What does it mean "to Exist"?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by Obvious Leo »

Dubious. You have a lot to say in criticism of a philosophy which you haven't even read. A theory which yields a testable prediction which would unambiguously falsify the spacetime model is a legitimate scientific hypothesis and I don't give a fuck whether you're willing to accept this or not. That's the way science works.
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by Dubious »

Obvious Leo wrote: A theory which yields a testable prediction which would unambiguously falsify the spacetime model is a legitimate scientific hypothesis and I don't give a fuck whether you're willing to accept this or not. That's the way science works.
But that's not the way you work! There's nothing new here and don't even know why you mention it! Obviously physicists would be forced to acknowledge the result if there actually were such an unambiguous falsification but the ones you invent with all the metaphysical claptrap laminations you ceaselessly apply don't qualify to unambiguously prove anything. Add to that the endless assertions you make as if opinions were fact...the easiest methodology to prove anything being your prime method. Not once have you given your conclusions a single external reference except for the incessant looping of Albert's uncontextualized quotes. In spite of my clear antipathy toward philosophy as applied to physics...note, ONLY as applied to physics, it's also clear that you respond to the counter views of those who don't force the “philosophy card” on subjects that don't qualify with very short, glib, insignificant remarks meant to sidetrack the arguments made or ignore them completely.

Physics and philosophy are different disciplines with different goals and terminologies. A physicist couldn't give a shit if a concept under their scrutiny be ontological, epistemological or scatological.

You also can't upon examination seem to differentiate between your own statements:
A theory which yields a testable prediction which would unambiguously falsify the spacetime model is a legitimate scientific hypothesis
As mentioned, true if there were such a verifying event - except we haven't yet encountered any such unambiguous falsification of space-time though you continually declare it already dead as dreamt of in your philosophy. As noted in a few posts, gravitational waves and space-time are usually considered in collusion with each other. Why if space-time is dead? But as in so many other instances, you never responded to that either. There would be more than just minor ripples through the science journals if space-time were "unambiguously" proven to be defunct.
The question remains and keeps on remaining if space-time is dead what are you going to replace it with because you better have a theory to incorporate all the reasons why the old one worked. Any new theory has a very low probability of being successful without this incorporation. That's the way science works as compared to your i[]philosophy of science which can't tell the difference between the two[/i]

Space-time may possibly be wrong but it's still the reigning model until "unambiguously proven" wrong...not likely to happen soon.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by Obvious Leo »

Dubious wrote:But that's not the way you work!
It's exactly the way I work. I propose an alternative theory and explain how it resolves issues which the current theory cannot resolve. Then I show how this theory yields a testable prediction which falsifies current theory. What more do you want?
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by Dubious »

Obvious Leo wrote:
Dubious wrote:But that's not the way you work!
It's exactly the way I work. I propose an alternative theory and explain how it resolves issues which the current theory cannot resolve. Then I show how this theory yields a testable prediction which falsifies current theory. What more do you want?
...what a physicist would want and expect. Show us the beef and not merely describe how much better this whopper tastes than all the other ones out there seeking credibility. If you have such a powerful theory, why not take it beyond internet forums and present it for peer review by physicists?
JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by JSS »

Dubious wrote: ...what a physicist would want and expect. Show us the beef and not merely describe how much better this whopper tastes than all the other ones out there seeking credibility. If you have such a powerful theory, why not take it beyond internet forums and present it for peer review by physicists?
In a modern day, that is a silly thing to say.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by Obvious Leo »

Dubious wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:
Dubious wrote:But that's not the way you work!
It's exactly the way I work. I propose an alternative theory and explain how it resolves issues which the current theory cannot resolve. Then I show how this theory yields a testable prediction which falsifies current theory. What more do you want?
...what a physicist would want and expect. Show us the beef and not merely describe how much better this whopper tastes than all the other ones out there seeking credibility. If you have such a powerful theory, why not take it beyond internet forums and present it for peer review by physicists?
Dubious. I've never once claimed that what I'm presenting is a physical theory so offering it for peer review by physicists is simply not appropriate. I'm in exactly the right place to be saying what I'm saying because what I present is an ontological underpinning for the epistemic models which physics is currently using. However this alternative paradigm must nevertheless be regarded as a legitimate scientific hypothesis in its own right because it yields an easily testable prediction which would unambiguously falsify current theory. if you don't want to read it that's entirely your own affair but I've presented links to a synopsis of my philosophy often enough for you to consider it. Simply refuting what I say by saying what I refute does not constitute a counter-argument and you embarrass yourself in a philosophy forum by failing to address the specific points that I've raised. Either read this or shut the fuck up.

