Jumi
Well-Known Member
You probably had a traditionalist teacher, who decided to teach the hard route sticking to old textbook approach instead of building it up.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Just How Impossible is the Possible?
- Thread starter Truly Enlightened
- Start date
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
I would very much like to discuss this. This is an interesting subject. But, i have no wish to debate with someone who refuses to understand what i'm debating. I have no intention to defend your straw man version of it. I'd much rather defend the real thing.
For this reason, if you want to discuss with me, you better read the link i gave you. Otherwise i'm arguing with someone who doesn't know what he's arguing about.
You've misunderstood everything i said basically. I already gave you "an equation or concept that represents anything that is Metaphysical/Metaphysics specific." You didn't understand this.
This is why i gave you the link.
No. I'm not saying that. You're literally refusing to understand what i'm saying.
No. I'm not saying that. You're literally refusing to understand what i'm saying. I'm saying what it means to be "property" is a metaphysical statement.
I highlighted the parts of a previous argument you did. The highlighted parts are the ones that deal with metaphysics rather than the scientific method. You are using your opinions and mistaking them for objective facts.
How do you define what's relevant? What does relevant mean? That's the area of metaphysics.
Metaphysics - Wikipedia
And you definitely need more definitions and more interpretations. Right now you have just one, yours. And it's a straw man.
Earlier i said every time we make an assumption about reality, we're using metaphysics. You said making assumptions about reality is irrelevant. Now, apparently assumptions about reality can help us survive for example? How is that irrelevant? How is this you not putting out two contradicting arguments?
If you don't understand what i'm arguing for, i will not debate with you. I'm a methodological naturalist, agnostic atheist and a Buddhist. You seem to think i'm a creationist for some reason. Maybe you should stop assuming things about reality?
Maybe you should focus on learning about the things you are trying to argue? I'll repeat once more: You have a problem with one particular metaphysical model. One i don't agree with even. You think merely because i'm arguing with you, i'm holding some wild beliefs about the supernatural.
I'm not. I'm correcting a factual mistake you're doing. The only practical difference between you and i is that i know what metaphysics means and you don't.
If you have trouble understanding that, we're done here.
/E: As far as metaphysics goes: You showed just how impossible it is to make you see anything beyond your personal bias.
/E2: I added some stuff. I don't really want to contribute to your misunderstanding. But i need to reiterate it still: You are misunderstanding both what i'm trying to say, and my motivations.
Again stop being intellectually dishonest. Stop taking my statements out of context. I said "The assumptions we make about reality are irrelevant. It is only the evidence that we can present that is relevant". The point I was making was that evidence plus the assumption about reality, is more relevant that assumptions without evidence. That was the first dishonest tactic.
I said, "We make definite claims about reality everyday. We make assumptions about reality all the time. If we didn't we wouldn't survive for very long. Imagine what would happen if we didn't make assumptions about time, height, distances, weight, or speed. What do you think would happen of we made the wrong assumptions. Fortunately, we are the product of evolution, and not the product of anything metaphysical". Although, the assumptions I made about reality, was clearly about specific non-metaphysical aspects of reality(highlighted), and are in fact important in our survival. And even though I stated that humans are a product of evolution and not the Metaphysical, you responded with more dishonesty;
This is possibly the only rational thing you have said in the entire post. And it is still wrong. It is clear that you don't have a clear understanding of the Metaphysical/Metaphysics that you imply that you do. There is absolutely no substance in any claim you make. There is a big difference in reading a definition, and understanding a definition. My understanding was based on the idea that the metaphysical reality was a philosophical argument, that looks for the essence within all things in reality. There is another definition that also states that it looks for the unchanging component within all things in reality. Since everything within my reality is dynamic, there exist a clear separation between the Metaphysical, and the Classical.
You have avoided all my request for clarifications regarding, examples of practicality, method of inquiry, or applications in science. Instead you have misinterpreted, distorted, insulted, deflected, avoided, and referred me to Google U. Basically, you've told me that I just don't understand, and go and find the answers that you will agree with, and then come back once you agree with me. Is this what you consider a rational discourse?
I must admit, this is not the most gracious of swan songs, so lets just agree to disagree.
