Okay, I wasn't sure what you meant by "apply". So this seems like a dualism presupposition because you require a mental and physical, but that's okay because you are talking to a dualist, me.
Now that we have taken dualism as an assumption, we can continue.
I agree that imagined things are not of the same "quality" as the physical. So I agree with you here. I just don't know why a mental construction can't predict a physical construction the same way we predict everything else with our imagination.
What is the problem?
Pure ignorance.
'Applying imaginary qualities to real entities' describes a sizable fraction of all technological advance - including, ironically, the invention and design of many of the components untermensche is using to broadcast his abject ignorance around the planet.
But once someone is determined not to know about things that make them feel uncomfortable, you have no chance of ever getting through to them. So I advise you to give up on this hopeless case.
Pure ignorance.
'Applying imaginary qualities to real entities' describes a sizable fraction of all technological advance - including, ironically, the invention and design of many of the components untermensche is using to broadcast his abject ignorance around the planet.
But once someone is determined not to know about things that make them feel uncomfortable, you have no chance of ever getting through to them. So I advise you to give up on this hopeless case.
I like the shift from "logic" and "reason" to "evidence".
Dem goalposts...
I like the shift from "logic" and "reason" to "evidence".
Dem goalposts...
So if somebody claimed their god was a real entity you would not want evidence? You would take their word?
You have very strange standards for accepting claims of reality.
I have consistent standards. I am capable of claiming rationality in this.
So if somebody claimed their god was a real entity you would not want evidence? You would take their word?
You have very strange standards for accepting claims of reality.
I have consistent standards. I am capable of claiming rationality in this.
Amazing. You really don't see it, do you?
I can observe the lack of something and note where there is nothing. How many apples are on the table? There was one, but someone ate it, so now there is none. Zero ... to be exact. That's how many are now there.It is a mathematical concept and exists by definition. Like zero. You can't observe zero either.
I can observe the lack of something and note where there is nothing. How many apples are on the table? There was one, but someone ate it, so now there is none. Zero ... to be exact. That's how many are now there.It is a mathematical concept and exists by definition. Like zero. You can't observe zero either.
That's not to say something is there. It's to deny that there is.
Amazing. You really don't see it, do you?
Why even bother to post such crap!
I see clearly.
Infinity is an imaginary made up concept about an unending series.
To see it as anything real is insanity.
You do realize that what you're claiming will have solved a major open cosmological problem that physicists are still considering, right?
I can observe the lack of something and note where there is nothing. How many apples are on the table? There was one, but someone ate it, so now there is none. Zero ... to be exact. That's how many are now there.
That's not to say something is there. It's to deny that there is.
You cannot observe the lack of something.
You can only observe something.
You can infer the lack of something. Imagine it.
Not observe it.
You cannot observe the lack of something.
You can only observe something.
You can infer the lack of something. Imagine it.
Not observe it.
But I'm observing THAT there is nothing there. No inference.
You do realize that what you're claiming will have solved a major open cosmological problem that physicists are still considering, right?
That is your characterization of what I am doing.
I am discussing the nature of claims that a thing is real.
Those kinds of claims require evidence.
Not appeals to authority.
That is your characterization of what I am doing.
I am discussing the nature of claims that a thing is real.
Those kinds of claims require evidence.
Not appeals to authority.
Your posts are all still here. Anyone can see what you, and everyone else, has been saying.
"Appeal to authority" is only a problem when the authority isn't a recognized knowledgeable expert in the topic. These are cosmologists and physicists at prestigious institutions whose entire careers are focused on answering these kinds of questions. Their professional, peer-reviewed papers and pre-prints carry a hell of a lot more weight than the posts of a random pharmacist on the internet.
Your posts are all still here. Anyone can see what you, and everyone else, has been saying.
"Appeal to authority" is only a problem when the authority isn't a recognized knowledgeable expert in the topic. These are cosmologists and physicists at prestigious institutions whose entire careers are focused on answering these kinds of questions. Their professional, peer-reviewed papers and pre-prints carry a hell of a lot more weight than the posts of a random pharmacist on the internet.
