WHY does anything exist?

[Dywyddyr]

This was something I was trying to put in the form of a *question* that I subsequently *address*.

Yet you stated it as an a priori assumption in order to "prove" your contention.

Does ANYTHING become perceptible to a sleeper? What is there TO KNOW about this? Only when one wakes up does one know *anything*

Which is nothing to do with the "perceptibility" of the object itself.

Trust me on this - and I am willing to walk the path with you till I fully understand your motive even though something within me tells me it's a LOST cause.

Two things: I neither need nor particularly desire you to know my motives (they are largely irrelevant) and you appear to have already decided it's a lost cause... Ho hum.

What's the generally accepted definition my friend? Generally accepted as in pandering to your tastes?

Nope. But being in a dictionary might be an indicator, don't you think?

Ok... the flow of water is CONTINOUS for the duration it lasts.

Good. You're learning.

You still didn't get what I was trying to say about YOUR DEFINITION OF CONTINUITY BEING CONDITIONED BY AN INTERVAL. I can't even believe I am repeating myself so many times.

Is "while it lasts" not "conditioned by an interval"? Strange...

Yet you simply haven't understood my point. Think harder...

I have. And going from the above it appears you're not sure what your point is.

A list of things YOU mentioned that were TRUE yet neither eternal, continous or unbrokent

Good. So you were incorrect.

I differ with your definition of TRUTH there.

Ah, so what I listed was true. But it also wasn't. Got you.

I clearly explained that your definition of truth was *conditioed* (and read this carefully and finally because AFTER THIS discussion I won't even BOTHER to respond to YOU) upon an INTERVAL of TIME. Read it again if you have to.

In other words you're using your own definition of "true", and excluding anything and everything that won't confirm your narrow pre-requisites.

You have done NOTHING but to DISPUTE.

As opposed to you, who have done little but make unsupported statements, double-back, contradict yourself and resort to ad homs when you can't show that I'm wrong. Well done. I concede the point. Complaining that I'm pointing out your errors/ inconsistencies (rather than showing that you're actually correct) doesn't work very well in supporting your contentions.

Not really. For those who can understand they CAN see what I am saying. But YOU will PERHAPS NEVER because you simply dont want to.

Another assumption. What you are saying is incoherent, inconsistent and a personal opinion which you have singularly failed to support. I see what you're saying, I just don't agree with it.

That shows the *myopic* mindset you approach every discussion with. Ask me to prove it

I have.
I've also asked for you to support your argument. So far with no luck....

and I will give almost every argument so far as proof to support me.

If you CAN do this why have you resorted to whining, diversion and ad homs in place of doing so?

And trust me ... YOU won't understand it.

And there you go again with assumptions.

Oh Yeah... I have no idea why you respond the way you do. If there is a forum moderator here ... I would ask him or her to tell me who is DEVOID of THE IDEA here.

I think you'll find that if Glaucon (the moderator) steps in you'll have a tougher time than you're having at the moment. He's much better than I at spotting errors. And less possibly tolerant of personal attacks.

Let me just say this.... if this is between you and me....you can rest assured you won't be the one to have the last word here...UNLESS I TAKE PITY ON YOU.

Errors again.
This is not "between you and me" it's about whether your premise/ conjecture/ whatever is valid or not.
Last word doesn't decide validity.
Pity? Oh my. Still, there's something (very vaguely) appealing about arrogance. No, I take that back. There isn't.

NO IT DOES NOT. And I will leave it as an EXERCISE for your little brain to figure out WHY.

Well I have to admit, you finally convinced me. "No it does not" (in all capitals, yet) is probably the most lucid, persuasive and rational argument you have so far put forward. And to back it up with "I will leave it as an EXERCISE for your little brain to figure out WHY" is most definitely in keeping with your earlier promise that you "will give almost every argument so far as proof to support me". Hallelujah! I've seen the light.
(You do understand that was all sarcasm, right? Good)

And again YOU misunderstood what I said because I was pointing to the TRUTH of only ONE single entity. But that's beyond you.

