Mathematical Physics is irrational, as admitted by the Physicists themselves

IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Mathematical Physics is irrational, as admitted by the Physicists themselves

The main issue with mathematical physics is that it reifies (i.e. turns abstract concepts into concrete objects) mathematical concepts such as POINTS, FIELDS, FORCE, ect.

Since physics is about explaining how events physically occur, these reifications do not cut it as a rational mechanism. Concepts do not exist in reality, so they certainly do not ACT UPON objects.

http://www.integratedpost.com/2012/12/mathematical-physics-is-irrational-video.html


 


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
atheistextremeist wrote:Don't you

Atheistextremist wrote:
Don't you mean to say some people here grant math primacy in terms of its concrete ability to repeatedly and consistently explain certain physical aspects of what can be observed?

 

Math does NOT explain. Not no way, no how! Math is a TAUTOLOGICAL system built upon arbitrary axioms. Disagree?  DEFINE your term. Math: ______

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost

IntegratedPost wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
Don't you mean to say some people here grant math primacy in terms of its concrete ability to repeatedly and consistently explain certain physical aspects of what can be observed?

 

Math does NOT explain. Not no way, no how! Math is a TAUTOLOGICAL system built upon arbitrary axioms. Disagree?  DEFINE your term. Math: ______

How do you get to "arbitrary axioms"?

Arbitrary implies decisions based on personal whim or random choice. What axiom is based on such things?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Math studies

IntegratedPost wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
Don't you mean to say some people here grant math primacy in terms of its concrete ability to repeatedly and consistently explain certain physical aspects of what can be observed?

 

Math does NOT explain. Not no way, no how! Math is a TAUTOLOGICAL system built upon arbitrary axioms. Disagree?  DEFINE your term. Math: ______

 

observable measurements, volumes, quantities, etc, using numbers and symbols that were obviously invented by humans but this does not mean the scientific method based on repeated experiment using such measurements suddenly becomes wildly unpredictable. Could a different creature on another planet come up with a different yet entirely consistent method of analysing their world - sure.

But while the labels and symbols would be different it's likely that, within the bounds of interplanatery weirdness we have never properly observed at close quarters (Neptune and Uranus, for instance), the underlying physical properties of the universe would remain the same.

Liquid would still have the property we call volume, weight would be decreed by what we call gravity, light would have wavelength and distance be measurable by whichever arbitrary but universally predictable label the 'aliens' with their 25-metre strides and 360-degree boggle eyes, saw fit to apply.  

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
No worries, Minty

Mintyfell wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

IntegratedPost wrote:

The main issue with mathematical physics is that it reifies (i.e. turns abstract concepts into concrete objects) mathematical concepts such as POINTS, FIELDS, FORCE, ect.

Since physics is about explaining how events physically occur, these reifications do not cut it as a rational mechanism. Concepts do not exist in reality, so they certainly do not ACT UPON objects.

http://www.integratedpost.com/2012/12/mathematical-physics-is-irrational-video.html

Mintyfell wrote:
 

Watched your video. It was quite interesting. I like how you say that people are stuck in the math. I tend to agree... Mostly. Unfortunately, or fortunately, there are people here that worship math as a god. Almost as good, or as bad as, the christians...lol. 

 

Don't you mean to say some people here grant math primacy in terms of its concrete ability to repeatedly and consistently explain certain physical aspects of what can be observed?

 

 

Yes, that is exactly what I was saying, just in different words. Thank you for rephrasing.

Apologies for the general statement, I meant nothing derogatory.

So for all practical purposes, whatever I grant Primacy in this life becomes my god. Whether it is money, power, sex, material things, math, or any idea(true or false---think religion), a person, or object; it matters not what it is.

I don't mean any offense by this at all, if it doesn't apply to you then good, or bad, it really doesn't matter. It is another way of looking at things.

 

Wouldn't you agree that there are parts of your life for which math is really important? The baud rate of your computer, the number of dollars in your account, the speed limit of your car, the time of day you pick up your daughter from school, the accuracy of your motorcycle's fuel gauge, the megajoules of power you get billed for by your utility company, the calculations of lift that keep your Airbus in the sky.

