TheRobin

I don't know the exact numbers, but Stef has some very good podcast on that topic. Also, depending on with whom and where and in what situation you're in you might want to not use certain arguments that are quite explosive (basically anything that calls people being evil for supporting government). On the other hand the same arguments are very important when talking to friends, family (basically anyone who claims to like you), because that liking someone and having them being shot for doing what he thinks is moral don't really go well together.

I don't quite follow on two points.The first is that, I don't see how you could not measure space (even of only of the blob itself). Say we had a cube, we cude use the length of one side as a unit and measure the volume, surface area, diagonals and such. Wouldn't that be a valid measure of space?I also don't quite follow your time example, because if we only have the movement of one blob towards another then you have the problem that you named yourself, that you have no variance. So what do you measure then and what do you use as a unit? In the example of a spinning and moving blob, you'd have either the spin or the movement towards the other blob as a unit by which you measure the other, but if there's only one movement, you have only have a unit buth nothing to measure basically?It works again with three blobs though. Though I don't get why the zero-dimensionality is important in those examples.

I think I understand the space concept a bit better now, but time still makes no sense, as you explained time to mean a "passage of time", which isn't really helping me at all to be honest.But to come back to my original assumption that space and time are concepts of relations of things, here's a thoguht experiment and maybe you see what I mean and can explain me the concepts relative to that. Assume we had one blob of matter, no atoms or smaller parts that it's made of, just one blob. Now, I'd argue we could have and apply the concept of space here, meaning we could apply a coordinate set to the blob, like a map, but we couldn't apply the concept of time, as long as there's no other blob there.Because as long as there's only one blob, movement can't be measured, as movement is measured by a change in coordinates relative to another thing, whose coordinates we also know. But if there's only one thing, then that's impossible, and we also can't make a coordinatesystem "stick" onto a vacuum. So time only starts to make sense as a concept if there's another blob and I'd even argue that time at that point would still only be measurable if at least one blob has a spin along it's axis. That way you can use that as a time unit and compare the movement towards or away from the other blob against the spin.What I basically mean is, unless we have something that has a constant movement and that we can use as a clock, the concept of time is not measurable and as such not applicable to reality. Does that make some sense?

First of all thank you for taking the time for this detailed explanation of the evolution of physical ideas in general. I found it a very intersting read, though I already knew or heard of a lot of them to some extend (though not in so much detail). But I still don't see how that answers my question as to how time and space are actually defined. I think the only paragraph that touches upon it was this one. Here you equate space with position of interaction in a system and time with time of interaction in a system. It seems to me these are merely synonyms (or the same word in case of "time" ) and not really definitions or explanations or the concept itself. I mean if we were to plug that in to a later sentence of yours then it would read "We're all travelling along the position-time interaction in a system at a constant rate." which seems very confusing. Also the notion of "travelling" along a time-axis seems a bit weird on first glance. How do you define travel then if that works logically? I mean, travel in the common sense of the word is a movement (space unit/per time unit) from A to B . But if you say traveling along time, then that would mean time-unit/time-unit, but that doesn't seem to make sense, as that would just cancel itself out again. So what am I missing here? Would you mind explaing or extending a bit on these very basic concepts? I think unless there's a clear understaning of the basics there isn't much point in going into the way more advanced physics of relativity.

Hey, since you're a phisicist: Can you tell me how physicists define or understand space and time (or space-time)? As I understand it or as it makes sense to me both space and time are concepts for a relation between matter and/or energy, but you (or physicists in general) seem to use the ideas as if they're things themselves and that never made much sense to me.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/ Very intersting article that some nice gentleman in the chat introduced me to. Found it very much worth my time reading. Core of the matter being that a meta analysis of the medicinal research and studies shows that most of it them are wrong/flawed, but have a read for yourself for the details.

could you explain to me then, in what broader category you place "thought" (and maybe provide a more exact definition?)? I assume we agree, that a thought is different from nothing, so by what criteria is it different from nothing? yet if they also don't exist, by what criteria are they similar to nothing?p.s. afaik every brain encodes information and thoughts differentely, so even theoretically we won't ever be able to read out information from a brain unless we beforehand have somehow figured out the exact code for each thought and concept.

