Natural Selection

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
4,304
You looking at a mirror or something?
I was looking at you, who attempts to present ignorance as knowledge.

Well is -1² different or the same as 1²?
Both.

Matter is no different to space when it comes to quantum physics so ultimately what you saying is hogwash.
TIL mass is location. We got a galaxy brain over here. Someone should go tell Einstein that the formula for special relativity has too many Cs in it. :ROFL:
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
13,967
I was looking at you, who attempts to present ignorance as knowledge.


Both.


TIL mass is location. We got a galaxy brain over here. Someone should go tell Einstein that the formula for special relativity has too many Cs in it. :ROFL:
Conflation of metaphysics with actual physics is delusional at best.

Read up on quantum physics. It's too complicated for me to explain.
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
4,304
Conflation of metaphysics with actual physics is delusional at best.
Technically, metaphysics is the study of being qua being, whereas physics is the study of becoming. You're the one bringing the conflations to the table.

Read up on quantum physics. It's too complicated for me to explain.
I have read up on quantum physics, enough to know that you are talking out your arse. You effectively denied the "c2" part of E=mc2, nevermind the fact that the uncertainty principle creates an inequality between matter(momentum) and space(position) somewhat akin to the uncertainty between energy and time. People who don't know what they're talking about should rather remain quiet lest they reveal to everyone how ignorant they are a la Dunning-Kruger effect.
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
13,967
Technically, metaphysics is the study of being qua being, whereas physics is the study of becoming. You're the one bringing the conflations to the table.


I have read up on quantum physics, enough to know that you are talking out your arse. You effectively denied the "c2" part of E=mc2. People who don't know what they're talking about should rather remain quiet lest they reveal to everyone how ignorant they are a la Dunning-Kruger effect.
Oh the irony. You clearly didn't read enough if you didn't understand my statement.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,446
The claim that being is intelligeble without a contrast is what has been demonstrated as incoherent. I'm not disputing that Being is intelligible. I am claiming, however, that your articulation of it is incoherent. "Is is is" a million times over isn't a counterargument.
Where is the link again that you like to use to show that "The claim that being is intelligeble without a contrast is what has been demonstrated as incoherent."? I need to wrap my head around that first.

1 = origin, 0 = destiny; when the immovable object met the unstoppable force, there was a big bang and a world was created.

Sameness is the relationship of 1 to 1 said in terms of 1. (reality/substance)
Difference is the relationship of 0 to 1 said in terms of 1. (ideality/form)
Change is the relationship of 1 to 0 said in terms of 0. (actuality/process)
Persistence is the relationship of 0 to 0 said in terms of 0. (potentiality/essence)

Matter is sameness, space is difference, energy is change, time is persistence. My body(matter) is what I am, my mind(space) is where I am, my sensations(energy) are how I do, my will(time) is why I do.

The contrast of change and persistence describes the verb, the contrast of sameness and difference describes the noun. 1 is, 0 does; an entire language build out of a careful definition of what "0 =/= 1" means.
Can you please expand on the terms you use? What do they mean to you in your scheme? I am especially interested in what you understand of the concepts of change, nothingness, matter, actuality, potentiality, and essence. Perhaps try use it in an example.

For example, from a Scholastic point of view it can sound like this:
Water is a substance. It is a composite of prime matter and substantial form, actuality and potentially, essence and the act of existing.
When it undergoes accidental change (e.g being heated) it's potentiality to be heated is actualized by an efficient cause (e.g. a flame). When it undergoes substantial change (e.g. hydrolysis) it ceases to exist as water. I.e. its substantial form ceases to exist/is annihilated and its prime matter take up new substantial form
e.g oxygen or hydrogen.

Then negative statements clearly have some application and you cannot omit them in favour only of positive statements.
Negative statements about Being to describe non-being sure do have application.

Because you have defined being as totality, which is an incoherent definition.
I think I described Being as simple, indeterminate yet intelligible. And I would add more, I am busy refreshing my Scholastic use of analogy of being.

