Philosophy Discussion Forums

Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 10:16 am

By the way, in what country do these people come from that use the phrase "scare-quotes"?

Type the term "scare quotes" into Google.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 10:54 am

RJG wrote:And unfortunately, it appears to me, that there is way too much "clinging to Science" in these "Philosophy" forum discussions, while "closing eyes to Simple Logic (and Math)".

This is a "philosophy" forum, not a "science" forum. If you want to "preach science", go to a science forum. If you want to "preach religion", go to a religion forum.

In your view:

Where do you go if you want to make assertions, which turn out to be false, as to what "science" says in order to claim that it defies logic?
What should others do if they see somebody apparently "clinging" to those false assertions?
If the person making those assertions refuses to back them with evidence when challenged, but just repeats them, underlined, would you describe that as "preaching" the false assertions?

Reference.
viewtopic.php?p=345615#p345615
viewtopic.php?p=345638#p345638
viewtopic.php?p=345641#p345641
viewtopic.php?p=345897#p345897

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 10:55 am

creation wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 10:34 am

I think you might find that the answer is a little bit different to this.

Nothing like saying something like that and then being coy about it.

creation wrote:I wish people would people would challenge me

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 10:55 am

RJG wrote: ↑January 14th, 2020, 5:01 pm

Firstly, this is NOT the "same" logic. If you wish to use the "same" logic, then you gotta re-write your syllogism to match the terms accordingly:

• "3D Object" = "Egg"
  "Motion" = "Laid/laying"
  "4th Dimension" = "Chicken"
  "Time" = "Hen"

Secondly, and even if you make the structural corrections, your Premise 1 is still false (e.g. turtles can lay eggs too), which invalidates your argument (making it unsound).

We could replace 'egg' with 'chicken egg' to correct that premise, but my point certainly wasn't to try to prove something here but to illustrate my take on the arguments. Maybe it was a lame attempt at humor. But notions such as time, space, motion, change, dimensions, etc. are all intertwined - they aren't parts of an object that you can take apart and put back together, so I don't think it's very meaningful to talk about 'Time' this way - it's not like gas that you put in a car to enable it to move, or an ingredient you add to make a cake, so it just seems a little odd to put truth values on these conclusions, and in this way it reminded me of the question of whether the chicken or the egg came first.

In any case, taking a step back - I think it is interesting in these discussions to see the different ways we all have of conceptualizing time and space, yet which are both such fundamental and universal concepts that we normally don't have any trouble with in our daily lives - so why such disagreement when we try to describe them abstractly?

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 10:55 am We can communicate information about time and space back and forth so easily and with so little confusion - I can make statements such as 'he was born in 1960'; 'I will pick you up at 7 AM'; 'it takes a half hour to get to the airport' or 'the plane leaves New York at noon for a six-hour flight and arrives in Los Angeles at 3 PM local time', etc. And while any of these might be empirically true or false, there likely would be no confusion about what any of these mean.

So then then why an argument about what Time 'is' if it's something we use so effortlessly?

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 10:55 am My sense is that we have different underlying assumptions and unspoken understandings about the nature of our fundamental existence which have implications for how we explain our inner experiences. I think that perhaps when we try to explain the concepts abstractly without first laying out the foundations we place underneath them, we're talking past each other because we're not speaking from a shared point of understanding.

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 10:55 am For example, it seems to me after following various posts here (and any of you please correct me if I'm mistaken or word this poorly), that, for some, C1 is true and C2 is false because they're approaching time and space as the foundation, the 'pre-existing' or fundamental reality, within which events such as motion take place, which we then observe. But for others, C2 is true and C1 is false because that fundamental component is the observation we make (e.g. of an object in motion), and the ideas of time and space are 'subsequently' created by the mind to describe that observation once it has been made. So again, this seems to me to be a 'chicken and egg' difference because I don't think the two can ever be separated. But our different angles in looking at the universe and our experience in it can be manifested as thinking one way or the other. Does this make sense to anyone?

Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 11:45 am

creation wrote:I wish people would people would challenge me

Creation, from the outset I was happy to discuss these things with you and, as far as I recall, I have never simply told you: "you are wrong". Don't conflate the words of all other posters with each other and simply refer to what "you and others" have said. Like some other people here (but not all) I initially tried to engage you in constructive conversation. Like some others, I had to give up, several times.

