Laws of Nature

[untermensche]

How do electrons all have the same properties unless they have specific "rules" that "define" those properties?

Let me put it this way: in what way is your hypotesis of "rules" useful?

Going where logic takes you may or may not have uses.

Refusing to go where logic takes you most definitely has no use.

But is every electron has the exact same properties then those properties exist because of specific "rules".

There is no other way for something like that to happen.

You can't just have self generating electrons all doing the same thing as if by miracle.

 

[Juma]

Let me put it this way: in what way is your hypotesis of "rules" useful?

Going where logic takes you may or may not have uses.

Refusing to go where logic takes you most definitely has no use.

But is every electron has the exact same properties then those properties exist because of specific "rules".

There is no other way for something like that to happen.

You can't just have self generating electrons all doing the same thing as if by miracle.

So no use then. Ok.

 

[untermensche]

Going where logic takes you may or may not have uses.

Refusing to go where logic takes you most definitely has no use.

But is every electron has the exact same properties then those properties exist because of specific "rules".

There is no other way for something like that to happen.

You can't just have self generating electrons all doing the same thing as if by miracle.

So no use then. Ok.

That's a poor reading of what I wrote.

What is the use of truth?

You think you know the answer to that?

 

[Juma]

So no use then. Ok.

That's a poor reading of what I wrote.

What is the use of truth?

You think you know the answer to that?

You just say: 'there must be a reason for the regularity, lets call that reason "rules"'.

Its totally impotent.

 

[untermensche]

That's a poor reading of what I wrote.

What is the use of truth?

You think you know the answer to that?

You just say: 'there must be a reason for the regularity, lets call that reason "rules"'.

Its totally impotent.

Except that it is true.

 

[Juma]

You just say: 'there must be a reason for the regularity, lets call that reason "rules"'.

Its totally impotent.

Except that it is true.

That something is true doesnt mean that is useful or even meaningful.

 

[Ahab]

I don't know. However, we both agree that the universe does exist. I am not yet convinced that these rules you keep referring to actually exist.

While I would agree that rules do exist, I think they are a human invention. So they clearly are not the kind of rules you are talking about.

If, as you claim, rules are necessary beings, I would assume you would answer my question with a yes. I only asked it with the intent of understanding your position more clearly.

How do electrons all have the same properties unless they have specific "rules" that "define" those properties?

People use language to define things. We can use rules to define the properties of electrons.

I think you need to stop using terms that need to be put in scare quotes to advance your theory if you wish others to adequately address what you are trying to say. I don't ever recall a philosophical argument advanced that was peppered with so many scare quotes. And so anthropomorphic.

 

[fromderinside]

How can chance be an absurdity? Just explained some symmetries were eliminated because totals of opposites weren't exactly equal. There were originally more electrons that there were positrons so as a result positrons ultimately disappeared. Not absurd at all. Seems to me this is sufficient along with limitations in size, energy, spin, etc., that a reasonable outcome could be depending on observer either a wave or a particle is observed which cannot be predicted with the rules.

Its either something like what I describe or its something like Speakpigeon opines. Explaining regularity needn't be reduced to the absurd.

Again, for there to be an electron there needs to be "rules" that "define" the properties of that electron.

You cannot have all these electrons with the exact same properties arise by chance.

You might be able to get one.

Yes there are regularities.

As for rules? I think it is sufficient to say that that evidence of reasons for absence of evidence puts rules in doubt, as does the existence of indeterminacy. That people can construct rules when there are gaps signals the likelihood of a regular universe. But indeterminacy signals that universe is probably stochastic (a rule system itself), thus uncertain, even irregular, in nature. Rule systems are human creations applied to what is measured in efforts to make sense of what exists. What exists exists.

Look. We're humans. As such we evolved to make sense of things to exist. That drive leads us to see clusters of stars where there are none, groupings that are actually random associations, etc. We are going to make rules. That doesn't mean such exist. The best evidence humans have from our vantage point way out here suggests the universe may be irregular, opportunistically existent, and quite rule free.

 

[untermensche]

Except that it is true.

That something is true doesnt mean that is useful or even meaningful.

Of course if something is true it has meaning.

And potential use is something that can never be known.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, for there to be an electron there needs to be "rules" that "define" the properties of that electron.

You cannot have all these electrons with the exact same properties arise by chance.

You might be able to get one.

Yes there are regularities.

As for rules? I think it is sufficient to say that that evidence of reasons for absence of evidence puts rules in doubt, as does the existence of indeterminacy. That people can construct rules when there are gaps signals the likelihood of a regular universe. But indeterminacy signals that universe is probably stochastic (a rule system itself), thus uncertain, even irregular, in nature. Rule systems are human creations applied to what is measured in efforts to make sense of what exists. What exists exists.

