|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted October 09, 2008 01:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
How can a thing that is physical cause a thing that is material to move? How does it work?
The energy of one moving object is transferred into another object when they come into contact. (They don't actually come into contact, but you know what I mean.)
Quote:
Or "how can gravity pull objects"??
I don't know. I will admit this freely. But it is two different things to say that something is unknown and that something is unknowable. But when we try to find them out through stuff like the Large Hadron Collider, you criticize scientists for trying.
Quote:
Yes but by "detect" it does not detect that directly, it has the "effects" of it.
Let's say you are shot, and the bullet goes through you. You never see the bullet, and it goes through you very quickly, so you never feel the actual bullet. Yet, from looking at your wound, we can certainly say that it's a bullet wound, just by looking at the effects. Same here.
Quote:
oh and btw, magnetic fields don't have mass, and you said they are material
JJ asked me to define "matter". I did. Magnetic fields are not matter, but they are, for lack of a better word, material.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JapanGamer
Known Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 02:28 AM |
|
|
Question. If there are two different opinions Views, "at least" one of them are wrong right? Y'all have so many different opinions and views it would make a blind man even blinder to try to figure them all out. Just note at least 99% of you are "probably" wrong. Thats about the only opinion I can count on right now.. That your "probably" wrong. As you can see there are different types of believers and non believers. Who is actualy right, you? You? I find it hard to believe any one of you are right about anything outside of the box, let alone whats inside of the box (what you cannot see outside of it, and can see inside of it).
Sorry.. At least you tried to find answers in life. That's a lot better than what others have accomplished.
And for the one who is against what I say.. Maybe your the one man, or woman.. Maybe your the one 
____________
Pictures of god
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 03:09 AM |
|
|
Hitler, Stalin, and Churchill are sitting together at Yalta. They have disagreements. Does it mean that each of them is equally wrong?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JapanGamer
Known Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 03:10 AM |
|
|
Who can say which are right, what I'm saying is atleast 66.6% of them are wrong wherever there are 3 disagreements.
____________
Pictures of god
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 03:15 AM |
|
|
Wait. So, you're saying that Stalin, regardless of what he says, has the same chance of being right as Roosevelt or Churchill? And I don't mean after a random selection - I mean, after a person has examined all of their views.
1+1=1
1+1=2
1+1=3
So, you're saying that they have an equal probability of being right?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JapanGamer
Known Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 03:44 AM |
|
|
It's probable that all 3 of them are wrong. I don't understand your math but its without a doubt that 2 out of three are wrong, where there are 3 disagreements, possibly all three are wrong, but at least 66% of them are wrong.
____________
Pictures of god
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 03:48 AM |
|
|
You have those three statements. And if you pick randomly, you do indeed have a 66.6~% chance of it being wrong. But the point here is, you're not picking randomly. You're given a full opportunity to look at all the statements and decide which one you think is right, then pick among them. But you still say that there's a 66% chance of your pick being wrong.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JapanGamer
Known Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 05:11 AM |
|
|
or 100%.. depending on if either one of them are right at all.
____________
Pictures of god
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 11:32 AM |
|
|
You can't have 100% probability of being wrong if you only have three posibilities.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 12:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Quote:
Define matter for that matter.
Anything that has mass.
Well, Mass is:
m=E/(c*c)
Which means, that there is a certain relationship between mass and energy which furthermore means that mass can be influenced by energy. Quod erat demonstrandum, if you remember that your question was how something immaterial can influence something material.
Quote:
Quote:
The question is, how many dimensions reality has. We can observe only 3 (of space), but can conclude that in fact there is at least one more (and there is or has been a 10-dimensional model of "reality" as well).
You can make a model of reality with as many dimensions as you want, but it won't make it true.
Right. However a concept of reality that ignores known facts is DEFINITELY not true, while a model of reality that is in harmony with the known facts has at least a chance of being true.
Our situation is in fact that we KNOW there is more, but cannot OBSERVE more, since our observing abilities are limited. It's like trying to compute irrational numbers with a pc without rounding errors, which is not possible, since there is no way of transferring the concept of irrational numbers into a pc.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 12:35 PM |
|
|
Energy is a "material" thing in this context.
It's effects and presence can be observed and measured.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 01:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The energy of one moving object is transferred into another object when they come into contact. (They don't actually come into contact, but you know what I mean.)
How come the energy is transferred. How does that work? 
Quote:
I don't know. I will admit this freely. But it is two different things to say that something is unknown and that something is unknowable.
Nono I mean, of course we just accept that "that's how it is" with gravity, and we can just as easily accept the "non-material" things to affect "material" things for that matter (assuming!) so your question is useless.
Quote:
JJ asked me to define "matter". I did. Magnetic fields are not matter, but they are, for lack of a better word, material.
Yep there's the lack of the better word but material and matter should be related, so the above definition of magnetic fields being material is not a very good one IMO (unless of course that way we can also say, ASSUMING it exists, that God is material, but it's pretty useless, since definitions are used to split categories not represent everything).
Of course one can always make a new definition of "material", I don't deny that. One could extend it to spirits for example (assuming they exist). But that's pretty useless.
Quote:
You have those three statements. And if you pick randomly, you do indeed have a 66.6~% chance of it being wrong. But the point here is, you're not picking randomly. You're given a full opportunity to look at all the statements and decide which one you think is right, then pick among them. But you still say that there's a 66% chance of your pick being wrong.
Yep, but you (the one who analyzes) can be wrong as well
Quote:
Energy is a "material" thing in this context.
