religion

[Stragomagus]

Crusty, do you not understand the base definition of abstract?

 

Clearly not as here is an example.

I have an object with 3 sides, therefore I shall call it a "Triangle". <---- notice what I do here to the next one.

I have an object with 3 sides, therefore I shall call it a "Square". <---- If you can't find the difference don't reply.

 

 

But the thing is, we didn't. For all intents and purposes, in our world, a triangle has three-sides. A "triangle" cannot have anything more or less than three sides. The whole point I'm trying to get at is this: It is physically impossible for something to have three sides and four sides at the same time. Now why can't this apply to other fields of knowledge?

 

I was working under the assumption that you could deal with implied redefining.

 

Here is what I did:

1. tossed out the old meaning for "tri"

2. This in turn tossed out the old definition for triangle.

3. Which then replaced the old definition of "4-sided" with "3-sided"

4. Thus I now have "square" for the new definition of "triangle".

 

I thought further clarification would be needed.

 

For any 2-dimensional object there is no possible way for there to be any single object having simultaneously 3-sides and 4-sides. However, once you hit the 3-dimensional plane this is tossed out the window.

 

So in 3-dimensional space we would just attach 2 triangles and 3 squares to each other. one side has just 3 points, while another side simultaneously has 4 points.

Did I mention it gets even worse above 3-dimensions?

[Myweponsg00d]

And to which my response was and still is, "A 'god'/'mug' does not exist until we call it that." Do we really have to go in another circle? I mean, I already have my response to what I'm pretty sure your rebuttal will be. ("But the physical object in front of my desk is there no matter what we call it." "But the act of someone intentionally telling another a falsity is there no matter what we call it.")

But that act of speech is neither true nor false inherently! Without the human classification system of falsehood and language, we wouldn't be able to distinguish truth from lie. It is difficult to imagine a world where we had different terminology to refer to these things, but it is still something that we invented. Nature does not tell us how to know that things are true, we have invented the criteria for it.

 

If we had never invented the concept of truth vs a lie, then all statements would just be statements. Someone would say "Hey, its raining fire outside!" and we wouldn't stop to think "Is he telling the truth?" Our rules define the logic that we interpret this statement with. There is nothing inherently true or false about this assemblance of vocal sounds. The concept of someone lying is only possible due to abstract knowledge of language.

 

Something sitting still is either a truth or a falsehood. We ascribe what it takes to constitute as "sitting still" or "moving", just as we ascribe what it takes to constitute as a "truth".

 

Again, I know it must be very hard to imagine a world where we did not invent a true/false classification system, but we could exist without it. When we hear a lie, we classify it as such because of abstract knowledge we have in our head. Depending on what classification systems a society has invented, it could be determined to be true, false, or something else entirely. Nothing is inherently true or false about the sounds that come out of your vocal cords.

 

Imagine that aliens came to Earth and heard us speak. Now, if they didn't know any of our languages at all, all they would hear is just human vocal chords making noises. If I say to them "I come in peace" will they hear my words and classify them into true and false? No, it is impossible unless you know our rules, our classification system for abstract meaning. But if they come to Earth and watch a baseball game, they will see a baseball being hit by a bat, no matter what words they use to represent "baseball" "hit" and "bat".

 

Again, you are speaking of nomological possibility, since you claimed the laws would need to be altered in order for these things to actually occur. This is as obvious as saying a "square" would be a "triangle" if we decided to call it such. It's saying nothing but, "If things were different, things would be different!"

 

I'm talking about actual possibilities in reality - not possibilities in different dimensions of time and space.

 

How else can I possible explain this to you? We invented what the concept of a triangle is. It is not anything real. It is a mathematical, abstract idea. We have absolute knowledge of the system of mathematics, exactly like we have absolute knowledge of the system of language. We invented these systems and we know absolutely that what we know is true. Because we invented it.

 

I can respond to other parts later, gtg.

 

 

Are you kidding? I've answered these questions before, but you just swept them under the carpet.

 

I do have a new one though: Either the universe has a first cause, or it has an infinitely recurring amount of causes. Neither seem to make logical sense to us, so whatever the answer is, it probably transcends our traditional logic. Now don't take this as evidence for god - take it as evidence that god is allowed to break more rules than Santa Claus. Like I said, the origin of the universe is a much bigger mystery than who gives us presents. Of course there are flaws in this reasoning - just not as much as there are for Santa Claus.

 

This is a very good point. I guess whatever a God might be, he would exist in a place that doesn't follow the same set of expectations that our universe follows. This would make God more probable than a magical man because it doesn't have any contradictions that add to his improbability.

 

 

We actually do have a system that dictates this is impossible - it's called logic. Do you think it is logically possible for these cogs to spin?

 

 

If you can provide a logical explanation as to how these three cogs can turn, you win the debate. I'll be waiting.

 

The mass that comprises part of the green cog "spokes" can spontaneously pass through the mass that comprises part of the red cog wheel "spokes". It isn't very likely at all. In fact, if every person on Earth had been trying to spin these cogs since the beginning of time, it would still be very unlikely to have ever observed this event. The chances of many things happening are mind-bogglingly small, but they still exist. To say the chance is completely nonexistent is a disservice to the true nature of our universe.

 

I wouldn't claim something like that is impossible, as I really do have no idea. However, there are certain things that I do believe to be impossible because of logical contradiction. We can start with a cliched coin flip argument. A coin can land on heads, tails, or maybe if you are very lucky, the side. There are three possible outcomes. It is impossible for the coin to have any outcome that isn't one of those three.

The coin could flip into the air and all of its mass could spontaneously be converted to energy.

The coin could fall through the table, fall through the Earth, and come out the other side and shoot into space.

The coin could disintegrate spontaneously.

Again none of these things are realistically likely, but to call them a total impossibility is not correct.

Same goes for my other examples. It is a logical contradiction for a traditional fishing rod line (a couple meters long) to reach the sun which is millions of miles away.

You didn't say that the Sun had to stay at its location and I had to reach it with a fishing line that has a definite length.

It is a logical contradiction for a 1 gram of food to instantly make you gain 100 lbs.

There is nothing about this scenario that can be analyzed using "logic". Unless you are using a different meaning for logic, logic is useless for figuring stuff out about the physical world. Is there anything "logical" about a photon being a particle, but having no mass, and being a wave at the same time? No. But it is reality.

 

It is a logical contradiction for something dead (a fossil) to also be alive (breathing). By saying these are possible, you are merely asserting a baseless claim. When I say say they are impossible, I am asserting a logically supported claim.

 

If you are asking "Is it possible to have a dead living thing?" I would say no, it is impossible. Again, this dives into the realm of human classifications of things. It is beyond just simply decribing a physical event.

 

But the thing is, we didn't. For all intents and purposes, in our world, a triangle has three-sides. A "triangle" cannot have anything more or less than three sides. The whole point I'm trying to get at is this: It is physically impossible for something to have three sides and four sides at the same time. Now why can't this apply to other fields of knowledge?

 

Because, as I have said many times, the only method of "knowing" about the physical world is via science. Science is not capable of delivering absolute knowledge.

 

Think of it this way. You have a die sitting on the table. Only one side is touching the table. You are not allowed to touch the die or move it in any way. You see the numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 exposed. A reasonable deduction would be that the number 4 is on the 6th side. However, you are still never allowed to look and see what is actually there.

 

This is how science works. We can never know for certain ANYTHING about physical phenomena. Why? Because we never get to "look at the last side of the die." We can only see certain things and the only type of knowledge we obtain is constructed from conclusions. Don't get me wrong, there are many scientific facts that are damn near perfect, with a reliability of more than 99.999999999%. But it still wouldn't be correct to call it an absolute knowledge.

 

Knowledge about abstract man-invented things CAN be absolute. I know for sure that the definition of "baseball" is not the same as the definition of "monkey". How do I know this? Because we made the definitions. We decide what the definitions are, and hell, we could change them if we want to.

[Zierro]

Crusty, do you not understand the base definition of abstract?

 

Clearly not as here is an example.

I have an object with 3 sides, therefore I shall call it a "Triangle". <---- notice what I do here to the next one.

I have an object with 3 sides, therefore I shall call it a "Square". <---- If you can't find the difference don't reply.

 

 

But the thing is, we didn't. For all intents and purposes, in our world, a triangle has three-sides. A "triangle" cannot have anything more or less than three sides. The whole point I'm trying to get at is this: It is physically impossible for something to have three sides and four sides at the same time. Now why can't this apply to other fields of knowledge?

 

I was working under the assumption that you could deal with implied redefining.

 

Here is what I did:

1. tossed out the old meaning for "tri"

2. This in turn tossed out the old definition for triangle.

3. Which then replaced the old definition of "4-sided" with "3-sided"

4. Thus I now have "square" for the new definition of "triangle".

 

I was working under the assumption that you would understand my point. Unless we make it a game of semantics and change definitions around, there are things that can be physically impossible. But that's the thing, you guys are going through mental gymnastics in order to change the rules of "up" and "down". In that case, yes, nothing is impossible because we can simply just tweak ideas around until they finally do work. For example, a creature can't both be physically alive and dead at the same time, until we just change the definition of "dead" to "alive". But in actuality, a fossil (what we did define as a "fossil") cannot breathe (what we did define as "breathe"), which was my point.

 

The concept of someone lying is only possible due to abstract knowledge of language.

 

What is the difference between the concept of something "existing physically" and the concept of "someone lying" in this respect though?

 

But if they come to Earth and watch a baseball game, they will see a baseball being hit by a bat, no matter what words they use to represent "baseball" "hit" and "bat".

 

How do you know this? Don't forget that even "seeing something" is a subjective concept. For example, some animals only see in black and white, insects see transparent objects as opaque, females are blind to the crustiness of men, etc.

 

This is a very good point. I guess whatever a God might be, he would exist in a place that doesn't follow the same set of expectations that our universe follows. This would make God more probable than a magical man because it doesn't have any contradictions that add to his improbability.

 

Yeah, I like to think of god as a cheater.

 

The mass that comprises part of the green cog "spokes" can spontaneously pass through the mass that comprises part of the red cog wheel "spokes". It isn't very likely at all. In fact, if every person on Earth had been trying to spin these cogs since the beginning of time, it would still be very unlikely to have ever observed this event. The chances of many things happening are mind-bogglingly small, but they still exist. To say the chance is completely nonexistent is a disservice to the true nature of our universe.

 

I won't pretend to know about the in depth nature of physical matter, but I still want to question whether you have evidence that this could possibly work? Obviously the cogs going through each other is a requirement for spinning to be possible, but what I want to know is how that could even work.

 

The coin could flip into the air and all of its mass could spontaneously be converted to energy.

The coin could fall through the table, fall through the Earth, and come out the other side and shoot into space.

The coin could disintegrate spontaneously.

Again none of these things are realistically likely, but to call them a total impossibility is not correct.

 

Touche. Now allow me to reword the question: Is it possible for the coin to land on anything besides tails, heads, or sides?

 

You didn't say that the Sun had to stay at its location and I had to reach it with a fishing line that has a definite length.

 

But if I did?

 

Unless you are using a different meaning for logic, logic is useless for figuring stuff out about the physical world.

 

? Please elaborate on this.

 

If you are asking "Is it possible to have a dead living thing?" I would say no, it is impossible. Again, this dives into the realm of human classifications of things. It is beyond just simply decribing a physical event.

 

It all dives into the realm of human classification of things. It seems to me like you're picking and choosing at a whim. We dictate what it takes to "exist" just as we dictates what it takes to "be alive".

 

Because, as I have said many times, the only method of "knowing" about the physical world is via science. Science is not capable of delivering absolute knowledge.