https://austintorney.wordpress.com/2015 ... n-de-jong/
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by Dubious »

Dubious wrote:...what a physicist would want and expect. Show us the beef and not merely describe how much better this whopper tastes than all the other ones out there seeking credibility. If you have such a powerful theory, why not take it beyond internet forums and present it for peer review by physicists?
JSS wrote:In a modern day, that is a silly thing to say.
Why? As far as I can tell NOW, as in any other day, the put up or shut up challenge is still in vogue especially when there's only incessant talk about being able to prove one's theories on internet forums. What really makes the Be All and End All difference is reading writers like Lisa Randall or Sean Carrol, etc, and then comparing that to the kind of stuff you guys come up with. What's even more ironic is that none of them write with the self proclaimed certainty that you and Leo preach in espousing your theories. It must be part of the ego process of some amateurs to denounce those who actually accomplished something. It's a way of stealing credibility and applying it to oneself for free.

You and Leo have come up with NOTHING. Your break-through theories, which you may presume worthy of Nobles, merely exist side-by-side with all the other humbug theories on the internet...and that's where they live and die.
JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by JSS »

Dubious wrote:
Dubious wrote:...what a physicist would want and expect. Show us the beef and not merely describe how much better this whopper tastes than all the other ones out there seeking credibility. If you have such a powerful theory, why not take it beyond internet forums and present it for peer review by physicists?
JSS wrote:In a modern day, that is a silly thing to say.
Why? As far as I can tell NOW, as in any other day, the put up or shut up challenge is still in vogue
That is your error. You are talking as if you live in a free country of the 1950's or earlier. Today, information is very, very filtered. Media does not merely report the news, but filters and even contrives what is to be news. The only physicists you get to hear about have been selected for what they say. What is or is not true hasn't anything at all to do with society TODAY. You live in the land of lies, the Planet of the Apes undermined by Serpents (somewhat the story of The Time Machine with the Eloi and the Morlocks).

Corporations and socialist governments are deeply embedded in the mindset of the masses, "propaganda" and "pride" - ego. Truth is not merely forgotten, but taught as not even existent. And if you look close enough at the things that are taught in schools, you might very well be convinced.

In short, no one cares if your theory is right or wrong. What they care about is whether your theory will gain them more power/wealth. And if it will, why would they need to address you? Why not just use it and build their power by insuring that no one else knows this truth concerning power?

You are obviously thinking in terms of the older days when there were good men doing good deeds. Such men today are only on the lowest level of influence and thwarted at every turn, often by common, know nothing people such as yourself.
Dubious wrote:What really makes the Be All and End All difference is reading writers like Lisa Randall or Sean Carrol, etc, and then comparing that to the kind of stuff you guys come up with. What's even more ironic is that none of them write with the self proclaimed certainty that you and Leo preach in espousing your theories. It must be part of the ego process of some amateurs to denounce those who actually accomplished something. It's a way of stealing credibility and applying it to oneself for free.
That accusation kind of depends on whether the "preacher" is willing and able to fully expain every detail of his proposed theory, doesn't it? How is it "stealing credibility" if he is explaining every detail?

I imagine that your counter argument would be that you are not personally qualified to learn from anyone's explanations, thus you must default only to those who other people have professed as right or better. You have faith in what the media, schools, and the like tell you. You believe the propaganda machine. You are a faithful follower.

The motto for Science is:
Nullius in Verba

That means "Take no one's word".

Yet here you are telling us that you only accept other people's word, specific other people propped up as prophets before the masses. And that we are cheating or "stealing credit" if we don't bow and take their word too. You are anti-science. And you are preaching that we should be also.