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
Thank you. You are correct. It is certainly possible that other life exists somewhere in the Universe. I was only talking about the probability of Earth being visited by extraterrestrials. In either case, their existence violates no natural laws, and therefore they are not supernatural. I'm not sure what "all this probability is based on our own limited experience being projected as "law" onto the rest of the universe." mean. We can only work with the technology that we have.
But it's not just his posts. It's the experiences he has had.... Just to point out: if they "reinforce what (you) believe", as you state, they are not "enlightening" you. They are only affirming what you already think. ... I mean, speaking of 'confirmation bias' an all.
And we're not talking about hallucinations.
People like Winston Churchill...Theodore Roosevelt...wife of President Coolidge...etc, all had experiences with a spirit, impersonating (imo)Lincoln's ghost - Wikipedia. And that's just one person being impostered.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
A more skilled instructor and a smarter student
would have gotten better results. But yeah, that
is how it was.
Audie
Veteran Member
Good vocab lesson for you here..(see in bold)
An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion.
AKA more recently as "celeb endorsement".
Skwim
Veteran Member
Quotes demand a citation. If you don't provide one the poem here will likely be removed.
.
Fail.
These are not arguments, or endorsements...these are what real credible people have experienced themselves.
Big difference!
I'm simply glad they had the honesty to reveal these experiences, knowing such reports could result in severe scorn.
Actually, such candor gives these experiences credibility.
PureX
Veteran Member
Of being human, and then of sharing that experience with others.
PureX
Veteran Member
We can only know what we have experienced ourselves to be that which appears true, to us. That's not much to go on. And yet we think we have identified the "laws of the universe". Just sayin'.
Audie
Veteran Member
Celeb endorsements.
Ok, but there are still questions to be asked. Physics can rule some things out, but should not be used to silence questions.
What about dark matter, and why is space expanding? Why does matter exist? Why can matter be modeled with Math?
That we know of.
Choice.
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
I tend to agree with you, but I think you're forgetting that your opinions aren't necessarily facts. How the heck does math debunk "resurrections," "fairy tales," or "ghosts?"
How about math debunking Vampires? Vampires a Mathematical Impossibility, Scientist Says
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
We are in a constantly re-ordered state anyway. It is not a matter of keeping original matter (which is essentially recycled, anyway), but maintaining or reproducing a state which is itself dynamic.
We die by our design -because we are formed and then "refreshed" only for a certain amount of time.
If I knock over a chessboard, I am able to return the pieces to their correct positions -and decision cannot be removed from the equation.
Humans are not in a position to resurrect themselves or others -or to gather their original components (which isn't actually necessary) -but that is not to say another is not in the position to reproduce us based on a record of us.
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your comments. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own logic. Just because one person has a subjective sensory misfire, does not mean that what I am experiencing as being real is incorrect. This is a fallacy(non sequitur). It would seem that the other spatial dimensions postulated by the math in the String Theory, all exist at the Quantum level. These dimensions are only theorized, and are allowed in the physics. There is no evidence to support the existence of extra dimensions, YET. There would be no way for matter to occupy any further dimensions without such dimensions being already contained within the 3 dimensions. Just as we can cast a 2D shadow, a 4D object can cast a 3D shadow. Of course we wouldn't be able to see it. But it is impossible to physically enter, or immerge from one dimension into another. How can any entity change the spatial perspective of its own reality? We can't even escape our own subjective perspective. The laws of physics can be bent, but they can't be broken.
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
Thank you. Our body is an open system. We must put energy into the system to maintain its equilibrium state. This means that the body system will always be dynamic. There are many reasons we will eventually die. Excluding disease, accidents, misadventure, or any other non-age related issues, I like the genetic explanation(length of telomers). Determining the rate of cell division, and the loss rate of gene sequences on the ends of telomers, can not only determine your current age, but also the age of your death. Stress, drugs, anxiety, and the sympathetic response, all tend to increase this loss rate. The only record of us, is in the genes we pass on to our offspring.