 

Think of it this way. You have a die sitting on the table. Only one side is touching the table. You are not allowed to touch the die or move it in any way. You see the numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 exposed. A reasonable deduction would be that the number 4 is on the 6th side. However, you are still never allowed to look and see what is actually there.

 

This is how science works. We can never know for certain ANYTHING about physical phenomena. Why? Because we never get to "look at the last side of the die." We can only see certain things and the only type of knowledge we obtain is constructed from conclusions. Don't get me wrong, there are many scientific facts that are damn near perfect, with a reliability of more than 99.999999999%. But it still wouldn't be correct to call it an absolute knowledge.

 

Knowledge about abstract man-invented things CAN be absolute. I know for sure that the definition of "baseball" is not the same as the definition of "monkey". How do I know this? Because we made the definitions. We decide what the definitions are, and hell, we could change them if we want to.

 

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but are you saying that physical impossibility is possibly possible, but just that we can't "know"? :-s

[Myweponsg00d]

 

What is the difference between the concept of something "existing physically" and the concept of "someone lying" in this respect though?

 

Because the only thing that is a physical thing when someone "lies" is that their vocal chords vibrate and make a sound. It is up to us to decide what those sounds mean, and whether or not they align with our definition of true. We can know for sure that a person is lying because we get to decide what is a lie.

 

How do you know this? Don't forget that even "seeing something" is a subjective concept. For example, some animals only see in black and white, insects see transparent objects as opaque, females are blind to the crustiness of men, etc.

 

My statement would assume that aliens have eyes that work like ours.

 

I won't pretend to know about the in depth nature of physical matter, but I still want to question whether you have evidence that this could possibly work? Obviously the cogs going through each other is a requirement for spinning to be possible, but what I want to know is how that could even work.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

 

Quantum physics is the answer. Objects in this universe don't have a truly "fixed" location. Anything could be somewhere else at any instant. Something could pass through another thing. Now, again, it is completely improbable for this to happen to a cog wheel but it is not an impossibility.

 

 

Touche. Now allow me to reword the question: Is it possible for the coin to land on anything besides tails, heads, or sides?

 

If we say that the coin must land and must stay intact then you are restricting the outcomes. If the coin is landing in a way that is congruent with our everyday experiences, then yes it would be impossible for any other outcome to occur. But, this is like saying "If the only thing I can do is walk through door #1, is it possible for me to walk through door #2 or #3?" If you want to restrict the outcomes, you can create impossibility.

 

 

? Please elaborate on this.

 

Logic just is not what we use to figure out the world. Science is what we use. Logic is a part of science, but using logic alone can never tell you anything reliably about the physical world. For example, many people's "logic" would tell them that no matter how dark of a room they go into, their eyes will eventually "adjust". This of course would be wrong if you were in a room with absolutely no light. However, it would seem logical to most people, since it is congruent with most of their everyday experiences. Logic alone cannot tell us anything about the world around us.

 

It all dives into the realm of human classification of things. It seems to me like you're picking and choosing at a whim. We dictate what it takes to "exist" just as we dictates what it takes to "be alive".

 

I'm not picking and choosing, you're giving me things that are quite different from each other. Once you've called something "alive" you are claiming specific knowledge of what that thing is. This is a deeper level of abstract classification than simply saying "Can an object spontaneously melt?" We do dictacte what we would classify to be an "object" and "melting" but these words just represent physical processes. Calling something "alive" is very different. We have basically invented what "life" even means.

 

Does nature know life from non-life? No. Its just a big assemblance of organic material. The classification of "alive" is very much determined by man. Would we call a star "alive"? Probably not. But stars go through cycles and have many processes that occur spontaneously when given certain stimulous. Theres no real difference when it comes to something like a rat or a dog. These things aren't really anything special in nature. We just call it "alive"

 

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but are you saying that physical impossibility is possibly possible, but just that we can't "know"? :-s

 

I'm saying that there is absolutely no way to obtain any sort of COMPLETELY ABSOLUTE knowledge of why things happen in the physical world. The only way you could know something for certain about the universe is if there WAS a god, you met him, and asked him "Hey, so how does that gravity thing work?" We have no system that can tell give us absolute knowledge about the universe. We have a system that can give us reliable predictions (science) but it can't let us see behind the curtain.

[Zierro]

Because the only thing that is a physical thing when someone "lies" is that their vocal chords vibrate and make a sound. It is up to us to decide what those sounds mean, and whether or not they align with our definition of true. We can know for sure that a person is lying because we get to decide what is a lie.

 

We also get to decide what the word "exists" means. No matter what, it's always going to come back to the language behind the claims/ideas.

 

http://en.wikipedia....antum_mechanics

 

Quantum physics is the answer. Objects in this universe don't have a truly "fixed" location. Anything could be somewhere else at any instant. Something could pass through another thing. Now, again, it is completely improbable for this to happen to a cog wheel but it is not an impossibility.

 

Quantum mechanics is a good point to bring up. Matter and energy aren't as predictable as we once though, so the cog thing wasn't such a great example. However, there are still many other physical impossibilities that even the quantum world cannot account for: It is impossible to rip someone's mouth off their face. Why? Because a mouth is a hole and there is no physical way to "rip" a "hole" off of something. Of course now you will probably say, "But that's only due to language!" And to that my response would be, "So? It's still a physical impossibility."

 

If we say that the coin must land and must stay intact then you are restricting the outcomes. If the coin is landing in a way that is congruent with our everyday experiences, then yes it would be impossible for any other outcome to occur. But, this is like saying "If the only thing I can do is walk through door #1, is it possible for me to walk through door #2 or #3?" If you want to restrict the outcomes, you can create impossibility.

 

Of course the outcomes are restricted - that's the whole point behind an impossibility. Let's put it this way: If aliens came down to earth and we can assume they have eyes like ours, which sides could they see the coin land on? 1. Side with man face. 2. Side with human construct. 3. Thin round side. The shape of the coin dictates which sides are possible to land on. If you want to blame it all on language, then I can do the same thing for the word "existent".

 

Logic just is not what we use to figure out the world. Science is what we use. Logic is a part of science, but using logic alone can never tell you anything reliably about the physical world. For example, many people's "logic" would tell them that no matter how dark of a room they go into, their eyes will eventually "adjust". This of course would be wrong if you were in a room with absolutely no light. However, it would seem logical to most people, since it is congruent with most of their everyday experiences. Logic alone cannot tell us anything about the world around us.

 

Yeah, by logic I wasn't referring to faulty logic. My point is that there are some things logic can tell us with absolute certainty: "Having sex can lead to pregnancy."

 

I'm not picking and choosing, you're giving me things that are quite different from each other. Once you've called something "alive" you are claiming specific knowledge of what that thing is. This is a deeper level of abstract classification than simply saying "Can an object spontaneously melt?" We do dictacte what we would classify to be an "object" and "melting" but these words just represent physical processes. Calling something "alive" is very different. We have basically invented what "life" even means.

 

Does nature know life from non-life? No. Its just a big assemblance of organic material. The classification of "alive" is very much determined by man. Would we call a star "alive"? Probably not. But stars go through cycles and have many processes that occur spontaneously when given certain stimulous. Theres no real difference when it comes to something like a rat or a dog. These things aren't really anything special in nature. We just call it "alive"

 

Does nature know existent from non-existent?

 

Sorry for such a late reply. Family came down to visit and I've been busy.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

We also get to decide what the word "exists" means. No matter what, it's always going to come back to the language behind the claims/ideas.

 

Yes we decide what the word means but our definition of this word doesn't impact the physical thing that the word represents. You're still missing the boat on this. When I ask someone "How many sides does a square have?" There is nowhere in nature that they can look for the answer. They have to look up what we defined as a "square". It doesn't exist in the natural world. It is abstract. If aliens somehow never invented the concept of a square or two-dimensional shapes, they would need to read about our knowledge in order to answer the question.

 

Then I could ask a question like "What happens when I drop this bowling ball?" If you ask someone this question who speaks a different language, obviously the words won't be the same. But the answer to the question exists regardless of what we call it. If aliens never invented a bowling ball, it wouldn't matter. They could still look at the ball and see the same image. Their answer of what happens wouldn't depend on any sort of language. Sure, maybe their word for "fall" would be "banana" but they would just say "The ball bananas to the ground".

 

Quantum mechanics is a good point to bring up. Matter and energy aren't as predictable as we once though, so the cog thing wasn't such a great example. However, there are still many other physical impossibilities that even the quantum world cannot account for: It is impossible to rip someone's mouth off their face. Why? Because a mouth is a hole and there is no physical way to "rip" a "hole" off of something. Of course now you will probably say, "But that's only due to language!" And to that my response would be, "So? It's still a physical impossibility."

 

You've still missed the boat on an abstract idea vs. a real object. The mouth thing is impossible, because as you said, it isn't really even an object; it is the lack of an object. But it doesn't REALLY exist, it is an abstract concept. If you could even grab a mouth then it wouldn't be called a mouth. It wouldn't be a "hole". Whether or not you can grab a "hole" is again not a question of the physical world. Holes aren't objects, theyre what we define as a lack of an object.

 

For example, we think of a hole as containing "nothing". However, this isn't even really accurate. My mouth is a hole, but it is actually filled with air molecules. If I stick my hand in there and try to grab something, I could come out with a hand full of air.

 

Of course the outcomes are restricted - that's the whole point behind an impossibility. Let's put it this way: If aliens came down to earth and we can assume they have eyes like ours, which sides could they see the coin land on? 1. Side with man face. 2. Side with human construct. 3. Thin round side. The shape of the coin dictates which sides are possible to land on. If you want to blame it all on language, then I can do the same thing for the word "existent".

 

You're saying that the shape of the coin restricts the outcomes -- it doesn't. The coin in itself could do any number of things. The three outcomes you mentioned are by far the most probable outcomes, but they are not the only possible outcomes.

 

Yeah, by logic I wasn't referring to faulty logic. My point is that there are some things logic can tell us with absolute certainty: "Having sex can lead to pregnancy."

 

You must be using a far different definition of logic than I am. Logic, by the way I understand the word, is merely used for reasoning through abstract ideas. I wouldn't say that we know having sex can lead to pregnancy through logic. I would say we know it through science.

 

Does nature know existent from non-existent?

 

No, we actually don't know this. You don't know for sure that the world you see even exists, and I don't know for sure that we exist in reality. However, one of the working assumptions of scientific reasoning is that the things we see exist and that we exist in reality.

 

Take for instance, the possibility that we are all asleep in a virtual-reality software program or something. Science would not be able to investigate this hypothesis because it would go against the assumption that what we see is a reality that other humans will also see.

[Zierro]

Yes we decide what the word means but our definition of this word doesn't impact the physical thing that the word represents. You're still missing the boat on this. When I ask someone "How many sides does a square have?" There is nowhere in nature that they can look for the answer. They have to look up what we defined as a "square". It doesn't exist in the natural world. It is abstract. If aliens somehow never invented the concept of a square or two-dimensional shapes, they would need to read about our knowledge in order to answer the question.

 

Then I could ask a question like "What happens when I drop this bowling ball?" If you ask someone this question who speaks a different language, obviously the words won't be the same. But the answer to the question exists regardless of what we call it. If aliens never invented a bowling ball, it wouldn't matter. They could still look at the ball and see the same image. Their answer of what happens wouldn't depend on any sort of language. Sure, maybe their word for "fall" would be "banana" but they would just say "The ball bananas to the ground".

 

But "it" doesn't "exist" until we define what "it" is and what the word "exists" means. No matter what type of claim you make (abstract, physical, philosophical) it will always roll back into semantics and language. We even define what the word "is" is. How can we strip all subjectivity out of our claims and our ideas? It is yet another impossibility.

