What is matter?

[skepticalbip]

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?

It isn't my fault that you did exactly what I said philosophers and the religious do. Stating as a certainty what you accept on faith. I find it funny as hell - thank you for that.

Your question is a conundrum that cosmologists are struggling with. They freely admit that they don't really know the answer but one of the current general models contradict what you are taking on faith is true. Those models either have the universe starting from nothing (this one is falling out of favor) or the models that have the universe eternal (no initial cause) and what we see is only the current phase of that eternal universe.

The fact that you get so upset that you can't convert others here to your faith is even funnier.

 

[Juma]

There HAVE to be root causes.

Your mind fucks you up. It is hardqired to find intention, meaning and causes. The truth is that stuff just are. Yes, there is structure, yes there are interactions and, yes, there are rules some of which can be formulated in terms of structure and interaction. And all this results in: behavior.

We humans divide things tgat happen into cause and effect. But that is just our analyzing brain talking.

 

[untermensche]

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?

It isn't my fault that you did exactly what I said philosophers and the religious do. Stating as a certainty what you accept on faith. I find it funny as hell - thank you for that.

Your question is a conundrum that cosmologists are struggling with. They freely admit that they don't really know the answer but one of the current general models contradict what you are taking on faith is true. Those models either have the universe starting from nothing (this one is falling out of favor) or the models that have the universe eternal (no initial cause) and what we see is only the current phase of that eternal universe.

The fact that you get so upset that you can't convert others here to your faith is even funnier.

Nobody but you is struggling with this.

If behavior is observed there MUST be a root cause.

Things do not just happen for absolutely no reason at all.

Only a fool could think that or think there was any rational way to support that idea.

 

[untermensche]

There HAVE to be root causes.

Your mind fucks you up. It is hardqired to find intention, meaning and causes. The truth is that stuff just are. Yes, there is structure, yes there are interactions and, yes, there are rules some of which can be formulated in terms of structure and interaction. And all this results in: behavior.

We humans divide things tgat happen into cause and effect. But that is just our analyzing brain talking.

Our minds observe cause and effect. They do not invent it.

There are two positions, one can be rationally defended.

There root causes for behaviors.

Behaviors can occur for absolutely no reason at all.

I prefer to take the rational route.

 

[bilby]

It isn't my fault that you did exactly what I said philosophers and the religious do. Stating as a certainty what you accept on faith. I find it funny as hell - thank you for that.

Your question is a conundrum that cosmologists are struggling with. They freely admit that they don't really know the answer but one of the current general models contradict what you are taking on faith is true. Those models either have the universe starting from nothing (this one is falling out of favor) or the models that have the universe eternal (no initial cause) and what we see is only the current phase of that eternal universe.

The fact that you get so upset that you can't convert others here to your faith is even funnier.

Nobody but you is struggling with this.

If behavior is observed there MUST be a root cause.

Things do not just happen for absolutely no reason at all.

Only a fool could think that or think there was any rational way to support that idea.

Nobody is struggling with this at all; you are making absolute statements that you can support only with your personal incredulity that there could be an alternative; and everyone else is pissing themselves laughing at the sheer insanity of your insistence that you cannot be wrong, despite the complete absence of evidence that you are right.

Well, everyone else except skepticalbip, who is being remarkably kind and patient in trying to explain to you your error. For which kindness you choose to insult him by accusing him of doing the exact thing you yourself are doing.

You have expressed an opinion. You have asserted it to be an undeniable fact, that cannot be challenged. The first part is not a problem; everyone has opinions. The second part makes you a clown. Attacking the person who is trying to dissuade you from pouring any further custard down your trousers may not be your best option at this stage.

 

[skepticalbip]

It isn't my fault that you did exactly what I said philosophers and the religious do. Stating as a certainty what you accept on faith. I find it funny as hell - thank you for that.

Your question is a conundrum that cosmologists are struggling with. They freely admit that they don't really know the answer but one of the current general models contradict what you are taking on faith is true. Those models either have the universe starting from nothing (this one is falling out of favor) or the models that have the universe eternal (no initial cause) and what we see is only the current phase of that eternal universe.

The fact that you get so upset that you can't convert others here to your faith is even funnier.

Nobody but you is struggling with this.

If behavior is observed there MUST be a root cause.

Things do not just happen for absolutely no reason at all.

Only a fool could think that or think there was any rational way to support that idea.

Again, thanks.

For scientific thinking on the subject you may want to check out the big bang theory (at least one version of it) and on the other end of the energy spectrum you could look into work in quantum mechanics on quantum fluctuations.

Of course you are free to cling to the Kent Hovind impression if it makes you happy.

 

[untermensche]

Nobody but you is struggling with this.

If behavior is observed there MUST be a root cause.

Things do not just happen for absolutely no reason at all.

Only a fool could think that or think there was any rational way to support that idea.

Nobody is struggling with this at all; you are making absolute statements that you can support only with your personal incredulity that there could be an alternative; and everyone else is pissing themselves laughing at the sheer insanity of your insistence that you cannot be wrong, despite the complete absence of evidence that you are right.

Nice dogmatic nothingness.

Again there are only two choices.

Behaviors have causes.

Behaviors can occur without cause.

So you are supporting the idea that behaviors can occur without cause.

And you must also think this absolute statement can be supported in some way.

So go ahead, support it.

Don't be a three year old and post an emoticon. Be an adult and actually support your ideas with arguments.

Why do I get the idea wishing for logical and concise arguments here is a waste of time?

 

[Juma]

Nobody is struggling with this at all; you are making absolute statements that you can support only with your personal incredulity that there could be an alternative; and everyone else is pissing themselves laughing at the sheer insanity of your insistence that you cannot be wrong, despite the complete absence of evidence that you are right.

Nice dogmatic nothingness.

Again there are only two choices.

Behaviors have causes.

Behaviors can occur without cause.

So you are supporting the idea that behaviors can occur without cause.

And you must also think this absolute statement can be supported in some way.

So go ahead, support it.

Don't be a three year old and post an emoticon. Be an adult and actually support your ideas with arguments.

Why do I get the idea wishing for logical and concise arguments here is a waste of time?

Yes do that, please post some arguments supporting your position.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Say eventually some testable model were proposed, consistent with observation, which explained the behaviour of matter (or fields or whatever), not as more brute facts, but as logically necessary properties of that which exists rather than doesn't... Would that be just another model? Of interest to philosophers only?

Nah, it'd be the scientific biggie. The best scientific brains and resources would be thrown at it. Not to say that there is or must be any such thing, but there'd be enormous scientific interest in it regardlesss of any philosophical intuition that there ought to be any such thing.

Wouldn't there?

 

[fromderinside]

First there was the Then we came along and began tracking from the we found stuff happening and, cue the angels, we called it behavior. Using this notion and the singularity called we've developed theory which holds together pretty much covering all we know about the behavior including how it came to be after the

Are you clinging to the notion that something caused the or that somehow all this is meaningful because we, ta da, are here? The philosophical question here is why should it be meaningful while the practical question is why can't we observe and measure stuff we know to be there.

Woo woo.

Are they related?

If so so what?

Pompous Ass being turned off now.

 

[skepticalbip]

Say eventually some testable model were proposed, consistent with observation, which explained the behaviour of matter (or fields or whatever), not as more brute facts, but as logically necessary properties of that which exists rather than doesn't... Would that be just another model? Of interest to philosophers only?

Nah, it'd be the scientific biggie. The best scientific brains and resources would be thrown at it. Not to say that there is or must be any such thing, but there'd be enormous scientific interest in it regardlesss of any philosophical intuition that there ought to be any such thing.

Wouldn't there?

There would certainly be scientific interest if it were testable. You should note that there is interest in studying quantum fluctuations.

Even if it were not testable there would be interest by scientists not acting as scientists but as philosophers. Einstein was a great philosopher. Yes scientists philosophize too but they generally start with hard data and try to imagine what it could mean as opposed to many philosophers who pull an idea out of their arse and run with it.

This is why a great many physicists refer to string theory as philosophy and not science. String theorists have not yet found any way to test their models.

 

[Juma]

Say eventually some testable model were proposed, consistent with observation, which explained the behaviour of matter (or fields or whatever), not as more brute facts, but as logically necessary properties of that which exists rather than doesn't... Would that be just another model? Of interest to philosophers only?

Nah, it'd be the scientific biggie. The best scientific brains and resources would be thrown at it. Not to say that there is or must be any such thing, but there'd be enormous scientific interest in it regardlesss of any philosophical intuition that there ought to be any such thing.

Wouldn't there?

Nah. It WOULD be a biggie. But it would also just be another model. As the atom model. As the QED model etc.

 

[fromderinside]

Yes. Consider the solar system as the amount of understanding required to explain the universe. We are now at a grain of sand on the coast of India in that accumulation of understanding .....

Now for another Louis Black.

Love that 'con

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Post Classicism Avoided This Explanation Because 4D Had Been Taken Over By Paranormalism

Mass and energy are equivalent according to special relativity: E=mc2.

Actually, they're not. The term "c2" here has dimension: [m²]/[s²].

Rather, the formula means that if we measure a quantity of energy we should be able to measure a certain mass, and vice versa.
EB

It is a collision formula. Fission opens an outlet from the fourth spatial dimension. The maximum velocity there is c squared, equivalent to 6 light-years a second. The first collision happens at c squared, but quickly slows down in the chain reaction.

 

[bilby]

Nobody is struggling with this at all; you are making absolute statements that you can support only with your personal incredulity that there could be an alternative; and everyone else is pissing themselves laughing at the sheer insanity of your insistence that you cannot be wrong, despite the complete absence of evidence that you are right.

Nice dogmatic nothingness.

Again there are only two choices.

Behaviors have causes.

Behaviors can occur without cause.

So you are supporting the idea that behaviors can occur without cause.

Not at all. You are the only one supporting this idea. You even coined a name for such cause-less behaviours; you called them 'root' causes.

But the fact is that my position is not that I support the option you oppose; it is that I oppose your claim that one of these options is better than the other.

And you must also think this absolute statement can be supported in some way.

Again, you seem to be talking to your mirror. I was very explicit that neither of the possibilities can be supported; I am not supporting either.

You have, apparently without any evidence, decided that only one of these possibilities is true; I do NOT assert that you have picked the wrong one, and that the other is the true one; I am saying that your rejection of either is a mistake. Unless you have evidence. Which if you do, you are concealing from the rest of us for no apparent reason.

So go ahead, support it.

There are THREE possibilities.

1) Everything has a cause.
2) Not everything has a cause.
3) We don't and cannot know whether or not everything has a cause.

You have picked 1 or 2 (although your statements so far don't make it clear which); and you are operating under the false assumption that anyone who fails to wholeheartedly support your dogmatic attachment to that selection must dogmatically support the other of the first two options. But we don't have to play by your childish and incorrect rules.

Not only is your position wrong; but your conclusion about other people's positions, if not in line with yours, is also laughably wrong.

Don't be a three year old and post an emoticon. Be an adult and actually support your ideas with arguments.

That's good advice. You should take it.

Why do I get the idea wishing for logical and concise arguments here is a waste of time?

Probably because you are projecting. If you won't offer one, why should anyone else?

Or perhaps it's not that they are absent, but that you are simply incapable of recognising them.

 

[untermensche]

Nice dogmatic nothingness.

Again there are only two choices.

Behaviors have causes.

Behaviors can occur without cause.

So you are supporting the idea that behaviors can occur without cause.

And you must also think this absolute statement can be supported in some way.

So go ahead, support it.

Don't be a three year old and post an emoticon. Be an adult and actually support your ideas with arguments.

Why do I get the idea wishing for logical and concise arguments here is a waste of time?

Yes do that, please post some arguments supporting your position.

Just explain to me the logical difference between the claim that "my god always existed and had no cause" and "that behavior had no cause".

It seems to me they are the exact same idea.

 

[untermensche]

There are THREE possibilities.

1) Everything has a cause.
2) Not everything has a cause.
3) We don't and cannot know whether or not everything has a cause.

Just give me a possible way there can be a behavior with no cause and I will believe we don't know.

How could "no cause" do anything?

Please elaborate.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yes do that, please post some arguments supporting your position.

Just explain to me the logical difference between the claim that "my god always existed and had no cause" and "that behavior had no cause".

It seems to me they are the exact same idea.

Silly goose. What the hell does that have to do with what anyone has said? You are the only one I see stating absolutes. "We don't know that which we don't know" is a long way from meaning what you want it to mean.

So how about offering some support for your confident assertions.

 

[untermensche]

Just explain to me the logical difference between the claim that "my god always existed and had no cause" and "that behavior had no cause".

It seems to me they are the exact same idea.

Silly goose. What the hell does that have to do with what anyone has said? You are the only one I see stating absolutes. "We don't know that which we don't know" is a long way from meaning what you want it to mean.

So how about offering some support for your confident assertions.

You are claiming we do know.

You claim we do know we do not know.

I claim we know.

If we claim we know there are only two options, so we should start by simplifying and assuming we do know. I hope you can comprehend that assuming is used to explore an option. It is not any dogmatic claim.

1. For there to be behavior there is a cause.

2. There can be behavior without a cause.

So let's explore option 2.

What does "without a cause" mean? Is it even a logical conception or merely just words strung together?

Here we get stuck of course because I can't dogmatically define "without a cause".

So that is for the people who say we don't know to define.

Option 1 is something observed. Option 2 is not.

So for the people who say option 2 is possible, and therefore "we don't know" it is up to them to define "without a cause".

What could that possibly mean?

 

[bilby]

There are THREE possibilities.

1) Everything has a cause.
2) Not everything has a cause.
3) We don't and cannot know whether or not everything has a cause.

Just give me a possible way there can be a behavior with no cause and I will believe we don't know.

How could "no cause" do anything?

Please elaborate.

I have no idea.

How could everything have a cause? I have no idea how that works either - BOTH options appear to be logically impossible.

You like your infinite regress? Fine. That doesn't make it reasonable, much less certain.

And stop trying to shift the burden of proof. You are making a positive claim. Support it, or GTFO.