Philosophy Now Forum

Obvious Leo wrote:

uwot wrote:What theory is that Leo?

General Relativity.

I wasn't aware that General Relativity predicted dark matter. Can you elucidate?

Bill Wiltrack wrote:Have a rest and be ordinary and be natural.

Alternatively, you could choose to have a life.

bobevenson wrote:...I have mystical credentials...

Reverend Bob, your credentials all include admissions from your interlocutor that they don't understand what you are on about. I've got loads of those; do you think I may be a prophet too?

I believe in certainty. 8) We all have our idiosyncrasies. But why would "dragging" it make it more dense? Well, if you imagine a source of points, the points radiate in straight lines and form a sphere. If the source is rotating, the trajectory of the points emitted at the equator is par...

bobevenson wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

Arising_uk wrote: By his own words, an institutional false prophet as well.

I'm the closest thing to God you can find.

Well your a bit off the mark in the infallibility stakes, Reverend Bob. Arising didn't write that.

I mean that literally, the mechanical medium that is big bang stuff is denser around material objects, in part because 'matter'- as in fundamental particles and aggregations thereof-is essentially condensed big bang stuff. That is certainly true. I wouldn't go that far: it is a workable hypothesis,...

No matter how you try and slice and dice it, uwot, it's still a non-mechanical, spooky-action-at-a-distance... That in a nutshell is precisely what it isn't. As I have said, I think the best explanation of gravity is that it is refraction. I mean that literally, the mechanical medium that is big ba...

...I still think the distinction between primary and secondary qualities is valid. I don't think primary qualities areq emergent. I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. What are primary and secondary qualities? The distinction was most clearly made by John Locke. Primary qualities are things...

The physical properties of objects are always emergent and emergent properties are by definition a construct of the consciousness of the observer of them. I know your mate Leibniz was a critic, but I still think the distinction between primary and secondary qualities is valid. I don't think primary...

Don't knock the monster, mate. The church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has been officially recognised under New Zealand law as a legitimate religious institution, being neither more nor less plausible than any of its competitors in the battle for the credulous dollar. If I have offended any beli...

I just realized there is absolutely nothing I could say or evidence I could produce to ever make you change your collectively closed minds, which are apparently hermetically sealed against who knows what. Reverend Bob, I'm confused. If you don't know what the unbeliever's mind is sealed against, wh...

Just goes to show that in order for technology to understand us, we will have to speak its language.

Young's Double Slit for one. That'll do for starters. So, let's hear it. Affectance ontology explains WHY those "forces" exist in the first place. It's not clear to me that it does. If you do not distinguish between a thing and its properties, all you are saying is that there are properti...

JSS wrote:It is physically real. Physical existence is defined as "that which physically affects", aka "physical affectance".

So what affect does affectance account for that the "physically real" forces of nature, as described by physics, don't?

That doesn't mean that they physically exist anywhere. They are designated as "fictional characters". And you just proved their existence in concept by using them as you just did .. as "fictional characters". So what is it about affectance that makes it different from a fictiona...