Re: Time
- From: "AllYou!" <Idaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 08:09:06 -0400
"TomGee" <lvlus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1123030099.417900.96450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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!
I did reply. Here it is again: No, but I'm sure your limited intellect can't make understand the difference between the two concepts. Here, let me explain it to the lurkers.
The whole notion of reality is one of absoluteness. Reality implies that without any doubt, or any question, there are phenomena which exists and which can be quantified without any doubt whatsoever. However, there is no way to remove any doubt about what we might perceive to be real. Our minds, our senses, our intellects may all conspire to mislead us as to what we conceptualize as *real*.
Therefore, all that we can do is to build models of what might fit our concept of reality using observations as best we can. Our senses are stimulated, and that which we believe to have caused that stimulation is what we call physical, and through constant testing (i.e., comparison of our predictions with stimulation of our senses), we develop various confidences in our model based upon the extent to which our predictions were accurate.
That's the difference between physical and real, dipshit.
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.
If you knew what *to be physical* meant, you'd know what you just said is stupid.
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.
That's a flat out lie. first of all, I've stated the definition of absolute here twice now in response to you, and as to reality, you raised the issue, you define it.
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.
More lies.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Little guy on the train
- Next by Date: Re: Time
- Previous by thread: Re: Time
- Next by thread: Re: Time
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
