Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: :)

  1. #1 :) 
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2
    hi


    Philosophy with awnsers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  

    Related Discussions:

     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Strugle Town
    Posts
    222

    My concentration span is not what it used to be so please ,KISS.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Welcome to the Science Forum Kenneth. I understand the Christian religion can be summed up in the words: For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that we might be saved.

    Do you have a similar condensed version of your own message?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 :) 
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2
    ok
    Philosophy with awnsers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Excellent. I can get my head around that. Indeed, I would largely agree with you.

    I am reminded of the remark (though I don't recall who made it) that intelligent people believe unbelievable things because they weren't using their intelligence when they started believing them, but now use it to defend that belief. [This is a very poor paraphrase of what I remember is, in the original, a rather elegant sentence.]

    I think you are saying something very similar. So far so good.

    As I dip back into your opening post, though, I find particulars that do not jibe. For example:

    Some scientists think that the universe is balanced. They believe that for every piece of matter there is a piece of anti-matter.

    I'd like to know who these scientists are. I certainly know of no mainstream theory that makes this claim.

    Nothingness is an idea we try to use to explain why there is something in the universe.

    I have never seen it used this way.

    For instance, how can something (the universe) come from nothing?
    Who has ever claimed that the Universe came from nothing? You seem to be making a lot of statements that do match how science percieves reality. Since you are constructing your argument on such a weak foundation it causes me to doubt your conclusion(s).

    The nature of nothingness is that it is balanced. This just shows that in nothingness there is potential for there to be something.
    This is nonsensical. You might equally say that the fact that apple is balance (by your definitions) it has the potential to be nothing. All that your equality has demonstrated is that nothing is the same as nothing. Since nothing is the antithesis of something, your statement, rather than proving nothing has some of the same attributes as something, is irrevocably condemned to remain nothing for ever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Excellent. I can get my head around that. Indeed, I would largely agree with you.

    I am reminded of the remark (though I don't recall who made it) that intelligent people believe unbelievable things because they weren't using their intelligence when they started believing them, but now use it to defend that belief. [This is a very poor paraphrase of what I remember is, in the original, a rather elegant sentence.]

    I think you are saying something very similar. So far so good.
    Not so good in my point of view.

    First of all, how can something be called unbelievable if someone (let alone an intellegent someone) believes it. So since it is logically false, we must conclude that calling something that someone believes, unbelievable is a subjective value judgement. It is saying that somehow your beliefs are better or more valid than the beliefs of another person.

    If we take the value judgement out of it, then the question becomes, how is it possible that different intellegent people believe things which are so vastly different that one can view the beliefs of the other as completely beyond the limits of credibility.

    With this adjustment I must agree that Ophiolites explanation is a possibility that most probably applies to many people. Nevertheless, I find this viewpoint just as tasteless as pointing out statistical differences in IQ between different races. We must acknowledge that intellegent people can come to such vastly different conclusions because regardless of the fact that the rules of logic which underlies valid reasoning are objective and unchanging, reason also relies on axioms and data which (in their personal experience) does vary quite a bit between different people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    As I dip back into your opening post, though, I find particulars that do not jibe. For example:

    Some scientists think that the universe is balanced. They believe that for every piece of matter there is a piece of anti-matter.

    I'd like to know who these scientists are. I certainly know of no mainstream theory that makes this claim.
    Current theory points out a mechanism in cosmological physics which explains how the original creation of matter and antimatter was slightly asymmetrical (more matter than antimatter) and that the matter which exists today is the remnant left over after the original matter and animatter annihilated.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite

    Nothingness is an idea we try to use to explain why there is something in the universe.

    I have never seen it used this way.

    For instance, how can something (the universe) come from nothing?
    Who has ever claimed that the Universe came from nothing? You seem to be making a lot of statements that do match how science percieves reality. Since you are constructing your argument on such a weak foundation it causes me to doubt your conclusion(s).

    The nature of nothingness is that it is balanced. This just shows that in nothingness there is potential for there to be something.
    This is nonsensical. You might equally say that the fact that apple is balance (by your definitions) it has the potential to be nothing. All that your equality has demonstrated is that nothing is the same as nothing. Since nothing is the antithesis of something, your statement, rather than proving nothing has some of the same attributes as something, is irrevocably condemned to remain nothing for ever.
    Of course the terminology of Keneth's idea is largely philosophical rather than scientific, and in response I am tempted to say that in thinking about nothing Kenneth has stumbled over the impossibility of grasping absolute nothingness because in seeking to grasp it, he himself is present in his own thoughts about it. However, if we translate what he is saying into scientific terminology then Kenneth's idea is not so berefit of merit. Instead of the word "nothing" we could substitute the word "vacuum". But in quantum physics the vacuum does contain the potential for something in the so called vacuum fluxuations. In fact, in some theories of cosmology it is beleved that all the matter in the universe was created by the decay of a state of vacuum due to some kind spontaneous symmetry breaking as a result of the decreasing temperature of the expanding universe. In other words, the decreasing temperature left the originally symmetrical vacuum in an unstable state, not unlike a pencil balanced on its point, so that this vauum state collapsed into a lower symmetry lower energy vacuum state, and the difference in energy went into the creation of the matter and radiation content of the universe. That is, at least, what I remember of this theory that I read about a long time ago.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •