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.

 

The logical fallacy of creation

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


I disagree with you.
I don't think people have trouble coming to terms with infinity, if you look at most mythologies and religions you will see many of them referencing eternal or infinite forces or beings as being the root cause of our existence.

Most of these religions and myths actually follow the examples you set in the OP. In fact science is doing the exact same now in order to understand nature, by trying to reverse time so to speak, evolution does this, and in the large hadron collider experiments to get a glimpse at the universe at a milionth of a second post the big bang.
By reversing these myths and religions doctrines we see a story of material creation in stages regressing back to an infinite or eternal source.

The difference between many modes of inquiry, be they religion or philosophy or science, is that some already have an answer as to the source and nature of the cause to our existence, whist other modes have not reached such conclusions.

At any rate, we know that the universe has come from something, at some point. The nature of that source does not necessarily have to be understood by or comply with the same laws and means that we observe to rule and govern the nature of the material universe we observe. So that source may not be understood or even described by maths, physics, religion or logic etc.

Nice OP. S and F.




posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I did read your reply, but failed to understand its content....

I'm halfway out the door; heading for the mountains with my kids. I hopefully remember to check into this thread when I get back...



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


It depends how you define "Creation". For example, is paper a Creation or is it just trees combined with other stuff that has always existed? What about trees themselves? At what point does Creation become different from Rearrangement and Combination? Can we truly create from that which has always existed in a different form?
edit on 17/4/2011 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by nakiel
reply to post by spy66
 


I did read your reply, but failed to understand its content....

I'm halfway out the door; heading for the mountains with my kids. I hopefully remember to check into this thread when I get back...


I see. But its not that complicated. The white sheet of paper is the infinite dimension. There can only be one, so don't mix in all the other dimensions you have on your mind into the white sheet of paper. Because they are not infinite.

The infinite dimension is the first dimension (the white sheet of paper i was talking about). Within it all the other dimensions must be created, because all the other dimensions are not infinite. If they are not infinite the must be created.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord
reply to post by NorEaster
 


You seem to have the knowledge of what happened to make it all happen. You allude to the simplicity. You allude to how natural it is.

I can tell you for a fact I know how it all started and even why. I do happen to think I know but I don't have the same level of confidence that you do. I happen to agree with probably 90% of the words you've laid out on this post and appreciate all your efforts and I must say for the first time in over 20 years pondering the subject you've laid out a few things I haven't heard.

So I will ask bluntly. What is it you see / know?


Like I said in the post above yours, there are a few requirements that must be met before physical existence can simply emerge from a true existential void, and those requirements are laced throughout the entire reality structure that we base our own existence on. Now, in one sense, that makes it easier, since I can point to them, list them, and I don't have to rely on allegories or metaphors, but in another sense, it's tough due to the fact that most people take these existential staples for granted, and refuse to consider their involvement within the existential instant of genesis due to how ubiquitous these staple are and always have been.

It's kind of like how a lot of rock guitar players view Eric Clapton's ability and style as a player. "He's so ordinary. He plays like every average guitar player. What's so great about him?" The great thing about him is that he doesn't play like every average guitar player, every average guitar player plays like him. He is literally the guitarist that set the standard for rock guitar playing for millions of rock guitar players throughout the 70s and into the 80s. These existential staples are omnipresent because they were involved in the initiation of everything to begin with, so when I refer to them, please keep this in mind.

Also, please keep in mind that particle physics - physical existence as solid matter - is not accurate when you get to the extremely primitive states that would have emerged from such a genesis. These are forms of physical existence that do not resemble what our high school science classes taught us to recognize as being physical. Then again, on this board, I shouldn't have to warn folks about how inadequate public education has been for most of us. Truth is that particle physics will eventually be proven to be a blind alley, but I'm not going to debate that here. Just keep that possibility in your mind as you read on.

Before anything at all can occur, the first thing that is needed is a requirement. Impetus is critical, and since there's no intelligent thought that exists within a complete lack of existence, that requirement must be extremely simple, and it must not involve anything that exists as contextually relative to anything else. In essence, whatever it is that is presented with this sole requirement, it must exist as a true absolute - meaning that it can't, in any possible manner, ever be compared or contrasted with an in-kind similar unique whole. It must be the one and only of its kind as an existential staple, and it must have a way of accomplishing the resolution of this requirement without the involvement of a disparate unique other.

That does sound a lot like God, but keep in mind that we're trying to launch the first unit of physical existence without having to lean on faith in an always and forever intelligent consciousness, so this staple can't be God. That said, it must be as pervasive within everything that continues to exist as the theological depictions of God. After all, this staple launched everything. It didn't simply "walk off" after such an achievement (metaphorically speaking, of course).

So, here's where the groans will erupt from some here, but you do need to separate the reality of this staple from the philosophical application of the term. If you don't, then you'll definitely cripple your ability to objectively analyze this premise. The staple in question is the Qualifier we refer to as TRUTH.

Now, as a Qualifier, TRUTH is not a physical quantity. It exists, but only as a definitive assessment relative to a specific standard of true or untrue that is inherent in the Relative being state. TRUTH does not exist as Relative, but it does affect the Relative state of that which does. It is within the separation between the physical something and its accurate depiction that TRUTH either resides or doesn't reside.

That qualification is determined by LOGIC; an active comparative protocol that exists as the other side of the same coin as TRUTH (so to speak). While we have chosen to delineate LOGIC from TRUTH, in fact they exist as one existential whole, with the determination of one manifesting as the qualification of the other. The result of both establish the third in this foundational triad (or Trinity, if that sounds more impressive) and that is the qualified "yes" that we know as REALITY.

I won't belabor this further, but I needed to put a very brief skeletal overview of that up before I went ahead and laid out how all of this physical existence got started. If you take the time to really dig into the ramifications of what I've just outlined, you'll realize that semantics aside, what I've stated is true.

So, what you had, before anything existed, was a lack of physical existence. In fact, you had a lack anything - even a lack of nothing (physically speaking). The problem was that the TRUTH/LOGIC qualifying tag team did exist, and since they don't exist as physical quantities, they simply "are", as is the case with all definitional determinators. The issue was that the absence of anything amounted to the true existence of nothing, and this truth had to be established - thereby creating the requirement for the TRUTH/LOGIC Qualification event to occur.