In order for you to restore the chess pieces to their original position, you need to input energy into the system. Your decision to do so is irrelevant. Only your energy is relevant. Even then, it will never be in the exact position. This would violate a quantum law. Maybe there are exceptions to the conservation laws and entropy, but so far none have been observed. Maybe there is another that can violate all of the natural laws, but again no violation has ever been observed. All it would take is one confirmed exception to any natural law, and any supernatural paranormal, and spiritual event, would immediately become a credible argument. My point was that it is impossible for any exceptions or violations to occur because of the physics. Even a Black Hole does not violate the laws of physics. So how can we?
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Except most basic law, law is a matter of perspective (we are subject to laws because of our design -and if we were of a different design, such could be subject to us -some laws simply exist -and some are imposed by manipulation of that which exists). Even so, once most basic law wraps its head around itself -gains a perspective and power of decision -it becomes able to direct -not violate -most basic law.
Nature naturally produces that which directs its own course by decision and creativity. Nature naturally produces identity, self-awareness, self-determination.
Afterward, any imaginable arrangement is eventually possible (in the way that it is possible -acknowledging most basic nature).
In microcosm, humans are able to change the course nature would otherwise take (we know and act or do not) -yet we say that "nature" is responsible for our existence.
However, humans are a portion of all -whereas "all" or "everything" initially developing likewise would gain all power over itself -according to the law of its nature.
Before we can say "I WILL BE", we say "I AM" -and there is every reason to believe this applies to everything as a whole.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
It disproves exactly the type of vampires (Twilight, Dracula) that were modeled in the study, it doesn't disprove vampires. It's much harder to disprove something doesn't exist.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Thanks for asking.
In your OP, you made claims such as...
For any ghost to be seen, it would need to be composed of some kind of matter. Matter that can absorb, reflect, or refract light energy(EM). All the different properties of matter and their fundamental building blocks are already known(CERN and LHC). A ghost would need to draw energy from somewhere or it would disappear immediately(2nd law of thermodynamics). To reappear would also require an energy source. Since it can float or pass through matter, it can't exert any force on anything. This is a violation of Newtons Motion laws, as well as Gravity).Therefore, its components must interact with each other differently than the Standard Model would suggest. This is impossible since all the properties of matter are accounted for(including the possibility of dark matter and supersymmetry) by the Standard Model. Since the Universe is still here, Ghost can't exist. Hence, why no verifiable objective evidence can exist.
Hence the response I gave, quoting Professor John R. Brobeck.
A scientist is no longer able to say honestly something is impossible. He can only say it is improbable. But he may be able to say something is impossible to explain in terms of our present knowledge. Science cannot say that all properties of matter and all forms of energy are now known.
That fact has not changed. Do you disagree, or challenge the statements?
It would seem that you are also assuming there is no energy source, other than what scientists discovered. Apart from that, there seems to be much speculation about particular phenomenon.
So, I'll explaining, and put everything in one package.
I said:
Science is a tool. It's not a living thing. It's a study which scientists use to learn or discover.
Science has limits. Therefore those who use science can never know everything. If that happened, what purpose would science serve? What more would there be to learn and discover?
The fact that there will always be new discoveries - even overturning, and/or replacing previous discoveries demonstrates that science will always be ongoing. There will always be a search for knowledge - science.
To demonstrate how profound that fact is... Consider our brain - considered the most complex organ in the human body.
Has scientists discovered everything about the brain? Do they understand everything about it?
Yet what do scientists use to research in order to discover or understand things?
Using something one does not understand to understand everything (if you understand), sounds extremely limited - you understand? How is it possible to understand everything, and know what is or isn't with such extreme limitations?
Also, you said...
The Metaphysical(philosophical), the paranormal, and the supernatural are not self-evident. They can't be established by any everyday experiences, or by any natural scientific investigation. These philosophical beliefs can't concern themselves with objective evidence, since no objective evidence exists. They must only concern themselves with exploiting the language, or challenging already established principles with language. They can never become established fact, or be deduced by using formal logic or mathematical reasoning. Especially, since all Metaphysical phenomena exist outside of our senses/experiences.
That would leave scientific ideas with equally the same problem.
Apart from science not being able to prove anything, scientist can only establish their theories as scientific facts, but they don't become fact.