 

And the concept of a square has been conceived before the word "square". That's the purpose of having the word in the first place - to articulate and distinguish this type of geometric shape from that one. Would it be right to say "squares can't exist without humans"? On a ridiculous technical level, yes, but we know there are observable things in nature that directly inspired us to come up with the word "square". A "square" has been observed in nature (not a perfect square obviously), and thus someone felt the need to create a label for it.

 

You've still missed the boat on an abstract idea vs. a real object. The mouth thing is impossible, because as you said, it isn't really even an object; it is the lack of an object. But it doesn't REALLY exist, it is an abstract concept. If you could even grab a mouth then it wouldn't be called a mouth. It wouldn't be a "hole". Whether or not you can grab a "hole" is again not a question of the physical world. Holes aren't objects, theyre what we define as a lack of an object.

 

Wait a second, so a hole is not relevant to the physical world? Sure it's a lack of an object. I don't see how this changes the fact that ripping one off is physically impossible to do and that we have means of knowing this knowledge. So far your point keeps trickling down to "We do not know everything about physical matter", while acknowledging that there are loads of other things that are impossible in our world, when this debate was about being able to decipher impossibilities at all (such as Santa's story being full of logical/semantic/abstract inconsistencies).

 

You're saying that the shape of the coin restricts the outcomes -- it doesn't. The coin in itself could do any number of things. The three outcomes you mentioned are by far the most probable outcomes, but they are not the only possible outcomes.

 

Inform me of the other possible sides it could land on. It isn't about what magical trick the coin can do in the air - it's about which of the sides it can possibly land on. There are only three possible outcomes here. It is physically impossible for the coin to land on anything aside from those three.

 

You must be using a far different definition of logic than I am. Logic, by the way I understand the word, is merely used for reasoning through abstract ideas. I wouldn't say that we know having sex can lead to pregnancy through logic. I would say we know it through science.

 

Well, I would say we know it through both. How can you have science without logic?

 

No, we actually don't know this. You don't know for sure that the world you see even exists, and I don't know for sure that we exist in reality. However, one of the working assumptions of scientific reasoning is that the things we see exist and that we exist in reality.

 

Precisely - the classification of "existent" is very much determined by man. This is what I was getting at: "Existence" is just as abstract of a concept as a "lie". You cannot prove objectively that one is any more "real" than the other.

[Myweponsg00d]

But "it" doesn't "exist" until we define what "it" is and what the word "exists" means. No matter what type of claim you make (abstract, physical, philosophical) it will always roll back into semantics and language. We even define what the word "is" is. How can we strip all subjectivity out of our claims and our ideas? It is yet another impossibility.

 

Because it isn't about us using the WORD "exist"! It is about what the CONCEPT represents! "Existence" basically means "something in reality". No matter what we called this, the concept would still be the same. I am not talking about the WORDS I am talking about what the IDEAS behind the words are.

And the concept of a square has been conceived before the word "square". That's the purpose of having the word in the first place - to articulate and distinguish this type of geometric shape from that one. Would it be right to say "squares can't exist without humans"? On a ridiculous technical level, yes, but we know there are observable things in nature that directly inspired us to come up with the word "square". A "square" has been observed in nature (not a perfect square obviously), and thus someone felt the need to create a label for it.

 

It isn't about the label, it is about the square being a mathematical construct. We invented math, and we invented what a square is.

 

Wait a second, so a hole is not relevant to the physical world? Sure it's a lack of an object. I don't see how this changes the fact that ripping one off is physically impossible to do and that we have means of knowing this knowledge. So far your point keeps trickling down to "We do not know everything about physical matter", while acknowledging that there are loads of other things that are impossible in our world, when this debate was about being able to decipher impossibilities at all (such as Santa's story being full of logical/semantic/abstract inconsistencies).

 

No, a hole is NOT relevant. We use the word "hole" to represent something that is lacking. A hole isn't an actual thing. It is our abstract idea for the LACK of a thing. And yes, there is a distinction between what we can call impossible and what we cannot. For example, "Can Santa fly around the world in one night?" This is not impossible. However "Can Santa fly around the world in a night if he cannot fly?" THIS is impossible. You are limiting the idea to a more abstract sense. If he could fly, we would never be able to say that he cannot fly.

 

Its like asking "Can there ever be an object that is scalding hot to the touch and freezing cold to the touch at the same time?" No, there cannot. Because if it was hot, we wouldnt call it cold. This isn't purely a physical question, you're now asking things after you have already classified them.

 

Inform me of the other possible sides it could land on. It isn't about what magical trick the coin can do in the air - it's about which of the sides it can possibly land on. There are only three possible outcomes here. It is physically impossible for the coin to land on anything aside from those three.

 

It could break in half and land on the edge that is now exposed.

 

Well, I would say we know it through both. How can you have science without logic?

 

The point is that you can't have science without logic, but logic alone does absolutely NOTHING to tell you about the universe. The rest of the scientific process must be included. For example, I think it is logical that if a person eats more fat, their body might store more fat. However, this actually isn't true. Only caloric intake dictactes whether or not you can store body fat, it doesn't matter where those calories come from.

 

Precisely - the classification of "existent" is very much determined by man. This is what I was getting at: "Existence" is just as abstract of a concept as a "lie". You cannot prove objectively that one is any more "real" than the other.

 

But if we can't even work from the assumption that what we observe is what exists, then theres no way we can even debate anything...

 

I mean every debate can just be boiled down to "Well, you can't even prove we exist right now so what does it matter?"

 

Also, no, a lie is a more abstract concept. Here's a simple way that you finally might be able to understand the difference between abstract and real ideas.

 

Where would a "lie" be if humans never existed?

Where would "existence" be if humans never existed?

 

Lies would not happen if we did not exist in the world to talk about the truthood/falsehood of ideas. Things that exist would exist whether or not we were around to talk about them. You think that I am saying "Well we made up the word triangle so we know what it defines, therefore it is abstract." No. I am saying we created the CONCEPT of a triangle, we created what it is that the word triangle represents. We did not create existence...We created the word, but we didn't create what we are talking about when we say the word.

[Zierro]

Because it isn't about us using the WORD "exist"! It is about what the CONCEPT represents! "Existence" basically means "something in reality". No matter what we called this, the concept would still be the same. I am not talking about the WORDS I am talking about what the IDEAS behind the words are.

 

And the IDEA behind "existence" is still entirely artificial. As you yourself admitted, nature does not know "existent" from "nonexistent". "Existence" is nothing but a word, until we ascribe meaning to it. Are you really going to contradict yourself by now arguing that IDEAS can exist in nature? It can't even be an "idea" until man says so. Like I said time and time again, when you're arguing, debating, making claims, forming ideas, etc. you're ALWAYS going to be using language as your medium for doing so. There's no way to get around that.

 

It isn't about the label, it is about the square being a mathematical construct. We invented math, and we invented what a square is.

 

Yes, we invented math and we invented what a square is. Because something in nature caused us to.

 

No, a hole is NOT relevant. We use the word "hole" to represent something that is lacking. A hole isn't an actual thing. It is our abstract idea for the LACK of a thing.

 

It still represents something.

 

And as far as it being abstract, can a hole exist without humans? Here's a hint: Yes and no. The word for it obviously wouldn't exist, but would there still be chunks missing out of all the pieces of Swiss cheese in the world? Yes. We decide what the word means but our definition of this word doesn't impact the physical thing that the word represents.

 

And yes, there is a distinction between what we can call impossible and what we cannot. For example, "Can Santa fly around the world in one night?" This is not impossible. However "Can Santa fly around the world in a night if he cannot fly?" THIS is impossible. You are limiting the idea to a more abstract sense. If he could fly, we would never be able to say that he cannot fly.

 

"Can Santa fly around the world in one night?"

 

I agree that he can't fly around the world in one night if he can't fly. We don't even need to say that though, because going at those speeds and accomplishing that amount of work in such a small amount of time really is a physical contradiction. According to Carl Sagan, going faster than the speed of light would just add more time to the clock. Yet again, your Santa Claus theory has been scientifically debunked.

 

It could break in half and land on the edge that is now exposed.

 

But then that geometric shape would still be the dictator of which sides it could possibly land on.

 

The point is that you can't have science without logic, but logic alone does absolutely NOTHING to tell you about the universe. The rest of the scientific process must be included. For example, I think it is logical that if a person eats more fat, their body might store more fat. However, this actually isn't true. Only caloric intake dictactes whether or not you can store body fat, it doesn't matter where those calories come from.

 

So basically your definition of "logic" is educated guesses with plenty of room for error...?

 

But if we can't even work from the assumption that what we observe is what exists, then theres no way we can even debate anything...

 

We can and should work from that assumption in order to get the most accurate understanding of the world we can possibly get our hands on, but it doesn't change the cold hard truth that it is still an assumption nonetheless.

 

I mean every debate can just be boiled down to "Well, you can't even prove we exist right now so what does it matter?"

 

Not a very good debating tactic though. If I were debating whether water causes things to get wet or dry, and my opponent blurted out, "Well it doesn't matter because you don't even know if you're real," it would do nothing to the fact that water makes things wet - at least in the world we think we live in. And with that trivial asterisk about the entire world we live in, I for one am not bothered. I'm going to live my life as if I'm real, and debate as if I'm real, even though I acknowledge it's technically an assumption. I don't see it as that much of a life-altering thing.

 

Also, no, a lie is a more abstract concept. Here's a simple way that you finally might be able to understand the difference between abstract and real ideas.

 

Where would a "lie" be if humans never existed?

Where would "existence" be if humans never existed?

 

If humans never existed, nobody would be around to tell a lie. Or I could be sneaky and say... aliens? On another note, some animals have pretty in-depth forms of communication, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were occasions where one animal would use a cry/call/signal/sonar/etc. to send purposefully misleading messages for their benefit ("come here for food" = "come here, I want to eat you" [AKA: a "lie"]). It's a stretch, but possible.

 

"Existence", we couldn't truly know, could we? As a matter of fact, since quantum mechanics has already been brought up, what's your take on the observer effect?

 

So yeah... humans are basically required to even talk about this stuff. It's an assumption to believe the concept behind "lies" and "existence" are actually real because we simply do not know of a world without us.

 

We created the word, but we didn't create what we are talking about when we say the word.

 

We didn't create the thing we are talking about when we say the word, but we still decided to conceptualize it.... Just the fact that you are going to represent something means "abstract". And my point is that all knowledge is essentially abstract because you can never cut the middleman (us) out of the equation. Knowledge of "concrete physical existence" will always be based on an [abstract] assumption.

[Blyaunte]

Also, no, a lie is a more abstract concept. Here's a simple way that you finally might be able to understand the difference between abstract and real ideas.

 

Where would a "lie" be if humans never existed?

Where would "existence" be if humans never existed?

 

If humans never existed, nobody would be around to tell a lie. Or I could be sneaky and say... aliens? On another note, some animals have pretty in-depth forms of communication, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were occasions where one animal would use a cry/call/signal/sonar/etc. to send purposefully misleading messages for their benefit ("come here for food" = "come here, I want to eat you" [AKA: a "lie"]). It's a stretch, but possible.

 

Isn't a lie merely a communicable form of deceit? Aren't chimpanzees capable of deceit? :unsure:

[Myweponsg00d]

And the IDEA behind "existence" is still entirely artificial. As you yourself admitted, nature does not know "existent" from "nonexistent". "Existence" is nothing but a word, until we ascribe meaning to it. Are you really going to contradict yourself by now arguing that IDEAS can exist in nature? It can't even be an "idea" until man says so. Like I said time and time again, when you're arguing, debating, making claims, forming ideas, etc. you're ALWAYS going to be using language as your medium for doing so. There's no way to get around that.

