Re: Time


Daniel Weston wrote:
> In re AllYou: I called to AllYou's attention that he was embracing a
> contradiction in his arguments.
>
>
Yes, I read that, but he seems unwilling to reply to you. He must
think I'm easy pickins' and you're too hard to deal with!
>
>
> Specifically, it is inconsistent to
> hold that reality has no place in science, but determining whether or
> not something is physical, is a justifiable endeavor.
>
>
Do you mean that as a scientist he should not determine whether
something is physical since he believes that there is no reality and so
it has not place in science? To me, his contradiction is that he
claims reality exists but has no place in science. Even after I posted
evidence where it is used and defined in physics, he argues it has no
place in science. The evidence shows, of course, that indeed it does
have a place in science, contrary to his unsupported opinion.

He has refused to state his definitions of absolute and of reality as
defined in physics because that would undermine his claims.
>
>
> AllYou has a crude way to attempt to escape this obvious contradiction.
> He announces that "reality is absolute"!? Huh???? Who told him this?
> Where did he read this? What philosopher ever espoused such a
> ridiculous opinion? What experiment did he ever perform that gave this
> result?
>
>
Not only that, but he has not defined "absolute" the way physics
defines it and he has posted a ridiculous "definition" of reality which
defines nothing. He defines absolute as being unquestionable, i.e., a
principle held to be always true or valid. That is not the definition
of absolute but for the noun absolute, or, _an_ absolute. He actually
uses it as it is used in philosophy, that it is something that does not
depend on anything else.
>
>
> Only in church does reality come in absolute form. In science nothing
> comes in absolute form and that includes reality.
> AllYou 'argues' that since reality is absolute, and since science does
> not deal with absolutes, realty does not belong in science discourse.
> His major premise in that deductive line of reasoning is totally false.
>
> Philosophers who are Naturalists, (Materialists), hold that reality is
> nature or is that which is physical. One of the ways to separate the
> conceptual from physical reality is to ask, does it exist independent of
> human perception? The earth exists independent of human perception and
> was here before we evolved on it. This btw is an example of something
> that is real and is part of reality, as AllYou keeps asking for examples
> of. AllYou sounds very much like Patrick Reany, and he is often talking
> the talk of solipsism.
>
> With what degree of certitude do we know reality? Science does not
> claim absolute knowledge about anything. The statement of AllYou that
> "reality is absolute" is his own ill considered attempt to avoid the
> contradiction I have found him in. Reality comes in different forms of
> certitude depending upon the evidence. Hence a proposition may be
> beyond a reasonable doubt, or clear and convincing, or supported by a
> preponderance of the evidence, or may be supported by little evidence,
> or may be purely speculative.
>
> When AllYou is in the mood, he expounds all sort of philosophical goofy
> stuff, but excoriates others for saying anything philosophical in a
> scientific discussion. It is strange indeed that he can live with so
> many contradictions.
>
> Conclusion: AllYou announces ipsit dixit that "reality is absolute".
> Where in the hell did he get that idea, Sunday School?
> I hope nobody takes him seriously.
>
>
He got that from his teachers who believed that way because it was
trendy physics and because they imposed on those trusting them to teach
them well. So much for trusting teachers. However, most Lemmings who
post here no longer publicize that belief because it has fallen from
grace.

AllYou did not get the word, however, so he's still out there all alone
on that proverbial limb, while his fellow Lemmings remain silent as
they watch him swinging in the wind. Otherwise, we would have long ago
heard from the likes of UA, Hobbit, Wormy, Bilgy, et al, in support of
AllYou's philosophic crapola.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Time
    ... The whole notion of reality is one of absoluteness. ... it has not place in science? ... his contradiction is that he ... He has refused to state his definitions of absolute and of reality as ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time
    ... AllYou has a crude way to attempt to escape this obvious contradiction. ... He announces that "reality is absolute"!? ... Only in church does reality come in absolute form. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: All concepts live only in the mind
    ... > AllYou: No knowledge is absolute. ... Which is why reality has no place in science. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • View of reality
    ... As point of reference, the observer goes from past events to future ... constitute an absolute against which the point of reference transcribes ... reality is the earth is rotating the other direction. ... What matters is energy generated, ...
    (sci.philosophy.meta)
  • View of reality
    ... Time has two directions. ... constitute an absolute against which the point of reference transcribes ... reality is the earth is rotating the other direction. ... What matters is energy generated, ...
    (talk.philosophy.misc)