Conjectures and Refutations

[luecy7]

Still trow around the D-Word with no definition.

Did you propose to your wife? Did you purchase the hard drive and defragger?

See previous comment. Is this a comment about how you feel I treat you?

No, I answered your question.

It depends on your definition of reality, my ontology is just much broader than yours. Some of reality requires no experimentation or sense experience (the logic underlying "All men are mortal. Socrates was a man. Therfore, Socrates was mortal").

How do you know all men are mortal? How do you know Socrates was a man? Perhaps you just don't see and admit to the empirical measurement.

Oh? "What you point to as being the simplest absolute True tautology, I find is absolutely False in reality." If one does not include the mental as part of reality, then your statement is true. I try to be more inclusive and consistent.

Your If / then is false. If you discount the entire history, all the differences between two electrons, all the fuzz of two electrons, then 1 electron + 1 electron = 2 electrons. In your mind, that is true. In reality, it is not true. As an engineer, we normally study simplified problems on paper because they can readily be solved in those languages. In the real world, of what the symbols are to symbolize, the simplified model is pure fiction. The word electron differentiates an aspect of a particle that is different from another particle. Similarly in the real world, there are aspects of all particles that differentiate every one of them.

Oh? Find me a reference to the "Certainty Principle" (in the sense you are using it) in some peer-reviewed physics paper.

If you don't find it, I guess you can call it the Luecy7 principle. It is really too obvious to make a note of it as anything special. On the Pauli exclusion wikipedia you reported, it states "The two particles have zero probability to both be in the superposition state |x> + |y>."

Please see any standard reference like 2.3 Identical particles

Why not link to an elementary math problem that shows 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples?

I will make this as simple as possible, see Position and momentum space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you mean: you don't really understand the concepts, so best to just quote scripture? That link shows what I said. Momentum is a vector. The state and vector are related, but not the same. Two vehicles travelling the same speed in opposite directions have a different vector. Two tops spinning the same in opposite directions have a different vector. Two anti-symmetric waves are not the same.

You do not understand, a tautology is no mere physical thing to be found. It is a notion, idea, thought, qualia. This is the fatal problem in scientistic monist materialism (which you are mirroring).

The fatal problem with notions, ideas, thoughts, qualia, that are not tested in the real world, is that it is conjecture, and may be amplified BS.

Thoughts exist separate from material things: proof? what physicality exists for the notions of "I" or "G-d" or "Good" or "Justice"?

False, and perhaps that gets to the root of it. What you or I do can be seen in the world. What God does is also there, though someone may not see it, be shown, or be able to see it. You and I may not even see our own history, but you may know it is also there. What is good, evil, just or unjust, is often defined by people, and has very real physical aspects. Lots of events in history, and tombstones, testify against your alleged proof.

 

[radarmark]

Sorry, I have failed to communicate (1) the question about "DO", which you never answered and (2) the nature of reality (at least as I and the vast majority of philosophers, philosophers of science, and scientists believe it to be).

I admit I cannot communicate with you and I do not know why. So on my threads I shall not longer reply to your criticisms directly.

 

[luecy7]

Awe, I'm relentless and just no fun for you.

I have a different type of experience, being an artist and something of an expert in a field where I know something that the majority of ordinary people do not know. Likewise to be of service, I must rely on people who know many things that I don't. I am approached by people with a different agenda. Some essentially say, "Prove it to me". I have encountered them often. From my perspective, they end up being selfish, misguided individuals, with their own agenda that is plain as day. I personally don't have kind words for that type of a person, but I try to educate them to a degree and listen to them too. When I ask that type of a person to 'prove' something, they have quickly folded and got very angry, which I found interesting. It was apparently not in line with their agenda.

I have also been in the position of helping others prove it for themselves. Some ask about my experience and wish to understand how it works. I can tell a person, but they usually won't get it from words unless they already have a background of experience. I can try to give them my truth, show them my evidence and results, and while it may educate them on what can be achieved, if they believe me, the average person doesn't receive it. Information from me is tainted by the fact that it comes from me. I can hand a person something and ask them to do something, a hands on experiment, and with that the person will instantly understand and get it at a root level. A child can understand, and learns in an instant. Some were PhD types and engineers, who tell me they never knew until then. The information acquired hands on from the universe has the person educating themselves in an instant. I didn't keep count, but this experiment I am describing has been repeated with over a thousand individuals over the years. So, I have some rather extensive data on this subject of 'prove it'.