It's effects and presence can be observed and measured.
That's not the definition of materialism
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 02:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's effects and presence can be observed and measured.
That's not the definition of materialism
Yes, it is actually, at least modern materialism. Modern philosophical materialists extend the definition of matter to include other scientifically observable entities such as energy.
And if I am not mistaken, materialists see energy just as a form of matter - which actually is true to extent that they are like different sides of the same coin (E=mc^2)
Note that there are many different philosophies inside materialists as well.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 02:07 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:08, 09 Oct 2008.
|
I wasn't talking about energy (which I know can be converted) but about magnetic fields.
Since matter = something with "mass" (mvass definition ), which also includes energy since mass can be converted to energy, but it doesn't include magnetic fields, and "materialism" is related to "matter".
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 02:27 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
m=E/(c*c)
Which means, that there is a certain relationship between mass and energy which furthermore means that mass can be influenced by energy. Quod erat demonstrandum, if you remember that your question was how something immaterial can influence something material.
In this context, energy is a material thing.
Quote:
However a concept of reality that ignores known facts is DEFINITELY not true, while a model of reality that is in harmony with the known facts has at least a chance of being true.
Our situation is in fact that we KNOW there is more, but cannot OBSERVE more, since our observing abilities are limited.
If a bullet goes through you, you can say with a great degree of certainty that it was a bullet that went through you, and not something else - even if you can't find the bullet. Same here. We may not - at the moment - be able to observe this "fourth dimension", but we can certainly observe its effects and see how it affects what we can observe.
TheDeath:
Quote:
How come the energy is transferred. How does that work?
Because the particles come into contact and hit each other, or influence each other in some other way.
Quote:
we just accept that "that's how it is" with gravity, and we can just as easily accept the "non-material" things to affect "material" things for that matter (assuming!) so your question is useless
Who says that we just accept "that's how it is" with gravity? I would certainly like to know more about its nature. I'm not content with "that's just how it is".
As for the rest of your post, I don't really know how to describe materialism any better.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 02:33 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:36, 09 Oct 2008.
|
Quote:
Because the particles come into contact and hit each other, or influence each other in some other way.
How do they influence? How does that work? How do they "move" through space, how does that work? Coming in contact says nothing about it (not to mention that they don't even come into contact in the first place!).
Quote:
Who says that we just accept "that's how it is" with gravity? I would certainly like to know more about its nature. I'm not content with "that's just how it is".
Why does gravity pull objects TOWARDS each other and not AGAINST? Because that's how it is. Why is there conservation of energy? Because that's how it is. Why are the laws of physics the way they are? Because that's how it is. Why was there a Big Bang? Because that's how it is. Why do electrons repel each other and are attracted by protons? Because that's how it is. Why do magnetic fields exist? Because that's how it is. Why do objects "move" in space (three dimensional)? Because that's how it is. Why does light travel with a certain speed in vacuum? Because that's how it is.
Oh and:Quote:
We may not - at the moment - be able to observe this "fourth dimension", but we can certainly observe its effects and see how it affects what we can observe.
I'm afraid you don't get the point because what you said is the thing I was talking about. You can see that a bullet went through you, that is you know a bullet EXISTS, but you cannot OBSERVE it (let's say you can't "see" the bullet with anything at all). You know it's effects but you don't observe how it looks like (with any senses, not only visible spectrum) and you can't analyze the materials it's made from or it's shape.
Of course it may sound absurd but your example is not that good.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 05:03 PM |
|
|
Let's not forget what the point of the point with the 4th dimension was: we KNOW that there is a very basic and fundamental quality or property of "reality" that's ELUDING us - which leaves QUITE a lot of room for everything.
For example the possibility that our 3-dimensional reality is just some kind of "projection", something like a high quality TV show. Or "dream". What is called "personality" might be stored somewhere: back-up copies and so on.
The only thing that is safe to say is that there is much MORE to it than what WE - with our senses and instruments - can observe. Therefore - in my view - it would be folly to base our world view exclusively on what we can observe or make a philosophy out of it.
And specifically:
@ mvassilev
You have to take the example for irrational numbers and how they are "produced" in a pc: not at all. A pc is working with rational numbers only. You could say that a pc is fundamentally unable to "understand" irrational numbers - they don't exist for a pc.
In that way "observing the unobservable" is not a QUANTITY (missing the right gear) problem, but a QUALITY problem: No amount of computing power will give a pc an "understanding" of irrationals. Likewise, no amount of gear made of 3-dimensional stuff will be able to make the 4th observable. It is wrong to say that we can observe an effect of the 4th dimension - it's just that WHAT we observe can be explained perfectly if we assume the existance of another dimension - that's a big difference.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 05:06 PM |
|
|
Are you sure you guys are still anywhere near the point "God"?
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 05:42 PM |
|
|
Well, yes.
The point of my posts was to convey the realizisation that our knowledge about "reality" is so limited in terms of QUALITY, that there is a lot of room for something like God. If we don't find "god", our 3-dimensional body may just not be able to (as opposed to our abstract mind or maybe what is called "soul").
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 05:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Are you sure you guys are still anywhere near the point "God"?
I was just thinking the same... Is there no topic for physics?... Well, physics can be observed from a "religional" perspective, but what can't be?
Anyways I still can't understand why people are still spending so many time here, discussing something they will probably never agree about and mainly they won't even listen to each other's arguments properly...
But who I am to judge what they spend there time with?...
|
|
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