 

Of course nature does not "know" existent from nonexistent, I would hardly say nature knows anything. Your argument is based on the presumption "If nature doesn't know X from Y, then it is abstract" I would disagree with this premise.

 

The point is that existence is a word we created, but the thing that word represents is not an artificial construct. It is not abstract. Does the Sun exist? Yes. Would it have existed regardless of whether any intelligent life ever developed in this universe? Yes.

 

The same cannot be said for a triangle, square, etc. It would have never existed if it were not for intelligent life.

 

Yes, we invented math and we invented what a square is. Because something in nature caused us to.

So?

 

It still represents something.

 

And as far as it being abstract, can a hole exist without humans? Here's a hint: Yes and no. The word for it obviously wouldn't exist, but would there still be chunks missing out of all the pieces of Swiss cheese in the world? Yes. We decide what the word means but our definition of this word doesn't impact the physical thing that the word represents.

 

I would say that NO, a hole would NOT exist if it were not for intelligent life. As I said, there is NOTHING THERE. What would exist would just be cheese in certain shapes. Calling it a "hole" requires intelligent interpretation of, and classification of, intelligent observation.

 

"Can Santa fly around the world in one night?"

 

I agree that he can't fly around the world in one night if he can't fly. We don't even need to say that though, because going at those speeds and accomplishing that amount of work in such a small amount of time really is a physical contradiction. According to Carl Sagan, going faster than the speed of light would just add more time to the clock. Yet again, your Santa Claus theory has been scientifically debunked.

 

Is Carl Sagan the designer of the universe? No. He is a scientist. Our current scientific understanding of the speed of light would SUGGEST that, but we DO NOT have the absolute knowledge.

 

But then that geometric shape would still be the dictator of which sides it could possibly land on.

 

And? It is still a different outcome than the three you proposed. You said there were only three possible outcomes.

 

So basically your definition of "logic" is educated guesses with plenty of room for error...?

 

Logic is an abstract process of reasoning. Logic is seperate from making observations, confirming predictions, and other elements of the scientific process. Logic is basically what turns scientific observations into something argumentitive. Logic is an important part of figuring out things about the world, but it cannot act alone to make accurate judgments.

 

We can and should work from that assumption in order to get the most accurate understanding of the world we can possibly get our hands on, but it doesn't change the cold hard truth that it is still an assumption nonetheless.

 

"The cold hard truth"? How is it the cold hard truth? You act like "Oh god maybe we are wrong..." but that doesn't even make sense. The very moment you suggest that the things we see are not reality, you lose all possible ways of trying to figure things out.

 

If humans never existed, nobody would be around to tell a lie. Or I could be sneaky and say... aliens? On another note, some animals have pretty in-depth forms of communication, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were occasions where one animal would use a cry/call/signal/sonar/etc. to send purposefully misleading messages for their benefit ("come here for food" = "come here, I want to eat you" [AKA: a "lie"]). It's a stretch, but possible.

 

"Existence", we couldn't truly know, could we? As a matter of fact, since quantum mechanics has already been brought up, what's your take on the observer effect?

 

So yeah... humans are basically required to even talk about this stuff. It's an assumption to believe the concept behind "lies" and "existence" are actually real because we simply do not know of a world without us.

 

You keep going back to "talking about" things! I'm not talking about the fact that we are using language! I'm talking about the fact that we have some systems that are entirely invented by us, and nature which is not invented by us. We can know things about language and math because they are completely and totally man made. We created every single bit of it. We know the rules for certain because we made the rules and we could change them if we restructured the systems.

 

But we did not create the stars, gravity, electromagnetism, etc. We cannot know these things because we didn't make them! Simple as that. Stop bringing in this crap about words and talking about it. My point has NOTHING to do with a lot of what you said in this quote!

 

We didn't create the thing we are talking about when we say the word, but we still decided to conceptualize it.... Just the fact that you are going to represent something means "abstract". And my point is that all knowledge is essentially abstract because you can never cut the middleman (us) out of the equation. Knowledge of "concrete physical existence" will always be based on an [abstract] assumption.

 

Sure, so we create words like "chair" and "stool" both of these things are objects with legs that you can sit on. But I AM NOT TALKING about language classification. I'm talking about the fact that an object in the physical world is a thing that we did not create. We might have created lots of crap to help us classify this object, but we did not create the thing itself, the atoms that make up the wood.

 

Compare this to the concept of a triangle. We created every...single...piece of what a "triangle" means. Or maybe a better example: I know that the word "ball" is a noun. I know this for absolute certainty because I know what the definition of ball is, and I know what a noun is. We completely created this system of language and decided the rules that govern it.

 

I can never know for absolute certainty that my chair can NEVER spontaneously phase through the floor. Sure we created all of the words to describe this system, but there is a part of describing this system that relies on nature doing something.

 

Again, think of a 6 sided cube sitting on a table. You look at the cube and see the numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6. You might be able to make a good guess that the number 3 is on the other side. However, if nobody ever lets you see that last side, would you ever say "I know for absolute certainty that the remaining side has a 3 on it."?

 

This is an exact analogy to us figuring things out with scientific reasoning. We can only make observations, deductions, and conclusions from looking at things in the world. We never get to "look behind the curtain" and see if we are right. We can "look behind the curtain" with things that are abstract knowledge. How is "stop" spelled? I can just go look this up in the dictionary because we decided how "Stop" is spelled. We didn't decide how the physical world works, and we can't obtain an absolute truth about a physical event.

 

 

CLIFF NOTES:

 

Basically this post is extremely long and I wanted to just summarize the main point. You are basically stopping too short anaylizing these ideas. For example, lets say the definition of "existence" is "A thing that can be observed or detected." Okay, sure this is a definition we created. And yeah, maybe we defined observation, detection, etc. But eventually, you get down to nature. You have to use your eyes to look at something and see if there are any particles there. Eventually you get to something that we did not create. We might have created the word "existence" but if you dig down to the bare meaning of the word, it symbolizes something that we did not decide. The problem is that you stop at the fact that "Existence" is a word that has a definition that we decided. I'm talking about the things that we MEAN when we say "existence".

 

If the definition of a "triangle" is "A shape with three sides" then we never ever have to rely on nature to know anything about a triangle. We completely invented the geometric idea of a "side" and a "shape." We also sort of "invented" the number three, and we have completely defined what "three" means. We made it up. Nature didn't give us "three", we came up with it to invent a system of mathematics.

 

It's friggin difficult to talk about language while using language...

[Freakyhair]

damn there needs to be a debate forum, these posts are heavy.

 

on topic, allahu ahkbar.

 

religions fine by me, was hving a deep chat the other day and this woman said that religion is just a premise used as an excuse for bad acts. when usually the driving force is hunger. actually thats cleary not true because the failed yemeni bomber was from a rich family..

 

actually i dunno, i dont like organised religion. and unorganised religious people are just annoying hippies..

 

i just cant comprehend that way of thinking.

[Zierro]

The same cannot be said for a triangle, square, etc. It would have never existed if it were not for intelligent life.

 

So by this logic, the three-sided patterns (the concept behind a triangle) on a snake's skin does not exist in reality, but the snake itself does?

 

So?

 

My point here is that abstract ideas stem from physical observations. They essentially go hand and hand, which is why I have a hard time understanding why you are drawing some strange imaginary line between the two. The debate was initially about deciphering things that are impossible in our realm, and you asserted that this was impossible. Then you changed your point to, "Only abstract ideas can be impossible."

 

I would say that NO, a hole would NOT exist if it were not for intelligent life. As I said, there is NOTHING THERE. What would exist would just be cheese in certain shapes. Calling it a "hole" requires intelligent interpretation of, and classification of, intelligent observation.

 

But the thing the word "hole" represents (a lack of matter) is very much so objectively existent if you want to assert that something like the thing the word "mug" represents is objectively existent.

 

Is Carl Sagan the designer of the universe? No. He is a scientist. Our current scientific understanding of the speed of light would SUGGEST that, but we DO NOT have the absolute knowledge.

 

So basically what you're saying is the "laws of physics" are really only the "theories of physics"? :unsure:

 

And? It is still a different outcome than the three you proposed. You said there were only three possible outcomes.

 

For every physical object, there are a fixed amount of sides it can "land on". If you wish to change the coin into a non-coin, then sure there are different outcomes. I've went over this point before: Saying "things would be different if things were different" is a pretty pointless point to make. The whole reason I used the word "coin" instead of "random geometrical shape" was to limit the outcomes. And this is my point all along: it is possible to decipher some limited outcomes in the world around us.

 

Logic is an abstract process of reasoning. Logic is seperate from making observations, confirming predictions, and other elements of the scientific process. Logic is basically what turns scientific observations into something argumentitive. Logic is an important part of figuring out things about the world, but it cannot act alone to make accurate judgments.

 

Judging by your last examples, you seem to be forgetting that part of logic is taking into account a wide amount of factors. For example, if you saw someone go into Door A and come out of B, and you made the "logical deduction" that if someone goes into Door B then they can come out of Door A, but you are not taking into account the possibility that A --> B is a one-way path and there is no way to travel from B --> A (let's say a one-way revolving door is on the other side), then you have skipped a logical step, therefore your "logic" was actually "illogical".

 

By definition, logic is correct inference, not incorrect. If somehow you reached an incorrect premise, then apparently your "logic" wasn't completely logical.

 

"The cold hard truth"? How is it the cold hard truth? You act like "Oh god maybe we are wrong..." but that doesn't even make sense. The very moment you suggest that the things we see are not reality, you lose all possible ways of trying to figure things out.

 

Uhhh, you just said the same exact thing I said. You're contradicting yourself again:

 

"No, we actually don't know this. You don't know for sure that the world you see even exists, and I don't know for sure that we exist in reality. However, one of the working assumptions of scientific reasoning is that the things we see exist and that we exist in reality."

 

You keep going back to "talking about" things! I'm not talking about the fact that we are using language! I'm talking about the fact that we have some systems that are entirely invented by us, and nature which is not invented by us. We can know things about language and math because they are completely and totally man made. We created every single bit of it. We know the rules for certain because we made the rules and we could change them if we restructured the systems.

 

But we did not create the stars, gravity, electromagnetism, etc. We cannot know these things because we didn't make them! Simple as that. Stop bringing in this crap about words and talking about it. My point has NOTHING to do with a lot of what you said in this quote!

 

You keep going back to ignoring the blunt truth of the situation: that everything is subjective. You seem to be under the impression that human perception is infallible or something. It's fine and actually natural to think that, but that doesn't change the fact that we simply do not know a world without us and have no means of possessing the absolute knowledge that that rock is actually there. Also, you didn't respond to the "observer effect" in quantum physics which was a very important element of my point.

 

But I AM NOT TALKING about language classification.

 

Oops, paradox.

 

Compare this to the concept of a triangle. We created every...single...piece of what a "triangle" means. Or maybe a better example: I know that the word "ball" is a noun. I know this for absolute certainty because I know what the definition of ball is, and I know what a noun is. We completely created this system of language and decided the rules that govern it.

 

Refer to my point about the pattern on a snake's skin. Is it abstract or physical? If it is abstract, then the snake itself is too.

 

We never get to "look behind the curtain" and see if we are right.

 

Again, you're contradicting yourself and I don't know which side I should be arguing.

 

"You act like "Oh god maybe we are wrong..." but that doesn't even make sense."

 

???