Well, I actually agree with Scotus that Being is said univocally. Indeed, it could be said that univocity (i.e. oneness) itself is what Being is. :p
Unity or oneness is one of the transcendentals of Being. Others include Truth and Good.
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
4,304
Where is the link again that you like to use to show that "The claim that being is intelligeble without a contrast is what has been demonstrated as incoherent."? I need to wrap my head around that first.
If you're looking for other people's writings, then Plotinus' probably are the closest:

The Greek emphasis on a simple first principle figures prominently in the revival of classical Hellenistic philosophy at the close of the ancient world. Christianity is in its infancy when the Jewish theologian Philo of Alexandria (c. 30 B.C.E.– 50 C.E.) observes that it is already commonly accepted to think of God as Being itself and utterly simple. Philo is drawing on philosophical accounts of a supreme unity in describing God as uncomposite and eternal. He identifies this simple first being of the philosophers with the personal God of the Hebrew Scriptures who consciously creates things modeled after the divine ideas. Neoplatonist philosophers Plotinus (205–70) and later Proclus (410–85) will also posit a simple first principle. Plotinus’s Enneads speak of a One that exceeds all of the categories applicable to other things. Consequently it is unknowable and inexpressible (1962, V.3.13, VI.9.3). Plotinus voices an argument for the One’s simplicity that will emerge as a standard line of argument in later thinkers:

Even in calling it The First we mean no more than to express that it is the most absolutely simplex: it is Self-Sufficing only in the sense that it is not of that compound nature which would make it dependent upon any constituent [emphasis added]; it is the Self-Contained because everything contained in something alien must also exist by that alien. (1962, II.9.1)
You can find other people making the case in that entry that divine simplicity necessitates that the divine is ignorant due to being unable to make distinctions because no distinctions exist within the divine simplicity. "All is Being" suffers from the same conceptual differences if it is to be anything more than a nominal expression.

There is an additional line of objection here that commentators often miss. Plantinga takes it for granted God is a person: “If God is a property, then he isn’t a person but a mere abstract object . . .” (1980, 47). Persons are not abstract objects. Moreover, persons are composite and changeable. They have faculties of understanding and volition that involve composition and a temporal sequence of states. So nothing simple can be a person. Yet God is obviously a person, according to Plantinga and others. He is obviously then not simple. David Hume (1711–76) argues along a similar line. A simple and immutable being has no mind, for “a mind whose acts and sentiments and ideas are not distinct and successive . . . has no thought, no reason, no will, no sentiment, no love, no hatred; or in a word, is no mind at all” (1980, part 4). A simple God is not a person, nor could God have the sort of mind persons have.
Can you please expand on the terms you use? What do they mean to you in your scheme? I am especially interested in what you understand of the concepts of change, nothingness, matter, actuality, potentiality, and essence. Perhaps try use it in an example.

For example, from a Scholastic point of view it can sound like this:
Water is a substance. It is a composite of prime matter and substantial form, actuality and potentially, essence and the act of existing.
All matter(substance) is the same except for how it is differentiated by space(form); so water would be a substantial form. In the same way you could say that all protons are identical except for how they have been located in space; material objects are thus generally substantial forms. By contrast, the concept of water is a formal substance. Water is not alive, though, so I don't consider it to have a distinct essence like a person would.

Matter and space exist, time and energy flow; matter and space do not flow, time and energy have no existence.

When it undergoes accidental change (e.g being heated) it's potentiality to be heated is actualized by an efficient cause (e.g. a flame). When it undergoes substantial change (e.g. hydrolysis) it ceases to exist as water. I.e. its substantial form ceases to exist/is annihilated and its prime matter take up new substantial form
e.g oxygen or hydrogen.
Matter is the material cause, space is the formal cause, energy is the efficient cause, time is the final cause. Water changed into something that isn't water implies a formal change, not a substantial one. Don't have much use for talking about accidents, so far as I can tell.

Negative statements about Being to describe non-being sure do have application.
You can't ground the negative in the positive, though, the negative is distinct from the positive and has meaning which you use. Saying that the negative is groundless is an empty assertion that flies in the face of experience.

