WHY does anything exist?

Yet you stated it as an a priori assumption in order to "prove" your contention.

Which is nothing to do with the "perceptibility" of the object itself.

Two things: I neither need nor particularly desire you to know my motives (they are largely irrelevant) and you appear to have already decided it's a lost cause... Ho hum.

Nope. But being in a dictionary might be an indicator, don't you think?

Good. You're learning.

Is "while it lasts" not "conditioned by an interval"? Strange...

I have. And going from the above it appears you're not sure what your point is.

Good. So you were incorrect.

Ah, so what I listed was true. But it also wasn't. Got you.

In other words you're using your own definition of "true", and excluding anything and everything that won't confirm your narrow pre-requisites.

As opposed to you, who have done little but make unsupported statements, double-back, contradict yourself and resort to ad homs when you can't show that I'm wrong. Well done. I concede the point. Complaining that I'm pointing out your errors/ inconsistencies (rather than showing that you're actually correct) doesn't work very well in supporting your contentions.

Another assumption. What you are saying is incoherent, inconsistent and a personal opinion which you have singularly failed to support. I see what you're saying, I just don't agree with it.

I have.
I've also asked for you to support your argument. So far with no luck....

If you CAN do this why have you resorted to whining, diversion and ad homs in place of doing so?

And there you go again with assumptions.

I think you'll find that if Glaucon (the moderator) steps in you'll have a tougher time than you're having at the moment. He's much better than I at spotting errors. And less possibly tolerant of personal attacks.

Errors again.
This is not "between you and me" it's about whether your premise/ conjecture/ whatever is valid or not.
Last word doesn't decide validity.
Pity? Oh my. Still, there's something (very vaguely) appealing about arrogance. No, I take that back. There isn't.

Well I have to admit, you finally convinced me. "No it does not" (in all capitals, yet) is probably the most lucid, persuasive and rational argument you have so far put forward. And to back it up with "I will leave it as an EXERCISE for your little brain to figure out WHY" is most definitely in keeping with your earlier promise that you "will give almost every argument so far as proof to support me". Hallelujah! I've seen the light.
(You do understand that was all sarcasm, right? Good)

No, it wasn't beyond me. You're working from an a priori assumption that you refuse to let go of.
You have failed to show that this is the case and also appear to be utterly incapable of recognising that failure.

I agree. But what you fail to see is that it's pointless because your "logic" doesn't stand up and you are not up to the task of realising that.

Don't feel sorry for yourself. Really. Just learn how think, instead, it'll give better results.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can respond to each and every point you've raised above but something within me tells me that it's just not worth it. You win. I lose.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you missed the point..
dyw was not trying to 'win' or get you to 'give up'.

he was trying to make you aware of 'how' you are arguing your point.
he can be VERY frustrating, i have chosen to only get on him when he uses 'your wrong' to reply to others..
but there is SOME logic to his arguments..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Repeat.



Because there is something.

 

That makes no sense. If nothing exists... It can't be in ones mind, because the mind don't exist.
Let us try not to be morons if we're going to give an answer.

 

Yeah I realize that. They say we should love and respect people who are hard on you. They teach you more than any softie ever would. I did (as in responded) the way I felt appropriate.

 

Yet you have consistently failed to do so.
Correction: you have, I fully admit, responded to a number of my objections. But responding and and refuting are not the same thing. And I suspect that any "response" you would have made would have been simply that.

You see? This is, in a nutshell, your entire stance: you're sure you're correct (because you've made your mind up in advance) and because someone will not simply accept your unsupported word it must be their failing.
Edit: or you're now less sure that you're correct. That's a start.

And now I'm disappointed. Not least because your wording indicates that you're still missing the point.

 

A dreaming sleep is close to consciousness.
A vivid dream will wake you up, or if you are very tired, you may dream while awake.

Who hasn't seen a piece of paper blown by the wind and thought for a moment it was a rat or a dog dashing past?
A long driving stint can bring on similar waking hallucinations.
Pilots and policemen seem to have a higher than average likelihood of reporting a paranormal experience.


My theory is that the dreaming brain is engaging itself in background activities. Cleaning up, strengthening useful connections, etc.
While it is firing off neurons, the semi conscious brain is trying to make sense of them, and makes up stories and images. It tricks the mind into believing the dreams to be actually happening, possibly so the body can remain asleep.


Oh, and this statement:
Oh it's really pointless to argue with you. And I feel sorry for my ownself that I DID with you. Wow... May GOD whoever HE may be... BLESS YOU.


In Chess terms, that is the equivalent of knocking your king over.
I told you he was good.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm not sending you any money.
Compliments or no.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Priceless posts, Dyw; others: worthless. One can take it to the bank, the rest to the dump.

 

Yes, but when there is measurement of a single photon, that particle arrives as a dot on a screen. When it is not measured, it arrives as an interference pattern. The photon interferes with itself unless it is measured.
It isn't just something happening at the quantum level.
And it is more than weirdness, although it is weird
You can do an experiment in the real world and see it happen.

I don't think anyone has an explanation for the phenomenon.

I agree that consciousness does not need to be involved.
On the other hand, it is impossible to do an experiment where human consciousness does not at some point decide on what was the outcome.

@Dyw
I had to warn him.
I had to warn him of what your ruthless logic could do to him.

 

THATS IT!
that is the words i was searching for to describe dyw..

 

One way to look at it* (although it can be unsatisfactory) is the gross example below:
There's a cow in field and someone says "It's brown and 6 foot at the shoulder.**"
So I give you a tape measure and send you off to check.
When you come back I ask "What can you tell me about the cow from what you have measured?"
The obvious, and only, answer is "it's six foot tall". There's nothing you can say about the cow's colour by using a tape measure.

In other words, what we decide to measure determines what CAN be measured. In a way, it predetermines the result.

* I cannot, for the life of me, remember where I read/ heard this "explanation", otherwise I'd give a link or source. (And also check to see if it went any deeper).
** Look, if cows are bigger or smaller than this don't blame me. I don't get involved with wild creatures.

 

More correctly the interference pattern is the result of the interaction of multiple photons. You might have read somewhere that an interference pattern emerges even when firing photons one at a time but this is because temporally separated photons can still interfere with each other. As if it wasn't already freaky enough huh?

I'm guessing that you are referring to this?

 

I am blaming you. Before today I'd never imagined 7 foot tall cows (adding an extra foot to your proposed shoulder height to accommodate a head) but now I am profoundly unsettled by the idea. I'm certain that they are going to haunt me now.

 

Okay be very gentle as I humble myself and ask this oh so obvious question(for physicists), what implications does the buckyball and silicon oil droplet experiment mean for physicists and their current theories regarding Qphysics?

 

BTW Dywyddyy do you teach logics or philosophy?

 

I've never formally taught anything. But was often assigned as an instructor while doing doing my normal job.
As an engineer.
All I've ever "taught" has been how to use certain CAD systems, office principals* or just hammering** basic engineering principals (that my victims apprentices/ students-on-placement should have already been aware of) into their pointy little heads.

* The most important being (as the rest of the firm knew) don't argue with me.
Once they learnt that my job got easier.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

** In the case of one or two particularly obtuse people the word "hammering" could be taken to be nearly literal. One reason why I never applied to be a teacher: engineering apprentices aren't a protected species the way school/ college kids are.

 

I don't think i would mind working for you dyw, i tend to respect those who teach me despite myself...although you would pry fire me cause i do like to argue..(i consider my arguing educational,but opinions differ..)

<edit> specially when you say

 

Heh, I've never fired anyone, in fact I had to go ask my boss about giving one apprentice a "down grade" because I didn't really want to harm his career. The boss just said "If you give that guy a good reference and someone hires him on the strength of your assessment how guilty will you feel when THEY discover he's a moron?" Problem solved: he got the "fail".
And I don't mind disagreements: provided the person doing so actually knows what they're talking about. That way I learn.