 

Not to mention those five paragraphs were you reiterating what I just gave a rebuttal to.

 

But eventually, you get down to nature.

 

Ahh, thank you. And the same can be said for mathematics, philosophy, and everything else, no? The reason we formed them into abstract ideas, is because we were inspired by nature. If we saw "one" rock, and then took a couple of steps and saw "two" rocks, we'd get a pretty good idea that there are differing numerical values in the world around us, hence "the concept behind numbers exist".

[Myweponsg00d]

So by this logic, the three-sided patterns (the concept behind a triangle) on a snake's skin does not exist in reality, but the snake itself does?

 

Those aren't triangles by definition. They appear triangular, or reminiscent of a triangle, but it is not a triangle.

 

My point here is that abstract ideas stem from physical observations. They essentially go hand and hand, which is why I have a hard time understanding why you are drawing some strange imaginary line between the two. The debate was initially about deciphering things that are impossible in our realm, and you asserted that this was impossible. Then you changed your point to, "Only abstract ideas can be impossible."

 

Maybe "abstract" is a confusing term to use, then. Maybe "man made" is a better term. By "abstract" I mean "entirely created and governed by man".

 

But the thing the word "hole" represents (a lack of matter) is very much so objectively existent if you want to assert that something like the thing the word "mug" represents is objectively existent.

 

No, it doesn't exist, because it is not a thing. How can an object be a lack of an object? Also, I agree that "lack of matter" would exist whether or not we talk about it, but is simply "lack of matter" the same thing as "a hole"? No, if so, we would call most of our universe "a hole". A "hole" by our definition specifically requires there to be an object that has a void inside of it. But this is nothing special, this object doesn't have some special property that makes it have a hole. It just looks that way, and it is how we interpret it. It is not a natural property.

 

So basically what you're saying is the "laws of physics" are really only the "theories of physics"? :unsure:

 

Yes. Laws are not absolute knowledge and you would be a fool to think that they are...Hell, if you asked somebody 150 years ago "Can an object ever get shorter if you just increase its velocity?" they would probably think the question was very odd and improbable. However, now we know length contraction to exist due to special relativity. In another span of 100s of years, the knowledge we have today will likely be outdated by more advanced theories.

 

Just because we currently think that nothing can go faster than the speed of light doesn't mean we know this for absolute certainty. Newton's second "law" used to be F=ma. Now it is F=dp/dt. Laws are perfectly capable of error.

 

For every physical object, there are a fixed amount of sides it can "land on". If you wish to change the coin into a non-coin, then sure there are different outcomes. I've went over this point before: Saying "things would be different if things were different" is a pretty pointless point to make. The whole reason I used the word "coin" instead of "random geometrical shape" was to limit the outcomes. And this is my point all along: it is possible to decipher some limited outcomes in the world around us.

 

And again, if you want to say "If only there are only three possible outcomes, then it is impossible for there to be any other outcome" then fine. But you are restricting what you are looking at and separating it into categories. It's like asking "Is it impossible for a red ball to look blue?" Yes it is. By calling it "red" you assert knowledge of the object, and if that knowledge were to change, then it wouldn't be "red".

 

The same goes for your coin thing. If you want to define a coin as a flat cylinder whoose shape cannot be altered, and if you want to say that it HAS to "land" on something in order for it to be considered a "flip", then maybe anything other than those three scenarios cannot be possible. But you've just totally restricted the question to some outcomes that you have designated as possible. Its like saying "If I cannot possibly explode, can I possibly explode?" Youre restricting the premise of the natural event...

 

Judging by your last examples, you seem to be forgetting that part of logic is taking into account a wide amount of factors. For example, if you saw someone go into Door A and come out of B, and you made the "logical deduction" that if someone goes into Door B then they can come out of Door A, but you are not taking into account the possibility that A --> B is a one-way path and there is no way to travel from B --> A (let's say a one-way revolving door is on the other side), then you have skipped a logical step, therefore your "logic" was actually "illogical".

 

By definition, logic is correct inference, not incorrect. If somehow you reached an incorrect premise, then apparently your "logic" wasn't completely logical.

 

Again, it is clear that you are talking about something that I am not talking about. When I use the word "logic" I use it to refer to a specific thought process. It sounds like by "logic" you mean "inductive reasoning, paired with observation." You are using the word "logic" to mean "all forms of rational actions".

 

This is not what I mean when I talk about "logic". Logic is a part of scientific research, but it doesn't do the job by itself.

 

Uhhh, you just said the same exact thing I said. You're contradicting yourself again:

 

"No, we actually don't know this. You don't know for sure that the world you see even exists, and I don't know for sure that we exist in reality. However, one of the working assumptions of scientific reasoning is that the things we see exist and that we exist in reality."

 

I have not contradicted myself. I acknowledge that we might not even be seeing reality, but I don't let this impact my reasoning about the physical world. What it sounded like you were saying is "Crap, maybe we are wrong about reality, which means everything else might not actually be physical!"

 

You keep going back to ignoring the blunt truth of the situation: that everything is subjective. You seem to be under the impression that human perception is infallible or something. It's fine and actually natural to think that, but that doesn't change the fact that we simply do not know a world without us and have no means of possessing the absolute knowledge that that rock is actually there. Also, you didn't respond to the "observer effect" in quantum physics which was a very important element of my point.

 

And again, it sounds like you are entirely confused about my whole point. You've just said we have no means of acquiring absolute knowledge that a rock even exists to begin with. This is my point, we don't know stuff about the world for absolute truths. The only things we can know for sure are things that only exist in our thoughts. A triangle only exists in our thoughts. Definitions of words only exist in our thoughts.

 

And I didn't talk about your "observer effect" because you don't understand what it means. It doesn't mean that by the act of human eyes looking at something, it alters the thing's existence. The observer effect simply is that to observe an elementary particle, we need to do something to it that will impact its existence. The observer effect literally has nothing to do with anything you're trying to say.

 

 

Refer to my point about the pattern on a snake's skin. Is it abstract or physical? If it is abstract, then the snake itself is too.

 

The pattern exists but it is not a triangle.

 

Again, you're contradicting yourself and I don't know which side I should be arguing.

 

"You act like "Oh god maybe we are wrong..." but that doesn't even make sense."

 

???

 

Not to mention those five paragraphs were you reiterating what I just gave a rebuttal to.

 

I'm not contradicting myself, you've just managed to completely miss the idea of abstract versus non-abstract things for 5 pages and are starting to understand what the hell I am talking about.

 

Ahh, thank you. And the same can be said for mathematics, philosophy, and everything else, no? The reason we formed them into abstract ideas, is because we were inspired by nature. If we saw "one" rock, and then took a couple of steps and saw "two" rocks, we'd get a pretty good idea that there are differing numerical values in the world around us, hence "the concept behind numbers exist".

 

Just because we were inspired by nature doesn't make these systems governed by nature. What does 1+1 equal? Two, right? Well, when I asked that question, did you have to stop and thing "Now wait, if I have one rock and one rock, how many rocks will I have?" No. Our system of math is completely abstracted. Our understanding of "one" isn't based off of knowledge of nature. If it was, that means that there could be something we could see in nature that would change our minds about "1" and make it mean something different. Is there anything nature could show us that would make us need to change any of math? No. The system is completely man made.

 

Now if I asked you "What happens when I drop this object?" you have to draw on knowledge of past physical observations to answer the question. Could nature show you something that contradicts your knowledge of objects falling? Yes, you could let go of the object and it could go up. This isn't likely based on our understanding of gravity, but it is still something you could see that could change your knowledge. There is literally nothing we could possibly see to convince us that 2+2=5, that a square has 6 sides, or that the dervative of 5x is not 5.

[Zierro]

Those aren't triangles by definition. They appear triangular, or reminiscent of a triangle, but it is not a triangle.

 

If the gaps were closed, it would be correct to call this a triangle: /\ Why would the pattern on a snake not be considered a triangle? There is a reason I used a pattern of colors found in nature as an example, as opposed to something like a slice of pizza which is triangular, but not a real triangle because it isn't two-dimensional.

 

Hell, call it triangular if it suits you, but you still didn't answer the question.

 

Maybe "abstract" is a confusing term to use, then. Maybe "man made" is a better term. By "abstract" I mean "entirely created and governed by man".

 

Even if the concept was entirely created or governed by man, it doesn't change the fact that the thing we are trying to represent has been found and inspired by nature somewhere down the line. I don't see how changing the word helps when the same definition is being applied.

 

No, it doesn't exist, because it is not a thing. How can an object be a lack of an object? Also, I agree that "lack of matter" would exist whether or not we talk about it, but is simply "lack of matter" the same thing as "a hole"? No, if so, we would call most of our universe "a hole". A "hole" by our definition specifically requires there to be an object that has a void inside of it. But this is nothing special, this object doesn't have some special property that makes it have a hole. It just looks that way, and it is how we interpret it. It is not a natural property.

 

Your point is that only objects can exist. This is a somewhat fair point, but here's where things get tricky. Gravity is not a physical object, but can it exist without humans? How about magnetism? Sound? Life? Existence shouldn't just be limited to, "it is something I can touch, see, and hear".

 

Let's even take animals into account. Animals can acknowledge the thing that the word "hole" represents - they can even physically live in them. It's not like "holes" appear as "filled up portions of matter" to anything that is not human. What would a doughnut look like to an animal? There would still be a "hole" in it.

 

You're just using a play on words. "A hole doesn't exist because there is nothing there." Yeah, a hole is a hole, but the hole doesn't not exist. A hole "existing" simply means that a void in an object is present. If there is a void present, a hole exists in the physical realm. The lack of a thing is still a thing. Anything can be a thing.

 

Yes. Laws are not absolute knowledge and you would be a fool to think that they are...Hell, if you asked somebody 150 years ago "Can an object ever get shorter if you just increase its velocity?" they would probably think the question was very odd and improbable. However, now we know length contraction to exist due to special relativity. In another span of 100s of years, the knowledge we have today will likely be outdated by more advanced theories.

 

Just because we currently think that nothing can go faster than the speed of light doesn't mean we know this for absolute certainty. Newton's second "law" used to be F=ma. Now it is F=dp/dt. Laws are perfectly capable of error.

 

Then it's a fallacy to call them laws and it would be scientifically correct to change them all to theories.

 

And again, if you want to say "If only there are only three possible outcomes, then it is impossible for there to be any other outcome" then fine. But you are restricting what you are looking at and separating it into categories. It's like asking "Is it impossible for a red ball to look blue?" Yes it is. By calling it "red" you assert knowledge of the object, and if that knowledge were to change, then it wouldn't be "red".

 

The same goes for your coin thing. If you want to define a coin as a flat cylinder whoose shape cannot be altered, and if you want to say that it HAS to "land" on something in order for it to be considered a "flip", then maybe anything other than those three scenarios cannot be possible. But you've just totally restricted the question to some outcomes that you have designated as possible. Its like saying "If I cannot possibly explode, can I possibly explode?" Youre restricting the premise of the natural event...

 

Yes, I know, that was the point. This is still an epistemological assertion showing that physical impossibility is possible. You asserted that it was impossible to decipher impossibilities in our physical world. I kept throwing examples at you, until finally you realized there are things that literally are impossible (a living fossil, a coin to land on anything besides heads, tails, or sides), then your point was "only man made ideas can be impossible". Uhh, of course only things thought of with language can be impossible, we're using language. The concept of "impossible" is a man made idea in the first place, so of course it's going to be abstract one way or another!

 

I don't see how this changes things. A living breathing fossil is still a physical impossibility in our physical world, regardless of the fact that some of the words I just used in there are man made.

