WHY does anything exist?

[NietzscheHimself]

Pardon? What do you mean by that?

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

An explosion you mean?

No.

Or the things you know little about.

Still waiting for answers to my previous questions...

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?

 

[Dywyddyr]

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

WTF does that have to do the meaningless phrase ""absolute" formation of DNA"?

No.

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

You were working beautifully with the expanding wavefront idea

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

You act like your taking a step foreword then moving back to something we covered a while ago.

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.

Just seems like you are out on a witch hunt trying to test my knowledge when your own is uncertain.

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?

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

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

How does a universe you described as an "expanding spherical wavefront" not oscillate?

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.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

WTF does that have to do the meaningless phrase ""absolute" formation of DNA"?

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

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

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

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

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

This would be false.

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

Still can't answer those questions?

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

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

It is what it is. No?

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.

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've decided to stick with further obfuscations as opposed to actually answering my questions.

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

 

[Dywyddyr]

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

Just one of many...

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

That would be incorrect.

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

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

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

You don't appear to think at all.

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

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

It is what it is. No?

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

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?

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

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

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

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Just one of many...

Saw it coming.

That would be incorrect.

Proved by a logician with no use for actual experimentation.

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

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?

You don't appear to think at all.

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

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

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.

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

What is it you think I say?

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

I don't have the answers to the questions you still have

 

[Dywyddyr]

Proved by a logician with no use for actual experimentation.

Assumptions again... And incorrect.

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?

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.

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

"Allow me" to come to my own conclusions?

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.

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

What is it you think I say?

Think you say? You said it:

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

I don't have the answers to the questions you still have[/URL]

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.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Assumptions again... And incorrect.

Your right I assumed you were logical. I was mistaken.

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.

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

"Allow me" to come to my own conclusions?

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.

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

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

Think you say? You said it:

I said I'm leading a paradigm shift.

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?

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.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Your right I assumed you were logical. I was mistaken.

No. You were mistaken on everything else.

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

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

Philosophy is nowhere near as strict as you have turned it into.

I think you'll find that it is.

I said I'm leading a paradigm shift.

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

Can I substantiate it now? No. I don't have access to all the elements.

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.

Could I in the future. Yes.

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

 

[NietzscheHimself]

No. You were mistaken on everything else.

Negative.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

 

[Dywyddyr]

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

Another illustration of my comment:

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
No. You were mistaken on everything else.

I can't prove that things in reality work differently than they do in your mind.

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.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

So the fight now has turned away from the object and gone completely into a subjective argument. Well played...

 

[Dywyddyr]

So the fight now has turned away from the object and gone completely into a subjective argument. Well played...

Also incorrect.
You have yet to provide anything objective.
All you have given so far is your own, subjective, unsupported claims and random speculations.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

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..

 

[Dywyddyr]

Incorrect. I let you do all the subjective thinking, while I randomly name off "objects".

This would be false.

I don't have to know anything about any previous lines of thought concerning the "subject" at hand.

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.

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.

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

Let me know when you're actually ready to talk philosophy as opposed to random bullshit.

 

[glaucon]

Let me know when you're actually ready to talk philosophy as opposed to random bullshit.

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...