Time and Motion

[webolife]

I surrender. Throw me out now.
Plasmatic will snicker in his boots... wait that doesn't make any sense.
I believe that a force greater than the material of the universe holds the universe together.
Call it a smokescreen if you wish, or deny me on the basis of appeal to "Faith", but I can explain all of your observations, and believe in a first cause at the same time. I am not essentially a materialist at heart. You being one, we'll never see eye to eye on this. Throw me an observation you think can be explained solely physically, and I'll challenge your hypothesis' core element[s] to be based on physically undefinable assumption[s]. Not only that, "my" fundament ties together the nature of consciousness and identity, order and design and spirituality, which you must by your own material limitation explain away. I am [and you are, whether or not you acknowledge it] personally related to the Creator of the universe.
That relationship manifests in ways both physically and spiritually discernible; post-modern science disallows this, despite nearly the entire history of modern science being built squarely on the premise of a Designer. I am perfectly comfortable as a scientist, a public school teacher, and a person with the understanding that the universe and all its laws and "objects" are vastly beyond the capability of my mind to reduce, yet undeniably motivated by the desire to seek and know as much of its workings as I can, drawing ever closer to the one who made it. Forum administrators, if this disqualifies my post, so be it... Altonhare asked, and I answered.

[Plasmatic]

I surrender. Throw me out now.
Plasmatic will snicker in his boots... wait that doesn't make any sense.

Ah Web youve got me all wrong. I commend you for being honest about your faith. I just think that it doesnt qualify as science. If you where kicked out for this it would be an injustice.

As for the rest of your comments Id have to simply agree to disagree on the basis of the realization faith cannot be reasoned with..

[altonhare]

So Web, when I started out this discussion with "Is A A" and "is physics the study of objects" why did you answer yes? It is quite obvious that you reject Identity and care not for physical causation. How could you have expected a productive discussion based on erroneous pretenses? This is exactly what I try to avoid by asking these two questions.

Whether you realize it or not, Web, your philosophy summarily voids itself. Once you reject Identity you are incapable of actually saying anything meaningful. You may write lots of symbols and say lots of words, but without accepting identity they are meaningless.

Every phenomenon that I know of can be explained in terms of physical causation. Of course the chain is an assumption, it is a hypothesis. If it cannot explain some phenomenon we formulate a new hypothesis. Resorting, as you have, to rejecting identity means you have given up. No matter how much you say you are trying to "get closer", by rejecting identity you can never understand and are only fooling yourself. Rejecting identity is giving up Web. It summarily voids any further attempt at understanding. You cannot accept identity and reject physical causation.

I would like to give you a criticism that I hope you take and think on carefully because I think coming to a conclusion will make you happier. If I didn't respect you I would not be taking so much time with you. In my extensive discussion with you I have noticed that you want to "have your cake and eat it too" so to speak. You like to agree with me, then proceed to make arguments that demonstrate you either didn't understand me or don't agree with me. This tells me you have a serious internal conflict between your scientific ideals and your desire to "believe in something greater". These are not compatible, they are mutually exclusive. You cannot be a scientist and reject Identity. Science and religion are as different as night and day, despite what modern culture would have you believe. This is my observation in my interaction with you, that you are torn between what you know logically (identity) and what you feel (something greater is "out there").

In short, you acknowledge the validity of my argument because it is based on Identity and non self-contradiction, you recognize that you cannot argue against me without either being vague or invoking contradiction, but you proceed to argue impotently with me anyway because you don't want to give up on "something greater". I suggest you think hard on which it will be for you Web.

[webolife]

Are you saying that I cannot be a scientist without being a materialist? I think Plasmatic would agree with you, but if so, I simply and respectfully disagree. You are a post-modernist, I am not. You say you believe in physical causation, and you "logically" conclude that there can be no first cause. But this is your fundamental premise, before even A = A. For you, religion [by the way, most people who know me in "real" life would not regard me as religious] and science are incompatible, but you don't recognize your own materialism is a faith base. Of course you believe in the ultimate triumph of science, and in so doing you make yourself the supreme being. If what you want is a physical causation, even if there is not one at the most fundamental level, you are thereby self-limited to [possibly] never understand the reality of the situation. I on the other hand believe that the universe is a portrait tapestry into which the attributes of the artist are intricately woven. Most people see a jumble of dangling threads, colors and knots, accepting little if any pattern or "message", not realizing they are looking at the tapestry from the "wrong" side. In order to fully appreciate the pattern, I would say, you must take on a new perspective... the evidence is there, from both sides, for the both the seen and the unseen attributes, but one has to be willing to look at it from both sides. Are you willing? Or are you absolutely convinced that only a material universe exists?
OK, to justify this post on the Time and Motion thread, let me say this much more: The tapestry threads are comprised of time and motion in the universe, regardless of which perspective you are looking at... I try to see both sides, one to get the general scheme, you would assert that's my "religious" side, and the other to get the behind-the-scenes work product that is the stuff of science. You have the real problem with this, not I.
IMHO