 

Again, it is clear that you are talking about something that I am not talking about. When I use the word "logic" I use it to refer to a specific thought process. It sounds like by "logic" you mean "inductive reasoning, paired with observation." You are using the word "logic" to mean "all forms of rational actions".

 

This is not what I mean when I talk about "logic". Logic is a part of scientific research, but it doesn't do the job by itself.

 

I guess we were. Funny how some things can be technically "logical" and technically "illogical" at the same time.

 

I have not contradicted myself. I acknowledge that we might not even be seeing reality, but I don't let this impact my reasoning about the physical world. What it sounded like you were saying is "Crap, maybe we are wrong about reality, which means everything else might not actually be physical!"

 

If we were wrong about reality, it could follow that everything else we've seen and touched was not actually physical, and just projections from our brains. How can you acknowledge that our perception of reality might possibly be faulty, while simultaneously saying that possibly being wrong about reality is not the cold hard truth? How is that not a contradiction?

 

And again, it sounds like you are entirely confused about my whole point. You've just said we have no means of acquiring absolute knowledge that a rock even exists to begin with. This is my point, we don't know stuff about the world for absolute truths. The only things we can know for sure are things that only exist in our thoughts. A triangle only exists in our thoughts. Definitions of words only exist in our thoughts.

 

And this is exactly why I brought up nomological possibility pages ago. We are ultimately making a universal assumption when we observe the physical world, therefore we cannot hold "absolute knowledge". However, when we are talking about the world we know of, and not in the world we don't know of, then things such as that rock really do exist, flying around the whole earth in one day really is impossible, and a fossil really can't breathe - assuming our reality is actual reality. This is absolute nomological knowledge, and this is what you and I try to work off of logically in our everyday lives. We don't take into account, "Well what if this oven is not real," when trying to bake a cake. We "know" that it is, and so we use it as it is.

 

So for debating purposes, I like to assume our reality is actual reality. And even though it is pedantic, I still acknowledge that this is an assumption - you seemed to disagree though when I said we could be wrong about reality altogether. I never said we were wrong. I just said it was a possibility, the same thing you said.

 

And I didn't talk about your "observer effect" because you don't understand what it means. It doesn't mean that by the act of human eyes looking at something, it alters the thing's existence. The observer effect simply is that to observe an elementary particle, we need to do something to it that will impact its existence. The observer effect literally has nothing to do with anything you're trying to say.

 

Isn't that basically the same thing? That the mere act of observing something has some sort of effect? You're right that I don't fully understand the subject, which is the reason why I brought it up and asked for the thoughts of someone who might be more knowledgeable in that field than I.

 

The pattern exists but it is not a triangle.

 

Patterns can exist, but holes cannot? A pattern isn't a physical object either.

 

I'm not contradicting myself, you've just managed to completely miss the idea of abstract versus non-abstract things for 5 pages and are starting to understand what the hell I am talking about.

 

No, not really. You were making more sense when you weren't arguing against something I said which was an exact copy of something I literally just saw you say.

 

Just because we were inspired by nature doesn't make these systems governed by nature.

 

Of course the system is not "governed by nature"... well, in a way it was because we wouldn't be doing things a certain way if it weren't for nature's building blocks leading us there. It's still an abstract concept, but we didn't do anything completely 100% on our own accord without the help of nature or the physical world, because that's just not how cause and effect works. We need external stimuli in order to conceptualize things, or else what would there be to conceptualize? If you can acknowledge that our abstract ideas were inspired by nature (found in nature), then I don't see what there is left to discuss on the whole abstract vs physical thing. This has been my point all along: They aren't as mutually exclusive as you're making them out to be. Something like a hole is both an abstract idea (now that we made it one), and a thing that can occur in nature (without man).

 

What does 1+1 equal? Two, right? Well, when I asked that question, did you have to stop and thing "Now wait, if I have one rock and one rock, how many rocks will I have?" No. Our system of math is completely abstracted. Our understanding of "one" isn't based off of knowledge of nature.

 

A solo unit standing by itself on one side of a fence would be different from two of the same units standing next to each other on the other side of the fence, as you can see via physical observation. Now whatever we decide to label these values is a redundant point I thought we've already been over. But objectively, without man, there would still physically be a rock on this side and a rock and a rock on the other.

 

If it was, that means that there could be something we could see in nature that would change our minds about "1" and make it mean something different. Is there anything nature could show us that would make us need to change any of math? No. The system is completely man made.

 

It was based off nature because we saw there are differing values in the world around us, and thus felt the need to create a numerical system for labeling purposes. I really don't know what you mean by "there would be things in nature that changed our mind about math if it were found in nature". I don't even know how you reached that premise.

 

Do you think animals are completely oblivious to differing values? Would a monkey see one snake guarding a tree full of fruit just as he'd see ten snakes guarding the tree? No, because objectively there is a value difference.

 

Now if I asked you "What happens when I drop this object?" you have to draw on knowledge of past physical observations to answer the question. Could nature show you something that contradicts your knowledge of objects falling? Yes, you could let go of the object and it could go up. This isn't likely based on our understanding of gravity, but it is still something you could see that could change your knowledge. There is literally nothing we could possibly see to convince us that 2+2=5, that a square has 6 sides, or that the dervative of 5x is not 5.

 

This is even more absurd. That's like saying, "There is nothing we could possibly see to convince us that a rhino can be a penguin, therefore animals are abstract." (And I also see that you're working off the presumption that anything physical is possible.) Yeah, the labels for the animals are abstract, but the animals themselves are quite concrete when it comes to their physical existence. The labels behind the numbers are abstract, but a rock plus a rock plus a rock plus a rock will always exist as that fixed value in the physical world, no matter if humans are around or not. It will never be a different value because nature says so.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

If the gaps were closed, it would be correct to call this a triangle: /\ Why would the pattern on a snake not be considered a triangle? There is a reason I used a pattern of colors found in nature as an example, as opposed to something like a slice of pizza which is triangular, but not a real triangle because it isn't two-dimensional.

 

Patterns on a snake are not two dimensional either.

 

Also a triangle needs to be made out of lines. The "triangle" you drew is made out of very small rectangles. You've never seen a true triangle.

 

 

This isn't a triangle. You've never seen a triangle. It is a representation of a triangle. A triangle is an abstract concept. Like I said you can apply the shape to things and call things triangular, but it isn't actually a triangle, and therefore it doesn't make sense to treat it like it is a physical object. No physical object will really fit the definition of a triangle.

 

Even if the concept was entirely created or governed by man, it doesn't change the fact that the thing we are trying to represent has been found and inspired by nature somewhere down the line. I don't see how changing the word helps when the same definition is being applied.

 

Who cares if it was inspired by anything? How impact whats important, the fact that we created the rules that the system plays by?

 

Your point is that only objects can exist. This is a somewhat fair point, but here's where things get tricky. Gravity is not a physical object, but can it exist without humans? How about magnetism? Sound? Life? Existence shouldn't just be limited to, "it is something I can touch, see, and hear".

 

Not something that I can touch, see, and hear. But something that can be detected. If something can't be detected then it doesn't exist.

 

Let's even take animals into account. Animals can acknowledge the thing that the word "hole" represents - they can even physically live in them. It's not like "holes" appear as "filled up portions of matter" to anything that is not human. What would a doughnut look like to an animal? There would still be a "hole" in it.

 

You're just using a play on words. "A hole doesn't exist because there is nothing there." Yeah, a hole is a hole, but the hole doesn't not exist. A hole "existing" simply means that a void in an object is present. If there is a void present, a hole exists in the physical realm.

 

Exactly...a void is present...but a void isn't an object, it is the lack of an object...

 

Then it's a fallacy to call them laws and it would be scientifically correct to change them all to theories.

 

It is not a fallacy, because scientists understand how laws work. Also, the word "theory" in science doesn't even mean "something we're unsure about" a theory is an explanatory model. For example, the theory of special relativity is not something that is still "up for debate" and trying to become a law. We are extremely certain about the theory of relativity, but its just that the thing is not something that is even capable of being a law, due to the way that the knowledge is used.

 

Laws state facts, theories state explanations. We could get the facts wrong, or get the explanations wrong. Neither is better than the other.

 

Another example, the "theory" of evolution is not called a "theory" because it is a proposition. It is called a theory because it is an explanatory model for how things come to exist, due to the law of natural selection.

 

Yes, I know, that was the point. This is still an epistemological assertion showing that physical impossibility is possible. You asserted that it was impossible to decipher impossibilities in our physical world. I kept throwing examples at you, until finally you realized there are things that literally are impossible (a living fossil, a coin to land on anything besides heads, tails, or sides), then your point was "only man made ideas can be impossible". Uhh, of course only things thought of with language can be impossible, we're using language. The concept of "impossible" is a man made idea in the first place, so of course it's going to be abstract one way or another!

 

I don't see how this changes things. A living breathing fossil is still a physical impossibility in our physical world, regardless of the fact that some of the words I just used in there are man made.

 

It's not got anything to do with words.....again...It's got to deal with the claim.

 

When you call something a "fossil" you're calling it dead. When you call something "living" you're calling it alive. What could we possibly look at and call it alive and dead at the same time?

 

Now let's change your question around. "Is it possible for a skeleton of a dinosaur to start moving?" I would say yes, it could be possible. Would I call this thing "living" or "dead"? I have no idea. But when you ask questions like "can a dead thing be alive?" I have to say its impossible because by using the term "dead" you are categorizing the thing into what you hold for the definition of "dead". If you're telling me that you know the thing is dead, how could you possibly ever think it was alive?

 

Look at my question again: "Is it possible for a skeleton of a dinosaur to start moving?" I did not classify this object into any abstract categories of what the object may or may not be able to do. Now, I did use the word "skeleton" but if we had a skeleton in front of us, I could point to it and ask "Is it possible for that thing to start moving?" I would say yes. Now if I ask the question "Could a dead thing be alive?" I would have to say no. It couldn't, because you're telling me that you know the thing is dead, and if we can call it dead I can't see how we could possibly ever call it "alive"?

 

 

 

If we were wrong about reality, it could follow that everything else we've seen and touched was not actually physical, and just projections from our brains. How can you acknowledge that our perception of reality might possibly be faulty, while simultaneously saying that possibly being wrong about reality is not the cold hard truth? How is that not a contradiction?

 

I was just saying your use of the phrase "cold hard truth" implied negative feeling. I don't think theres anything negative about the fact that we might not even be seeing reality. I think its a possibility, but it isn't worth persuing as a base to make other decisions off of.

 

And this is exactly why I brought up nomological possibility pages ago. We are ultimately making a universal assumption when we observe the physical world, therefore we cannot hold "absolute knowledge". However, when we are talking about the world we know of, and not in the world we don't know of, then things such as that rock really do exist, flying around the whole earth in one day really is impossible, and a fossil really can't breathe - assuming our reality is actual reality. This is absolute nomological knowledge, and this is what you and I try to work off of logically in our everyday lives. We don't take into account, "Well what if this oven is not real," when trying to bake a cake. We "know" that it is, and so we use it as it is.

 

So you're saying that you just want to treat scientific knowledge as absolute knowledge, just for convenience?

 

 

Isn't that basically the same thing? That the mere act of observing something has some sort of effect? You're right that I don't fully understand the subject, which is the reason why I brought it up and asked for the thoughts of someone who might be more knowledgeable in that field than I.

 

It isn't that the act of observing the thing has an effect, its that our tools of observing the thing have an effect.