I think I described Being as simple, indeterminate yet intelligible. And I would add more, I am busy refreshing my Scholastic use of analogy of being.
Intelligibility is parasitic on contrasts because if you can't draw distinctions you're absolutely ignorant/oblivious. Try to imagine navigating in a world that absolutely lacks absence; what could you say about such a world?

Unity or oneness is one of the transcendentals of Being. Others include Truth and Good.
1 = Truth, 0 = Good, the harmony of truth and goodness is Beauty. :p
 
Last edited:

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,272
You looking at a mirror or something?

Well is -1² different or the same as 1²?

Matter is no different to space when it comes to quantum physics so ultimately what you saying is hogwash.
Swinging around back to True random, where all this Chaos/Order and Being/Nothingness discussion started, they absolutely are different. They may have the same outcome but not the same starting conditions.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,272
IE: a meta-argument trying to prove a deterministic universe. Quantum physics debunks that.
Not really. While I don't believe the universe to be deterministic, the quantum sciences don't cover randomness at all in the sense you're implying.
Being unable to predict quantum spin when changing the measuring magnetic field is not proof of Random, nor is it proof of non-Random.
The only conclusion you can make from it is that it is unpredictable when changing the magnetic field measuring the spin.

...and we need to know more about why/how it changes when the measurement changes.
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
13,967
Not really. While I don't believe the universe to be deterministic, the quantum sciences don't cover randomness at all in the sense you're implying.
Being unable to predict quantum spin when changing the measuring magnetic field is not proof of Random, nor is it proof of non-Random.
The only conclusion you can make from it is that it is unpredictable when changing the magnetic field measuring the spin.

...and we need to know more about why/how it changes when the measurement changes.
Arguing about randomness is essentially chasing your own tail. If you like chasing your own tail then go ahead
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,272
Arguing about randomness is essentially chasing your own tail. If you like chasing your own tail then go ahead
You really didn't watch your own video did you? A lot of the thinking around the woowoo sciences happens in philosophy because you actually have to reason it through to the end. Get to some kind of conclusion that some experimental scientist can put to the test.

We're in exactly the right forum for that. So bow out if you're feeling a little challenged.

One of the biggest takeaways from the video, is that we as natives of this universe, don't regards ourselves at quantum beings, even though we are ;)
That's more mind blowing than the effect zero had on language use.
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
13,967
You really didn't watch your own video did you? A lot of the thinking around the woowoo sciences happens in philosophy because you actually have to reason it through to the end. Get to some kind of conclusion that some experimental scientist can put to the test.

We're in exactly the right forum for that. So bow out if you're feeling a little challenged.

One of the biggest takeaways from the video, is that we as natives of this universe, don't regards ourselves at quantum beings, even though we are ;)
That's more mind blowing than the effect zero had on language use.
First of all this thread was initially about Natural Selection and religious types trying to debunk it scientifically.

We are quantum and the world is entirely quantum but are human bodies and minds has evolved to see and experience the world differently.

ie the world as we experience the world is an illusion and not a true representation on how the world actually is.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,272
ie the world as we experience the world is an illusion and not a true representation on how the world actually is.
The world and the universe are perceived in such a way as to be fit to purpose. We experience it in a good enough fashion in order to thrive... what the whole thread is about.
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
13,967
The world and the universe are perceived in such a way as to be fit to purpose. We experience it in a good enough fashion in order to thrive... what the whole thread is about.
Nope this thread is about Young Earth creationist trying to disprove science and prove the bible as a book of scientific fact. Please try to keep up.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,272
Nope this thread is about Young Earth creationist trying to disprove science and prove the bible as a book of scientific fact. Please try to keep up.
"an attempt" that ultimately failed when bullheadedness simply could not withstand the overwhelming evidence for Natural Selection.

Everyday, there's just more and more science that keeps coming out that adds more and more evidence while "young earth creationist evidence" lies stagnant and rotting in its inability to produce anything that hasn't been said and debunked before.

And I'd be careful on who I accuse of not being able to keep up. You've demonstrated that you're unable to digest the contents of your posts, so as the adage goes, you may be pointing a finger at me, but you have 3 of them pointing back at you ;)
 
Top