What is matter?

[Juma]

But the answer to "what space is" is a model of the behavior of space and stuff in it.

There is nothing "root cause" about it. It is just another part of the big picture.

It is just a more detailed model.

What is space?

How can it be bent?

Huh? That is questions we build models of space to explain.
The question we want to solve is "how does distance behave".

Everything we know is descriptions of behavior.

 

[fromderinside]

Huh? That is questions we build models of space to explain.
The question we want to solve is "how does distance behave".

Everything we know is descriptions of behavior.

Think of it this way we know probabilities change with acts upon that which we find probabilities. With respect to space those probabilities change in ways suggesting there are no other interactions involved and they have changed their positions across measurable time consistent with no other forces acting upon them. Of course we do find evidence of probabilities changing suggesting something is acting on them for which we can find no measurable probabilities. This leads us to suggest either space is curved or things are impacted by traveling through space.

 

[skepticalbip]

"Root cause"?
Then what explains the "root cause"?
"Root cause" is a chimera.
You dont need it and it is a logical contradiction.

You don't need it to predict behavior but it exists.

If a thing has behavior there must be a root cause, or reason(s) for it to have the behavior.

This sounds like religious thinking. For religions, god is the root cause.

Your question seems to be a philosophical question not a question that concerns science. Science is concerned with how something interacts with the rest of the universe. If you want a philosophical answer then ask a philosopher. Unfortunately they only give usually baseless arguments not verifiable answers.

But then there is a philosophy that tries to pass itself off as a science, string theorists. For these, the "root" of everything is loops of energy. How they vibrate determines their properties. Energy is the "base substance" of everything.

 

[untermensche]

You don't need it to predict behavior but it exists.

If a thing has behavior there must be a root cause, or reason(s) for it to have the behavior.

This sounds like religious thinking. For religions, god is the root cause.

Your question seems to be a philosophical question not a question that concerns science. Science is concerned with how something interacts with the rest of the universe. If you want a philosophical answer then ask a philosopher. Unfortunately they only give usually baseless arguments not verifiable answers.

But then there is a philosophy that tries to pass itself off as a science, string theorists. For these, the "root" of everything is loops of energy. How they vibrate determines their properties. Energy is the "base substance" of everything.

You are so afraid of gods you are blind.

There HAVE to be root causes.

You can't have behavior without root causes.

And I doubt very much we will find white haired men that collect human souls as the root cause of anything.

 

[skepticalbip]

This sounds like religious thinking. For religions, god is the root cause.

Your question seems to be a philosophical question not a question that concerns science. Science is concerned with how something interacts with the rest of the universe. If you want a philosophical answer then ask a philosopher. Unfortunately they only give usually baseless arguments not verifiable answers.

But then there is a philosophy that tries to pass itself off as a science, string theorists. For these, the "root" of everything is loops of energy. How they vibrate determines their properties. Energy is the "base substance" of everything.

You are so afraid of gods you are blind.

There HAVE to be root causes.

You can't have behavior without root causes.

And I doubt very much we will find white haired men that collect human souls as the root cause of anything.

This is completely unresponsive to anything in the post except for the first sentence.

 

[untermensche]

What is space?

How can it be bent?

Huh? That is questions we build models of space to explain.
The question we want to solve is "how does distance behave".

Everything we know is descriptions of behavior.

We are reduced by our limitations to only models of behavior.

But if there is behavior there must be a root, or ultimate cause of it.

Unless you think there can be behavior without cause which can't be supported by any argument.

- - - Updated - - -

You are so afraid of gods you are blind.

There HAVE to be root causes.

You can't have behavior without root causes.

And I doubt very much we will find white haired men that collect human souls as the root cause of anything.

This is completely unresponsive to anything in the post except for the first sentence.

It is YOU that must respond to my post.

You have said nothing that refutes my position.

Do you think there can be behavior without ultimate cause?

If so demonstrate it.

 

[skepticalbip]

Huh? That is questions we build models of space to explain.
The question we want to solve is "how does distance behave".

Everything we know is descriptions of behavior.

We are reduced by our limitations to only models of behavior.

But if there is behavior there must be a root, or ultimate cause of it.

Unless you think there can be behavior without cause which can't be supported by any argument.

- - - Updated - - -

You are so afraid of gods you are blind.

There HAVE to be root causes.

You can't have behavior without root causes.

And I doubt very much we will find white haired men that collect human souls as the root cause of anything.

This is completely unresponsive to anything in the post except for the first sentence.

It is YOU that must respond to my post.

You have said nothing that refutes my position.

Do you think there can be behavior without ultimate cause?

If so demonstrate it.

There was a response to your position but you didn't like it. You are asking for initial cause which is a subject of philosophy in general and a specific concern of the philosophy of religion. Ask them for your answer. There may not have even been an initial cause that philosophy, both religious and nonreligious, assume must have been - sorta a circular argument to assert that there was.

You are just pissed that science is not concerned with the question, indicating that you don't have a clue what science is about. The concern of science is understanding the interactions of things in the universe.

 

[untermensche]

There was a response to your position but you didn't like it. You are asking for initial cause which is a subject of philosophy in general and a specific concern of the philosophy of religion. Ask them for your answer. There may not have even been an initial cause that both philosophy and philosophy assume must have been - sorta a circular argument to assert that there was.

