surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 12:38 pm
Age wrote:
Saying everything within the Universe HAS TO BE physical because the Universe is ALL THERE IS does NOT logically follow
Non physical things cannot exist therefore everything that exists must be physical does NOT logically belong together EITHER
I will rephrase these statements then : everything within the Universe exists and non existent things cannot exist [ obviously ]
Usually when a statement is rephrased, the rephrased statement aligns, somewhat, with the previous statement.
Your original statement was stating, directly, that
EVERY thing that exists MUST BE 'physical'. Your, now, rephrased statement is just stating that
EVERY thing within the Universe exists and what does NOT exist (or the non existent 'things)' can NOT exist.
Besides this being illogical, what can be clearly seen, also, is that your rephrased statement is NOT stating at all what your original statement was.
Your first statement concludes EVERY thing that exists MUST BE physical.
Your second statement concludes EVERY thing, within the Universe, exists.
Your second statement is NOT a rephrased version of the first statement as they each conclude two completely different things.
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 12:38 pm
Age wrote:
By the way what you are proposing here is that the Universe Itself is just One physical thing correct ?
If yes then WHY the apparent separate different physical things ?
The Universe can be classed as one physical thing but it is also made up of smaller physical things
NOT when LOOKED AT thoroughly, and NOT when DELVED DOWN into deep enough.
Thee actual 'thing', which you are MISSING, is being MISSED partly, and maybe mostly, because of what you already think and assume, or see, as already being true and correct.
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 12:38 pmIn exactly the same way that there are other physical things composed of smaller physical things
So, if there are smaller physical 'things' (with an 's'), then what you are proposing, which separates these, "separated", 'things' is some 'thing' physical correct?
If one classifies the Universe as One physical thing, then a 'Yes' to my clarifying question would have to be logically, and empirically, correct, correct?
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 12:38 pm
Age wrote:So the phenomena of thoughts and emotions are physical to you because they cannot be anything else correct ?
Thoughts and emotions are physical to me because they exist and I equate physicality with existence
You also equate 'existence' with 'physicality', as well, correct?
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 12:38 pm
Regardless of whether or not they are classed as physical [ they are generally classed as mental ]
i, for one, certainly do NOT class 'emotions' as 'mental'.
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 12:38 pm
Age wrote:Also exactly HOW does the brain actually function which you sum up in and by the one word mind ?
Mind is merely one word for a very complicated process which I do not fully understand beyond the basics
Okay. What are the 'basics', which you say you do 'understand'?
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 12:38 pm
Yes I am but I do not think that those other things are as reliable
That is because they are not as capable of potential falsification
But, if through the other things Truth, Itself, is found, determined, and/or able to be expressed, then 'potential falsification' is NOT even a necessary factor.
Please do NOT forget that 'science' does NOT deal with Truth at all.
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 12:38 pm
There is certainly evidence but I would not say it is irrefutable because that is not the nature of evidence
This is a great point, which you have just clearly stated and made known here.
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 12:38 pm
That which at the time it is conducted supports a testable hypothesis
So one that has been subjected to the rigour of the scientific method
Based on this definition, 'evidence', itself, could actually support an array of completely other different, and even opposing, things or hypothesizes from the testable hypothesis, correct?
You have also highlighted a great point here, that is; 'evidence' is actually being sought, to test A hypothesis.