And not important like a 'god' (whatever that is, I still have no idea), just important in terms of the underlying way we measure and make sense of the fixed and variable parameters of our sense of reality? And if you agree math-based calculations do have something real to say about our understanding of material reality, something that helps us stay alive, at what point does it lose its value?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:Let's

IntegratedPost wrote:


Let's get this straight, an ad hominem is when personal remarks are used as a SUBSTITUTE for a critical analysis of the arguments themselves.

I will critique your arguments at face value, THEN ridicule you for using such irrational arguments.  Ridicule is almost just as important as critical analysis, in my opinion, as long as the attacks do not serve as replacements for actual arguments.
 

Yet, when digital posted a question about sources, you cried that it was an ad hom.

So what, your making the rules now ?

Fuck it, when someone wants to dig a hole, I say throw 'em a shovel.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost

DP


Mintyfell
Theist
Mintyfell's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2012-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Mintyfell wrote:

 

 

 

Yes, that is exactly what I was saying, just in different words. Thank you for rephrasing.

Apologies for the general statement, I meant nothing derogatory.

So for all practical purposes, whatever I grant Primacy in this life becomes my god. Whether it is money, power, sex, material things, math, or any idea(true or false---think religion), a person, or object; it matters not what it is.

I don't mean any offense by this at all, if it doesn't apply to you then good, or bad, it really doesn't matter. It is another way of looking at things.

 

Wouldn't you agree that there are parts of your life for which math is really important? The baud rate of your computer, the number of dollars in your account, the speed limit of your car, the time of day you pick up your daughter from school, the accuracy of your motorcycle's fuel gauge, the megajoules of power you get billed for by your utility company, the calculations of lift that keep your Airbus in the sky.

And not important like a 'god' (whatever that is, I still have no idea), just important in terms of the underlying way we measure and make sense of the fixed and variable parameters of our sense of reality? And if you agree math-based calculations do have something real to say about our understanding of material reality, something that helps us stay alive, at what point does it lose its value?

 

 

I would absolutely agree that there are parts of my life for which math is important.  I'm not discrediting math or it's usefulness, as a tool or a language. 

 

There is a lot in your second paragraph. A lot to think about.


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:Let's

IntegratedPost wrote:

Let's get this straight, an ad hominem is when personal remarks are used as a SUBSTITUTE for a critical analysis of the arguments themselves.

I will critique your arguments at face value, THEN ridicule you for using such irrational arguments.  Ridicule is almost just as important as critical analysis, in my opinion, as long as the attacks do not serve as replacements for actual arguments.

Since ridicule almost always impedes productive discussion, your opinion likely holds only if you are not interested in engaging in such.

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

IntegratedPost wrote:

Let's get this straight, an ad hominem is when personal remarks are used as a SUBSTITUTE for a critical analysis of the arguments themselves.

I will critique your arguments at face value, THEN ridicule you for using such irrational arguments.  Ridicule is almost just as important as critical analysis, in my opinion, as long as the attacks do not serve as replacements for actual arguments.

Since ridicule almost always impedes productive discussion, your opinion likely holds only if you are not interested in engaging in such.

 

Plus, he obviously demonstrates, as per his assertion on digital's question and some of his "ridicule" that he does not have an obvious grasp on what an ad hom is. But fuck it, like I said before, if someone wants to dig a hole, throw them a shovel.

What try to have discussions with those that seem to be moving the goalposts around for no other apparent reason other than the fact that they seemingly have nothing of value to offer ?

BTW, that is not an ad hom, according to my dictionary, since it seems that by this post-modernist garbage, that an ad hom is whatever that we want it to be. Now, if in fact my post could be construed as an ad hom, then I'll just return the favor for reading tripe.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Sorry guys, I'm not going to

Sorry guys, I'm not going to be able to post on these forums if I have to constantly format my posts. It's too difficult to add quoteblocks for everybody..


"So, you're an atheist who doesn't accept "irrational explanations"?  Also, what kind of god are you referring to in you're last sentence?" -Blacklight915

No, atheism involves "beliefs". My position on God & Mathphyz is that they ARE irrational and I can demonstrate it to you.


