It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You did not debunk what he said one bit
Originally posted by ChickenPie
What's my point? Other than me finding that make believe conversation funny, my point is atheists are full of bull#. Whenever a theist claims the existence of something eternal, God, they're always asked, "BUT DER, WHERE DID GOD COME FROM?" And then theists would look at them funny and answer, "Um, moron, that's the point... God is eternal... nothing created Him." But for some reason, scientists can get away with the idea of there being something eternal without being asked the same stupid question. First of all, I'd like to know if it's even possible with out current technology and knowledge to reach the conclusion (without a sizable leap of faith) that quantum mechanics is eternal.
Originally posted by PieKeeperI haven't heard anyone claim that quantum mechanics is eternal.
What 'everything else'? If we ever develop a TOE, then what would be left that it just decided to not include? How would that be considered a TOE? Your not making much sense there.
Sorry to intrude on the flow here, you are doing a great job, but... Godel demonstrated that a 'actual' TOE is impossible... so when a TOE is discussed the bounds of what is meant by 'everything' must be described.
Are you discussing a 'philosophical everything' which is then subject to the infinity paradoxes as mentioned by Krauss, or an 'reality everything' which is then subject to unpredictable exclusions?
Case in point against concepts like qualia. You may process a particular wavelength and label it red by your capacity to abstractly think about that information received and your ability to use language to apply a label to it, whereas I may not even process that wavelength the same way and it would appear to be a different color or heck, I could experience it as pain.
Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
EnlightenedUp, I admire your patience with that guy.
I read the conversation and starred the posts that gibed with the experience of my own philosophical journey. Which were most of yours.
(I should add, for the sake of other readers, yes, I've read Dennett.)
Or, perhaps, I don't get rnaa...neither here nor there.
Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by EnlightenUp
Yeah, I dream in color too. That is memory of a waking experience. Don't get me wrong, dreams are perfectly valid experiences, but the imagery is built-up from waking experiences. Red blind people do not dream in red.
I call that particular color experience 'red' because English is my 'native' tongue. When I was an infant, if everybody around me called it 'blue' then it would be 'blue' even though the internal experience would be exactly the same. (and I would be very confused when I found the rest of the English speaking world called it 'red').
There is no way to know if my internal experience of the color red is congruent with yours except by consistent application of the agreed upon label. That really only shows that we have agreed what label to apply to that shared color experience, not that our actual internal experience is identical.
It is too late for you 'choose' to call it something else, except that you can learn a new language and if you gain sufficient proficiency to actually think in that language, then you will call the same experience by what ever label it has in that language.
'Roja' in Spanish for example.
You call it that because of your linguistic background. It's must be perceivable to some extent as a distinct classification in order to be discriminated for labelling.
I'll go out on a limb and say that it's probably fairly similar-- reasonable speculation.
"Rojo" or "Roja" depending upon the gender of what it modifies.