scale. Just as biology does not apply to the mechanics of flight. Two different mechanisms are at play. I already posted an article about this, did you read it?




ok well if my statement below is wrong then youll have to bring that up with the people at PBS because i took the example directly out of one of their videos about the basics of unifying the theories together. so tell that to them.


Link? I'd be interested in seeing this.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
www.pbs.org...

second episode. if you like to watch the complete thing you may. its 3 hours long, ive watched it a number of times.

definition of individual
something that infinitely retains original material reguardless of formation, and cannot be broken appart or have material replaced with other material.

ive already told you why physically two "somethings" could in a characteristic sense, be exactly identical in every form, yet they still must be individual of eachother in order to exist as two seperate "somethings"



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Also, could you summerize your fundamental particle as well, such as you did with your definition there?

I've seen that episode long time ago, I'll rewatch it again sometime today.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
fundemental particle would be the smallest possible particle to exist. nothing is smaller then it, something that cannot be broke appart under any circumstances.

the only thing that could be like that would be some form of energy, since whatever the smallest thing is, would be energy.

also like i said, first video in second hour shows you why the two are in fact totally disagreeing with eachother.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Ok, well ... as far as physics is concerned the most fundamental particle's are quarks, leptons, and their antiparticles.

"as far as current experiments can tell, they have no substructure."

www2.slac.stanford.edu...

As for changing, quarks can change from one flavor to another, and please remember, as far as experiments can tell, they have no substructure, so one flavor is different from another flavor. They aren't the same.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

[edit on 11-2-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
alright so you have caught me there, i wouldnt call these things particles then, they are what make up your fundamental particles.

BUT WAIT! if these these somethings make up the fundamental particles, then these things arent really the fundamental particles in the first place.

im talking about something smaller then quarks. string theory best presents these ideas, thats why i make reference to them.

definition of fundamental
"Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary"
if there are something smaller then quarks, then quarks arent fundamental particles.

since these are the smallest forms of MATTER that doesnt mean the smallest forms of energy. something must have made the matter...which is energy. big bang required this in order for this matter to exist. as i recall you said big bang should be a fact, well if thats true, energy created matter is essential to that theory.


All we know is that quarks and leptons are smaller than 10-19 meters in radius. As far as we can tell, they have no internal structure or even any size. It is possible that future evidence will, once again, show this understanding to be an illusion and demonstrate that there is substructure within the particles that we now view as fundamental.


this is from your first link. what they are saying is its not even known if these are the most basic structures. it shows even further that AGAIN these might be proved to have internal structure and something smaller then it. im merely saying these smaller internal parts will be energy rather then matter. in that sense these energies which i have been talkin about would be the FUNDAMENTAL particles then.
so AS FAR AS WE KNOW RIGHT NOW these may possibly be the smallest, but is unknown because we cant say.

for one moment stop going by characteristics and start going by physical individuality by my definition. you repeatedly do that so of course my theory wont make sense. two quarks must be physically individual REGUARDLESS of whether or not they are characteristically different in order to have more then 1 exist.

[edit on 11-2-2006 by grimreaper797]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join