I further have friends and family that have encountered the same. I imagine other artists with other capabilities in other fields, just to name a few: teachers, medical technicians, surgeons, firefighters, auto mechanics, farmers, framers, masons, HVAC installers, electricians, computer programmers, etc..., end up learning something that the overwhelming majority of people do not know. We become specialized. Those that know something end up being in the position of having to inform others. A person will encounter those who say 'Prove it to me', and that artist knows what type of a person, what type of a job title, comes saying it. I imagine that some form of a hands on experiment is required for them to change their entrenched hypocritical understanding.

I would be happy to show you my experiment in person if you wish, as conducted with individuals who don't yet know the truth that I speak of. Nope, it is not necessary: You don't need to see it. I think you really need your own experiment. There are more personal experiments that I have conducted in the art of becoming a better person, and I find it is very similar: we each must acquire some form of hands on experience to really understand, whether it is to make mistakes and learn or to learn to stop making the mistakes. I find that experience, conducted with the people that we know and the people we come across, and the people we don't yet know, is critical. It shapes the way we think, the truth that we see, should we wish to look for it.

You are welcome to think I should soften my stance: consider my experience subjective, and consider your logic or tautology as being absolutely or universally true, everywhere at every time. I can tell you honestly: my logic and tautology are NOT absolutely or universally true, everywhere at every time. In fact the logic can produce errant results. I can be errant using symbols if the symbols don't have experience behind them, and the results of the logic likewise tested. I have learned the hard way often: reality trumps logic and information. Somehow, I think you have said that before, when it suited you.

 

[luecy7]

radarmark, I am sharing this here from the PM, in recognition that I was vague and not providing details. I don't see anything private in it:

Regarding proof:
The issue is that information handed from one person to another does not comprise a proof. I know in the rational sense you think it does. A truth can be handed off in the form of a recipe: here is what I did, here are my results, here is my logic, here is my conclusion. The words or the recipe does not comprise a proof. You won't know unless you have made the recipe, repeated or conducted the experiment yourself. Then, you can prove or disprove it for yourself.

Interesting, but I notice you do not say what this truth is or what it is about. Nor do you specify what the experience is. Your use of “know” and “do” just are beyond my experience and you have (to my satisfaction, to the extent that I can comprehend what you are saying) never bothered to “prove it”.

I was referring to a simple science experiment that shows how to show a person something about reality. I believe I was clear, that the 'do' is where the person gets it.

In my experiment, I present to a person words, examples, and a simple science experiment. The other person is asked to move a strong neodymium magnet across a plate of copper or aluminum. Do you know what happens... what happens when you move a strong magnet up and down, or sideways relative to a metal plate? Have you tried it?

Explanation: To us, a metal looks like a solid. To an electromagnetic field, a conductive metal looks like a liquid. It is similar to having an oar in water, and when the oar is moved, the electrons will resist the moving field. The oar will drive currents in the metal. Nothing spectacular: induction motors make use of this same principle, and this is all taught in a Physics class. Most people, even engineers and some PHD types (though, not physicists), do not get or understand it because they have only played with a magnet around a ferromagnetic material... i.e., their refrigerator. With a magnet and a block of metal in their hand, they instantly get it and they understand it at a core level.

Unlike a tautology or logic, as far as I know it is considered by most that gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear forces are present everywhere in this physical universe at all times. If true, then it is sort of an 'absolute truth', correct?

The purpose of my experiment is to convey a truth and to enable the other person to prove it... to know it for themselves. By giving the other person the experiment in hand, they can know that the magnet induces currents in the metal, as they push the electrons around themselves.

Some people don't believe it until they have tried it. A disbeliever could call it a subjective experience. It certainly won't hurt my feelings, but I consider it an objective experience. If a person conjectures and says that it is not possible to push a conductive metal around with a magnet, it looks rather silly to myself and the person that has done it. It makes me question why a person conjectures so strongly against something they haven't fully tried. In that case I tend to say, "False", and "Go Do it".

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I appreciate it when you write everything out for me like this, I actually follow your reasoning which is uncommon.

 

[wil]

ditto.......

 

[wil]

ditto.......

 

[wil]

ditto.......

 

[Aupmanyav]

It makes me question why a person conjectures so strongly against something they haven't fully tried. In that case I tend to say, "False", and "Go Do it".

There are many people who have gone and done it and then finally got their answers in atheism.

 

[radarmark]

Back again. The whole notion of creating this thread was to discuss the ideas underlaying the (IMHO) false dogma (or at least dogma) if scientistic material monism. Things like causality, the existence of self, what consciousness is, the faith-based trust in higher mathematics, the unquestioning allegations of modernity.

I missed, I guess.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I missed, I guess.

No you did not, Radar. Science faces huge uncertainties, but there is no tea-pot revolving around the earth. That, I think, is certain.