Philosophy Now Forum

That is very easy indeed As you have made the claim you should be able to demonstrate it so can you please do so Yes, I believe this elevates it to a claim, not of existence of the theory, but of the ease of producing one. Given that ease, it seems reasonable now to request this easily produced thi...

The last several posts you've make today contain no content. I saw no comments or questions that appeared genuinely interested in discourse. The Bible thing maybe, presented as an example of verifying something through a book. True that, but it isn't presented as science. Ditto for an astrology boo...

Would you care to explain what parts if any you think are not united between general relativity and quantum mechanics If you did then I would know what parts you are very interested to see how I try to or could actually unite No because you have made the claim that they are easy to unite and that i...

I shall be very interested to see how you try and unite General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics That is very easy indeed As you have made the claim you should be able to demonstrate it so can you please do so But, to Me, there is no thing separating them, so there is nothing to demonstrate. They a...

What is considered is also NOT what is necessarily actually true nor necessarily able to be true. For example, any thing can be considered stationary, but is there any thing that is actually ABLE TO BE stationary? Only models with absolute space have such a concept. What is 'absolute space'? You sa...

This is what I mean by denial of evidence. What do you mean by 'denial of evidence'? You have not said anything here to know what you are talking let alone to understand what you mean. This conversation is indeed making no progress. Is that solely My fault alone? What progress are you looking for? ...

What do you mean by Hypotheses have to be subject to potential falsification or else hypotheses are deemed invalid Without potential falsification there is no way of knowing if a hypothesis is true or false If hypotheses ( some thing ) are not subject to potential falsification then does that HAVE ...

why waste your time with Ken the Troll. He has some points, many of which are summarized in his post just above. save your energies for posting to members here worthy of reading any wisdom you offer. I do that sort of thing on another site which more encourages that sort of discourse. I have some p...

Londoner's answers to these questions are as good as I can come up with, but I'd thought I'd throw on my spin. Why are they called falsification tests A valid hypothesis will predict something different that some alternative model. The thing in question is tested, and the model that makes the worse...

What do you mean by; Hypotheses have to be subject to potential falsification or else hypotheses are deemed 'invalid'? Isn't it rather that within science they need to be empirically falsifiable, otherwise they are not good hypotheses - because science concerns itself with what is empirically predi...

Hi Noax. all is well i hope? why waste your time with Ken the Troll. WHY do you waste your time asking why others waste their time, with ken, the one now also named "troll"? he has more time to waste here then sense. You never know I might be wasting more sense then time here? and - given...

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:14 am

davidm wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:01 amMaybe you are talking about Ken's denial of empirical findings?

Yes that. He calls it being open minded. Maybe all the scientists bias their findings about this relativity thing and faking the evidence.

WHAT 'empirical findings' exactly do you even imagine that I am actually denying?

BTW, I rarely read a long post all the way through, too boring, even if I am interested in the subject. And sadly, the subject is turning away from the part I was interested in, the bit about why denial of empirical findings might be a virtue. If it makes you more happy, then we can remain talking ...

What is 'time', itself, to you? Don't really know, lacking hard evidence one way or another. Do you want to take a guess? Have you NOT made any presumption at all about what 'time' actually IS? The measure of it between two events is frame dependent. When you say the measure of "it", did ...

I think we need to break up these long posts. You could start by addressing only a part of the post in question, but then the writer of the post will accuse you of ignoring the other parts of the post, even if you answer them in another post. WILL they? HOW do you KNOW that they WILL do that? BTW, ...