"Notwithstanding the fact I don't know what a god actually is, I'd be keen to hear why you think a human god concept is impossible -" -Atheistextremist

God is the Creator of the Universe and this is impossible because

1. Existence is not a process & therefore has no beginning/end.

2. God, in order to exist, must have shape (provided by space) and location (provided by a distance to other objects).  Existence PRESUPPOSES a universe. Even God cannot perform his magic tricks without space.

"Could some one please clearly show me how it is that math-based measurement fails to be a viable method of forming reasonable beliefs in support of what our senses consistently show us are certain aspects of reality. " - Atheist Extreme

Measurement is inherently SUBJECTIVE because measurement is a VERB, an action performed by humans.

How tall am I? You might say 6'4 I might say 6'5? Do we count the length of my hair? Can I stand on my tip toes? Do we use metric or english? Any measurement is done by a subjective human observer... there is no way around this.

" What I mean to say is that without observation, science has no fundamental basis.  You can theorize about evolution because we can observe the fossil record, continuity in the DNA and other anatomical connections." -Ktulu

The FUNDAMENTAL basis of Science is ASSUMPTION & EXPLANATION. that is all. We make assumptions (hypothesis) and then explain how an event occurs (Theory) simple as that! Science and exploration are completely divorced.

"What other epistemic method do you possess that does not involve your senses?  Do you perhaps magic information directly into your memory?"

Epistemology is about KNOWLEDGE and knowledge is NOT what Science is about. Science is about understanding and explaining. There is no such thing as certain knowledge.

"You come across as in irrational skeptic. "

Define irrational, dunce.

"An Electron doesn't "look" like anything.  Any photon frequency that we can measure is much too large to "see" an electron."

IDIOT! You think that because our limited EYEBALLS cannot detect the light coming from electrons then they simply must not have a shape?  Tell that to the people who came up with Germ Theory! If it exists, it has a shape, whether or not it can shine light into your brain or not.

"Well, I will use the oxford dictionary instead of picking and choosing whatever semantics fit my agenda. "

THE DICTIONARY is what gives YOU the ability to pick and choose semantics as YOU see fit.  The dictionary gives a PLETHORA (too many) meanings and does not actually DEFINE (limit the extent of it's usage) any term to a SINGLE unambiguous meaning.  I do.  You are a rhetorician and I am a Scientist.

"When you choose to make up your own definition for words it is appropriate to footnote it with your invented definition. "

ALL concepts have meaning and must be DEFINED. See above.

"Truth is for philosophy. "

You cannot define truth without invoking SUBJECTIVE verification.  Truth has nothing to do with Science. Don't believe me? Define truth: ___________

"Why? Can you give me an example of why the thing that holds you to the earth has a shape, and what shape that is?"

Why does the THING that hold me to the earth have shape?

It is PURSUANT to the definition of "THING".  What does the word THING mean for the purposes of Physics?  Thing is synonymous with object: that which has shape.

And processes like "holding" are defined too! Process: a relation between two or more objects.  Done! Simple as that!

If something is holding me to the earth then it HAS A SHAPE.


So far, nobody has even ADDRESSED the main criticisms, let alone refuted them.  There are even some who keep trying to deflect the conversation to irrelevant garbage like "ad homs".  I say they are IDIOTS and if they think that is an ad hom then they can find another discussion to throw off topic.

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Why do I ridicule math phyz?

Why do I ridicule math phyz? Because the Pastors of the religion won't hesitate to do the same to me!

PS: I love getting labeled "post-modernist".  I won't even ask the bean-brain to define the word either because there's NO WAY he can define that word rationally.  I wouldn't want to embarrass the zealot in public.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbJ3kH2G0ns

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote: "What

IntegratedPost wrote:

 "What other epistemic method do you possess that does not involve your senses?  Do you perhaps magic information directly into your memory?"

Epistemology is about KNOWLEDGE and knowledge is NOT what Science is about. Science is about understanding and explaining. There is no such thing as certain knowledge.

Actually, epistemology encompasses everything regarding knowledge.  This includes what knowledge is, its validity, and how it is attained.  So how can you be so certain that there there is no such thing as certain knowledge?  Is "cogito ergo sum" certain knowledge? How is this relative to what I asked?  

I'll repeat, because you have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old.  What OTHER epistemic method (how do you gain knowledge), do you posses, that does not involve your senses?  You argue against observation as "subjective" and therefore invalid, how do you make this assessment without your senses?

This is just one of the reasons I find your rant completely irrational, that and you don't understand any of the key terms you are using.

IntegratedPost wrote:

"You come across as in irrational skeptic. "

Define irrational, dunce.

see above

IntegratedPost wrote:

"An Electron doesn't "look" like anything.  Any photon frequency that we can measure is much too large to "see" an electron."

IDIOT! You think that because our limited EYEBALLS cannot detect the light coming from electrons then they simply must not have a shape?  Tell that to the people who came up with Germ Theory! If it exists, it has a shape, whether or not it can shine light into your brain or not.

That was levity at your question of what an electron "looks" like.  It has obviously gone over your head, but take that answer, and direct it at your idiotic question.

IntegratedPost wrote:

"Well, I will use the oxford dictionary instead of picking and choosing whatever semantics fit my agenda. "

THE DICTIONARY is what gives YOU the ability to pick and choose semantics as YOU see fit.  The dictionary gives a PLETHORA (too many) meanings and does not actually DEFINE (limit the extent of it's usage) any term to a SINGLE unambiguous meaning.  I do.  You are a rhetorician and I am a Scientist.

No, you ignoramus, you cannot pick and choose whatever definitions allow you to move the goal posts, or make up your own definitions.  There is no such as thing as SINGLE unambiguous meaning for any term except in a tautological system such as mathematics.  If you define something ahead of time as the SINGLE MOST AWESOME MEANING THAT IS 100% CORRECT IN EVERY SITUATION AND THEREFORE CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE.  And go ahead and base your idiotic aberrations on said definition, you are just trapped in an silly tautological system.

Edit: fixed quotes.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:Why do

IntegratedPost wrote:

Why do I ridicule math phyz? Because the Pastors of the religion won't hesitate to do the same to me!

PS: I love getting labeled "post-modernist".  I won't even ask the bean-brain to define the word either because there's NO WAY he can define that word rationally.  I wouldn't want to embarrass the zealot in public.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbJ3kH2G0ns

LOL, Smiling this guy should do standup.  I'm starting to think that this is an irrational atheist poe, nobody can be this idiotic in their own right.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4246
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:God is

IntegratedPost wrote:

God is the Creator of the Universe and this is impossible because

1. Existence is not a process & therefore has no beginning/end.

2. God, in order to exist, must have shape (provided by space) and location (provided by a distance to other objects).  Existence PRESUPPOSES a universe. Even God cannot perform his magic tricks without space.

naked assertions.  this is precisely the reason why i think aristotle is overrated, magnified tenfold.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:LOL, this guy

Ktulu wrote:

LOL, Smiling this guy should do standup.  I'm starting to think that this is an irrational atheist poe, nobody can be this idiotic in their own right.

I actually think he really is that stupid.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:"So,

IntegratedPost wrote:

"So, you're an atheist who doesn't accept "irrational explanations"?  Also, what kind of god are you referring to in you're last sentence?" -Blacklight915

No, atheism involves "beliefs". My position on God & Mathphyz is that they ARE irrational and I can demonstrate it to you.

Yes, if I remember correctly, theism/atheism deal with the 'belief' category, and gnosticism/agnosticism deal with the 'knowledge' category. Meaning, your position could be described by the phrase 'gnostic atheist'.

 

IntegratedPost wrote:

1. Existence is not a process & therefore has no beginning/end.

The existence of an individual human has both a beginning and an end.

 

IntegratedPost wrote:

If it exists, it has a shape, whether or not it can shine light into your brain or not.

What, so concepts don't exist?

 


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
"Actually, epistemology

"Actually, epistemology encompasses everything regarding knowledge.  This includes what knowledge is, its validity, and how it is attained.  So how can you be so certain that there there is no such thing as certain knowledge?  Is "cogito ergo sum" certain knowledge? How is this relative to what I asked?  "

It is related to what you asked because you asked about "epistemology" and I informed you that science has NOTHING to do with knowledge. You would understand that if you defined that term KNOWLEDGE.

Knowledge: a description of a future event.

That's it! Science explains, and does not make knowledge claims, only objective and rational explanations.  All of your questions concerning KNOWLEDGE are irrelevant.  But if you disagree then please define your key terms before we start using them:

Knowledge: __________
Rational: __________

"That was levity at your question of what an electron "looks" like.  It has obviously gone over your head, but take that answer, and direct it at your idiotic question."

It is amusing that you can only use smokescreens when cornered.  But any critical thinker understands that any process requires a mediating shape.  You cannot answer what shape an electron has because it DOESN'T EXIST.

"No, you ignoramus, you cannot pick and choose whatever definitions allow you to move the goal posts, or make up your own definitions. "

This is what YOU do with the multitude of ill defined dictionary definitions. In science that shit doesn't fly. In Science we MUST limit the utility of a word and YOU must be prepared to define the word in no unclear terms.

"There is no such as thing as SINGLE unambiguous meaning for any term except in a tautological system such as mathematics."
Mathematical tautologies have NO MEANING until we use language to define the symbols.  It is possible, using language, to define terms clearly and unambiguously.  If that were not possible then communication would be impossible.

  "If you define something ahead of time as the SINGLE MOST AWESOME MEANING THAT IS 100% CORRECT IN EVERY SITUATION AND THEREFORE CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE. "

Nobody said anything about correct/incorrect.  This is a matter of CONSISTENCY and PRECISION.  Does your definition narrow down the utility of the word to a single possible meaning? Can that definition be used consistently throughout YOUR theory? If so, then you have a rational definition.  Terms are not PROVEN, they are defined and then used to explain a hypothesis.

"naked assertions.  this is precisely the reason why i think aristotle is overrated, magnified tenfold."

Yup, YOUR statement looks like a naked assertion to me!

"Yes, if I remember correctly, theism/atheism deal with the 'belief' category, and gnosticism/agnosticism deal with the 'knowledge' category. Meaning, your position could be described by the phrase 'gnostic atheist'."

Don't try to box me into your SUBJECTIVE labels of belief and knowledge.  My beliefs and knowledge have nothing to do, whatsoever, with whether or not God or any other entity exists.

Knowledge/truth/proof/belief have NOTHING to do with Science and if any of you had an attention span longer than 15 seconds you could read my posts and understand that.

"The existence of an individual human has both a beginning and an end."

LOL and I suppose God breathing life into dust was that beginning, huh?

No.  The PROCESS (concept) of human LIFE has a beginning and an end, like all processes do. But existence is not a PROCESS.  The matter comprising your body, giving you existence (shape & location) are ETERNAL.  No beginning, no end.

"What, so concepts don't exist?"

Concepts do not exist. Don't believe me? Define exist: _________

Only objects exist because exist = shape + location.

Concepts are relations between two or more objects. They do not EXIST, they occur and are understood ONLY.

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:Don't

IntegratedPost wrote:

Don't try to box me into your SUBJECTIVE labels of belief and knowledge. My beliefs and knowledge have nothing to do, whatsoever, with whether or not God or any other entity exists.

Since you claimed it was impossible for God to exist and, later, gave an argument for it, you clearly have some beliefs and knowledge about God. Besides, your labels are subjective too.

 

IntegratedPost wrote:

Concepts do not exist. Don't believe me? Define exist: _________

Okay, exist: to be able to be located or thought of.

 

Do you not care if your ridicule only makes productive discussion more difficult?

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Do you

blacklight915 wrote:

Do you not care if your ridicule only makes productive discussion more difficult?

 

My guess would probably be no at this point.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

IntegratedPost wrote:

Don't try to box me into your SUBJECTIVE labels of belief and knowledge. My beliefs and knowledge have nothing to do, whatsoever, with whether or not God or any other entity exists.