[altonhare]

Are you saying that I cannot be a scientist without being a materialist?

We don't need labels to resolve this issue ultimately. You either accept Identity or you do not. If you do accept identity then you are capable of saying, doing, and thinking meaningfully. If you reject Identity you are not.

If you accept identity then something cannot be nothing. Something has shape so it's visualizable with a discrete border. These are what we call objects. Because of how we define an object, when two objects are at 0 distance they cannot continue their previous motion (they must deflect each other).

You say you believe in physical causation, and you "logically" conclude that there can be no first cause. But this is your fundamental premise, before even A = A.

No, A=A is the basic premise. I conclude from Identity that there can be no first cause because of the definition of cause/effect. You are wrong.

Are you willing? Or are you absolutely convinced that only a material universe exists?

As soon as you accept Identity you realize that something has shape and nothing doesn't. Something cannot be nothing. It's simple.

There is no "religious vs. science" sides. We can accept identity or reject identity. When we accept it everything else follows logically simply by avoiding contradiction. There is no "belief". The universe is knowable and we will seek to know it. When *you* skip the hypothesis and wave your hands at magical non-causal explanations you are giving up on your quest to know the universe.

[Plasmatic]

Are you saying that I cannot be a scientist without being a materialist? I think Plasmatic would agree with you, but if so, I simply and respectfully disagree.

By the way I AM NOT A MATERIALIST! Lets make sure we understand each other. Define materialist in your understanding.

You say you believe in physical causation, and you "logically" conclude that there can be no first cause. But this is your fundamental premise, before even A = A.

Sorry Web I know for me this is completely wrong. My "fundamental premise" is that existence exist. This means that we start with existence, NOT nonexistence. Identity comes second and therefore causality .

[altonhare]

Are you saying that I cannot be a scientist without being a materialist? I think Plasmatic would agree with you, but if so, I simply and respectfully disagree.

By the way I AM NOT A MATERIALIST! Lets make sure we understand each other. Define materialist in your understanding.

You say you believe in physical causation, and you "logically" conclude that there can be no first cause. But this is your fundamental premise, before even A = A.

Sorry Web I know for me this is completely wrong. My "fundamental premise" is that existence exist. This means that we start with existence, NOT nonexistence. Identity comes second and therefore causality .

Right, I try not to wax too philosophical with Web, but fundamentally existence comes first, then identity. There is no alternative to existence and to exist is to have a particular identity (A is A).

[webolife]

Existence exists.... this tautology has more physical significance than "In the beginning, God..."?
More "identity"? More "causality"? More "logic of non-contradiction"? The "identity" of that which is "material" as being of different nature than that which is "immaterial" or spirit is not provided by "existence exists", nor by A = A. The coexistence of the two in the universe serves to exemplify their differences as well as declare their relationship at a fundamental level. One who acknowledges only the existence of the "material" is a materialist. One need not be a materialist to be a scientist... that's what I'm trying to say.

[Plasmatic]

"in the beginning god?"

"Existence exist" does not "imply" a beginning whatsoever.
What Im trying to say is that one cannot refer to "non-material" and not result in contradiction. Consciousness for example is a result of the particular arrangement of living beings constituents. However it cannot be divorced from this context. Materialist deny that the emergent result of particular arrangements of constiuents can lead to the fact of consciousness,I do not. All of the particular instances one can point to will include the interaction of existent objects as primaries. What you claim is the opposite.

The diference between concept of "spirit" and physical is all the referents of "spirit" are acausal in nature. Otherwise if its observable and "provable" then we need not call it something other than "natural" as opposed to "super-natural"This is the reason one must apply faith [non-causal belief or expectation] to thier existence.

[altonhare]

One need not be a materialist to be a scientist... that's what I'm trying to say.

Okay, you have made a claim. Let's stick to this one statement and harp on it. First define material, then define scientist. Then we will determine if your claim is valid or invalid.

[kevin]

Altonhare,
Your material is that of 3D.
There are scientists who only percieve of 3D.

They adhere like sheep to the accepted path, thus they bog down in mud, 3D mud.
We operate and exist in 3D, but it origonates out of other dimensions, lets say 4D.
There may be scientists who operate in 4D, there may be material in 4D?

There may be a 4D Alonhare, arguing that everything only exists in 4D, many upon here would like to introduce you to each other.
Time, as such as time is, and motion, as such as motion is, may be crossing between these dimensions, where the apparent movement of mass, and the alteration of time, are merely transfers between, giving the illusion of both time and motion.
The strict adherance to material is what has created the big bang rubbish, and black hole crap.
They have to create such to justify their existances, like sheep, they do as they are TOLD.
Are You a sheep?, or is the two dimensions of Altonhare about to meet each other, it's just a jump to the left, as they say in the rocky horror show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdu7xoHU9DA
kevin

[altonhare]

With all due respect, Kevin, you are grossly misled.

They adhere like sheep to the accepted path, thus they bog down in mud, 3D mud.

Where do you get off calling me a sheep!? Over and over you say I am following the mainstream, conforming to what everyone ELSE says. Yet you will not find a single mainstream physicist who says the universe is 3D! Never! I have wrangled with most of my colleagues on this issue and, after months of debate, convinced ONE very open-minded individual that every object in the universe is three dimensional. ONE!

What mainstream physics are you referencing Kevin!? There are two theories in the mainstream atm:

Relativity=4D
Quantum Field Theories (of which string theory is basically a part): 4D or greater

Notice. They say time is a dimension at least. Notice. I do not. Notice. I am not a sheep. Notice. My point of view is probably the most unpopular on the planet right now.

Argue with me all you want Kevin but cease this asinine "sheep" attack. It is ludicrous.

There may be scientists who operate in 4D, there may be material in 4D?

You continuously make claims about dimension but you cannot even say what this word means! Your argument is worthless!

Dimension: one of the mutually perpendicular directions in which an object my face or point.

The strict adherance to material is what has created the big bang rubbish, and black hole crap.

My gosh Kevin, what have you been reading/learning!? Big bangs and black holes are more ludicrous from my perspective than yours!

It is exactly the rejection of physical causality (what you call "material") that has led to these preposterous notions! You have been turned exactly backwards my friend. These videos will help you see just how supernatural and "nonmaterial" mainstream physics is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFu5BlJClYI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4iFCu4ih10

Are You a sheep?, or is the two dimensions of Altonhare about to meet each other, it's just a jump to the left, as they say in the rocky horror show.

If I get called a sheep one more time I think I'm gonna laugh or cry, one.

Nice clip from RH. I watched that movie like 100 times.

[webolife]

One need not be a materialist to be a scientist... that's what I'm trying to say.

Okay, you have made a claim. Let's stick to this one statement and harp on it. First define material, then define scientist. Then we will determine if your claim is valid or invalid.

I'll go with yours or anyone's definition of "material".
If you disclaim that Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Thompson/Kelvin, etc. etc. etc. were scientists, then I cannot convince you that I am... Post-modern science is "self"-limited to the material, no argument there. But the universe is not limited in this way, IMHO. So as a scientist, if I see the interconnection between the material and non-material aspects of nature, between the natural and supernaturnal if you please, and recognize the possibility that this interconnection is fundamental to understanding the natural realm, not only am I in good company, but I also see beyond the necessary limitations of the "science" to a fuller understanding of the universe. As a scientist, I observe, I measure, I speak of patterns and rules, I comprehend irreducible complexity, I stand amazed at the fractality of understanding, or that anything/everything in the universe is comprehensible, and I am all the more thankful that I am a scientist!
My friend, Alton, I respectfully do not care a wit whether you consider this valid or not!

[altonhare]

[quote="webolife:]I'll go with yours or anyone's definition of "material".[/quote]

Okay. Material is synonymous with physical which means shape. Shape means something is finite, it has a border, like this:

0

Not like this:



Make sense?

Do we study this in science:





Or might we study this:

0

Which one would you rather study? Something material:

0

Or 'something' immaterial:




?