If you want the wish that you expressed above to come true then I think you have to look back at your posts. Reflect. Ask yourself why so many people seem to back away from you. If you simply conclude that the rest of the world is unreasonable, can't handle the truth, has been corrupted by education, or whatever, then I don't think you will have learned anything about yourself or them.

By the way, of all your recent posts, I think your reply here:

viewtopic.php?p=345949#p345949

was the most constructive and the least confrontational.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 11:45 amBut when, in all probability, I am just going to be faced with a wall of berating (and, despite your claim, it is berating), with various speculations about my personal character, I am put off answering your more reasonable posts.

creation wrote:Like I have said before, you have never really wanted to converse about any actual point I am making...

creation wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 10:28 am What happens if I "launch" a photon out into space in the exact same direction of the journey?

Except for the rumbling of the rocket, and when I look out the window.

How is the photon traveling in my reference frame, when I am travelling at 80% the speed of the photon, and we are also going in different directions?

And, what has launching the photon on the ground have some bearing on it would travel in the same way? The same way to what exactly?

Where was the photon launched if it is not on the ground the first time?

Also, when you say " 'from' the photon to travel ..." do you mean " 'for' the photon to travel ..."?

a) What is the time my trip takes?

b) How is that time my trip takes, in accordance to my clocks in the rocket?

c) And how much older am I when I arrive on the planet?

Are you saying I travel 3 years when I arrive at the planet and I am 3 years older? Or, what?

Why 'MUST' my brother take into account that the rocket has arrived at the planet?

If I was my brother on earth and I measure the trip then the rocket would be 80% of 3 light years away with 2 more years to travel. But I am not on the earth because you said I am in the rocket, and from my calculations I am 80% of 3 light years away from earth, with 2 more years to go to my destination. If and when I put myself in my brother's perspective (or reference frame, or reference point) on earth also, I still observe that the rocket is 80% of 3 light years away from earth, with 2 more years to destination.

When I reach destination, and if I and my brother have powerful enough telescopes, then I and my brother could also verify how long the trip actually took.

That is when I land and look back at earth it would look like I only just left a few seconds ago, and to my brother he would have to wait another 5 more years (or 10 years from when I left) to see me land on the planet. But as I say, I do observe and see things differently than most people do.

What I really cannot understand here is HOW could I, in the rocket, have traveled further than light could have in the exact same time? But this will all depend on how long you say my trip took.

When this is explained to me logically and reasonably, then I will start seeing and understanding, hopefully, what it is that you and others observe and see here.

If the only "logically possible conclusion", to you, is if he trip has taken a much 'longer' time measured with a clock in the reference from of the earth, in this case 5 years, then is the '5 years' the longer time, or the measured with a clock in earth's frame of reference time?

If the 5 years is the longer time, then what is the earth's measured time? Or, if the earth's measured time is the 5 years, then what is the longer time?

What does my clock read?

But how many of these so and so many seconds are there in one of those 'years' that you are referring to here?

But if I was to provide a examples or a thought experiment not to much different to the above, then would anyone like to question, (and/or challenge), me on what I write, like I have just here?

RJG wrote:It appears to me, that there is way too much "clinging to Science" in these "Philosophy" forum discussions, while "closing eyes to Simple Logic.

Steve3007 wrote:What should others do if they see somebody apparently "clinging" to those false assertions?

Steve3007 wrote:If the person making those assertions refuses to back them with evidence when challenged, but just repeats them, underlined, would you describe that as "preaching" the false assertions?

creation wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 11:33 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 10:55 am

Nothing like saying something like that and then being coy about it.

But I was being coy from the beginning. Otherwise I would have just given my answer from then.

I am just testing to see what it actually takes, and works, to awaken the curiosity that was within ALL of you as children, and which will evoke someone to start really questioning me from a Truly OPEN perspective.

Nothing so far has worked.

RJG wrote:Yes. This includes those that respond (when challenged) by saying "we must respect Science"

or respond with snide condescending remarks,

while closing their eyes to the logic that contradicts their Science/Religion.

An example: Some here claim that "without motion there can be no time".

I presented logical proof that this is "backwards", and further stated that if this is a truth of Science, then Science is WRONG.

But instead of admitting this truth, those that "cling to their science" attack/besmirch me, instead of attacking the logic that proves Science's error.

gain, we can't get to the truth of matters if we can't let go of the "clinging" (i.e. the automatic defending of indoctrinated beliefs).

RJG wrote:(They already know who they are)

RJG wrote:If you look closely at what I said, then you will see that I was basically agreeing with your post.