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.
All of our experiences in life tell us we are living in a solid world with solid substances. For ALL practical purposes at the macro level of experience it might as well be true. The effects are indistinguishable. That is our natural preference. It takes a tremendous amount of knowledge and abstract understanding to realize that fundamentally there is no solid anything.
All of our experiences in life tell us we are living in a solid world with solid substances. For ALL practical purposes at the macro level of experience it might as well be true. The effects are indistinguishable. That is our natural preference. It takes a tremendous amount of knowledge and abstract understanding to realize that fundamentally there is no solid anything.
This is exactly what I was talking about, then.
I was saying EVERY inference in physical science is made from the natural preference. The only reason we infer particles and energy existing is because the comprehension of our natural preference required it. there is no basis to talk about some "greater property" when it isn't logically-warranted that it must exist in some way. before we talked about the "field", we talked about the atomic level and manifestations from IT.
we ONLY moved on because the atomic level doesn't account for all its functions on its own. thus came matter and energy.
the accountability of matter and energy led to the inference of conservation.
NATURAL PREFERENCE led to this point. NATURAL PREFERENCE is all we have. the micro inference always leads to the macro inference. But we only reach it through our natural preference, since, we don't infer anything exists without it.
your perspective is logically invalid since it actually is stuck at sollipsism. We progress THROUGH natural preference.
I see a form. I wonder what that form is made of. Me seeing a form is my natural preference talking.
Our idea of what a form is is our natural preference, yes. But, nonetheless, it's still a substance of some type. That's why it is more intuitive to suppose the field IS the manifestation of M/E, not the other way around. WHAT is manifesting, if the other way around?
If you conclude something is different from how it is based on your natural preference, you are concluding something UNFALSIFIABLE.
You're thinking in misnomers.
I was saying EVERY inference in physical science is made from the natural preference. The only reason we infer particles and energy existing is because the comprehension of our natural preference required it. there is no basis to talk about some "greater property" when it isn't logically-warranted that it must exist in some way. before we talked about the "field", we talked about the atomic level and manifestations from IT.
we ONLY moved on because the atomic level doesn't account for all its functions on its own. thus came matter and energy.
the accountability of matter and energy led to the inference of conservation.
NATURAL PREFERENCE led to this point. NATURAL PREFERENCE is all we have. the micro inference always leads to the macro inference. But we only reach it through our natural preference, since, we don't infer anything exists without it.
your perspective is logically invalid since it actually is stuck at sollipsism. We progress THROUGH natural preference.
I see a form. I wonder what that form is made of. Me seeing a form is my natural preference talking.
Our idea of what a form is is our natural preference, yes. But, nonetheless, it's still a substance of some type. That's why it is more intuitive to suppose the field IS the manifestation of M/E, not the other way around. WHAT is manifesting, if the other way around?
If you conclude something is different from how it is based on your natural preference, you are concluding something UNFALSIFIABLE.
You're thinking in misnomers.
I was saying EVERY inference in physical science is made from the natural preference. The only reason we infer particles and energy existing is because the comprehension of our natural preference required it. there is no basis to talk about some "greater property" when it isn't logically-warranted that it must exist in some way. before we talked about the "field", we talked about the atomic level and manifestations from IT.
we ONLY moved on because the atomic level doesn't account for all its functions on its own. thus came matter and energy.
the accountability of matter and energy led to the inference of conservation.
NATURAL PREFERENCE led to this point. NATURAL PREFERENCE is all we have. the micro inference always leads to the macro inference. But we only reach it through our natural preference, since, we don't infer anything exists without it.
your perspective is logically invalid since it actually is stuck at sollipsism. We progress THROUGH natural preference.
I see a form. I wonder what that form is made of. Me seeing a form is my natural preference talking.
Our idea of what a form is is our natural preference, yes. But, nonetheless, it's still a substance of some type. That's why it is more intuitive to suppose the field IS the manifestation of M/E, not the other way around. WHAT is manifesting, if the other way around?
If you conclude something is different from how it is based on your natural preference, you are concluding something UNFALSIFIABLE.