 

Say we were miners, and we were looking for gold 500 years ago. We would slam our pickaxes into the ground and hope to unearth some precious ore. But, theres no way for us to know whats below the ground until we dig at it. So we swing our pickaxe at the ground and accidentally shatter a valuable ancient vase. This vase just experienced the "observer effect" (kind of...I mean, this is just an analogy). We wanted to see what was under the ground, but the only way for us to do that was to dig into the ground and disturb the way that things were sitting. Nowadays, we could use ultrasound to see what was below the ground before we ever broke the surface, and our destructive "observer effect" was reduced.

 

The same is true for quantum phenomena. It's not that the act of a human detecting it affects the particle. It's that the only methods we have for detecting the particle will affect the particle. It is entirely possible for us to invent some type of device that will not create an observer effect. It isn't human existence that affects the particle.

 

Patterns can exist, but holes cannot? A pattern isn't a physical object either.

 

Okay then it isn't a pattern, it is skin.

 

Of course the system is not "governed by nature"... well, in a way it was because we wouldn't be doing things a certain way if it weren't for nature's building blocks leading us there. It's still an abstract concept, but we didn't do anything completely 100% on our own accord without the help of nature or the physical world, because that's just not how cause and effect works. We need external stimuli in order to conceptualizing things, or else what would there be to conceptualize? If you can acknowledge that our abstract ideas were inspired by nature (found in nature), then I don't see what there is left to discuss on the whole abstract vs physical thing. This has been my point all along: They aren't as mutually exclusive as you're making them out to be. Something like a hole is both an abstract idea (now that we made it one), and a thing that can occur in nature (without man).

 

You just said the same thing again. I'm telling you yes, it was inspired by nature. But none of it is governed by nature. So what if it was inspired by nature? If the system doesn't have any rules that were created by nature then why does it matter?

 

A solo unit standing by itself on one side of a fence would be different from two of the same units standing next to each other on the other side of the fence, as you can see via physical observation. Now whatever we decide to label these values is a redundant point I thought we've already been over. But objectively, without man, there would still physically be a rock on this side and a rock and a rock on the other.

 

You've got this backwards. We don't have math because we saw that one bird is different than two. It is the opposite. We know that one bird is different than two because we have math.

 

It was based off nature because we saw there are differing values in the world around us, and thus felt the need to create a numerical system for labeling purposes. I really don't know what you mean by "there would be things in nature that changed our mind about math if it were found in nature". I don't even know how you reached that premise.

 

I reached that premise because if a part of our knowledge depends on something we did not create, then we may not know everything about it. There is no part of math that depends on something that we did not create. Is there any part of mathematical understanding that could ever be disproven by something that you see in the physical world? If there isn't, then math doesn't depend on the physical world and was therefore entirely created by us.

 

 

This is even more absurd. That's like saying, "There is nothing we could possibly see to convince us that a rhino can be a penguin, therefore animals are abstract." (And I also see that you're working off the presumption that anything physical is possible.)

 

I think this comparison just goes to even further demonstrate the effectiveness of the distinction between man-made and not man-made. We invented the system of classifying animals by name. If we call something a penguin, theres no possible way we would call it a rhino. Hopefully you are beginning to see the difference between questions that rely only on man-made classifications and questions that are about nature.

 

Again, you're losing the line between pure physical questions and questions that break down due to classification contradiction. If your question was "Could there be an animal that is half-rhino half-penguin?" Then I would say this question could be influenced by observations in the physical world. But the question the way you phrased it "Can a rhino be a penguin?" doesn't even require observation. By calling it "a rhino" you can't call it "a penguin". The fact that you don't even need to think about biology or anything to answer your question should send off a flag that the question is not physical. Now take a look at the other question "Could there be a half-rhino half-penguin?" We could investigate this question by looking at DNA, looking at animals, etc. There is nothing about this question that immediately excludes possibilities due to our classification.

 

Yeah, the labels for the animals are abstract, but the animals themselves are quite concrete when it comes to their physical existence. The labels behind the numbers are abstract, but a rock plus a rock plus a rock plus a rock will always exist as that fixed value in the physical world, no matter if humans are around or not.

 

A rock plus a rock is not math.

[Zierro]

Patterns on a snake are not two dimensional either.

 

A color scheme pattern, where you are only exposed to the outer layer, isn't two-dimensional?

 

This isn't a triangle. You've never seen a triangle. It is a representation of a triangle. A triangle is an abstract concept. Like I said you can apply the shape to things and call things triangular, but it isn't actually a triangle, and therefore it doesn't make sense to treat it like it is a physical object. No physical object will really fit the definition of a triangle.

 

I still don't see how the surface of something cannot have a triangle on it though. We can simply use color contrast to get around the "small rectangles" problem.

 

Who cares if it was inspired by anything? How impact whats important, the fact that we created the rules that the system plays by?

 

If it was inspired by something in nature, it has been found in nature. We can't conceptualize things out of the blue - we need some stimuli, physical stimuli, first. Now the concept "label" or "love" are truly abstract ideas in and out, but the concept behind something like a "hole" or a "lie" would still very much so exist without a human definition for them.

 

Not something that I can touch, see, and hear. But something that can be detected. If something can't be detected then it doesn't exist.

 

And what is your definition of "something that can be detected"? A hole cannot be detected? Animals acknowledge these on a daily basis - some even live in them.

 

Exactly...a void is present...but a void isn't an object, it is the lack of an object...

 

Yes, it is a lack of an object on an object, which has great relevance to the physical realm. A "hole" would exist without humans just as much as "rock" would exist without humans. We did not invent holes, we just invented the label.

 

It is not a fallacy, because scientists understand how laws work. Also, the word "theory" in science doesn't even mean "something we're unsure about" a theory is an explanatory model. For example, the theory of special relativity is not something that is still "up for debate" and trying to become a law. We are extremely certain about the theory of relativity, but its just that the thing is not something that is even capable of being a law, due to the way that the knowledge is used.

 

Laws state facts, theories state explanations. We could get the facts wrong, or get the explanations wrong. Neither is better than the other.

 

Another example, the "theory" of evolution is not called a "theory" because it is a proposition. It is called a theory because it is an explanatory model for how things come to exist, due to the law of natural selection.

 

What I'm getting from that is this: On a nomological level, they are "laws". On an absolute level, they are "theories". That would make much more sense.

 

It's not got anything to do with words.....again...It's got to deal with the claim.

 

When you call something a "fossil" you're calling it dead. When you call something "living" you're calling it alive. What could we possibly look at and call it alive and dead at the same time?

 

Now let's change your question around. "Is it possible for a skeleton of a dinosaur to start moving?" I would say yes, it could be possible. Would I call this thing "living" or "dead"? I have no idea. But when you ask questions like "can a dead thing be alive?" I have to say its impossible because by using the term "dead" you are categorizing the thing into what you hold for the definition of "dead". If you're telling me that you know the thing is dead, how could you possibly ever think it was alive?

 

Look at my question again: "Is it possible for a skeleton of a dinosaur to start moving?" I did not classify this object into any abstract categories of what the object may or may not be able to do. Now, I did use the word "skeleton" but if we had a skeleton in front of us, I could point to it and ask "Is it possible for that thing to start moving?" I would say yes. Now if I ask the question "Could a dead thing be alive?" I would have to say no. It couldn't, because you're telling me that you know the thing is dead, and if we can call it dead I can't see how we could possibly ever call it "alive"?

 

We weren't talking about the words. I know when I call something a fossil, I'm calling it dead. This is speaking about the abstract labels of the ideas though. Now, what about the concept behind these labels? An organism that can function biologically is not the same as an organism that expired, this is a truth in nature, not just in the man made realm. In other words, take the labels out and you will still reach the fact that the thing we call a "fossil" cannot do the thing we call "breathing".

 

I was just saying your use of the phrase "cold hard truth" implied negative feeling. I don't think theres anything negative about the fact that we might not even be seeing reality. I think its a possibility, but it isn't worth persuing as a base to make other decisions off of.

 

I don't see how you got any negativity out of that. "Cold hard truth" is just a fancy way of saying "absolute objective fact" not "fact that makes me feel uneasy about life". I also never said this should halt our pursuit of knowledge. In fact, I just mentioned that.

 

So you're saying that you just want to treat scientific knowledge as absolute knowledge, just for convenience?

 

I never said that. Read my point again. Nomological ("scientific" works too now that you put it that way) knowledge is what we should be working from, naturally. Absolute knowledge is essentially impossible to obtain because we can only gather information through our limited subjective perception. We don't know a world without us, so we're always making that one universal assumption and so there is always a little asterisk attached to the claim when you say something like "law" or "fact". In a different plane of existence, the laws we know of could be completely backwards and gravity could cause things to rise instead of fall.

 

It is entirely possible for us to invent some type of device that will not create an observer effect.

 

How...? Or are you still working off that base assumption that anything is possible?

 

You just said the same thing again. I'm telling you yes, it was inspired by nature. But none of it is governed by nature. So what if it was inspired by nature? If the system doesn't have any rules that were created by nature then why does it matter?

 

If we went back in time and were to label a "cow" a "dog" and a "dog" a "cow", there would be no problem. However, it is still physically impossible for the thing we call a "cow" to be the same thing we call a "dog". Nature dictates and governs this fact.

 

Either way, I think you missed my point about everything being abstract in one way or another. "Possibility" is an abstract concept, so it's quite redundant to say "only abstract concepts can be impossible".

 

You've got this backwards. We don't have math because we saw that one bird is different than two. It is the opposite. We know that one bird is different than two because we have math.

 

Where did math originate from? Do you think that some invisible sentient floating mass of energy existing in purgatory could conceptualize math on its own? Actually, that sounds pretty interesting. Would that floating energy be able to conceptualize anything aside from "I am"?

 

I reached that premise because if a part of our knowledge depends on something we did not create, then we may not know everything about it. There is no part of math that depends on something that we did not create. Is there any part of mathematical understanding that could ever be disproven by something that you see in the physical world? If there isn't, then math doesn't depend on the physical world and was therefore entirely created by us.

 

We might not know everything about it, but there are still some things that can be known. The thing that we call a "fossil" cannot be the thing we call a "living breathing creature".

 

I think this comparison just goes to even further demonstrate the effectiveness of the distinction between man-made and not man-made. We invented the system of classifying animals by name. If we call something a penguin, theres no possible way we would call it a rhino. Hopefully you are beginning to see the difference between questions that rely only on man-made classifications and questions that are about nature.

 

Again, you're losing the line between pure physical questions and questions that break down due to classification contradiction. If your question was "Could there be an animal that is half-rhino half-penguin?" Then I would say this question could be influenced by observations in the physical world. But the question the way you phrased it "Can a rhino be a penguin?" doesn't even require observation. By calling it "a rhino" you can't call it "a penguin". The fact that you don't even need to think about biology or anything to answer your question should send off a flag that the question is not physical. Now take a look at the other question "Could there be a half-rhino half-penguin?" We could investigate this question by looking at DNA, looking at animals, etc. There is nothing about this question that immediately excludes possibilities due to our classification.

 

Which goes right back to my point that the thing we call "rhino" is not the thing we call "penguin", whether man is around or not...

 

A rock plus a rock is not math.

 

Mathematics might be abstract, but the fact that the thing we represent when we say "one" will always be the same value is not decided by man.

[Myweponsg00d]

A color scheme pattern, where you are only exposed to the outer layer, isn't two-dimensional?

No. If it was truly 2 dimensional, you could not see it. It is a 3D object. All things you can see are three dimensional. There are no two dimensional objects in our space.

 

I still don't see how the surface of something cannot have a triangle on it though. We can simply use color contrast to get around the "small rectangles" problem.

 

What? Color contrast? How is that going to solve anything? You cannot see a line, a true line. All "lines" you see will have some thickness to them. This makes them not an actual line.