I'd rather focus on what you think and your motivation to stay in the conversation for that long. And if you truly think that your question was offensive.For what it's worth though, I didn't find it offensive, I was actually quite confused when the other guy suddenly said somethign about being offensive, as I couldn't figure out what he could possibly be talking about. After that idk, it just looks a bit like you're begging him to keep debating. This person has clearly shown to you from the start that neither evidence nor reason interests him particularly, so why did you stay in the debate so long in the first place?

I'd say it's more a usage of vague terms to try and link or justify the environmental stuff. Saying that people are more easily annoyed when they're too hot and feel uncofortable due to temperature is certainly not surprising, but then calling that "climate change" and trying to link it to to boogyman of global climate change is certainly unwarranted. Also it's nice too see that the artciel ends with stating a good critique of the conclusion, but given the the whole rest is just vague climate change fearmongering, I'd say objectivity wasn't a particular goal of that article.

cool, I've only had one game so far and the next time I tried it took me over an hour until I got one started, so I gave up looking after that for a while. But it's qutie fun, given that there's more diversity and uncertainty of what to expect of other people. btw my steam is ruvench, just sent you a friend invite.

Hey everyone, I've been wondering if anyone else plays Civilization 5 occasionaly and would be up for a multiplayer game at some point. If so, please respond to the threat so we can see how many people would be up for it, even better if there are time preferences for games. :)I'd hypothetically be up for a game anywhere between 12:00 and 21:00 UTC+1 timezone. At least most of the time I could arange it to make it, if I know in advance.

I don't see how the existence of a concept (like god or car) necessarily means the existence of what the concept represents. Sure the thought of a deity exists (else we couldn't talk about it) but that doesn't mean that the idea represents something outside our thoughts/brains.I think the idea that concepts and thoguhts don't exist comes more from an unclarity whether we talk about the properties of the thing that the word represents or the properties of the word itself than anything else. By your definition of exist, thoughts are certainly measurable and have an effect on our brains, so wouldn't saying concept/thoughts don't exist mean you'd need to redefine the word "exist" then?p.s. and no, I don't find it easier to say, but I guess, like anything language related, that comes down to habit. p.p.s. Happy Birthday! You made it another time around the sun!

I'd say that concepts and categories do exist (interact with matter and energy) insofar as they're moving stuff in our brains around (or correlate to a movement of stuff in our brains). Just because the categoreis don't exist outside our brains doesn't seem to warrant putting them into the non-existent category.

Well, I'd hope so :)Tough I get the sense that catfood doesn't quite udnerstand the reason behind those basic principles which is why I wanted to point it out. Also, I was about 27 years old when I myself first heard that principle and the reasons behind it, so maybe it's just my personal bias, but given that these things never get taught at school or even higher education I often find it very useful to check if people have a good grasp on the basics of reason and science before going off on more complex topics.

Any thing that's described as having contradictory properties can be safely said to not exist. But mostly because the description of the thing itself fails being meaningful. THat's true for things like square circles or in regards to the god hypothesis to any "omni-something" property.Also there are circumstances where you can prove a negative by proffing a positive that can't be true at the same time as the negative. Alibies work that way for instance (i.e. if you can prove you were in Chicago at 9am, you also have proof to NOT have been anywhere else at that time).Or you can proof that the moon is NOT made out of cheese by measuring and figuring out what it IS made off.Basically the mroe you know about the properties of thigns that DO exist the more things you can be certain DON'T exist because it would defy those properties. Which though isn't quite the same as to say that things with completely different properties could not hypothetically exist somewhere (but just not anywhere where they cold influence us, as the known universe seems to be consistent everywhere else with what we know and have in our part of it)But generally (and unless we already have very solid information about a certain thing or area) it's often either practically or literally impossible to proof the non-exsitence of a thing which is why the burden of proof rests on the one making the claim that the thing exists and never the other way around. Even more so if the thing in question defies all known rules and laws.

I'm starting to get a little annoyed: Have you just skipped the part where I gave my criteria for proof entirely?I don't seem to be able to quote my own quote here, so I just copy paste what I wrote again: "If there was such a thing as a being which created the universe I wouldn't call that supernatural, as if there actually was such a being it would be just as natural as anything else in the universe. As for proof, all this being would need to do is show itself and perform some feats as creating a few universes that everyone can see or something, so we know that being actually has the capacity to do so. Easy Peacy"I mean proof in general is simple: If something is supposed to be more than just my imagination, then other people have to be able to see it as well. Or at the very least, I need to be able to derive something from the thing to be proven, that can be seen by others (like your scenario with the knowledge of the future).