Look. We're humans. As such we evolved to make sense of things to exist. That drive leads us to see clusters of stars where there are none, groupings that are actually random associations, etc. We are going to make rules. That doesn't mean such exist. The best evidence humans have from our vantage point way out here suggests the universe may be irregular, opportunistically existent, and quite rule free.

You're grasping.

And ignoring my point.

 

[bilby]

How can chance be an absurdity? Just explained some symmetries were eliminated because totals of opposites weren't exactly equal. There were originally more electrons that there were positrons so as a result positrons ultimately disappeared. Not absurd at all. Seems to me this is sufficient along with limitations in size, energy, spin, etc., that a reasonable outcome could be depending on observer either a wave or a particle is observed which cannot be predicted with the rules.

Its either something like what I describe or its something like Speakpigeon opines. Explaining regularity needn't be reduced to the absurd.

Again, for there to be an electron there needs to be "rules" that "define" the properties of that electron.

You cannot have all these electrons with the exact same properties arise by chance.

You might be able to get one.

Electrons don't all have the exact same properties; the Fermi Exclusion Principle prohibits it.

Electrons all share those properties that we use to identify them as electrons - such as charge, mass and spin; and have different properties where those properties do not form part of the definition - such as location, energy, and polarity.

Electrons don't share properties with each other by chance, or due to rules; they share properties by definition.

An election with a different charge, or a different mass is no longer an electron; it is a different particle. And clearly there are many types of particles with differing properties.

Your argument here is tautological; electrons are similar because their similarities define them as electrons.

 

[untermensche]

Again, for there to be an electron there needs to be "rules" that "define" the properties of that electron.

You cannot have all these electrons with the exact same properties arise by chance.

You might be able to get one.

Electrons don't all have the exact same properties; the Fermi Exclusion Principle prohibits it.

Sorry. But perfect exactness is not necessary for my argument only close enough exactness such that one can be replaced with another without any change.

Electrons don't share properties with each other by chance, or due to rules; they share properties by definition.

Charge does not exist by definition.

 

[fast]

nm

 

[untermensche]

Electrons don't all have the exact same properties; the Fermi Exclusion Principle prohibits it.

Electrons all share those properties that we use to identify them as electrons - such as charge, mass and spin; and have different properties where those properties do not form part of the definition - such as location, energy, and polarity.

Electrons don't share properties with each other by chance, or due to rules; they share properties by definition.

An election with a different charge, or a different mass is no longer an electron; it is a different particle. And clearly there are many types of particles with differing properties.

Your argument here is tautological; electrons are similar because their similarities define them as electrons.

Of all the examples, why an electron, the one thing that has a dubious existence

The easiest place to look at "rules" is biology with the genetic code, just a bunch of "rules" that create living things.

And while the living things differ the "rules" that make them don't.

 

[bilby]

Electrons don't all have the exact same properties; the Fermi Exclusion Principle prohibits it.

Sorry. But perfect exactness is not necessary for my argument only close enough exactness such that one can be replaced with another without any change.

Electrons don't share properties with each other by chance, or due to rules; they share properties by definition.

Charge does not exist by definition.

Charge is not a characteristic exclusive to electrons.

If an electron has a positive charge, it's not an electron any more - it's a positron. Does that imply that it has broken the rules? Or just that your argument is tautological - electrons are electrons, because if they were not, they would be something else.

 

[bilby]

Of all the examples, why an electron, the one thing that has a dubious existence

The easiest place to look at "rules" is biology with the genetic code, just a bunch of "rules" that create living things.

And while the living things differ the "rules" that make them don't.

The genetic code isn't rules; it's molecules made from a series of bases on a phosphate backbone. It's not rules, or a blueprint, or any of the other things that non-biochemists use as analogies to try to grasp concepts that are not familiar to them; It's biochemistry.

The genetic code is rules in the same way that space-time is a rubber sheet. ie It isn't.

You seem to be VERY adept at confusing analogies for reality. You should stop doing that, it is making you stupid.

 

[untermensche]

Sorry. But perfect exactness is not necessary for my argument only close enough exactness such that one can be replaced with another without any change.

Electrons don't share properties with each other by chance, or due to rules; they share properties by definition.

Charge does not exist by definition.

Charge is not a characteristic exclusive to electrons.

If an electron has a positive charge, it's not an electron any more - it's a positron. Does that imply that it has broken the rules? Or just that your argument is tautological - electrons are electrons, because if they were not, they would be something else.

There are "rules" for electrons and different "rules" for positrons, obviously.

And saying something is a tautology is to say it is true.

 

[untermensche]

The easiest place to look at "rules" is biology with the genetic code, just a bunch of "rules" that create living things.

And while the living things differ the "rules" that make them don't.

The genetic code isn't rules; it's molecules made from a series of bases on a phosphate backbone. It's not rules, or a blueprint, or any of the other things that non-biochemists use as analogies to try to grasp concepts that are not familiar to them; It's biochemistry.

The genetic code is rules in the same way that space-time is a rubber sheet. ie It isn't.

You seem to be VERY adept at confusing analogies for reality. You should stop doing that, it is making you stupid.

Sometimes it is the most stupid calling others stupid.

You have no imagination if you think the genetic code is nothing but the structure. It is also what the structure does.

 

[bilby]

The genetic code isn't rules; it's molecules made from a series of bases on a phosphate backbone. It's not rules, or a blueprint, or any of the other things that non-biochemists use as analogies to try to grasp concepts that are not familiar to them; It's biochemistry.

The genetic code is rules in the same way that space-time is a rubber sheet. ie It isn't.

You seem to be VERY adept at confusing analogies for reality. You should stop doing that, it is making you stupid.

Sometimes it is the most stupid calling others stupid.

You have no imagination if you think the genetic code is nothing but the structure. It is also what the structure does.

You obviously have a vivid imagination. That's not a valuable thing when you are trying to find out about reality. But it's a great thing if you want to tell yourself comforting stories to conceal your ignorance, and maintain your self-image as someone who knows stuff.

Sadly, it is only effective for you; everyone else is unmoved by your imagination, and sees you as you are, not as you imagine yourself to be.

Hence the endless stream of bullshit threads, where you spout nonsense, and then fail to support it with anything other than tautologies.

Saying something is a tautology is to say it is true. It is also saying to say that it is useless.

I prefer to ignore useless truths in favour of useful ones. Apparently you don't.

 

[untermensche]

Sometimes it is the most stupid calling others stupid.

You have no imagination if you think the genetic code is nothing but the structure. It is also what the structure does.

You obviously have a vivid imagination. That's not a valuable thing when you are trying to find out about reality. But it's a great thing if you want to tell yourself comforting stories to conceal your ignorance, and maintain your self-image as someone who knows stuff.

Sadly, it is only effective for you; everyone else is unmoved by your imagination, and sees you as you are, not as you imagine yourself to be.

Hence the endless stream of bullshit threads, where you spout nonsense, and then fail to support it with anything other than tautologies.

Saying something is a tautology is to say it is true. It is also saying to say that it is useless.

I prefer to ignore useless truths in favour of useful ones. Apparently you don't.

So everyone elected you to spew this psycho babble?

You can't address the arguments so you attach labels to them, like "tautology", without much of an idea what you're even saying.

And think the attaching of labels is an argument.

When it is the evasion of argument.

You are what is useless, not truth.

 

[bilby]

You obviously have a vivid imagination. That's not a valuable thing when you are trying to find out about reality. But it's a great thing if you want to tell yourself comforting stories to conceal your ignorance, and maintain your self-image as someone who knows stuff.

Sadly, it is only effective for you; everyone else is unmoved by your imagination, and sees you as you are, not as you imagine yourself to be.

Hence the endless stream of bullshit threads, where you spout nonsense, and then fail to support it with anything other than tautologies.

Saying something is a tautology is to say it is true. It is also saying to say that it is useless.

I prefer to ignore useless truths in favour of useful ones. Apparently you don't.

So everyone elected you to spew this psycho babble?

I am so sorry, I wasn't aware that you had exclusive rights to spewing psycho babble...

You can't address the arguments so you attach labels to them, like "tautology", without much of an idea what you're even saying.

Not at all. I am addressing your posts by pointing out that they are not even arguments at all. I know exactly what I am saying, and I am saying your 'arguments' are worthless crap.

And think the attaching of labels is an argument.

On the contrary; that is what you are doing - you label everything 'Rules', and then say "See - it's all rules!", as if you had done something clever.

When it is the evasion of argument.

A topic on which you are an unaware expert, it seems.

You are what is useless, not truth.

So your oh-so-logical position is that I am wrong because I am 'useless'? That's what passes for an argument in your mind? No wonder all the other 'arguments' you present are so poor.

Truth is sometimes useful; and sometimes - as in your tautologies presented as though they were profound - it is not.

My utility here lies in pointing out the moronic nature of your assertions; something which leaves me feeling much better about myself than I would were I to let you babble on unchallenged. After all, there's a risk that some lurker might think that your 'arguments' were based in reality, if nobody called you on them.

But then, that seems unlikely when your response to being called on your poor arguments is an ad hominem.