Which is exactly what did occur. And when it did, the fact that it occurred became the very first unit cluster of physical existence - information units configured to represent the fact that the absence of anything has been determined to be the true existence of nothing. This single event - the 1st emergence of an informational unit cluster, was the 2nd event (that emergence itself) to be represented by the 2nd emergence of an informational unit cluster to represent the fact of that event as having occurred, and from there it simply continued as a natural progression of cause and effect.

This is how all physical existence came into being, and as you can see, what I know to be true is that the unit of physical existence is either the Event or Information that represents that Event as having occurred. The rest is a combination of various Survival imperative expressions, and the requirement that all that exists as physical (in a Relative state of being) be qualified as true or untrue, which is generally a shifting determination, since physical existence is always relative to everything else that exists within and around it. Consciousness doesn't make a debut until the organized event matrix finally achieves Identity survival by way of the corporeal brain, but that's a very different presentation.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by NorEaster
I do know that physical existence is not founded on a "god particle" or matter of any sort


How were you able to determine that, if you don't mind my asking?


and since I know this, I have a much better point of view on how it is that something could easily have come out of nothing, and when it did, I also have a better understanding of what drove that something to develop into everything we know to exist, as well as a lot more that we obviously don't know to exist.


That's good for you if you think you know that, but is there any way you can render some explanation for those who don't already have your view point?


I hope the explanation above helps you see that I have done my homework concerning the genesis of physical existence. It's a very bare-bones overview, but I have a published book that digs deep into that and everything that it takes to verify the premise that this initial event builds into. As for how I know this stuff, that's where the mystery is (for me anyway). I do have a theory, but to detail it would require at least 45,000 words, since just tossing out terminology and concepts that don't exist anywhere else in a published form isn't going to help clarify anything at all. Basically, I have a suspicion that there are people (passed people) who want people who haven't passed yet to know the truth about what awaits all people after they've passed. I don't think that I'm the only one who's gotten this information, but I may be one of a recent few who've bothered to try and write it all down in a way that doesn't involve allegory or myth.

I'm a writer. I'm a pretty good writer. I can't help thinking that my ability to describe things with the written word has a lot to do with why this information started seeping into my head as something that needed to be seriously investigated about a decade or so ago. And no, I've never had a vision, or an OBE, and I'm definitely not psychic or even sensitive to that sort of thing. What is true, however, is that a lot of this information simply comes to me as I'm writing about it - as if it's stuff that I already know. It's afterward, after I'm reading it, that it occurs to me that this is new layers of information, or even unique information that opens a new avenue of investigation.

For example, just a couple months ago, I read a thread on this board that contained one post about a study done in 2008, with an fMRI machine, that the OP claimed proved that we have no free will. That post suddenly launched a brand new realization for me concerning the physical placement of corporeal conscious awareness, and that realization proved to be so impactful that I'm now awaiting a major rewrite book proof so that i can get my book back up for sale again. And the truth is that I didn't even know it was an issue that needed to be explained until it presented itself to me with the full explanation in exhaustive detail.

So, as far as how I know anything at all, that's how it's been with this effort. A very subtle and nondescript enigma within this fairly uneventful stage of my own nonacademic life. Believe me, I wish I had a better answer for why this all seems so obvious to me, but the truth is that as I dig further and further to find any fatal flaws in the information that has already come to me, what I find is only verification for what I've already determined to be true. I honestly haven't a good explanation for what's going on here, so I don't lead with that aspect of it.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Existence is anything but logical.

Just because humans can add up numbers and put things together doesn't mean we are any closer to figuring out our importance.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
I hope the explanation above helps you see that I have done my homework concerning the genesis of physical existence.


Obviously it didn't since I asked for an actual explanation, and there is a difference between claiming you know something and then being able to explain it. But anyway...


It's a very bare-bones overview, but I have a published book that digs deep into that and everything that it takes to verify the premise that this initial event builds into. As for how I know this stuff, that's where the mystery is (for me anyway). I do have a theory, but to detail it would require at least 45,000 words, since just tossing out terminology and concepts that don't exist anywhere else in a published form isn't going to help clarify anything at all. Basically, I have a suspicion that there are people (passed people) who want people who haven't passed yet to know the truth about what awaits all people after they've passed. I don't think that I'm the only one who's gotten this information, but I may be one of a recent few who've bothered to try and write it all down in a way that doesn't involve allegory or myth.

I'm a writer. I'm a pretty good writer. I can't help thinking that my ability to describe things with the written word has a lot to do with why this information started seeping into my head as something that needed to be seriously investigated about a decade or so ago. And no, I've never had a vision, or an OBE, and I'm definitely not psychic or even sensitive to that sort of thing. What is true, however, is that a lot of this information simply comes to me as I'm writing about it - as if it's stuff that I already know. It's afterward, after I'm reading it, that it occurs to me that this is new layers of information, or even unique information that opens a new avenue of investigation.


Alright, and all that is great....



For example, just a couple months ago, I read a thread on this board that contained one post about a study done in 2008, with an fMRI machine, that the OP claimed proved that we have no free will. That post suddenly launched a brand new realization for me concerning the physical placement of corporeal conscious awareness, and that realization proved to be so impactful that I'm now awaiting a major rewrite book proof so that i can get my book back up for sale again. And the truth is that I didn't even know it was an issue that needed to be explained until it presented itself to me with the full explanation in exhaustive detail.

So, as far as how I know anything at all, that's how it's been with this effort. A very subtle and nondescript enigma within this fairly uneventful stage of my own nonacademic life. Believe me, I wish I had a better answer for why this all seems so obvious to me, but the truth is that as I dig further and further to find any fatal flaws in the information that has already come to me, what I find is only verification for what I've already determined to be true. I honestly haven't a good explanation for what's going on here, so I don't lead with that aspect of it.


Okay, it took you until the last sentence to admit you don't have a good explanation, so you "don't lead with that aspect of it." That's all fine, and I'm not just trying to knock you here, but personally, all the rest of what you just posted did nothing for me. Maybe if I was asking for biographical information or something like that, but I wasn't, so I'm still completely confused as to what you're trying to suggest.

I follow a lot of modern physicists, like Stanford's Dr. William Tiller, and there are many scientists today, and an increasingly number, who suspect time itself is not universally applicable in any sense. Einstein's work with relativity already suggests that time is a natural by-product of space, thus the term space-time. More modern work is introducing concepts of dimensions where time as we know it doesn't even exist. Entanglement is one feature of quantum mechanics that suggests this, because the apparent speed at which the entanglement phenomena occurs is at least 10,000 times the speed of light, which "should" be impossible, unless space-time itself is being shunt (to use an electrical term) somewhere.


I have to say I'm with the guys earlier in the thread who get around to, "nothing" existed "in the beginning," and "nothing" still exists. Or if you like, "reality" has always existed. It's impossible for non-existence, to exist, by definition. The idea of "something came from nothing" defies everything we currently know about science. That doesn't mean that idea is automatically wrong, but I do find the alternate ideas I just mentioned much more appealing, and I have no trouble trying to explain them, at least in those terms. It's enough to get the idea. Whatever "really exists," is irrelevant to time and has simply always existed. It's only our perception of time that changes, as sentient beings living in 4 apparent dimensions.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by NorEaster
I hope the explanation above helps you see that I have done my homework concerning the genesis of physical existence.


Obviously it didn't since I asked for an actual explanation, and there is a difference between claiming you know something and then being able to explain it. But anyway...


It's a very bare-bones overview, but I have a published book that digs deep into that and everything that it takes to verify the premise that this initial event builds into. As for how I know this stuff, that's where the mystery is (for me anyway). I do have a theory, but to detail it would require at least 45,000 words, since just tossing out terminology and concepts that don't exist anywhere else in a published form isn't going to help clarify anything at all. Basically, I have a suspicion that there are people (passed people) who want people who haven't passed yet to know the truth about what awaits all people after they've passed. I don't think that I'm the only one who's gotten this information, but I may be one of a recent few who've bothered to try and write it all down in a way that doesn't involve allegory or myth.

I'm a writer. I'm a pretty good writer. I can't help thinking that my ability to describe things with the written word has a lot to do with why this information started seeping into my head as something that needed to be seriously investigated about a decade or so ago. And no, I've never had a vision, or an OBE, and I'm definitely not psychic or even sensitive to that sort of thing. What is true, however, is that a lot of this information simply comes to me as I'm writing about it - as if it's stuff that I already know. It's afterward, after I'm reading it, that it occurs to me that this is new layers of information, or even unique information that opens a new avenue of investigation.


Alright, and all that is great....



For example, just a couple months ago, I read a thread on this board that contained one post about a study done in 2008, with an fMRI machine, that the OP claimed proved that we have no free will. That post suddenly launched a brand new realization for me concerning the physical placement of corporeal conscious awareness, and that realization proved to be so impactful that I'm now awaiting a major rewrite book proof so that i can get my book back up for sale again. And the truth is that I didn't even know it was an issue that needed to be explained until it presented itself to me with the full explanation in exhaustive detail.

So, as far as how I know anything at all, that's how it's been with this effort. A very subtle and nondescript enigma within this fairly uneventful stage of my own nonacademic life. Believe me, I wish I had a better answer for why this all seems so obvious to me, but the truth is that as I dig further and further to find any fatal flaws in the information that has already come to me, what I find is only verification for what I've already determined to be true. I honestly haven't a good explanation for what's going on here, so I don't lead with that aspect of it.


Okay, it took you until the last sentence to admit you don't have a good explanation, so you "don't lead with that aspect of it." That's all fine, and I'm not just trying to knock you here, but personally, all the rest of what you just posted did nothing for me. Maybe if I was asking for biographical information or something like that, but I wasn't, so I'm still completely confused as to what you're trying to suggest.


I'm going to ignore your attempt to piss me off, since it's obvious that you didn't comprehend any of what I posted above. I don't beat puppies for peeing on the carpet either. They simply don't know any better, and we must have compassion when confronted with ignorance. Even petty, belligerent ignorance.


I follow a lot of modern physicists, like Stanford's Dr. William Tiller, and there are many scientists today, and an increasingly number, who suspect time itself is not universally applicable in any sense. Einstein's work with relativity already suggests that time is a natural by-product of space, thus the term space-time. More modern work is introducing concepts of dimensions where time as we know it doesn't even exist. Entanglement is one feature of quantum mechanics that suggests this, because the apparent speed at which the entanglement phenomena occurs is at least 10,000 times the speed of light, which "should" be impossible, unless space-time itself is being shunt (to use an electrical term) somewhere.


Right. As if anyone can verify something occurring at 10,000 times the speed of light. Give me a break. And dimensions where time doesn't exist? Modern work is introducing this? How about guys are writing this garbage and getting it published? Yeah, that sound a lot more plausible. I don't waste time with "imagine that" stuff. I only deal with direct ramifications of what I can logically prove. You're lost in the foolishness that's been passed off as science for the last number of years. It's not science. It's guys with physics degrees playing "imagine if you will", without saying "imagine if you will" before they blurt out what they just imagined. And do you know why they're doing that? Because they know that their version of particle-centric physics is a dead end, and they're simply stalling for time. Just tossing crap against the wall and seeing what the public will accept.

I also know that there are physicists who are scrambling to repair the fatal flaws in their discipline, but while I sympathize with these guys, it'll become clear soon enough that their fantasy-based conjecture isn't going to ever explain why nothing is holding together as their technology improves to the point of debunking everything they ever believed to be true. There are just so many band-aids you can put on a sinking boat. That thing is taking on water, and no amount of ridiculous inventiveness will save it from sinking. But, go ahead and throw names of tenured teachers around. Means nothing at all to what's real and what's been manufactured as a result of the refusal of these men to ever admit their mistakes. Hell, there are physicians who are trying to make a comeback for bleeding people with leeches. No kidding. I watched it on Discovery Channel. I guess that means that they're right too because they have letters after their names and they're on TV.



I have to say I'm with the guys earlier in the thread who get around to, "nothing" existed "in the beginning," and "nothing" still exists. Or if you like, "reality" has always existed. It's impossible for non-existence, to exist, by definition. The idea of "something came from nothing" defies everything we currently know about science. That doesn't mean that idea is automatically wrong, but I do find the alternate ideas I just mentioned much more appealing, and I have no trouble trying to explain them, at least in those terms. It's enough to get the idea. Whatever "really exists," is irrelevant to time and has simply always existed. It's only our perception of time that changes, as sentient beings living in 4 apparent dimensions.


And so here you finally expose yourself as a non-thinker. Excellent. So, stuff just "is" and "always has been"? Good one. A real answer you have here. Devastating! Why not just name it all God and start going to church on Sunday.

Some of you guys are pathetic. Seriously. The fact that you can't reason your way out of a wet paper bag isn't the worst of it. It's that you're so righteous in your ignorance and so quick to insult anyone who has discovered a new approach to taking on what so many of you have obviously failed to achieve. That overview I offered concerns a topic that takes up about 2 and 1/2 pages of a 350 page book on the subject of humanity, Man, God, physical reality, and the nature of existence. That little genesis blurb isn't crap compared to what I know about all of this that you, yourself, are an integral part of. That statement of yours is the kind of garbage that caused this book to be written. That junk and the other trash from professional idiots whose careers consist of feeding off scraps of each other's feeble assertions, and pooping out brand new ways to insult the intelligence of people who are seriously trying to understand their place in the whole of existence - at $14.95 a book.

You want to follow those boobs, then go for it. Don't derail other people as they attempt to find a way toward reality just because you've given up. If you do, then you're being destructive, and the only thing worse than being ignorant is being destructive. At least don't waste my time anymore. I took you as someone who actually wanted to know where I was coming from with this. I won't make that mistake again.


edit on 4/18/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nostradumbass
Existence is anything but logical.

Just because humans can add up numbers and put things together doesn't mean we are any closer to figuring out our importance.


Really? Anything but logical?

Okay.

So, please enlighten us as to what it is that establishes redundancy in existence then. If not logic, and if not a net result of the existential order that logic requires, then what is it? Just redundancy. Oh, and gravity and that sort of fully developed "forces of nature" explanation isn't sufficient here. I need the pre-physics explanation. The explanation of why anything at all does anything the way that it does it, and at any level of existence. If you have the knowledge to dismiss the logical nature of physical existence, then surely you have the knowledge to detail what it is that does lay down the requirement that results in something as simple as redundancy. After all, it's not as if I'm asking you to fit redundancy into the suite of existential ramifications that build into organized structural development at the matrix level. Redundancy should be easy.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
I'm going to ignore your attempt to piss me off


Good, because I wasn't even trying to piss you off, but thanks for sharing that your ego is so easy to bruise.


since it's obvious that you didn't comprehend any of what I posted above.


You said yourself you had a hard time explaining what you were trying to say. That's really the closest you came to saying anything that even required comprehension. The rest was just biographical crap, like I already said. I don't come on these forums to follow you around like a fanboy believe it or not. If you have ideas, spill them. If you don't, why even post?



Right. As if anyone can verify something occurring at 10,000 times the speed of light.



No matter how many times researchers try, there's just no getting around the weirdness of quantum mechanics.

In the latest attempt, researchers at the University of Geneva in Switzerland tried to determine whether entanglement—the fact that measuring a property of one particle instantly determines the property of another—is actually transmitted by some wave-like signal that's fast but not infinitely fast.

Their test involved a series of measurements on pairs of entangled photons (particles of light) that were generated in Geneva (satellite view at left) and then split apart by optical fiber to two villages 18 kilometers (11 miles) apart where the team had set up photon detectors. (In 2007, researchers transmitted entangled light 144 kilometers between two of the Canary Islands.)

The idea in the new experiment is that the photons in each entangled pair are hitting the distant detectors simultaneously, so there's no time for them to exchange a signal. By comparing results from the two detectors, the researchers determined whether the photons were entangled or not, using a test known as Bell's inequalities.

The photons were indeed entangled, the group reports in Nature. But in reality, no experiment is perfect, so what they end up with is a lower limit on how fast the entanglement could be traveling: 10,000 times the speed of light.


www.scientificamerican.com...



Einstein's spooky action acts at 10,000 times the speed of light

A spooky effect that could in theory connect particles at the opposite ends of the universe has been measured and found to exert its unsettling influence more than 10,000 times faster than the speed of light.


www.telegraph.co.uk...


Bohm's bummed: wave theory needs 10,000x light speed to work
...
Unless the special frame is both centered on, and rotating with, the Earth, the frame could always be detected by determining how the movement of the Earth changes experimental results.

This is exactly what a group of Swiss scientists have now done. From their Geneva location, they created entangled pairs of photons. These photons were sent down optical fibers to two villages separated by 18km in an approximately east-west direction. At each end, the single photon was offered two choices—a long path and a short path to a photodetector. If both photons took the same choice, then the detectors in each village would click at the same time.

To observe the entangled nature of the photons, the lengths of the paths in one village were changed slightly over time, so the timing of photon arrivals fluctuated periodically as the path lengths oscillated back and forth, creating interference fringes. The key to the experiment was measuring how deep the fringes are. If the correlations are not due to entanglement, there will be no, or very shallow, fringes. Fringes deeper than a certain threshold can only be due to entanglement.

One can always explain away these results by postulating that the speed of the proposed pilot wave is faster than light. Well, the researchers considered that as well. Their analysis shows that the pilot wave must travel at least 10,000 times faster than the speed of light to explain their results, a possibility they consider extremely unlikely.


arstechnica.com...


There are plenty more sources for this on the internet. I gave you 3. Before you knock them, do a simple search yourself, please. This was published in journals and only validates a fact that has already been apparent since the 1970s: entanglement affects particles across distances faster than light can.

This stuff is already 2 or 3 years old. Maybe you should get up-to-date with real science before publishing your book. Who knows, it might provide you with relevancy and prevent embarrassment. Just an idea.



And dimensions where time doesn't exist? Modern work is introducing this?


Wow, you didn't know that either?


How about guys are writing this garbage and getting it published?


You would know more about that, since didn't you say you're trying to publish this stuff that you can't even explain in any detail on an internet forum? I hope I wouldn't have to read 1000 pages just to scratch the surface of your confusion.


I only deal with direct ramifications of what I can logically prove. You're lost in the foolishness that's been passed off as science for the last number of years. It's not science. It's guys with physics degrees playing "imagine if you will", without saying "imagine if you will" before they blurt out what they just imagined. And do you know why they're doing that? Because they know that their version of particle-centric physics is a dead end, and they're simply stalling for time. Just tossing crap against the wall and seeing what the public will accept.


I'm assuming you either haven't seen or don't understand what I posted above.


It's not theoretical, it's experimental, and verified. Not only that but this stuff was first discovered in the 1970s, so it's not even new. It was more controversial back then, but since then, instead of being debunked, it has only been validated and proven more conclusively. Again, experimental. You must not even be trying to keep up.


And so here you finally expose yourself as a non-thinker. Excellent. So, stuff just "is" and "always has been"? Good one. A real answer you have here. Devastating! Why not just name it all God and start going to church on Sunday.