No, it wasn't beyond me. You're working from an a priori assumption that you refuse to let go of.
You have failed to show that this is the case and also appear to be utterly incapable of recognising that failure.

Slight problem? Oh it's really pointless to argue with you.

I agree. But what you fail to see is that it's pointless because your "logic" doesn't stand up and you are not up to the task of realising that.

And I feel sorry for my ownself that I DID with you.

Don't feel sorry for yourself. Really. Just learn how think, instead, it'll give better results.

 

[dwivedys]

I can respond to each and every point you've raised above but something within me tells me that it's just not worth it. You win. I lose.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I can respond to each and every point you've raised above but something within me tells me that it's just not worth it. You win. I lose.

you missed the point..
dyw was not trying to 'win' or get you to 'give up'.

he was trying to make you aware of 'how' you are arguing your point.
he can be VERY frustrating, i have chosen to only get on him when he uses 'your wrong' to reply to others..
but there is SOME logic to his arguments..

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Repeat.



Because there is something.

 

[nitram22]

That makes no sense. If nothing exists... It can't be in ones mind, because the mind don't exist.
Let us try not to be morons if we're going to give an answer.

 

[dwivedys]

you missed the point..
dyw was not trying to 'win' or get you to 'give up'.

he was trying to make you aware of 'how' you are arguing your point.
he can be VERY frustrating, i have chosen to only get on him when he uses 'your wrong' to reply to others..
but there is SOME logic to his arguments..

Yeah I realize that. They say we should love and respect people who are hard on you. They teach you more than any softie ever would. I did (as in responded) the way I felt appropriate.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I can respond to each and every point you've raised above

Yet you have consistently failed to do so.
Correction: you have, I fully admit, responded to a number of my objections. But responding and and refuting are not the same thing. And I suspect that any "response" you would have made would have been simply that.

but something within me tells me that it's just not worth it.

You see? This is, in a nutshell, your entire stance: you're sure you're correct (because you've made your mind up in advance) and because someone will not simply accept your unsupported word it must be their failing.
Edit: or you're now less sure that you're correct. That's a start.

You win. I lose.

And now I'm disappointed. Not least because your wording indicates that you're still missing the point.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Does ANYTHING become perceptible to a sleeper?

A dreaming sleep is close to consciousness.
A vivid dream will wake you up, or if you are very tired, you may dream while awake.

Who hasn't seen a piece of paper blown by the wind and thought for a moment it was a rat or a dog dashing past?
A long driving stint can bring on similar waking hallucinations.
Pilots and policemen seem to have a higher than average likelihood of reporting a paranormal experience.


My theory is that the dreaming brain is engaging itself in background activities. Cleaning up, strengthening useful connections, etc.
While it is firing off neurons, the semi conscious brain is trying to make sense of them, and makes up stories and images. It tricks the mind into believing the dreams to be actually happening, possibly so the body can remain asleep.


Oh, and this statement:
Oh it's really pointless to argue with you. And I feel sorry for my ownself that I DID with you. Wow... May GOD whoever HE may be... BLESS YOU.


In Chess terms, that is the equivalent of knocking your king over.
I told you he was good.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I told you he was good.

I'm not sending you any money.
Compliments or no.

 

[SciWriter]

Priceless posts, Dyw; others: worthless. One can take it to the bank, the rest to the dump.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Quantum weirdness is what it is. But it doesn't become a random mess of chaotic uncertainty when we are not looking at it. Feynman's sum over histories shows that there is still a measure of control. As Hawking has said:

"The probability of a particle going from A to B is found by adding the up the waves associated with every possible path that passes through A and B."

So even though the undisturbed quantum world exhibits behaviour that may seem strange to us, the fundamental laws of physics still hold and therefore the universe still functions. Consciousness is not required.

Yes, but when there is measurement of a single photon, that particle arrives as a dot on a screen. When it is not measured, it arrives as an interference pattern. The photon interferes with itself unless it is measured.
It isn't just something happening at the quantum level.
And it is more than weirdness, although it is weird
You can do an experiment in the real world and see it happen.

I don't think anyone has an explanation for the phenomenon.

I agree that consciousness does not need to be involved.
On the other hand, it is impossible to do an experiment where human consciousness does not at some point decide on what was the outcome.

@Dyw
I had to warn him.
I had to warn him of what your ruthless logic could do to him.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I had to warn him of what your ruthless logic could do to him.

THATS IT!
that is the words i was searching for to describe dyw..

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yes, but when there is measurement of a single photon, that particle arrives as a dot on a screen. When it is not measured, it arrives as an interference pattern. The photon interferes with itself unless it is measured.
It isn't just something happening at the quantum level.
And it is more than weirdness, although it is weird
You can do an experiment in the real world and see it happen.

I don't think anyone has an explanation for the phenomenon.

One way to look at it* (although it can be unsatisfactory) is the gross example below:
There's a cow in field and someone says "It's brown and 6 foot at the shoulder.**"
So I give you a tape measure and send you off to check.
When you come back I ask "What can you tell me about the cow from what you have measured?"
The obvious, and only, answer is "it's six foot tall". There's nothing you can say about the cow's colour by using a tape measure.

In other words, what we decide to measure determines what CAN be measured. In a way, it predetermines the result.

* I cannot, for the life of me, remember where I read/ heard this "explanation", otherwise I'd give a link or source. (And also check to see if it went any deeper).
** Look, if cows are bigger or smaller than this don't blame me. I don't get involved with wild creatures.

 

[Rav]

Yes, but when there is measurement of a single photon, that particle arrives as a dot on a screen. When it is not measured, it arrives as an interference pattern. The photon interferes with itself unless it is measured.

More correctly the interference pattern is the result of the interaction of multiple photons. You might have read somewhere that an interference pattern emerges even when firing photons one at a time but this is because temporally separated photons can still interfere with each other. As if it wasn't already freaky enough huh?

It isn't just something happening at the quantum level.

I'm guessing that you are referring to this?

 

[Rav]

** Look, if cows are bigger or smaller than this don't blame me. I don't get involved with wild creatures.

I am blaming you. Before today I'd never imagined 7 foot tall cows (adding an extra foot to your proposed shoulder height to accommodate a head) but now I am profoundly unsettled by the idea. I'm certain that they are going to haunt me now.

 

[quinnsong]

Okay be very gentle as I humble myself and ask this oh so obvious question(for physicists), what implications does the buckyball and silicon oil droplet experiment mean for physicists and their current theories regarding Qphysics?

 

[quinnsong]

BTW Dywyddyy do you teach logics or philosophy?

 

[Dywyddyr]

BTW Dywyddyy do you teach logics or philosophy?

I've never formally taught anything. But was often assigned as an instructor while doing doing my normal job.
As an engineer.
All I've ever "taught" has been how to use certain CAD systems, office principals* or just hammering** basic engineering principals (that my victims apprentices/ students-on-placement should have already been aware of) into their pointy little heads.

* The most important being (as the rest of the firm knew) don't argue with me.
Once they learnt that my job got easier.

** In the case of one or two particularly obtuse people the word "hammering" could be taken to be nearly literal. One reason why I never applied to be a teacher: engineering apprentices aren't a protected species the way school/ college kids are.

 

[NMSquirrel]

* The most important being (as the rest of the firm knew) don't argue with me.
Once they learnt that my job got easier.

I don't think i would mind working for you dyw, i tend to respect those who teach me despite myself...although you would pry fire me cause i do like to argue..(i consider my arguing educational,but opinions differ..)

<edit> specially when you say

'Wrong again.'

 

[Dywyddyr]

I don't think i would mind working for you dyw, i tend to respect those who teach me despite myself...although you would pry fire me cause i do like to argue..(i consider my arguing educational,but opinions differ..)
<edit> specially when you say

Heh, I've never fired anyone, in fact I had to go ask my boss about giving one apprentice a "down grade" because I didn't really want to harm his career. The boss just said "If you give that guy a good reference and someone hires him on the strength of your assessment how guilty will you feel when THEY discover he's a moron?" Problem solved: he got the "fail".
And I don't mind disagreements: provided the person doing so actually knows what they're talking about. That way I learn.