You are just pissed that science is not concerned with the question, indicating that you don't have a clue what science is about. The concern of science is understanding the interactions of things in the universe.

I'm not pissed at anything.

I merely point out the facts as I see them.

So again, how is it possible for there to be behavior without an ultimate cause of that behavior?

Try to be responsive.

 

[skepticalbip]

There was a response to your position but you didn't like it. You are asking for initial cause which is a subject of philosophy in general and a specific concern of the philosophy of religion. Ask them for your answer. There may not have even been an initial cause that both philosophy and philosophy assume must have been - sorta a circular argument to assert that there was.

You are just pissed that science is not concerned with the question, indicating that you don't have a clue what science is about. The concern of science is understanding the interactions of things in the universe.

I'm not pissed at anything.

I merely point out the facts as I see them.

So again, how is it possible for there to be behavior without an ultimate cause of that behavior?

Try to be responsive.

Show how there must have been an initial cause without a circular argument. There is no reason to assume that there was an initial cause other than it just feels good to philosophers both religious and nonreligious.

But, either way, this isn't a concern of science. This question belongs in the philosophy or religion forums.

 

[untermensche]

I'm not pissed at anything.

I merely point out the facts as I see them.

So again, how is it possible for there to be behavior without an ultimate cause of that behavior?

Try to be responsive.

Show how there must have been an initial cause without a circular argument. There is no reason to assume that there was an initial cause other than it just feels good to philosophers both religious and nonreligious.

But, either way, this isn't a concern of science. This question belongs in the philosophy or religion forums.

My position is that there cannot be behavior without an ultimate cause of that behavior.

Just tell me how it is possible to have behavior without an ultimate cause of that behavior.

How is such a thing possible?

You seem to be the one pushing some religion. You want me to believe there can be observed behavior and no ultimate cause of it. What nonsense!

 

[Kharakov]

But if there is behavior there must be a root, or ultimate cause of it.

My dick.

 

[fromderinside]

But if there is behavior there must be a root, or ultimate cause of it.

My dick.

Nixon I presume.

 

[untermensche]

But if there is behavior there must be a root, or ultimate cause of it.

My dick.

This is frivolous but it is good enough to show my point.

What is the ultimate cause of the sex drive?

It isn't because humans have dicks.

 

[skepticalbip]

Show how there must have been an initial cause without a circular argument. There is no reason to assume that there was an initial cause other than it just feels good to philosophers both religious and nonreligious.

But, either way, this isn't a concern of science. This question belongs in the philosophy or religion forums.

My position is that there cannot be behavior without an ultimate cause of that behavior.

Just tell me how it is possible to have behavior without an ultimate cause of that behavior.

How is such a thing possible?

You seem to be the one pushing some religion. You want me to believe there can be observed behavior and no ultimate cause of it. What nonsense!

Your faith and certainty in nonsense, whether ignorance or religion, is your problem. We don't know what we don't know. Science doesn't have a problem with that. Religious nuts and other philosophers can't accept it so insist that what they take on faith is true.

As I said, your claims belong in the religion or philosophy forums, not the science forum.

 

[untermensche]

My position is that there cannot be behavior without an ultimate cause of that behavior.

Just tell me how it is possible to have behavior without an ultimate cause of that behavior.

How is such a thing possible?

You seem to be the one pushing some religion. You want me to believe there can be observed behavior and no ultimate cause of it. What nonsense!

Your faith and certainty in nonsense, whether ignorance or religion, is your problem. We don't know what we don't know. Science doesn't have a problem with that. Religious nuts and other philosophers can't accept it so insist that what they take on faith is true.

As I said, your claims belong in the religion or philosophy forums, not the science forum.

Dodge away.

The question remains. You have given your opinion which isn't worth much.

How is it possible for there to be behavior without an ultimate cause of that behavior?

Can things just happen with no cause? Does anybody really believe that?

 

[skepticalbip]

Your faith and certainty in nonsense, whether ignorance or religion, is your problem. We don't know what we don't know. Science doesn't have a problem with that. Religious nuts and other philosophers can't accept it so insist that what they take on faith is true.

As I said, your claims belong in the religion or philosophy forums, not the science forum.

Dodge away.

The question remains. You have given your opinion which isn't worth much.

How is it possible for there to be behavior without an ultimate cause of that behavior?

Can things just happen with no cause? Does anybody really believe that?

Thanks for the illustration (and confirmation) of my post.

 

[Kharakov]

My dick.

Nixon I presume.

She called nix on the tricks.

 

[Kharakov]

Can things just happen with no cause?

Crows do.

 

[untermensche]

Dodge away.

The question remains. You have given your opinion which isn't worth much.

How is it possible for there to be behavior without an ultimate cause of that behavior?

Can things just happen with no cause? Does anybody really believe that?

Thanks for the illustration (and confirmation) of my post.

It is unfortunate for me that this is the level some sink to when their ideas are shown to be nonsense.

Is there not one rational person on this entire board?

Is it nothing but children like this?

 

[Kharakov]

Why do you con firm posts? You might as well let them slide dog.