Since you claimed it was impossible for God to exist and, later, gave an argument for it, you clearly have some beliefs and knowledge about God. Besides, your labels are subjective too.

 



Please quote me where I have argued for the existence of God.  No, I understand that it is impossible for God to exist, period. The argument refuting God is very simple and I already posted it in this thread. If you need it reiterated then feel free to ask.

blacklight915 wrote:

IntegratedPost wrote:

Concepts do not exist. Don't believe me? Define exist: _________

Okay, exist: to be able to be located or thought of.

So you're telling me that something does NOT exist just because YOU cannot locate or think of it?  The MOON, SUN, EARTH and so on require YOU to locate it and think about it for them to exist???  What idiocy!

 

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

Do you not care if your ridicule only makes productive discussion more difficult?

 

My guess would probably be no at this point.

 

When was the discussion ever productive? I haven't recieved a SINGLE argument from you addressing any of my statements directly. 

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

Do you not care if your ridicule only makes productive discussion more difficult?

 

My guess would probably be no at this point.

 

When was the discussion ever productive? I haven't received a SINGLE argument from you addressing any of my statements directly. 

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4246
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:The

IntegratedPost wrote:

The MOON, SUN, EARTH and so on require YOU to locate it and think about it for them to exist???  What idiocy!

 

you incredible ass, he's saying it must be POSSIBLE to locate it.  even if he personally, or any other human being for that matter, cannot locate something, if it exists, it potentially CAN be located.

see, illogical dumbfuckery like this is the reason why you're so bewildered no one here takes you seriously.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:No, I

IntegratedPost wrote:

No, I understand that it is impossible for God to exist, period. The argument refuting God is very simple and I already posted it in this thread.

So, your statement that "my beliefs and knowledge have nothing to do, whatsoever, with whether or not God or any other entity exists", is false?

 

IntegratedPost wrote:

So you're telling me that something does NOT exist just because YOU cannot locate or think of it?

Where did I say it had to be me doing the locating or thinking? However, I probably should have said "to have a location" rather than "to be able to be located".

 

Are you always this unpleasant?

 


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:you incredible

iwbiek wrote:

you incredible ass, he's saying it must be POSSIBLE to locate it.  even if he personally, or any other human being for that matter, cannot locate something, if it exists, it potentially CAN be located

Yes! That's exactly what I meant.

Oh, thanks for calling him an ass, by the way. 

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4246
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:iwbiek

blacklight915 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

you incredible ass, he's saying it must be POSSIBLE to locate it.  even if he personally, or any other human being for that matter, cannot locate something, if it exists, it potentially CAN be located

Yes! That's exactly what I meant.

Oh, thanks for calling him an ass, by the way. 

 

i'm just hoping he was being deliberately thick, trying to rile you or something.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost

IntegratedPost wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

Do you not care if your ridicule only makes productive discussion more difficult?

 

My guess would probably be no at this point.

 

When was the discussion ever productive? I haven't recieved a SINGLE argument from you addressing any of my statements directly. 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
This idiot hasn't the

This idiot hasn't the slightest clue what he's talking about. Made an amusing read though.

I noticed a request to see an electron in there somewhere. The link below will show you what an atom looks like. Electrons are those tiny things orbiting the nuclei. Hopefully you know what a nuclei is.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/image/atom

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

Do you not care if your ridicule only makes productive discussion more difficult?

My guess would probably be no at this point.

It is equally open to speculation if that was ever the point.

From the beginning I have seen nothing but the proclamation of some crackpot ideas about a subject of which he is completely and totally ignorant.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

IntegratedPost wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

Do you not care if your ridicule only makes productive discussion more difficult?

My guess would probably be no at this point.

 

When was the discussion ever productive? I haven't recieved a SINGLE argument from you addressing any of my statements directly. 

I saw several people point out your declarations on "shape" were pulled-out-of-your-ass gibberish. What I did not see is your defense of that gibberish.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
IP, I Finally got round to

IP, I Finally got round to watching your cherrypicking Feynmann video response in your OP.