You're thinking in misnomers.
Unfalsifiable at the physical level . . . not the field level. Yes everyting we sense and measure is of "substance" TO OUR CONSCIOUSNESS. But our consciousness itself is NOT substance . . . it is field . . . as is our reality. If you want to bring back the ether you would not be alone . . . but the early collider evidence suggests it is a "perfect fluid" (in our "substance" oriented perspective). A consciousness field is the more logical conclusion, IMO.
Your posts clearly reveal that you had a different agenda.
Yeah, obviously the only reason I'd disagree with your claims of a universal god consciousness made of dark energy which came to you in a dream is because I have an "agenda". What other possible objection could there be?
Don't you know? Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says momentum is energy timespace propagation, i.e. pure energy that creates mind fields through aggregate traffic jam wibble wobble flimdock events.
If you don't agree then you're IGNORANT of PHILOSOPHY.
Don't you know? Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says momentum is energy timespace propagation, i.e. pure energy that creates mind fields through aggregate traffic jam wibble wobble flimdock events.
::Sigh:: Why squander your credibility in ridicule and misrepresentation, Morbert . . . like KC and monumentus? Time is the only thing experienced that is isomorphic with our conscious perceptions . . . everything else is interpreted and formed by conditioned associations. To a newborn infant the concept of "I" is all that exists. It must learn to distinguish itself from things external to it through those learned associations. That learning is Gestalt and unchangeable. It is the major stumbling block to understanding our reality at the fundamental level.
Quote:
If you don't agree then you're IGNORANT of PHILOSOPHY.
I apologize for lumping you in with my usual critics, Morbert. I am sure you are more than capable of engaging the philosophical issues . . . IF you actually make the effort. Unfortunately, you came here with preconceptions formed before any discussions with me. My own knee-jerk reactions here have been preformed by the utter lack of intellectual integrity and close-mindedness my views have faced. You know more than enough to know that we are talking about things that extend beyond the settled science . . . but that are alternative interpretations of that science for different purposes . . . application versus philosophical understanding.
The confusion at this point for myself.... rests in a possible assumption in the solidity of mans complete understanding, of the timespace understandings thus far.
It seems to me that there are issue's revealed in the unification re relativity-quantum behaviors which forward serious issues which get in the way of above possible assumptions which have everything to do with consciousness , feild and available certainty for a theory which can have credibility.
If there is credibility then it would be helpful in solving these issues I would think in a self-explanatory way. It seems the theory rests in mathematical ability's at calculus levels yet to be within man's grasp.
Is this a fair and reasonable leap? To my thinking it does not seem so. It seems to assume that spacetime is without an unknown relative dimension of, yet further webbed intricacies of relative spacetime. If it is a digital world relative to our perception, how could the digital nature of this happening not also comprise a multiplication of alternate relative digital realities allowing for the one digital world which happens to be our perception of it all. And then again offer a possible ultimate, analog reality in wholeness.
So the number 1, may be the only mathematical abstract thought which is a reality, but only relative to our 1 digital perspective. The oncoming abstractions representing a truth yes, but only relative to the composition of the whole and thus workable by the engineers who prove our science, but limited as we uncover things at levels reached outside of our participation. The approach seems to determine something finished, which is scientifically unfinished as well confused for it, at the heart of the theory. I'm not being critical, simply curious if there are answers which address these issues within the idea that would allow progress in solving unknowns. Additional true knowledge should open a door somewhere on its own.
So it seems to me that the missing placebo unit in Newtons formula (I think its the higgs thing) is not something which is internal to our specific understandings , but something which allows our specific setting within the unknown reality of the universe itself. Not a God figure, the universe.
Don't you know? Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says momentum is energy timespace propagation, i.e. pure energy that creates mind fields through aggregate traffic jam wibble wobble flimdock events.
If you don't agree then you're IGNORANT of PHILOSOPHY.
I stand corrected. Actually, I'm sitting - "stand corrected" is just an analogy because you simpletons can't grasp the enormity of my intellectual end educational background.
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.
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.