None are evidence infinity is real.
To claim something is real, anything, requires evidence.
To deny that requires more than some people speculating about things they have no evidence to support.
What is your argument that we can claim something is real without evidence?
Not what are your appeals to authority.
None are evidence infinity is real.
To claim something is real, anything, requires evidence.
To deny that requires more than some people speculating about things they have no evidence to support.
What is your argument that we can claim something is real without evidence?
Not what are your appeals to authority.
Like I said, your posts are all still here. Trying to retcon them into saying that you weren't claiming 'logical impossibility' is dishonest.
But I'm observing THAT there is nothing there. No inference.
You are observing what is there.
You are inferring what is not.
The "what is not" is only some idea in your head. It is imaginary.
You are observing what is there.
You are inferring what is not.
The "what is not" is only some idea in your head. It is imaginary.
I agree that when I observe something, there is something there to observe. If there is no unicorn, then I cannot observe a unicorn, for I cannot observe that which is not there; however, cloaked in the very language we use is an ambiguity lying in wait to cast its philosophical confusion upon us. When I observe an empty drawer, it's weight is calculably less than had it contained contents with mass. That is a direct observation with instrumentation counter arguing your notion that an inference is being made.
It is (it really is) an observation that nothing is on the table--not a deductive conclusion. Our language isn't such that we should interpret the assertion that nothing is on the table as an assertion that something, namely nothing is on the table. Again, it's a denial that something is on the table--and that's what's rightly meant by "nothing is on the table." It's a function of observation (not inference) that nothing is on the table. We can use our eyes (our sense of sight) and make the observation that nothing of mass is located atop the table.
If there's nothing there and claim to have observed something, then maybe we can attribute that to an overactive imagination, but the use of our senses (whether to ascertain that something is there or to ascertain that nothing is there) is an observation. Don't go down the rabbit hole just because nothing is there. Our knowledge of that isn't a function of imagination but rather no hits pursuant to observation.I agree that when I observe something, there is something there to observe. If there is no unicorn, then I cannot observe a unicorn, for I cannot observe that which is not there; however, cloaked in the very language we use is an ambiguity lying in wait to cast its philosophical confusion upon us. When I observe an empty drawer, it's weight is calculably less than had it contained contents with mass. That is a direct observation with instrumentation counter arguing your notion that an inference is being made.
It is (it really is) an observation that nothing is on the table--not a deductive conclusion. Our language isn't such that we should interpret the assertion that nothing is on the table as an assertion that something, namely nothing is on the table. Again, it's a denial that something is on the table--and that's what's rightly meant by "nothing is on the table." It's a function of observation (not inference) that nothing is on the table. We can use our eyes (our sense of sight) and make the observation that nothing of mass is located atop the table.
It really isn't an observation.
It is purely an act of the imagination.
If there's nothing there and claim to have observed something, then maybe we can attribute that to an overactive imagination, but the use of our senses (whether to ascertain that something is there or to ascertain that nothing is there) is an observation. Don't go down the rabbit hole just because nothing is there. Our knowledge of that isn't a function of imagination but rather no hits pursuant to observation.It really isn't an observation.
It is purely an act of the imagination.
If there's nothing there and claim to have observed something, then maybe we can attribute that to an overactive imagination, but the use of our senses (whether to ascertain that something is there or to ascertain that nothing is there) is an observation. Don't go down the rabbit hole just because nothing is there. Our knowledge of that isn't a function of imagination but rather no hits pursuant to observation.
You can say a something is not somewhere. No hat on my head.
But saying a nothing is somewhere is purely an act of the imagination.
You can say a something is not somewhere. No hat on my head.
But saying a nothing is somewhere is purely an act of the imagination.
I'm saying, "nothing is on the table." I'm saying, "nothing is in the drawer." I'm saying, "no one is in the room."
I'm not saying "'a' nothing is on the table." I'm not saying, "'a' nothing is in the drawer." I'm not saying, "'a' no one is in the room."