I think it is of more benefit to demand that science professors (those who profess science) convince the masses by means other than "WE are the ones that EWE should believe. And anyone who doesn't believe in US, is a crank, crackpot, trying to steal OUR thunder." I have personally found THEM to be in error far too many times. Else I wouldn't have bothered to resolve the whole unified field theory issue.

They said that they haven't done it. So okay, they have been working on it for centuries, maybe there is something basically wrong with what they are thinking. And if there is and they serve their ego, pride and investment into the propaganda, as I know with great experience that they do, they most certainly do not want me or ewe to be the one to reveal how they have been off mark for so long.

Pride and ego run the entire world today. No one, professional or not, cares of truth over pride .. except for a few lingering altruists being harassed by do nothing people like EWE.
Dubious wrote:You and Leo have come up with NOTHING.
No, it is EWE who have come up with NOTHING. Either or both Leo and I might be wrong. But at least we HAVE SOMETHING with which to debate and possibly be found right or wrong about.

EWE are the one with NOTHING but your "Dubiousness".
Last edited by JSS on Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by Dubious »

Obvious Leo wrote:Either read this or shut the fuck up.
Actually I have read it some time ago. It's extremely well written. I was and remain impressed by your style but, like others, I respond to posts as they come up.

You have no idea how many times I actually did shut the fuck up even as the baloney meter popped after reading some of your posts. Eventually one feels inclined – after having been carpet-bombed by bullshit long enough - to start challenging the distortions and self-serving lies of your intellectual high wire act. The only references you make are either to yourself or the uncontextualized, disembodied quotes of Albert which you keep on repeating ad nauseam as a credibility net. Of course, it proves nothing until one reads the sentence, the paragraph, the page containing it for a full description and whether that may have changed. This is especially true in Albert's case who was not always clear on the implications of his theories.

What I also find treasonable to any honest intellect is how often you invoke the “illuminati” to concur with your views without ever offering a single, specific reference endorsing your conclusions which usually diminish into humbug upon examining what they actually said. Yet, at the same time, or as conveniently required, you claim that physicists have their models all wrong. No wonder you have problems getting into a “real” physics forum. You're out when they get to know you and not allowed in if your reputation precedes you. Ergo, you post where stringency is not required and the bullshit sensor is turned off.

Having lived long enough myself, playing, as well as being played upon by most of the bullshit variations in vogue, I no-longer require fine tuning to recognize it when encountered.
Obvious Leo wrote:I'm in exactly the right place to be saying what I'm saying because what I present is an ontological underpinning for the epistemic models which physics is currently using.
...by which means you've transformed physics into metaphysics, needless to say not very useful to physicists and by your usage, an unjustifiable implementation of philosophy. This must be the license which qualified you to call the likes of Newton, Descartes, Minkowski, etc, cretins, idiots, morons. If the standards of philosophy or science were akin to those of politics, you'd make the perfect politician with a fuck-up potential equal to that of Donald Trump if he becomes President.
Obvious Leo wrote:I've never once claimed that what I'm presenting is a physical theory so offering it for peer review by physicists is simply not appropriate.
Very convenient! Looks like you have it made being able to pontificate upon any and all theories without requiring any proof for your methodologies or its derived conclusions meant to falsify most of the current models. But certain it is that within any scientific or philosophic venue, your recurrent and interminable assertions, immune to any foreign DNA as reference, would be instantly redlined as unacceptable whereas in philosophy forums “unacceptable” is rarely a limitation. This means you have nowhere to go with your theories just like James who's been flogging the same stuff for years on ILP.
Obvious Leo wrote:However this alternative paradigm must nevertheless be regarded as a legitimate scientific hypothesis in its own right because it yields an easily testable prediction which would unambiguously falsify current theory.
Unambiguously again! Is there anything within your theories which amount to “grey matter” instead of only black and white certainties? In books on physics one hardly reads the word “unambiguously” or words of similar intent as many times as contained in some of your posts. At the same time - according to your version of the best of all possible worlds - it “must be regarded as a legitimate scientific hypothesis” only it's not amenable to peer review. Perfect circles exist after all.

