Gravity exist and can be measured Length does not exist and strangely cannot be measured Weight is a variable and a concept again does not exist What is interesting is how stuff which has no physicality and only "exist" or can only be thought of, not put on a lab table to be sliced and diced, or detected by instruments is confused with stuff which has a physicality, ie exist Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sure it can. You can determine that an object has some specific length in any rest frame. You can compare that to another object and say if it's longer or shorter. And that will always be valid. Sure it can. You can say that weight is G*M and again be accurate in any rest frame. This "nothing is real" is a fun thought experiment but ultimately not that profound.
True colours / weight / length aspects are not that profound HOWEVER I believe a little more profound when they impact on the workings of the brain As in thought processes. god can be thought of as being the greatest con job ever Billions of people "thinking" some sort of entity lives in the sky and will decide if you go to heaven or hell That aspect alone IS profound Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Most properties don't have physicality. But that doesn't mean they don't exist or aren't real. The property or qualia of greenness is objective, impactful, and is experienced by us. It is therefore real. Defining existence as physicality, particularly as something that can exist as a discrete object in spacetime, has its limitations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_(philosophy)
Please give examples of properties which do not have physicality but nonetheless exist Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
OK. You are saying three completely different things here. One, it sounds like you agree that physical constants and physical measurements are fairly objective. Agreed. Two, you are saying that it's interesting to consider how people interpret things. While that may interest people, it's somewhat sophomoric. "Hey, what if what I think of as green, you think of as . . . now check this out . . . PURPLE! And how would you know? Doesn't that blow your mind?" Not really. No one's perception is 100% the same as another person's, and thus saying that one person's perception of green is another person's perception of purple isn't accurate to begin with. Three, you think that religion is something of a deception. I agree, it can be. Those are fairly unrelated thoughts though.
All properties. There is no sense in which a property is a physical thing. It can be measured, but only as instantiated in a physical object. Length or weight or mass or size cannot in themselves be measured as objects. They are ideas or abstractions.
Qualia. The taste of a lemon. The pain of a pinprick. The colour red. There is no physical aspect to these things - no objective way to measure them - yet they exist nonetheless. Compassion is a good one too, because while it is not a physical thing that can be measured, it does exist enough to affect our actions.
a lingering taste of compassionafruit ice cream that creates a memory as you pass by the local diner in hot summers while daydreaming...
I guess we disagree about what ACTUALLY exist Which MAY explain why, with odd occurancences, I tend to believe have mudane explanations with no expectation of anything supernatural involved If you say that I have no idea what you are taking about I guess we disagree about what ACTUALLY exist I guess we disagree about what ACTUALLY exist Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
My thoughts run along the following and I would like to find out one day if studies have been done on "If people have a predisposition t(hard wired) or learn (taught, pick up) - or a mixture (nature / nurture) to consider thinking about stuff and considering it to be real - puts them futher up the religion road - than those who, in my opinion, tend to require something with a physicality or evidence via equipment, before accepting stuff is REAL" I am not saying CONCEPTS of the stuff mentioned are not talked about, and good handles for explaining points to get to an agreement, but belief in such points CONCEPTS having objective EXISTENCE - for me no no While I would not call it black and white is this the division Science / religion? Religion - think of the millions killed in the name of religion (my concept a con job based on belief) AGAINST Science - the numbers killed due (directly) due to the use of science Think religion wins hand down in the killing fields (as well as the rest of the world unpleasantness) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
'There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'---Shakespeare
Ummmm in my philosophy heaven does not exist so I would contend if you are taking about heaven and earth combined there would be a lot less If you mean heaven and earth separate - sure still more in Earth alone Still nothing supernatural in my tally though Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yet it's very simple. The only form in which green exists is qualitative, i.e. as what's often called "qualia", and this only in the context of our private, subjective experience. Look at something green and you will experience green, or greenness, and that's apparently the only way to do it, except probably by direct electrical stimulation of the neurons involved. Yet M345 is asking me to provide him with green in the quantitative form typical of the physical, objective world, a form in which green probably doesn't exist. This is absurd. Anyone a bit familiar with the issue would refrain from making such a naively realistic request. So, to make this point, I just asked him back to do something equally impossible. I forgot I think to ask him to send me a sample of Black Hole for good measure. I hope you're at least familiar with the principle of reasoning from absurdity, i.e. reductio ad absurdum. I thought that was something everybody understood. M245's position is also particularly absurd because he no doubt experiences green himself, and on a regular basis, and certainly no less than he does energy or mass or distance. In fact, it's arguable that we experience green much more directly than any of those things. So, in effect he, too, knows green, at least when he is looking at anything green, and that which you know cannot possibly not exist. And yet, here he is, denying the existence of green. Plainly absurd. And this has been well known for quite some time now. Where has he been all these years?! His arguments are just primitive to say the least, and repetitive. So my assumption is that his position is essentially ideological, which is now confirmed by the connection he explicitly suggested between insisting like I do that green exists and a religious inclination. That's ideology writ large for you. I'm not religious in the least. Likely though, I'm more tolerant of religious people that he is. I'm only intolerant of intolerance, be it of a religious nature or not. EB