 

If it was inspired by something in nature, it has been found in nature. We can't conceptualize things out of the blue - we need some stimuli, physical stimuli, first. Now the concept "label" or "love" are truly abstract ideas in and out, but the concept behind something like a "hole" or a "lie" would still very much so exist without a human definition for them.

 

Again it was interpreted by us and abstracted by us, but none of that matters at all if the rules of that system don't actually depend on nature. Even if the "inspiration" for geometry was a perfectly formed circle floating in the sky, our entire system of mathematics doesn't DEPEND on that at all. The inspiration could have come from literally anywhere, and the source of this inspiration does not have any impact on what we determined to be the rules.

 

And what is your definition of "something that can be detected"? A hole cannot be detected? Animals acknowledge these on a daily basis - some even live in them.

 

No, I wouldn't say that a hole is an object that can be detected. I would say that you can detect shapes of objects, but I would not say "look, I found a hole!" Hell, there technically isn't a "hole" in an object anyway.

 

 

Heres a "hole". Now, this object technically isn't even missing anything...the object is one solid uninterrupted surface. The only reason we call it a "hole" is because we choose to interpret this brick wall as something that should be continuous in its lengthwise dimension. When we see a "hole", what we mean is that the object is lacking material in a place that the material is otherwise continuous. The object itself is still one entire solid object with a single surface. It just doesn't "look like it" to us. A hole is completely an interpretation, based on what we have decided objects "should" look like.

 

Yes, it is a lack of an object on an object, which has great relevance to the physical realm. A "hole" would exist without humans just as much as "rock" would exist without humans. We did not invent holes, we just invented the label.

 

See above.

 

 

What I'm getting from that is this: On a nomological level, they are "laws". On an absolute level, they are "theories". That would make much more sense.

 

If you want to completely misuse the word "theory" then sure.

 

But I assure you that no proper scientist uses the word "theory" the way you are thinking about it.

 

The distinction between "law" and "theory" makes perfect sense. Laws are what we believe to be facts. Theories are what we believe to be explanations. For example, gravity is a law. Our current knowledge suggests that the force of gravity should always exist between two objects that have mass (though, massless photons are also affected by it). This is a law, because it tells you what happens. The "theory" of gravitational attraction is what is currently being worked on, to tell us why gravity exists, or how it gets created.

 

Also, compare to biology. There is a law of natural selection that tells us that things that are stronger will stand a better chance of survival. There is a law of genetic variation, telling us that organisms will change over time. These are things that our current knowledge tells us will always happen with life as we know it. Then, we have the theory of evolution. This is a theory just because it explains the process of life coming about on Earth. It is not a theory because we are uncertain. It is a theory because it is an interpretation of factual information. Laws are what we believe to be facts, theories are what we believe to be explanations.

 

We weren't talking about the words. I know when I call something a fossil, I'm calling it dead. This is speaking about the abstract labels of the ideas though. Now, what about the concept behind these labels? An organism that can function biologically is not the same as an organism that expired, this is a truth in nature, not just in the man made realm. In other words, take the labels out and you will still reach the fact that the thing we call a "fossil" cannot do the thing we call "breathing".

 

I would not say this re-worded question is impossible. Your previous conjecture seemed to be similar to "Can a dead thing be living?" I would say it was impossible because there would be no way for us to call something dead and living at the same time...

 

If your question is "Can this pile of dinosaur bones start breathing?" I would say that it is not impossible, in the absolute sense. Again...how could we ever call it truly impossible? What is our knowledge from? We have arrived at the assumption that bones cannot breathe because we have looked at tons and tons of bones, and none of them were ever breathing. It is logical then, to submit that this stack of bones is nothing special and will probably not spring to life.

 

But, take a look at that knowledge again. You didn't get any sort of absolute knowledge. All you did was draw a rational conclusion based on observations and inductive reasoning. Return again to my example of a 6-sided cube sitting on a table. You see only 5 numbers, and can make a perfectly logical conclusion about what number was on the final side. But, if you never ever got to see what was on the final side, would you ever say "It is impossible for the last side to be anything but a 2!"?

 

I would hope you wouldn't say this, because it is entirely possible that the final side has a picture of a monkey on it, with no numbers what so ever. Us examining the physical world is not much different from this example. We never get to actually look behind the curtain and say "Hey bro, did I get this right??" We just have to draw as many logical conclusions as we can.

 

I don't see how you got any negativity out of that. "Cold hard truth" is just a fancy way of saying "absolute objective fact" not "fact that makes me feel uneasy about life". I also never said this should halt our pursuit of knowledge. In fact, I just mentioned that.

 

Yeah the only reason I actually touched on it is because I took it to mean "fact that makes me feel uneasy"

 

I never said that. Read my point again. Nomological ("scientific" works too now that you put it that way) knowledge is what we should be working from, naturally. Absolute knowledge is essentially impossible to obtain because we can only gather information through our limited subjective perception. We don't know a world without us, so we're always making that one universal assumption and so there is always a little asterisk attached to the claim when you say something like "law" or "fact". In a different plane of existence, the laws we know of could be completely backwards and gravity could cause things to rise instead of fall.

 

Okay, and? Does this affect whether we can call physical events absolutely impossible?

 

How...? Or are you still working off that base assumption that anything is possible?

 

If I knew how to create a quantum observation tool that does not de-quantize the phenomenon, I would be a nobel prize candidate. We just haven't reached this state of knowledge in our technology. I can't tell you how to eliminate the quantum observer effect because the tool hasn't been invented yet.

 

Return to my gold mining example. Do you think ancient miners hundreds of years ago could have ever imagined what kind of invention would let you see below the ground before you break the surface?

 

If we went back in time and were to label a "cow" a "dog" and a "dog" a "cow", there would be no problem. However, it is still physically impossible for the thing we call a "cow" to be the same thing we call a "dog". Nature dictates and governs this fact.

 

Either way, I think you missed my point about everything being abstract in one way or another. "Possibility" is an abstract concept, so it's quite redundant to say "only abstract concepts can be impossible".

 

This is an entirely valid point...but my interpretation of what you just said seems to help what I am saying. Theres no possibility or impossibility in nature. We made up that concept. The only things that can be impossible are other things we made up.

 

Where did math originate from? Do you think that some invisible sentient floating mass of energy existing in purgatory could conceptualize math on its own? Actually, that sounds pretty interesting. Would that floating energy be able to conceptualize anything aside from "I am"?

 

From what I have heard, the concept of "one" is thought to originate with the singular conciousness that you experience and reflect upon. Once man was able to recognize himself as "one", he started to see other "ones" in nature. To my understanding, this applies to all somewhat intelligent life.

 

We might not know everything about it, but there are still some things that can be known.

 

I completely disagree with this. The only thing science takes as a "known" is that the images that are being seen by us are reality. I wouldn't say that we have absolute knowledge that bones are dead, that gravity will always happen, that energy must be conserved, etc. Again, most of these are extremely extremely logical, predictable, and consistent conclusions. But even if we reach a conclusion that holds true for a billion years, the billionth-and-one year might shed completely new light on a subject. There's absolutely no telling what we might end up being wrong about, no matter how certain our current scientific understanding of the world is. We can never reach an absolutely certain scientific understanding.

 

Which goes right back to my point that the thing we call "rhino" is not the thing we call "penguin", whether man is around or not...

 

And your point is complete crap, because theres no similarity or difference between things unless we are there to decide it. Judging things by "are these the same?" is able to create impossibility because we decided they arent the same.

 

Hell, a rhino and a penguin are made up entirely of the same chemical compounds. Maybe they'd look the same to somebody else. And they are definitely both made up of protons, electons, and neutrons. Who gets to decide what is the same and what isn't if we aren't around? This decision would take intelligent arbitration, and is not a "natural" property of the things.

 

Mathematics might be abstract, but the fact that the thing we represent when we say "one" will always be the same value is not decided by man.

 

Show me what is meant by "one" then. Don't show me an example of "one". Show me what is the universal, undeniable, non-abstract meaning of "one".

[Dheginsea]

Damn these are deep posts! this is why I hate coming into a deep conversation late 'cause then I don't know where to begin. Anyways my personal beliefs on religion are that I don't believe in a god/creator, I always wonder why people choose the particular religion over another, I also wonder why out of all the religions in the world people think that the one they are is correct, and finally I don't agree with Pascal in Pascal's Wager.

 

There isn't much of a difference between atheists and Christians, Christians don't believe in any god except for Christ, only atheists take it one step further and don't believe in any gods.

 

 

^ just my views.

[Myweponsg00d]

Damn these are deep posts! this is why I hate coming into a deep conversation late 'cause then I don't know where to begin. Anyways my personal beliefs on religion are that I don't believe in a god/creator, I always wonder why people choose the particular religion over another, I also wonder why out of all the religions in the world people think that the one they are is correct, and finally I don't agree with Pascal in Pascal's Wager.

 

There isn't much of a difference between atheists and Christians, Christians don't believe in any god except for Christ, only atheists take it one step further and don't believe in any gods.

 

 

^ just my views.

 

To fill you in, the discussion I am having with CGF stemmed from me defending atheists who use the flying spagetti monster as a comparison to a god. CGF was thinking that atheists use this comparison to say that it is impossible for a god to exist, when in reality the actual use of the FSM is just saying that if we have no evidence for something then we don't have a reason to believe it. He said it would be impossible for there to be a FSM, and my defense is that we don't really know what is impossible about the physical world.

 

However, he also said that some atheists compare god to a 4-sided triangle. I said this is a faulty comparison because we know for certainty that a 4-sided triangle cannot exist, because a triangle is something that is a man-made concept and we have complete knowledge of how a triangle "works"

[fakeitormakeit2]

This seems more like a theology thread then a religion thread.

[Dheginsea]

 

 

 

To fill you in, the discussion I am having with CGF stemmed from me defending atheists who use the flying spagetti monster as a comparison to a god. CGF was thinking that atheists use this comparison to say that it is impossible for a god to exist, when in reality the actual use of the FSM is just saying that if we have no evidence for something then we don't have a reason to believe it. He said it would be impossible for there to be a FSM, and my defense is that we don't really know what is impossible about the physical world.

 

However, he also said that some atheists compare god to a 4-sided triangle. I said this is a faulty comparison because we know for certainty that a 4-sided triangle cannot exist, because a triangle is something that is a man-made concept and we have complete knowledge of how a triangle "works"

 

I'll talk about the second thing you said, I completely agree. At first it seems like an okay comparison but if you think about it it implies some things that are not acceptable.

 

 

Now this is directed at CGF (might have already been asked) what make it so the FSM can't exist and other gods could?

[obfuscator]

I don't know much about the supposed "teachings" of FSM but I don't think CGF is saying that FSM can't exist.

[Myweponsg00d]

I don't know much about the supposed "teachings" of FSM but I don't think CGF is saying that FSM can't exist.

 

That was pretty much his original point:

 

Watch this video for more discussion about "belief" that atheists have:

 

Which is entirely fine, but how many atheists actually leave it at a lack of belief? How many go around asserting that "God = Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, invisible lizardmen running the Illuminati, four-sided triangles, etc." (hint: "I declare god fictional")? Please, I see just as many passionate atheists reciprocating religious people's unfounded claims with more unfounded claims. Did I mention I love it when an atheist argues in intricate detail how modest their belief is?

 

The argument isn't "Heres a fictional character, I'll equate God to the FSM because I declare they both do not exist."

 

The argument is that we have just as much evidence for a god as we do a FSM. It isn't saying that "the FSM is impossible and god is also impossible".

[obfuscator]

Well, then we get into the historical accuracy of the bible, which is an interesting enough topic in itself.