If it's easily testable what prevents it from being tested? If a single test could falsify current theory one would think there's enough interest by someone who's in the business to perform the deed. Imagine the money and fame if that were true. Best of all, make all those who argued against you eat their words. It's the last part I'd enjoy the most.
Obvious Leo wrote:Simply refuting what I say by saying what I refute does not constitute a counter-argument and you embarrass yourself in a philosophy forum by failing to address the specific points that I've raised.
...and now on to the greatest windbag statement of all...

Simply refuting what I say by saying what I refute...etc.

...which almost sounds like your trying to tie a pair of shoes with one shoelace. I knew it was going to be applied to me eventually since you've used it consistently on every forum in which I noticed you as a member. It's the default response against those who more aggressively oppose or question your conclusions and there weren't just a few who did. I think you must have consigned it to a function key long ago for ready access.

What makes this statement doubly idiotic is its use against ANY argument made regardless of content. That's equivalent to giving the same response to different questions.

Since you use it so often as a form of logic in a final effort to deconstruct the logic of others, let's take it apart literally as written:

1...simply refuting what I say: the opening makes sense. I, for example, may have refuted, but more often I questioned.
2...by saying what I refute: how does this combine with the above? I'm not in a position to say what you refute.

If I refute what someone says how does that result in me saying or defining what the other person refutes? When I refute you I can't at the same time be denoting what YOU would or should refute.

Care to clarify your “Concluding Unscientific Postscript” against those to whom you could offer no other counter argument?

Your “Bloody Obvious” logic would be tortured to death by someone like Wittgenstein.
JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by JSS »

Dubious wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:Either read this or shut the fuck up.
Actually I have read
Check one post up in case you missed it while typing.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by Obvious Leo »

Dubious. If you wish to offer an argument against any of the specific claims which I make in my philosophy I'd be happy to address it. On the other hand if you continue to claim that the validity of a statement is solely contingent on the prestige of the person who utters it then it seems we have nothing further to say to each other.
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by Dubious »

JSS wrote:Check one post up in case you missed it while typing.
I have read your post but as with Leo, much of what you say, I can never agree with. There's no point in debate. I'll let the two of you hammer out which of your universes is the most likely one.
---------------------------------------
Obvious Leo wrote:...you continue to claim that the validity of a statement is solely contingent on the prestige of the person who utters it...
Not a single defense against anything I said except for one outstanding gratuitous lie and a stupid one at that since I'm sure you know better.

That may have been true when I was 5 to 10 years old but that kind of innocent acceptance of authority evaporated rather quickly. Being just a "little bit" older now much closer to your age in fact, I'm forced to inquire, where among my posts have I claimed any such thing? I didn't call myself "Dubious" by accident.

If nothing else, I thought you would at least have defended your improvised default mantra - Simply refuting what I say by saying what I refute...but nothing there either.

That's okay! There's very little we communicated on anyways. Since I haven't solved all the problems in physics - or in fact solved any - from now on I'll leave it you and James to determine which one of you best solved those problems.
osgart
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by osgart »

existence itself has rules of existing. Most say that is physical cause because of our senses. Some say space itself decides existence. But the existence of intelligence and consciousness itself says something meaningful pre exists. Intelligence tries to operate in nature and although it only desperately hangs on in the physical, something underlies the physical. A will in nature forms intelligent organization. That organization shows an understanding of the nature of existence. That says something long term and innate to existence exists. The only intelligence can exist long term is non physical existence. Non locality proves that you dont need the physical for the physical to react regardless of distance. So i imply a non physical enduring intelligent reality exists.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by Terrapin Station »

JSS wrote:All of those words correctly imply "to exist". Each can be used as substitute for "to exist". Yet none of them tell you of what it is. The "definitions" given carry no additional meaning. They aren't actual definitions or explanations, merely substitutes hinting at at a meaning. If one asks for the definition of "color", one gets an explanation involving light, not merely other words for "color".
All I get from this comment if yours is that you don't understand what definitions are/how they work.
Post Reply