Well, religion defines it basically as something that can't exist: So if there would be proof for it's existence, that would isntantly disproof it's existence :)If there was such a thing as a being which created the universe I wouldn't call that supernatural, as if there actually was such a being it would be just as natural as anything else in the universe. As for proof, all this being would need to do is show itself and perform some feats as creating a few universes that everyone can see or something, so we know that being actually has the capacity to do so. Easy Peacy :)As for worshipping, why on earth would anyone do that, even IF there's such a being? The only way you get people to worship something that has more power than they themselves is by bullying and threatening with violence, which is done by people, mostly parents and priests, and not by supposed deities.

I still don't understand what "supernatural" means or "god". so far you say it's "not natural" but that's not a definition (I mean imagine if I gave the defintion "not pants", that'd leave open literally everything from that wouldn't even need to be clothing (like, say "red" or "stone"), so saying what somethign is not is never a valid definition. But if you use the word "nautral" in your definition, can I ask you to also give me a definition of that?Also if you say that "testability" is not something that applies to "god" then asking for proof is self-contradictory, as by definition everything that would proof it's existence would disproof it at the same moment.In your example: If I can write it down so that others can see it and test whether or not these things come true or not, then sure that'd be a nice proof for something. As I still don't know how you use the words "god" and "supernatural" I don't know if that fits the criteria, but if it's that what you mean, then sure, that'd be a proof.

Also, again Give me a clear definition fo the word "supernatural" and "god" and I'll gladly give you some criteria for proof, but as of now, I don't even know what I would need to proof (or disproce) as I don't know what you mean with these words.

Lens, you're extremely mischaracterizing here. No one says you "need" "drugs". Same as you don't "need" a specific type of therapy, it's just another thing that can help if used correctly. And calling psychedelics "drugs" and therefore throwing them in the same pot as alcohol and heroin is also very misleading. There are those substances that enhance and intesify one's experience and then there are substances that numb and dissociate. And throwing those in the same pot is neither accurate nor helpful for a better understanding of either.In regards to the article: I hope someone at some point can make a long-term study of the effects to see how permanent they are or aren't but it's certainly interesting to see the interest in psychedelics rising again lately in the academic field.

kind of weird what you got out of mine and wesley's writing.But no it's not that there's a lack of evidence, it's that the theist claim themselves that they can't have any evidence, which is a huge difference. The burden of proof rests on the one making the claim and if the claim includes a lack of possibility of proof then the claim is already an invalid one logically and we don't even need to go as far as looking for evidence.It's like proposing a theory of gravity that has rocks fall to the ground and to the sky simultanisouly, it's selfcontradictory and therefore an invalid theory. Same for the theory of "God" or "supernatural".Unless you can propose a clear definition of either that doesn't immediately contradict itself

Well, that's kind of the first and biggest problem when someone calls something "supernatural": It's by definition outside the realm of possible objective veryfiable proof.It's like saying: "Hey, I have this really great argument that shows irrefutably that atheism is incorrect, but I can't never translate it into a human language or experience, so you just have to believe me. (now, give me money and sit in my church )"Of course, then the question is how would they themselve know that argument then. Logically they can't so you know, they're hypocrytes.The second problem of calling something "supernatural" is also that you draw a line somehow arbitrarily. I mean at what point do things stop beign natural and become "super"natural? If something can interfere with our universe, then it's just as natural as the unvirese itself, so there's no need to create this divide in the first place. And if it can't interfere with our universe, then it's by definition unknowable and as such can't be claimed to be true.

so you divide reality into "natural" and "supernatural" and say science only deals with one aspect of reality? How and by what criteria do you make this divide? And what's the difference between the two?p.s. you can't define something usng a negative ("non-contingent" in your example), as the absence of a negative still leaves open an unlimited amount of positive characteristics and therefore still leaves one without a definition at all.

What does "transcend" mean then? and how does that lead to bein impobbislbe to not exist? Oh and also what do you mean with "existence"? So, are you saying that whatever is non-physical has no influence over the phyiscal (no causation)? Because if so, how would that not fit the criteria of "non-existent"?

can you give an example of a non-phyiscal thing or process? I genuinly have no idea what that would even mean.Also, what exactly do you mean with "science"? (i.e. how do you understand science to work in it's essence? I ask because I never heard anyone use the phrase "appeal to science")