Welcome


Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

Can being come from Non-being ?


Forums Forums Religion and Secularism Can being come from Non-being ?

Viewing 15 posts - 196 through 210 (of 335 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #318873
    @sree
    Participant

    Lausten: Not allowed? And you have some theory where it is allowed? Have you stepped outside of this universe and found some point where all else can be measured? I don’t think you understand the problem, let alone the proposed solutions.

    You made an excellent point that Bob needs to respond to with regard to that “absolute frame of reference”. I hope he doesn’t get pissed off by your dismissive remark about his “lack of understanding” and shuts down the conversation.

    #318943
    @ibelieveinlogic
    Participant

    Sree:  “What do you mean by your claim (that Newton’s law is an expression of our observations) to defend your assertion that time is an artifact of the memory?”

    Newton did experiments.  He observed.  He saw an effect and expressed it in math terms.  He did not see cause.  If fact he said quite clearly that he did not know cause and that knowing how gravity worked (the effect) was enough; he did not pursue cause.

    Sree:  ““the dividing line between past, present, and future is an illusion.  So reality is ultimately TIMELESS.”

    Of course it’s an illusion.  There is no past or future, there is only present.  Memory provides the illusion of past and extrapolation of memory provides future.  Past and future are illusion, present is the real upon which the illusions are raised.

    Of course reality is “TIMELESS”.  Timeless meaning time less, meaning without time, meaning no time, not meaning some other time, not meaning less time, not meaning an alternate time, meaning time is not part of reality.

    Physicists deal with effects, not causes.  The philosophy of physics is that all we can know is what we observe and we must accept that as truth.  Try convincing someone that the truth is something we do not observe!  We do not observe cause, only effect.

    The only way we have of considering an event is recalling it from our memory of observing it or a record of someone else observing it.  If we do not observe an event and no others record an observation of that event, we may deduce that the event happened based on memories or records of what we believe are similar or associated events.  The process is the same in either case, we compare memories, observed or deduced.   The artifact of that comparison is our concept of time.

    #318947
    @ibelieveinlogic
    Participant

    Lausten:  “Not allowed? And you have some theory where it is allowed? Have you stepped outside of this universe and found some point where all else can be measured? I don’t think you understand the problem, let alone the proposed solutions.”

    If you know anything at all about relativity you know that a preferred frame of reference is not allowed.

    I accept that the premise of a relative frame of reference must be that there a preferred frame of reference for the relative one to be relative to.  Everyone’s preferred frame of reference is his or her view of reality.  We cannot escape that absolute frame of reference.  The zero point, the geometric center of our individual absolute frame of reference, is right between our eyes.  Any posited relative frame of reference is imaginary.

    I suspect you tend to accept what physics should describe as “appears to be” is actually what “is”.  I don’t fault you for that, it is the language physics uses, and it is in accordance with the philosophy that experience is truth.  I doubt you actually believe that and I believe if you consider it you will see that application of that philosophy often confuses effect with cause.

    #318949
    @ibelieveinlogic
    Participant

    Sree:  “You made an excellent point that Bob needs to respond to with regard to that “absolute frame of reference”. I hope he doesn’t get pissed off by your dismissive remark about his “lack of understanding” and shuts down the conversation.”

    I see most people demonstrate a “lack of understanding” of relativity.  Most people accept what they have been taught and relativity has been taught as a sort of replacement for reality.  It isn’t.  If you substitute “appears to be” for “is” in relativity you get to truth that we see distant events some time after they happen because the propagation of light is not instantaneous.  That is no different from the way we hear sounds and yet people don’t have a problem understanding the relativity of sound.

    And while we’re at it, neither time, distance nor speed are physical things.  Realizing this we should not accept a relationship between the functioning of physical clocks and the non-physical things we call time, distance and speed.  The emperor is naked.

    #318980
    @sree
    Participant

    Bob: And while we’re at it, neither time, distance nor speed are physical things. Realizing this we should not accept a relationship between the functioning of physical clocks and the non-physical things we call time, distance and speed. The emperor is naked.

    What do you mean by the term “physical”? What, in your view, is a physical thing?

    Careful, Bob. I am about two moves away from “Checkmate!”

     

    • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by Sree.
    • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by Sree.
    • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by Sree.
    • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by Sree.
    #318988
    @write4u
    Participant

    Is someone disagreeing with the concept of relativity being an essential condition for subjective experience?

    Person A stands at a point along a railroad. Person B stands at a point along the same railroad several hundred yards away from person A.

    A fast moving train blowing its whistle runs between them in a direction away from person A and toward person B.

    The next day person A remarks “I like that new train whistle, its a perfect C”.                                                                                                                                Person B remarks, “yes I loved that sound too, but itwas a perfect D”.

    Who is lying and who is wrong?

    • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by Write4U.
    • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by Write4U.
    • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by Write4U.
    • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by Write4U.
    #319014
    @sree
    Participant

    Write4U: Who is lying and who is wrong?

    They are both right. What’s your point?

    #319018
    @write4u
    Participant

    No they are both wrong, but they are both telling their relative truth.

    Person C sitting next to the whistle on the train, would heard it correctly at C#.

    It proves that relativity is a fact and presents a different reality to all observers, each from their POV.

     

    #319043
    @sree
    Participant

    Person C heard what he heard. So did Person A and Person B. There were three different perceived frequencies of sound waves emitting from the whistle . It’s the same with opinions derived from different points of views of the same thing.

    Write4U, you need to have a sharp mind for tidy thinking.

    #319066
    @write4u
    Participant

    This is where you are wrong. A and B did not hear the soundwaves as emitted from the train whistle. They heard the soundwaves altered by the doppler effect because they were observing from different frames of reference.

    Only C heard the actual wave length of the sound emitted by the train whistle. He was observing from the same frame of reference as the train whistle.

    I gave you an example of relativity.  Pay attention and think about what I write.

    #319090
    @ibelieveinlogic
    Participant

    Write4U:  “Person A stands at a point along a railroad. Person B stands at a point along the same railroad several hundred yards away from person A.  A fast moving train blowing its whistle runs between them in a direction away from person A and toward person B.  The next day person A remarks “I like that new train whistle, its a perfect C”.  Person B remarks, “yes I loved that sound too, but it was a perfect D”.  Who is lying and who is wrong?”

    Neither are lying.  Both are wrong.  Both use terms (“its” and “it was”).  They should have said “it sounded like”.

    What we hear, or see, is not necessarily what “is”.  Both people in your example heard effect and assigned cause.

    #319091
    @ibelieveinlogic
    Participant

    Write4U:  “It proves that relativity is a fact and presents a different reality to all observers, each from their POV.”

    So that “fact” is only that each observer has his own unique experience.

    Relativity doesn’t “present” anything.  It is an acknowledgement of our understanding that light is not propagated instantaneously.

    Each observer within a shared (preferred) frame of reference has his own point of viewing and draws his own conclusions about his experience.  In order for there to be different or alternate realities there must first be a reality to be different from or from which there is an alternate.  “Different” is like the proverbial tango, it takes two.

    #319093
    @ibelieveinlogic
    Participant

    Sree:  “What do you mean by the term “physical”? What, in your view, is a physical thing?  Careful, Bob. I am about two moves away from “Checkmate!””

    I didn’t realize we were competing.  If the prize is really great I may try harder.

    Wiktionary: physical :

    “physical (comparative more physical, superlative most physical)

    1.  Having to do with the body.  “Are you feeling any physical effects?”
    2.  Having to do with the material world.  “It’s not so much a physical place as a state of mind.”
    3.  Involving bodily force.  “This team plays a very physical game, so watch out.”
    4.  Having to do with physics.  “The substance has a number of interesting physical properties.”
    5.  (computing) Not virtual; directly corresponding to hardware operation.
    6.  (obsolete) Relating to physic, or medicine; medicinal; curative; also, cathartic; purgative”

     

    I’d say if we both stub a toe on it, its most likely physical.

    I get it now, we’re playing 20 questions!  Sort of.  What do you mean by the term “physical”?

    • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by Bob.
    • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by Bob.
    #319096
    @write4u
    Participant

    Bob said,

    Relativity doesn’t “present” anything.

    It does to the observer.

    Presents, verb

    3. to offer something for people to consider or judge. The commission presented its report in October.

    Relativity presents a different perspective of reality to the observer, depending on his/her frame of reference.

    #319101
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    I suspect you tend to accept what physics should describe as “appears to be” is actually what “is”.  I don’t fault you for that, it is the language physics uses, and it is in accordance with the philosophy that experience is truth.  I doubt you actually believe that and I believe if you consider it you will see that application of that philosophy often confuses effect with cause.

    Apparently you don’t read my posts

Viewing 15 posts - 196 through 210 (of 335 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.