It sounds to me like you're fundamentally missing the point of what Richard is saying. He is explaining that there comes a point in Physics where our ability to imagine physical phenomena breaks down because the reasons for these phenomena do not act like anything we are used to in our macroscopic 3d world. Therefore any explanations that use analogies from our macroscopic world are bound to fail, because elemental physical forces are so different to anything we can visualise. So Physicists use a tool to help them understand what is going on, precisely because it's not good enough to just think about it (we'd not get anywhere in understanding how stuff works if we limited ourself to physical experience in explaining phenomena - Bohr's atom would still be the only way we could talk about atoms... but using maths we have a different way to 'experience' this phenomena. No-one is saying the maths itself is what's really going on, but it's a way of being able to model things we can't visualise naturally. as such it's merely a tool to 'see' things we couldn't otherwise see.

 

Your assertion that things can only exist if it has a shape and location is really just Leucippus' atomism definition of ontological pluralism - it's classical philosophy, but was only a way of thinking about the world before science superseded it with an increased understanding of particle physics, specifically Quantum Electrodynamics, which shows both mathematically AND by experimentation that particles to not have a specific location, they have a probability distribution. Are you aware that what you're spouting is over 2,500 years old and completely derelict?

 

You say you are a scientist, but I don't believe you. I think you are an autodidact, but badly self-taught, and only so confident in your assertions because you are unable to understand the validated work of people cleverer than you. At the very least, you've been unable or unwilling to understand the points Feynmann was trying to get across.


Copernicus
Posts: 1
Joined: 2012-06-16
User is offlineOffline
I know this is an old

I know this is an old thread, but to give an example of mathematics being used successfully to describe and predict the behavior of a system, one needs to look no farther than the planet Neptune, the first planet to be discovered via mathematical prediction, rather than empirical observation. Deviations were noted in the orbit of Uranus, which was not exactly behaving in accordance with Newton's laws. I believe Neptune was later discovered within 1 degree of its predicted position (12 degrees from the original prediction of John Couch Adams).


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
An interesting point. And

An interesting point. And welcome!

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

RatDog wrote:

There are some things on his site that make me think he got some of his ideas from this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSJjs4l_FHU&feature=related

I watched a number of these YouTube videos.  If I remember correctly the guy claims that points can't make up lines, that basic scientific and mathematical concepts are poorly or circularly defined and that light is actually waves traveling through "ropes"  that connect all atoms.   

I thought the video were kind of fun to watch because they ask you to rethink basic concepts, but they don't prove anything.  Science is all about predictions.  If "rope theory"  can't make predictions better than current models than it has no scientific value.

'tis gibberish.

But there is an interesting issue. If all reference frames have to yield the same results, same principles of physics, then the reference frame of photons must also work. From the time frame of the photon there is no time between emission from one atom and absorption by another. In that sense atoms from the first light of cosmic background radiation connects the atoms in our sensors that measure it today.

Also, ignoring time, where did the big bang occur. It occured in all existing space today. The points are only separated because of time.

Atoms are connected by photons in the first case but have to be separated in time in the second. And both reference frames have to result in the same physics.

I am still working on it, including on how to phrase the issue before trying to answer it. So far I think time is a local dimension and the four continuous dimensions of the universe are x,y,z and entropy.

 

 

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4246
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
so has the guy who started

so has the guy who started this abomination of a thread fuckin' died of AIDS or some shit yet?  anybody know?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I dunno, but smart asses

I dunno, but smart asses like this are the type to suggest you can divide by 0, despite the fact that in order to accomplish such they predefine 0 as a variable (ie, not 0). Which is why I didn't bother much with this thread.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:so has the guy

iwbiek wrote:

so has the guy who started this abomination of a thread fuckin' died of AIDS or some shit yet?  anybody know?

ROFLMAO !

Last post that I saw from him, was in that other thread where he told me the Kalaam Argument could not be refuted.

He got upset when I and about four or five others debunked it.

THEN, he tried to make out that he was just testing the waters.

I called bullshit on that one, along with several others and he said "I am sorry that anyone feels that way, but if you ever want to discuss Math Phyz, I am willing to debate.

I think it was blacklight that responded with "What is Math Phyz ?"

Never heard or saw from him again.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno