WHY does anything exist?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by lightgigantic, May 16, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    Which buttons to press and rearrange to make an arm grow from your tailbone.

    No.

    You were working beautifully with the expanding wavefront idea, what happened to you. You act like your taking a step foreword then moving back to something we covered a while ago. Just seems like you are out on a witch hunt trying to test my knowledge when your own is uncertain.

    So how does an expanding wavefront end up looking like some botched together elements list?

    How does a universe you described as an "expanding spherical wavefront" not oscillate?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    WTF does that have to do the meaningless phrase ""absolute" formation of DNA"?

    Really? What else do you think you get if you mix matter and anti-matter?

    It wasn't an "idea", it was a correction.

    This would be false. Mentioning something without explaining or justifying it is not covering it. So far you have failed completely to justify any single one of your statements or claims.

    And it seems like you're rambling incoherently and unable or unwilling to explain what you mean or how it is supposed to apply.
    This is not the way to to do philosophy.
    Still can't answer those questions?

    What? Who said it does? You? Why do you think it does?

    I didn't describe any universe as an expanding spherical wavefront. And even if I had it wouldn't mean, or even imply, an oscillation.


    I see you've decided to stick with further obfuscations as opposed to actually answering my questions.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    It expresses a humorous phrase that shows my ignorance over a certain subject.

    That was initially your idea to mix them. Either nothing or a whole lot of "anything"

    So stick with your initial assumptions the whole way through. It started out as light. Has anything in fact changed from that absolute perspective?

    Says the person who knows exactly what I'm thinking all the time.

    Why does anything exist? A model was put in place that "worked".

    It is what it is. No?

    So what does the universe look like to you at its "highest" observatory. The mind? If you could break it down into something simple what would it be?

    I see you have decided to write sentences that are the same length and just as easily forgettable as your original questions.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    Just one of many...

    That would be incorrect.

    I didn't have any "initial assumption". I corrected a claim of yours.

    You don't appear to think at all.

    Incorrect. You didn't present a model. You hand-waved specious nonsense without giving any justification.

    Correct in one way: it is what it is. But it isn't what YOU say it is.

    Another foray into extended nonsense without explaining your original claim...

    So you still can't answer the questions?
    Okay.
     
  8. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    Saw it coming.

    Proved by a logician with no use for actual experimentation.

    Is there an "accept corrected version" button on here to get your mind past this simple misunderstanding? Did you dislike it that I took your side on the issue right away?

    That's just what you see in yourself when I allow you to come to your own conclusions. How Philosophy should work.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I didn't intend to present some new model. I just said the universe by itself formulated itself into some sort of model that worked with reality.

    What is it you think I say?


    I don't have the answers to the questions you still have
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    Assumptions again... And incorrect.

    You didn't take "my side of the issue" at all. The initial assumption was yours, not mine. And I don't agree with it.

    "Allow me" to come to my own conclusions?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The universe is not "some sort of model that works with reality". The universe is reality.

    Think you say? You said it:
    So you admit that you were making claims you can't back up? In other words unfounded specious speculation that you knew you couldn't substantiate?

    End of discussion.
     
  10. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    Your right I assumed you were logical. I was mistaken.

    What do you agree with since you won't even agree with what comes form your own mind?

    Confused at such a simple statement. What are you doing in philosophy? Much less arguing with a "crank" who is oblivious to every fact in the natural world. Philosophy is nowhere near as strict as you have turned it into.

    Very good. So where are the elements of our universe in reality. Botched together or separate?

    I said I'm leading a paradigm shift.


    Can I substantiate it now? No. I don't have access to all the elements. Could I in the future. Yes. I told you to remember that particular flow of logic for a certain and specific reason. End thread.
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    No. You were mistaken on everything else.

    One more time: it didn't come from my mind.

    I think you'll find that it is.

    No, you're talking bollocks. Utter and complete bollocks.

    Irrelevant. I asked "why do you think it would work"? There's no point in "just doing an "experiment" unless you're trying to check something.

    No you can't. You have no valid reason for supposing that things will work the way you claim they do.
     
  12. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    Negative.

    "It" will exist as I will it to exist.

    Music calms the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImoXZ99Zu-A. Would we not be checking "everything"?

    I can't prove that things in reality work differently than they do in your mind. Got it. The heart of the universe stemmed from the BB and we have nothing of "VALUE" to compare it with. We have everything of value in our little jar ions constantly repelling and attracting, rearranging, constantly.
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    Another illustration of my comment:
    On the contrary: you can't prove (or even demonstrate) that what goes on in your mind has any bearing on reality. At all.


    You're completely out of touch with reality.
     
  14. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    So the fight now has turned away from the object and gone completely into a subjective argument. Well played...
     
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    Also incorrect.
    You have yet to provide anything objective.
    All you have given so far is your own, subjective, unsupported claims and random speculations.
     
  16. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    Incorrect. I let you do all the subjective thinking, while I randomly name off "objects". Name one thing I said that does not correspond to an object that is completely independent from your subjective mannerisms of irrelevant and convoluted thought processes. Picking at my common knowledge as if it were some test. I don't have to know anything about any previous lines of thought concerning the "subject" at hand. All I have to do is name an object we don't have and you my good fellows have an entirely new objective perspective on your surroundings. Till then your random, shallow, pointless questions are physically useless..
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    This would be false.

    This would be utter nonsense. Making speculations about the start of the universe (or any other physical science process) requires at least some knowledge of physics, for example.

    How strange. I'm doing "all the subjective thinking" while at the same time I have "an objective perspective".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Let me know when you're actually ready to talk philosophy as opposed to random bullshit.
     
  18. glaucon tending tangentially Moderator

    Messages:
    5,502


    Mod Note:

    Agreed.

    Time for a break on this one, until people are prepared to actually stay on topic.

    Members are advised to PM me with a request to re-open this if something relevant is to be posted...

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page