Kurt Friedrich Gödel; April 28, 1906 – January 14, 1978) was an Austrian, and later American, logician, mathematician, and philosopher. Considered along with Aristotle, Alfred Tarski and Gottlob Frege to be one of the most significant logicians in history, Gödel made an immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the 20th century, a time when others such as Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead, and David Hilbert were analyzing the use of logic and set theory to understand the foundations of mathematics pioneered by Georg Cantor.
Gödel published his two incompleteness theorems in 1931 when he was 25 years old, one year after finishing his doctorate at the University of Vienna. The first incompleteness theorem states that for any self-consistent recursive axiomatic system powerful enough to describe the arithmetic of the natural numbers (for example Peano arithmetic), there are true propositions about the naturals that cannot be proved from the axioms. To prove this theorem, Gödel developed a technique now known as Gödel numbering, which codes formal expressions as natural numbers.
He also showed that neither the axiom of choice nor the continuum hypothesis can be disproved from the accepted axioms of set theory, assuming these axioms are consistent. The former result opened the door for mathematicians to assume the axiom of choice in their proofs. He also made important contributions to proof theory by clarifying the connections between classical logic, intuitionistic logic, and modal logic.
Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that demonstrate the inherent limitations of every formal axiomatic system containing basic arithmetic. These results, published by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. The theorems are widely, but not universally, interpreted as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible.The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of the natural numbers. For any such formal system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
Employing a diagonal argument, Gödel's incompleteness theorems were the first of several closely related theorems on the limitations of formal systems. They were followed by Tarski's undefinability theorem on the formal undefinability of truth, Church's proof that Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem is unsolvable, and Turing's theorem that there is no algorithm to solve the halting problem.
Either mathematics is too big for the human mind, or the human mind is more than a machine.
As quoted in Topoi : The Categorial Analysis of Logic (1979) by Robert Goldblatt, p. 13
Based on these truths, could it be this is the reason why the world has so many problems?
Is materialism a cause for these problems? It seems that way to me.
Man has been endowed with reason, with the power to create, so that he can add to what he's been given. But up to now he hasn't been a creator, only a destroyer. Forests keep disappearing, rivers dry up, wild life's become extinct, the climate's ruined and the land grows poorer and uglier every day.
ANTON CHEKHOV, Uncle Vanya
Pure Reason left to herself relieth on axioms and essential premises which she can neither question nor resolve.
Robert Bridges, The Testament of Beauty (1929), Book I, line 450.
Human reason is like a drunken man on horseback; set it up on one side, and it tumbles over on the other.
MARTIN LUTHER, attributed, Day's Collacon
As quoted in Topoi : The Categorial Analysis of Logic (1979) by Robert Goldblatt, p. 13
Based on these truths, could it be this is the reason why the world has so many problems?
Is materialism a cause for these problems? It seems that way to me.
Man has been endowed with reason, with the power to create, so that he can add to what he's been given. But up to now he hasn't been a creator, only a destroyer. Forests keep disappearing, rivers dry up, wild life's become extinct, the climate's ruined and the land grows poorer and uglier every day.
ANTON CHEKHOV, Uncle Vanya
Pure Reason left to herself relieth on axioms and essential premises which she can neither question nor resolve.
Robert Bridges, The Testament of Beauty (1929), Book I, line 450.
Human reason is like a drunken man on horseback; set it up on one side, and it tumbles over on the other.
MARTIN LUTHER, attributed, Day's Collacon
...
Finally, you said...
My personal belief, is that these were stories created by humans, to generally entertain other humans with a lot of time on their hands. So, to recap, NOTHING that exists within this Universe, can exist outside of the four fundamental forces of the Universe(EM, Gravity, Strong and Weak). NOTHING can be established as fact or certainty, without some additional amount of evidence. NOTHING that is composed of matter and energy, can ignore the four Laws of Thermodynamics, or escape its Entropy. NOTHING composed of matter, mass or momentum can travel faster than light, obtain absolute zero, or occupy zero space. NOTHING, can exist outside of any Quantum Field medium, established by the Quantum Standard Model of Fermions(Matter particles), and the Bosons(Force particles). Nothing on the macro-scale can escape the effects of Gravity, time and space, or the Laws of Motion. And, NOTHING can interact with something, without a medium/mechanism to facilitate that interaction(no medium/mechanism for clairvoyants, telepaths, empaths, or telekinesis). The only exceptions to anything that could violate the physical laws of nature, are the ideas and beliefs that we create using our mind. Since the basis for dis-belief is science, what is the basis for belief? The mind IS truly a terrible thing to waste.
You mentioned "Nothing" 7 times - a number representing completeness in scripture, but based on the above, what can you prove? Nothing.
I can't prove God is, but one thing is certain, if he is, then truth can be found, and likely is being revealed, as I believe it is.
Something else I believe is that the problem lies in not accepting that truth.
Problem of why there is anything at all
Water cannot rise higher than its source, neither can human reason. Now, all reasoning respecting transcendent truths must have its source where the truths or ideas themselves originate.
SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE, notes appended to the third edition of Southey's Life of Wesley
SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE, notes appended to the third edition of Southey's Life of Wesley
Would you agree?
Last edited:
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your response.
List of prizes for evidence of the paranormal - Wikipedia These are the list of prizes, since the 60's from around the world. These prizes are awarded to anyone who can demonstrate or prove any claims that the paranormal is real. Every single clairvoyant, telepath, telekinetic, empath, faith healer, psychic, astrologist, iridologist, rhabdomantist, every pseudoscience practices, ghost siting's, alien abduction claim, and every Big Foot siting's, HAVE ALL FAILD. Not even one success in over 60 years of trying. All prizes are still unclaimed, and not from any lack of hopefuls. It is science that explains why these events are impossible, hence the unclaimed prizes and failures. Surely, with all the belief in the supernatural and all the paranormal claims among billions, there must be at least one single bit of evidence to justify at least one claim. Maybe it really is the brain's ability to compartmentalize information, that contributes to this collective phenomenon. So I have no idea of what this "quantity, quality and consistency evidence", is referring to. Unless you are referring to some confirmation bias.
"Weirdness" is such a subjective vague term, and can become almost meaningless. Science knows that there are only four known fundamental forces that make up our reality. These forces create everything that we see here today. There are no other forces that we can detect or observe, that interact with the basic components of matter(CERN and LHC). If any other force was discovered, or another fundamental particle(supersymmetry, graviton), a trip to Oslo would be in order. The search for science today, is to find what has already been predicted or theorized. It is the technology, physical limitations, and Quantum uncertainty that are its limiting factor. The quantum world is based on Quantum Entanglement("spooky action at a distant"), Weak and Strong forces, particle duality, wave probabilities, superposition, and uncertainty(position and speed). The Classical world is based on Gravity, Laws of Motion, Laws of Thermodynamics, Entropy, Electromagnetism, time, speed of light, temperature, and both General and Special Relativity. Both worlds are separate from each other, and yet have formed from each other. Physicists are searching for the solution to a number of problems that keep both worlds separated.
There is no new matter that fall outside of the predicted Quantum standard model. None. All component particles, force(bosons) and matter(fermions) carrying particles, ARE KNOWN. Anything that exists outside of our predictions, experimental results, or probability, lays within the realm of the Metaphysical. Of course this has no affect on material science. Comparing aspects of the Quantum world to the Classical world, is an automatic equivocation error. If Hydrogen and Oxygen are gases, and water is made from hydrogen and oxygen, then water must be a gas. Finding the Graviton may give us some insight to why gravity is so weak, or if extra dimensions truly do exists.
Our sense organs are what links our body to the material world. Since our senses are not self-stimulating, they must be stimulated by something that exists outside of the body. There are many different sense organs, that are designed(evolved) to respond to different aspects of reality(hard, soft, hot, cold, position, awareness, wet and dry, pressure, etc.). Once stimulated, they send their information to a physical functioning organ called the brain. The brain processes(compartmentalizes) this information into our subconscious mind. Some of this information is represented to our conscious mind, as the brains best-guess representation of what reality looks like. Since we can't "mind-melt" with anyone else, or see ourselves from outside of ourselves, there is only one subjective consciousness. There is no such thing as an objective consciousness, unless you belong to the Borg Collective. But there is an objective reality. The objective reality is the reality that exists, that doesn't require our presence to exist. The moon does not require our presence to exist. Our Subjective reality DOES require our presence to consciously exist. We are in fact trapped within our subjective perspective.