Some of you guys are pathetic. Seriously. The fact that you can't reason your way out of a wet paper bag isn't the worst of it. It's that you're so righteous in your ignorance and so quick to insult anyone who has discovered a new approach to taking on what so many of you have obviously failed to achieve.


Emotional maturity is a good indicator of intellectual maturity imo.

For the record you have only been beating around the bush and haven't even explained what ideas you are talking about. It looks like you just like parading around like you have a big head and hoping that you aren't called on it so you have to actually prove it. Just my take on this whole situation. I'm quickly losing interest in even keeping this conversation going.


In fact there is nothing else in your post even worth responding to, since it's just vitriolic ranting. It's not like you finally explained what grandiose ideas you have. I asked politely the first time but apparently it upset you that anyone would even dare tackle the genius problems you have devised for yourself.


But I do want to respond to what you posted below this to someone else:


Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Nostradumbass
Existence is anything but logical.

Just because humans can add up numbers and put things together doesn't mean we are any closer to figuring out our importance.


Really? Anything but logical?

Okay.

So, please enlighten us as to what it is that establishes redundancy in existence then. If not logic, and if not a net result of the existential order that logic requires, then what is it? Just redundancy. Oh, and gravity and that sort of fully developed "forces of nature" explanation isn't sufficient here. I need the pre-physics explanation.



This guy is telling you that existence itself is not "logical" (which I agree with -- because "logic" is a human tool and must be made to fit nature, not vice-versa, in which case you will inevitably only delude yourself), and you respond by demanding him provide you will logical explanations of why this is the case. Sometimes you have to just step back and take a deep breath man. Others have covered this ground decades before you came along, and you're missing a few important points. Robert Anton Wilson was a good writer. Maybe you should sink into some of his work some time. Alan Watts is another good one. This is more in the realm of philosophy, but philosophy is where the idea of "logic" came from in the first place, so I think it would really give you some good perspectives on why you can't force everything to conform to your logic. That was never supposed to be the point. Real logic is supposed to reflect natural laws, not try to box them in to pre-conceived ideas you have.
edit on 18-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by NorEaster
I'm going to ignore your attempt to piss me off


Good, because I wasn't even trying to piss you off, but thanks for sharing that your ego is so easy to bruise.


Brusied ego? Are you sh*tting me? Can't you even tell when yiou're being a total rude *sshole? Wghat kind of enlighten,ment do you need to achieve to figure out how to be a normal human being, or is rudeness part of the transcendence that you seek?



since it's obvious that you didn't comprehend any of what I posted above.


You said yourself you had a hard time explaining what you were trying to say. That's really the closest you came to saying anything that even required comprehension. The rest was just biographical crap, like I already said. I don't come on these forums to follow you around like a fanboy believe it or not. If you have ideas, spill them. If you don't, why even post?


So, you didn't bother to actually read my description of the genesis event. Obviously not. Man, were you drunk or something? I don't get it.




Right. As if anyone can verify something occurring at 10,000 times the speed of light.



No matter how many times researchers try, there's just no getting around the weirdness of quantum mechanics.

In the latest attempt, researchers at the University of Geneva in Switzerland tried to determine whether entanglement—the fact that measuring a property of one particle instantly determines the property of another—is actually transmitted by some wave-like signal that's fast but not infinitely fast.

Their test involved a series of measurements on pairs of entangled photons (particles of light) that were generated in Geneva (satellite view at left) and then split apart by optical fiber to two villages 18 kilometers (11 miles) apart where the team had set up photon detectors. (In 2007, researchers transmitted entangled light 144 kilometers between two of the Canary Islands.)

The idea in the new experiment is that the photons in each entangled pair are hitting the distant detectors simultaneously, so there's no time for them to exchange a signal. By comparing results from the two detectors, the researchers determined whether the photons were entangled or not, using a test known as Bell's inequalities.

The photons were indeed entangled, the group reports in Nature. But in reality, no experiment is perfect, so what they end up with is a lower limit on how fast the entanglement could be traveling: 10,000 times the speed of light.


www.scientificamerican.com...



Einstein's spooky action acts at 10,000 times the speed of light

A spooky effect that could in theory connect particles at the opposite ends of the universe has been measured and found to exert its unsettling influence more than 10,000 times faster than the speed of light.


www.telegraph.co.uk...


Bohm's bummed: wave theory needs 10,000x light speed to work
...
Unless the special frame is both centered on, and rotating with, the Earth, the frame could always be detected by determining how the movement of the Earth changes experimental results.

This is exactly what a group of Swiss scientists have now done. From their Geneva location, they created entangled pairs of photons. These photons were sent down optical fibers to two villages separated by 18km in an approximately east-west direction. At each end, the single photon was offered two choices—a long path and a short path to a photodetector. If both photons took the same choice, then the detectors in each village would click at the same time.

To observe the entangled nature of the photons, the lengths of the paths in one village were changed slightly over time, so the timing of photon arrivals fluctuated periodically as the path lengths oscillated back and forth, creating interference fringes. The key to the experiment was measuring how deep the fringes are. If the correlations are not due to entanglement, there will be no, or very shallow, fringes. Fringes deeper than a certain threshold can only be due to entanglement.

One can always explain away these results by postulating that the speed of the proposed pilot wave is faster than light. Well, the researchers considered that as well. Their analysis shows that the pilot wave must travel at least 10,000 times faster than the speed of light to explain their results, a possibility they consider extremely unlikely.


arstechnica.com...


There are plenty more sources for this on the internet. I gave you 3. Before you knock them, do a simple search yourself, please. This was published in journals and only validates a fact that has already been apparent since the 1970s: entanglement affects particles across distances faster than light can.

This stuff is already 2 or 3 years old. Maybe you should get up-to-date with real science before publishing your book. Who knows, it might provide you with relevancy and prevent embarrassment. Just an idea.


It's just as absurd today as it was 2 or 3 years ago. That's exactly the quack stuff that's being tossed around with absolutely no true real scientific means to verify any of the proposed calculations. Just guesstimates and plenty of professional that have dismissed it as irresponsible speculation. "He said - he said" In effect, each claim zeros out the other.




And dimensions where time doesn't exist? Modern work is introducing this?


Wow, you didn't know that either?


I know the claims, but I also know that they're raw speculation and based on absolutely no science or verifiable data whatsoever. Again, nothing at all beyond Physics as Theology. Garbage.



How about guys are writing this garbage and getting it published?


You would know more about that, since didn't you say you're trying to publish this stuff that you can't even explain in any detail on an internet forum? I hope I wouldn't have to read 1000 pages just to scratch the surface of your confusion.


It's already published. I'm just waiting on a revision that adds a digression concerning corporeal consciousness and how it physically differs from post-corporeal consciousness. Nothing you'd be interested in. Certainly nothing I'd bother explaining to you here.



I only deal with direct ramifications of what I can logically prove. You're lost in the foolishness that's been passed off as science for the last number of years. It's not science. It's guys with physics degrees playing "imagine if you will", without saying "imagine if you will" before they blurt out what they just imagined. And do you know why they're doing that? Because they know that their version of particle-centric physics is a dead end, and they're simply stalling for time. Just tossing crap against the wall and seeing what the public will accept.


I'm assuming you either haven't seen or don't understand what I posted above.


It's not theoretical, it's experimental, and verified. Not only that but this stuff was first discovered in the 1970s, so it's not even new. It was more controversial back then, but since then, instead of being debunked, it has only been validated and proven more conclusively. Again, experimental. You must not even be trying to keep up.


To be honest I have no idea what you posted before you asked me how it is that I understand what it is that I understand. I'm pretty busy with other things, and check this board a couple times a day at most. There are those days when things are a bit more freed up, but it's not like I sit on this thing all day long. That said, if all you've got is that existence "just is and always was" then you've got nothing to share. Literally.



And so here you finally expose yourself as a non-thinker. Excellent. So, stuff just "is" and "always has been"? Good one. A real answer you have here. Devastating! Why not just name it all God and start going to church on Sunday.

Some of you guys are pathetic. Seriously. The fact that you can't reason your way out of a wet paper bag isn't the worst of it. It's that you're so righteous in your ignorance and so quick to insult anyone who has discovered a new approach to taking on what so many of you have obviously failed to achieve.


Emotional maturity is a good indicator of intellectual maturity imo.

For the record you have only been beating around the bush and haven't even explained what ideas you are talking about. It looks like you just like parading around like you have a big head and hoping that you aren't called on it so you have to actually prove it. Just my take on this whole situation. I'm quickly losing interest in even keeping this conversation going.


This thread is about the genesis of physical existence. I posted a brief, but full explanation of exactly what I feel was the means by which physical existence emerged from an existential void. You obviously didn't read what i posted above my response to you. Go back and read it. It's very concise, and wastes no words.


In fact there is nothing else in your post even worth responding to, since it's just vitriolic ranting. It's not like you finally explained what grandiose ideas you have. I asked politely the first time but apparently it upset you that anyone would even dare tackle the genius problems you have devised for yourself.


Go read the post I put up above my reply to your initial question. It's getting pretty obvious that you're one of those guys who only looks at the stuff directed at you. I referred to it in my reply to you, but you clearly didn't understand my reference.



But I do want to respond to what you posted below this to someone else:


Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Nostradumbass
Existence is anything but logical.

Just because humans can add up numbers and put things together doesn't mean we are any closer to figuring out our importance.


Really? Anything but logical?

Okay.

So, please enlighten us as to what it is that establishes redundancy in existence then. If not logic, and if not a net result of the existential order that logic requires, then what is it? Just redundancy. Oh, and gravity and that sort of fully developed "forces of nature" explanation isn't sufficient here. I need the pre-physics explanation.



This guy is telling you that existence itself is not "logical" (which I agree with -- because "logic" is a human tool and must be made to fit nature, not vice-versa, in which case you will inevitably only delude yourself), and you respond by demanding him provide you will logical explanations of why this is the case. Sometimes you have to just step back and take a deep breath man. Others have covered this ground decades before you came along, and you're missing a few important points. Robert Anton Wilson was a good writer. Maybe you should sink into some of his work some time. Alan Watts is another good one. This is more in the realm of philosophy, but philosophy is where the idea of "logic" came from in the first place, so I think it would really give you some good perspectives on why you can't force everything to conform to your logic. That was never supposed to be the point. Real logic is supposed to reflect natural laws, not try to box them in to pre-conceived ideas you have.
edit on 18-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


The term was used by philosophers, but the reality of an immutable "yes" or "no" is as clear and defined as the logic circuits that allow you to read this post. Ever hear of a multivibrator circuit? How about set and bolean logic? Ever hear of machine programming language? That's logic. Sinmple, primitive, and completely immutable.

Philosophy is mental masturbation, and reality is not and has never been affected by the crap that people have invented with their imaginations and capacity for scrambling terms to make themselves feel smarter than they actually are. Philosophy is like relaxing after work. There's no impact, no effect on anything other than whomever it is that you're having fun in discussion with. Nothing is proven and nothing is debunked. Masturbation. That's all it's ever been.

As far as "natural laws" are concerned, whatever exists to organize and structure physical development within any contextual environment is the result of logic, information, and the impact of progressive ramification. Each natural law is itself a contextual configuration that involves progressive layers of precedence and the impact of immutable qualifiers and gender-specific existential imperative on the relative environment in question. You can just toss words like "natural laws" out there without understanding the true nature of what must come together to establish and promote such a "natural law", but it won't mean anything for your argument if you do. You'll just be another Internet typer posting crap on a messageboard.

I've got nothing to prove. I was simply joining in here on a discussion about the logical aspects of creation. As far as this disturbing exchange, it started when you asked me (I did not ask you) what it is that makes me so confident in my assertions. I answered only that question, and referred you to the logical aspect of existential genesis post that sits directly above that reply. The rest of this horsesh*t has been all you, and my own refusal to be insulted by you without giving a little of it right back to you. After all, what makes you think that you're the only one that is allowed to be a prick. I can enjoy it too. In fact, I really enjoy being a prick at times.

Ego, my ass. Sometimes I just love winding out on some jack*ss who's just given me a reason to be a bastard.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
Brusied ego? Are you sh*tting me? Can't you even tell when yiou're being a total rude *sshole? Wghat kind of enlighten,ment do you need to achieve to figure out how to be a normal human being, or is rudeness part of the transcendence that you seek?


Come on man, you're only proving my point. You don't have to do that.



You said yourself you had a hard time explaining what you were trying to say. That's really the closest you came to saying anything that even required comprehension.


So, you didn't bother to actually read my description of the genesis event. Obviously not. Man, were you drunk or something? I don't get it.


I don't get it either, and no, I was not drunk.


Look, you already said this much yourself:


Believe me, I wish I had a better answer for why this all seems so obvious to me



I honestly haven't a good explanation for what's going on here, so I don't lead with that aspect of it.



Okay, so if you even wish you had a better explanation, for whatever it is you're trying to explain, why is it so unreasonable that I wish you had a better explanation too? That's all I'm saying. Big deal, isn't it?



It's just as absurd today as it was 2 or 3 years ago.


Well you can trash experimental science, done in labs with expensive equipment, etc., that's what religious people do anyway. Some of us still take those things seriously. At any rate you can't keep claiming this is all just theoretical nonsense people are guessing about because that is flat-out wrong. These are physical experiments that give specific results and allow specific measurements.


That's exactly the quack stuff that's being tossed around with absolutely no true real scientific means to verify any of the proposed calculations.


Hello? You didn't read the articles I posted, did you? Come on man this isn't the religion and theology forum. Why don't you come up with a technical critique of why the experiments done by these research institutions isn't up to snuff, instead of just insulting them and putting on like you somehow automatically know they're wrong? Did your confusing theory about genesis that you can't even explain manage to lead you to believe you automatically know better than physical experiments? Just an honest question, but I don't suppose I'll get an answer?


Just guesstimates and plenty of professional that have dismissed it as irresponsible speculation. "He said - he said" In effect, each claim zeros out the other.


Sorry, but once again, they took physical measurements in these experiments. It's not "he said she said." It's science. Jesus Christ, now I really know how Copernicus felt.



Certainly nothing I'd bother explaining to you here.


Apparently nothing that you are even capable of explaining here in the first place, so thanks for the warning. You even said as much yourself above. Now that your ego is hurt you backpeddle to blow yourself up and stick your chest out. Come on man.



This thread is about the genesis of physical existence. I posted a brief, but full explanation of exactly what I feel was the means by which physical existence emerged from an existential void. You obviously didn't read what i posted above my response to you. Go back and read it. It's very concise, and wastes no words.



Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but I've been on the other side of this correspondence the whole time and I already know what you posted. Better than you even do apparently, because again, you posted these gems yourself:


Believe me, I wish I had a better answer for why this all seems so obvious to me



I honestly haven't a good explanation for what's going on here, so I don't lead with that aspect of it.


Now you're backtracking, I know. But you had it right the first time. On one hand you poo-poo real physical experiments, and on the other you give some vague assertions and then act like I'm retarded for not taking you at your word, even after already admitting you didn't have a good explanation yourself.

And btw I read all your posts on this thread. If you really explained it somewhere so clearly in this thread, why don't you just re-post your clear, concise, if-you-don't-believe-it-then-you're-automatically-stupid view of how everything was created again for me? Then you can show me what clear explanation you think I missed. Okay?


The term was used by philosophers, but the reality of an immutable "yes" or "no" is as clear and defined as the logic circuits that allow you to read this post.


It's funny you say that because I happen to know how the logic circuits in a PC work, and they're programmed by humans. They're as "immutable" as the words and ideas of man himself, which is to say they vary as much as anything else about individuals vary, and are not really absolute at all. There are a multitude of ways to create a processor. The circuits themselves are also extremely fallible, which is why you have a fan in your computer and various other measures to prevent failures. You could have used a better metaphor.


Ever hear of a multivibrator circuit? How about set and bolean logic? Ever hear of machine programming language? That's logic. Sinmple, primitive, and completely immutable.


Look up Godel's incompleteness theorem. Yes, all of those things have limitations, even calculus does. And yes I know of all those things you mention, and more. Douglas Hofstadter published an award-winning book called "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid." That book discusses incompleteness and indeterminacy at length. You can also find websites online that show why any system of formal logic capable of recursion is necessarily subject to Godel's theorem and thus incomplete and indeterminate. This practically means that it is possible to create a "nonsense" theorem in calculus or any equally powerful system of formal logic, that amounts to "this theorem is not a theorem," which is obviously a self-contradiction for any theorem to express. Again this is called Godel's theorem and there is plenty of information about it online.

Formal logic has been shattered beyond repair as an absolute thing ever since the 1930s, when Godel discovered this. At least until we can find a way to resolve theorems that deny themselves while obeying all apparent natural rules of logic as humans currently understand them.


Philosophy is mental masturbation, and reality is not and has never been affected by the crap that people have invented with their imaginations and capacity for scrambling terms to make themselves feel smarter than they actually are. Philosophy is like relaxing after work. There's no impact, no effect on anything other than whomever it is that you're having fun in discussion with. Nothing is proven and nothing is debunked. Masturbation. That's all it's ever been.


Science itself comes from philosophy, and truly is nothing but a method based on a certain philosophy itself. You show a very poor understanding of the impact the field of thought has had on cultures throughout the world.


As far as "natural laws" are concerned, whatever exists to organize and structure physical development within any contextual environment is the result of logic, information, and the impact of progressive ramification.


No, no, once again, this is you saying "nature has to conform to my understanding of logic." That is arrogance. Nowhere does it say nature has to conform to your ideals. Nature conforms to nature. Humans still have an incomplete understanding of nature. You'll have to learn to cope with this I'm afraid.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Hey ! You guys are going to take up the whole internet with your responses. Take it easy.

I see the infinite regression hypothesis as factualy impossible. That leaves one alternative. There must be an
uncaused cause.
edit on 18-4-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-4-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


No disagreement from me.



Logic as we know it seems like it has to be based on a causal sequence, "first this, and then this..." But when time itself comes into question, as it has, then our perspective of what is logical has to expand to account for that.

At any rate we should all agree that our understanding of the universe, should conform to our observations of that same universe first and foremost.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



At any rate we should all agree that our understanding of the universe, should conform to our observations of that same universe first and foremost


Except that our understanding of the universe does influence our observations of it, or how we go about obtaining information about the universe. As Heisenberg says:

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning".



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon

At any rate we should all agree that our understanding of the universe, should conform to our observations of that same universe first and foremost


Except that our understanding of the universe does influence our observations of it, or how we go about obtaining information about the universe. As Heisenberg says:

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning".



We are part of the universe, and so are our ways of perceiving the universe, so yes, what you say is totally valid and we have to keep it in mind.

I don't think it negates the validity of exploring the universe by observing it, but it does create an interesting kind of feedback-loop between the subject and object that has already been the subject of some intense philosophical and scientific discussions. Even to the point where writers such as Alan Watts and Robert Anton Wilson (among others) ask, where do we stop, and where does "the universe" begin? Does it begin and end with our skin cells? Our nervous system? The EM field around our bodies? The air we breathe?

