Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-29-2015, 08:15 AM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,483,918 times
Reputation: 2070

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne View Post
Mystic, speaking as a friend, I really wish you would take some time to reflect about all this, otherwise this conversation you are having with your 'critics' is simply never going to end. It will go on and on like the side of a mobius strip.
Many of us have tried to explain it to you - some patiently and some not so kindly I grant you.

The conversation I believe may have started here:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/philo...bration-c.html
In which you did indeed make a mistake by taking a physics equation - not any old physics equation, but the most well known physics equation in the world, and use it to try to illustrate one of your analogies.
You did indeed say that Energy is Mass "accelerated" (frequency of vibration) to C^2. It's right there in the title of your thread. The very first response back then pointed to the error here. If you had then attempted to make some sort of correction, perhaps this might have ended much sooner. But even now, you doggedly refuse to admit you made a mistake and that 'what you said shouldn't be taken literally, it's just an analogy for something else'.

Then you get upset when people tell you if you could just get the physics right first, then we can talk.
If the physics is not right, it's a non-starter. I don't understand why you don't get this.

The ONLY people who are even slightly, going to go with you on this are people who don't understand physics! and therefore it follows, don't really understand the analogy either. Do you see? In which case lets just dispense with the physics and discuss the philosophy.

This is never, ever going to work Mystic. It's beyond me why you don't see it.
You are a highly intelligent person obviously, but this analogy as well as others you have tried - do . not . work!

ditto mystic ... no malice guy.

thanks for saying better than me.
I wish I had writting skill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-29-2015, 08:36 AM
 
93 posts, read 77,110 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I was not using the SEP article as a reference.
Dude, you absolutely were. I recognised it almost instantly. Two examples are below. The text from your post is in red, the text from the article is in blue.

Unfortunately, these symbols are not used univocally by physicists and philosophers. Nevertheless a relatively unequivocal understanding is that E represents the total energy of a physical system.

Unfortunately, these symbols are not used univocally by physicists and philosophers. However, a common interpretation, which we shall adopt for now, is that E represents the total energy of a physical system S.

-

The three main philosophical questions concerning the interpretation of E = mc^2 are:

1. What is mass-energy equivalence and are mass and energy the same property of physical systems?;
2. Are we dealing with conversion or transformation of mass into energy in some physical interactions?;
3. Are there any ontological consequences of Einstein's equation? If so what?


There are three main philosophical questions concerning the interpretation of E = mc2 that have occupied philosophers and physicists:

1 Are mass and energy the same property of physical systems and is that what is meant by asserting that they are “equivalent”
2
Is mass “converted” into energy in some physical interactions, and if so, what is the relevant sense of “conversion”?
3 Does E = mc2 have any ontological consequences, and if so, what are they?


You just changed some words.

Quote:
OF COURSE IT IS NOT!!! . . . you are trying my patience by taking my analogies <snip>
I was going to continue to drive home why your excuse was nonsense, but after seeing the other replies to your post, I am now confident others are aware of the mistakes you were making, and know to take anything you say about physics with a grain of salt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 09:17 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,507,234 times
Reputation: 5927
Morbert...great posts but Red is exclusively for mods use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 09:24 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,507,234 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
ditto mystic ... no malice guy.

thanks for saying better than me.
I wish I had writting skill.
You do ok.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
no malice in that post arg.

I heard it all before. "we have the real truth they don't". "We are better at ... bla bla bla." " we are "freed/saved" because we believe "this" "that", and "the other". I look far left and I look far right and when I close my eyes they sound like the same pack of branch shaking chimps pooping all over their stuff.

And when the war starts the first casualty is the truth. The second casualty are the innocent warriors that have to kill other good warriors because they are left no choice. And the winning soldier gets to gloat over the meaningless blood shed of a make believe enemy (the truth), patton style. The "winning" warrior walks away ashamed at some of the real things he had to do.

this is right and your take is wrong. It has nothing to do with god because there is none. Its has to do with wanting to "dominate" "real" people that don't think like us and maybe can't..
It's unfortunate that you look left and see the claims of evidence and reason and right and see the claims of religion and superstition and say ' a poop on both their houses - they are both as bad as the other'.

Your choice, you are hurting nobody but yourself.

I am merely explaining ...what...let's check...ah, a comment on we are not mad (that is angry at God) but we are here a lot. The implication is that we have got a bee in our bonnet as to why we spend so much time doing this.

I am explaining why we need to do it, I am explaining that we can be confident that we are right in what we say. I can also say that we seem to be getting some results back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 12:05 PM
 
93 posts, read 77,110 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Morbert...great posts but Red is exclusively for mods use.
Oops. I wasn't aware of that. Unfortunately I don't think I can edit the post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 12:18 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,507,234 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert View Post
Oops. I wasn't aware of that. Unfortunately I don't think I can edit the post.
Don't worry, Mensa our Mod is not a jealous Mod. And your sofy answer will turn away a whole flock of wrath.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 01:32 PM
 
