|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Admiral Seafort
DarkStar 1
Ascendant Frontier
   |
Posted - 2006.11.11 08:47:00 -
[1]
1. Prove that the universe objectively exists.
You cannot. Why? Because there is no such thing as absolute objectivity.
We wallow in the despair of our collective subjectivity. And there's not a **** thing we can do about it.
But maybe I'm presupposing the notion of the individual. Then again, that such a presupposition could be posited in the first place suggests at the hopeless subjectivity of it all.
-----
It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it. |
Admiral Seafort
DarkStar 1
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 09:15:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Admiral Seafort on 11/11/2006 09:16:34
 Originally by: Caleb Paine
sure, but can you debunk my reasoning point for point? Cause I can't... combined however they are flawed as is proven by the fact that the universe DOES exist.
Go try it point for point :)
You claim that "something" cannot come from "nothing." What is "something?" What is "nothing?" Let's say "nothing" is the negation of "something." Is there some particularly compelling reason why "A" cannot arise from "not A"?
You claim that everything must have a beginning. You are elevating the notion of a unidirectional linear flow of time to an absolute truth. Why must existence be dictated by a "time" that flows in one direction? Surely eternity is no more of a "mind concept" than time. The very notion of a "beginning" is arbitrary.
You claim that the universe exists. Let me argue that it does not exist. Something akin to "The Matrix," only there is no Matrix, just consciousness that believes it exists (but really it doesn't). To say that the universe definitely exists is based entirely upon systems of logic and notions of reality that themselves are part of the very scientific ideas you criticize.
-----
It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it. |
Admiral Seafort
DarkStar 1
|
Posted - 2006.11.11 23:46:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Admiral Seafort on 11/11/2006 23:51:38
Originally by: Caleb Paine
Edited by: Caleb Paine on 11/11/2006 09:35:12
Nice try at trying to confuse us with interesting multi-syllable words :) However you didn't get it. I'm not saying "A" doesn't come from "not A", I'm saying "the existence of A must be the result of something else, be it matter, be it energy, be it action".
"something" is just that; anything in the universe. Everything must have a start since "it's been around forever" is just a concept, eternity does not exist.
If "something" (matter/energy) is created there MUST be an originating source, equilibrium must be maintained. hence the 'something can not be made from nothing'.
So again you could actually condense my theory into one sentence and be done with it, after which the enourmity of that sentence and concept starts to grab you and you'll just try and give up thinking about it while you're still sane...
"everything has a start".
Go have fun.
Why must everything have a start? Define a start. If you are defining it with respect to time, you've already created an arbitrary measure of absoluteness. Where does this concept of "beginning" come from? If you will argue eternity does not exist, how can you take for granted that time is finite and existent?
The notions of matter, energy, and equilibrium are concepts local to our universe; to speak of its existence in its own terms is pointless. To say that everything has a start is meaningless when the notions of "thing" and more importantly "start" are exceedingly arbitrary.
EDIT: I realize your argument is supposed to be satirical, but it only works if it appears to be self-contradictory, which it isn't. This is because it bases itself upon arbitrary premises, and then contradicts them. Well, anyone can contradict arbitrary premises. It would be truly ironic if you were able to contradict premises that were not arbitrary.
-----
It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it. |
Admiral Seafort
DarkStar 1
|
Posted - 2006.11.12 01:00:00 -
[4]
Third method:
Stop being constrained by antiquated notions of "time." Think beyond a simple one-directional (there, fewer syllables :p) timeline.
-----
It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it. |
Admiral Seafort
DarkStar 1
|
Posted - 2006.11.13 02:03:00 -
[5]
Caleb, do you realize the irony of what you're saying?
You argue about the nonexistence of eternity or infinity, with such arbitrary and finite concepts as:
Point
Line
Movement
What is the point of discussing infinity in finite terms?
-----
It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it. |
Admiral Seafort
DarkStar 1
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 00:52:00 -
[6]
The reason why you can "pinpoint" anything, why anything can be presented as "objective" or "true" is because of the arbitrariness of the frame.
Within an accepted set of arbitrary premises, you can make absolute definitions. However, such designations bear the general arbitrariness of their antecedent frame.
-----
It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it. |
Admiral Seafort
DarkStar 1
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 06:34:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Caleb Paine
Can I hug you?
You're exactly right; we lack the knowledge to solve these problems, therefore PLAYING with possible answers is ok but stating them as possible truth, even for a second, is rather arrogant.
That is why I said that my otherwise flawless reasoning about how the universe can't exist has a small, tiny little problem; it in fact DOES exist. With the knowledge we have we'll keep running in circles.
I don't agree that it's "otherwise flawless." Until you prove an objective frame of reference, everything is subjectively shifted; as such you can't "know" anything in a manner that would satisfy "truth." Ex. you can't prove everything must have a beginning when you cannot establish, rigorously, that time is at all significant to the nature of existence.
Thus your reasoning rests on a pair of axioms; it only proves that within your artificial and unprovable system, the (presumed) existence of the universe is contradictory. It does not say anything about the actual nature of the universe or existence, because that cannot be grasped.
So I do agree that we know very little, and there is plenty of hand-waving in physics and "big-question" scientific thought (theories on the beginning of the universe, etc.). However, I don't think the example you provided is philosophically or logically sound, as it is based on two apparent "truths" that you cannot, in turn, prove to be true.
-----
It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it. |
Admiral Seafort
DarkStar 1
|
Posted - 2006.11.16 06:38:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Admiral Seafort on 16/11/2006 06:39:54
Originally by: Reiisha
[snip]...
A few things to remember:
Math is a human concept, not a truth. The simple notion than 1+1=2 may seem 'logical' to you, where in truth it's a definition, not a proven fact. It's hard to understand what i mean, but think about it. Math is a set of human definitions, not a universal rule, rooted deep in the human consciousness. It is a tool to describe (physics etc), not a ground law of the universe.
I know you're going to shake your head and say "math IS the end-all of everything", but stop for a moment and think about why you are saying it.
QF-frickin-T. Thank you so much. People so often take for granted the "absoluteness" of many fundamental branches of thought. Consider that the notion of numbers is an arbitrary way of dividing our world. Language, too. Indeed, any system of representation or logic is, to at least some degree, a Peircean symbolic system.
-----
It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it. |
|
|
| |
|