If you like, there really is no difference, and we are simply exploring ourselves.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Originally posted by NorEaster

The term was used by philosophers, but the reality of an immutable "yes" or "no" is as clear and defined as the logic circuits that allow you to read this post. Ever hear of a multivibrator circuit? How about set and bolean logic? Ever hear of machine programming language? That's logic. Sinmple, primitive, and completely immutable.

Philosophy is mental masturbation, and reality is not and has never been affected by the crap that people have invented with their imaginations and capacity for scrambling terms to make themselves feel smarter than they actually are. Philosophy is like relaxing after work. There's no impact, no effect on anything other than whomever it is that you're having fun in discussion with. Nothing is proven and nothing is debunked. Masturbation. That's all it's ever been.


What exactly are you saying? You seem to claim Logic isn't Philosophy and Philosophy is what? "Masturbation"? What mood were you in while posting that? ... lol

Please re-think this and tell me what you mean here. If you choose.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Okay, last time, but only for the benefit of any poor soul who might've run across this disaster and might actually be wondering, by now, exactly what it is that I have been claiming in this "exchange". Here is a quick overview.

  1. The "breakthrough assertions" of scientists that include measurements of events that happen at speeds of up to 10,000 times the speed of light, are patently absurd since there is no possible means of establishing such rates of velocity. No technical or otherwise reliable method of even presenting what such a speed would look like, or even if such a speed exists. There's something called the Unit Rate of Change, and while it has never been established, it is the very shortest length of possible time within any contextual environment. You can't divide that unit into sub-units. Velocity can't be faster than the URC allows - not that 10,000 times the speed of light requires such a division, but the fact remains that since velocity involves units of change, a responsible assertion must take such a finite confine into consideration. My own thought is that tossing an arbitrary number (like 10,000 times the speed of light) out as being a verifiable rate of velocity is more than bordering on irresponsibility, and if I were a physicist, I'd choose not to have my name associated with such sloppy work.

  2. When I stated that "I wish I had a better explanation for what's going on here", I was being honest about the fact that this information made its way into my head in a way without the traditional intellectual linkage of having read anything like it in any forum or published source. I know what it is that I now know, and I know it to depths that allow me extreme confidence in my assertions, as well as the ability to engage in extreme detail when explaining the minute aspects of what it is that I know. What I was admitting to, was that I do not know where the information came from, and I admitted it because I need to be honest about all of this. The larger focus of this work is much broader than simply tossing a few controversial ideas about existential genesis out for forum bullies to pounce on for sport. The larger focus involves the truth about who we are, what we are, and why we exist. And it offers a no-nonsense, no-faith-required, extremely detailed overview of how we developed within the contextual environment that still contains us, why we're different than the other animals around us, why the majority of us believe that we continue to live on after death, and why most of us believe that there is a larger reason for humanity's existence. The details are extremely new, and I know this because I've been searching for years to find anyone with a premise that is at all sympathetic enough to partner with, and I've come up empty. There is literally no published material that exists that isn't completely contradicted by what I've found to be completely verifiable as this one premise that finds support in literally every loose end that science and religion continue to try and dismiss as either unknowable or unimportant.

  3. And concerning logic. Engineers use the tenets of raw logic to engineer computer "flip flop" circuits. They didn't invent the logic. Boolean Logic is the math that examines simple ramifications of highs and lows in series/parallel configurations. The basics of machine language. Set Logic involves the introduction of contextual relationships, and the impact that they have on those same highs and lows of Boolean Logic. Again, engineers don't invent of impose the logic. They manipulate the stable, predictable logic that is at the base of all that occurs, and simply configure the "set" (or contextual environment) that the logic will do what it does within. You're not grasping the actual art of engineering when you suggest that an engineer is imposing his human will on reality. What he does (or she does) is more jujitsu than anything else. It's the use of logic's own rigid requirements as a passive channel for whatever progressive movement that engineer wishes to occur. Like using gravity instead of battling it. Good engineering is passive engineering, and logic circuits use good, passive engineering to create mirco-processors and all kinds of digital miracles.


It's my own respect for the requirements of logic and progressive ramification that refuse to allow me to embrace the kinds of things that you've insisted here. Potential is confined within the parameters of logic and established ramification, and that's the essence of everything that I've learned about reality. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and nothing that happens simply occurs without leaving an impact of some sort. Like I said, this explanation is only for those who might've decided to read this ridiculous back and forth, and are still confused as to what I've been defending about my own notions. I'm done with this exchange now. If anyone's comprehension can still be derailed by whatever is written in response to this, then there's nothing I can do for them anyway.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Serafine
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Originally posted by NorEaster

The term was used by philosophers, but the reality of an immutable "yes" or "no" is as clear and defined as the logic circuits that allow you to read this post. Ever hear of a multivibrator circuit? How about set and bolean logic? Ever hear of machine programming language? That's logic. Sinmple, primitive, and completely immutable.

Philosophy is mental masturbation, and reality is not and has never been affected by the crap that people have invented with their imaginations and capacity for scrambling terms to make themselves feel smarter than they actually are. Philosophy is like relaxing after work. There's no impact, no effect on anything other than whomever it is that you're having fun in discussion with. Nothing is proven and nothing is debunked. Masturbation. That's all it's ever been.


What exactly are you saying? You seem to claim Logic isn't Philosophy and Philosophy is what? "Masturbation"? What mood were you in while posting that? ... lol

Please re-think this and tell me what you mean here. If you choose.


Okay, I may have been a little peeved by my pal's baiting, and a little harsh on those serious thinkers who still work to keep Philosophy an elevated discipline. That said, you have to admit that the advent of immediate and free-to-everyone publication has resulted in all kinds of foolishness posing as philosophy. Hell, it's gotten so bad that people are burying responsible philosophical thought under piles of pure trash, with Google hit counts determining what truth is for most searchers. Look at the stuff that dominates this forum. It's mostly confused and confusing imaginations freestyling back and forth until they run out of gas on the subject. Oh sure, it's fun, but Philosophy was once an extremely important and extremely disciplined enterprise. It's lost that quality in recent years, but then, the book sales have spiked, so all in all, maybe the irresponsibility has been good for business.

Logic is not a product of Philosophy. The word logic might be, but the immutable existential yes/no of true logic is not something that Philosophy invented. Philosophers realized its existence, but that's not the same as having invented it. That'd be like claiming that Newton invented gravity. In fact, it'd be exactly like claiming that very thing.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join