63,461 posts, read 39,726,177 times
Reputation: 7792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne View Post
Mystic, speaking as a friend, I really wish you would take some time to reflect about all this, otherwise this conversation you are having with your 'critics' is simply never going to end. It will go on and on like the side of a mobius strip.
Many of us have tried to explain it to you - some patiently and some not so kindly I grant you.
The conversation I believe may have started here:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/philo...bration-c.html
In which you did indeed make a mistake by taking a physics equation - not any old physics equation, but the most well known physics equation in the world, and use it to try to illustrate one of your analogies.
You did indeed say that Energy is Mass "accelerated" (frequency of vibration) to C^2. It's right there in the title of your thread. The very first response back then pointed to the error here. If you had then attempted to make some sort of correction, perhaps this might have ended much sooner. But even now, you doggedly refuse to admit you made a mistake and that 'what you said shouldn't be taken literally, it's just an analogy for something else'.
Then you get upset when people tell you if you could just get the physics right first, then we can talk.
If the physics is not right, it's a non-starter. I don't understand why you don't get this.
The ONLY people who are even slightly, going to go with you on this are people who don't understand physics! and therefore it follows, don't really understand the analogy either. Do you see? In which case lets just dispense with the physics and discuss the philosophy.
This is never, ever going to work Mystic. It's beyond me why you don't see it.
You are a highly intelligent person obviously, but this analogy as well as others you have tried - do . not . work!
Thanks, Curithne. I value your friendship. I realize that my perspective is not typical and I have failed miserably to explain it . . . or my use of analogy. I will try yet again (using more analogies) to explain what I was analogizing (it was NOT the physics). I see physics and its mathematics like a very complex camera taking pictures of our reality. The processes and mechanisms of how the "physics camera" works are very important and useful to physicists. But to ME . . . the "pictures"(formulations) it produces are what reveal the ontology of our reality. You and my other critics here are arguing about how the "physics camera" works and what its mechanisms and processes really ARE. Most people would not need to know that to appreciate the "pictures" it takes.

I am concerned with the "pictures" the "physics camera" has already produced and what they can tell us about reality. My analogies are targeted at explaining what the "pictures" reveal to me . . . NOT how the "physics camera" works or what the processes actually ARE, etc. I am losing faith that I can ever communicate my perspective or what I was analogizing adequately. You may in fact be right. It may be a lost cause. Still . . . I am not that disappointed because my Synthesis was an off-the-cuff explanation of the reasons for my beliefs to a very persistent friend.

My Synthesis is NOT remotely targeted at teaching physics (few people care about that) . . . but at explaining what the physics says to me about the structure of reality in ways that are accessible to a lay audience . . . and why I think so. Ontology is not a widespread concern of most people . . . nor is trying to discern it from physics. My analogies are targeted to achieve that goal . . . NOT teaching physics. It does seem to satisfy my tenacious friend (and some others) . . . so I am satisfied with that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Sitting beside Walden Pond
4,612 posts, read 4,873,164 times
Reputation: 1408
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I am losing faith that I can ever communicate my perspective or what I was analogizing adequately. You may in fact be right. It may be a lost cause.
So I guess that means it is time to move on to a new topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2015, 11:15 PM
 
63,461 posts, read 39,726,177 times
Reputation: 7792
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Thanks, Curithne. I value your friendship. I realize that my perspective is not typical and I have failed miserably to explain it . . . or my use of analogy. I will try yet again (using more analogies) to explain what I was analogizing (it was NOT the physics). I see physics and its mathematics like a very complex camera taking pictures of our reality. The processes and mechanisms of how the "physics camera" works are very important and useful to physicists. But to ME . . . the "pictures"(formulations) it produces are what reveal the ontology of our reality. You and my other critics here are arguing about how the "physics camera" works and what its mechanisms and processes really ARE. Most people would not need to know that to appreciate the "pictures" it takes.

I am concerned with the "pictures" the "physics camera" has already produced and what they can tell us about reality. My analogies are targeted at explaining what the "pictures" reveal to me . . . NOT how the "physics camera" works or what the processes actually ARE, etc. I am losing faith that I can ever communicate my perspective or what I was analogizing adequately. You may in fact be right. It may be a lost cause. Still . . . I am not that disappointed because my Synthesis was an off-the-cuff explanation of the reasons for my beliefs to a very persistent friend.

My Synthesis is NOT remotely targeted at teaching physics (few people care about that) . . . but at explaining what the physics says to me about the structure of reality in ways that are accessible to a lay audience . . . and why I think so. Ontology is not a widespread concern of most people . . . nor is trying to discern it from physics. My analogies are targeted to achieve that goal . . . NOT teaching physics. It does seem to satisfy my tenacious friend (and some others) . . . so I am satisfied with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45 View Post
So I guess that means it is time to move on to a new topic.
If you wish. Most of my critics lack intellectual integrity and seek only to denigrate me. They are quite willing to lie and misrepresent my prior posts, my knowledge, my understanding, and then inflate their unsubstantiated criticisms with deceit. It is quite tiresome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2015, 02:17 AM
 
3,636 posts, read 3,410,527 times
Reputation: 4324
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Thanks, Curithne. I value your friendship. I realize that my perspective is not typical and I have failed miserably to explain it . . . or my use of analogy
Part of that failure comes from your refusal to use analogy correctly.

The whole purpose and function of analogy is to explain X by reference to something Y that is true, established, and understood by the target. That is - the target is to render a complex entity more understandable to the target by rendering it terms the target already understands.

You do the _opposite_ of this. You make analogy to something not true or established - and is in fact a nonsense (such as energy being matter vibrating a lot - and is less understandable and accessible by the target.

In other words rather than use analogy to render something understandable - you contrive quite deliverately to use it to bamboozle even further in a Deepak Chopra way of attempting to be less understood in the hopes people will consider your points complex and true.

As another user pointed out in the thread already - those that understand the science see what you are doing as nonsense - it is those that do not understand science that are going to be bamboozled - not assisted - by your obfuscation and nonsense science "analogies". And like Chopra I believe this to be your target - to be happily misunderstood by people who would not buy what you are saying if they did understand it - just like those of us on the thread who do understand it do not.

More to the point - where actual science does not get you where you want to go - you bridge the gaps by nonsense science which you explain away as "analogy". You do not use analogy to explain the points you want to make - but to leap over the holes in the points you want to make. And that is NOT what analogy is for.

Analogy is to explain evidence and arguments - not to bridge over a lack of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top