- grodrigues
- Member
Offline - Registered: 11/26/2017
- Posts: 29
Re: Stardusty Psyche's thread
@DanielCC:
MY point in joining is that contrary to the assertions of some people, the essential difference does not lie in different metaphysical views, or scientism, or what have you. If it were, an argument (even if one already hashed out to death) could be had.
The essential difference is that Stardusty does not know jack about anything. I proved it for *physics* to any reasonable person's satisfaction; it is his pet obsession, he even talks condescendingly with others about it (for example, see the post to Calhoun. The gem "Ok, again, how much background do you have in subjects where you would define a volumetric boundary to solve for physics parameters? I suspect none, based on you not understanding a very simple illustration I gave you on this subject." is pure, unmitigated horse crap, trying to pass itself as knowledge). He is a bullshitter, in the Frankfurtean sense.
As far as I am concerned I am done here. Allowing the cur to continue to bark or putting a gag on him is a matter of indifference to me.
- StardustyPsyche
- Banned
Offline
- Registered: 7/15/2017
- Posts: 184
Re: Stardusty Psyche's thread
@Calhoun
First like I repeatedly shown the macro wholes aren't completely reducible to its parts,
Where did you show that at all? Of course if you smash the whole into a pile of atoms it will be different. That's not what reduction means.
Reduction means accounting for the perceived aggregate properties of the whole in terms of the processes of the parts interacting with each other. That's what science does. That's why physics and chemistry and material sciences are so successful because they characterize aggregate behaviors and understand them using reductionism.
Once again dynamism does nothing to prove accidentals ,
Yes, it has everything to do to prove accidentals.
Consider a persons who blows a loud horn. The pressure wave begins to propagate through the air. In a chain of temporal causation molecules transfer kinetic energy again and again and again as the sound propagates in a dynamic causal series. Now suppose the person suddenly dies, does the sound stop? No, of course not, it continues to propagate. So I am sure you will agree that this is an "accidental" causal series.
Now suppose we have a small solid material object. I tap on one side of it, and just like in the air kinetic energy is transferred from molecule to molecule in a dynamic causal series. Now suppose the atoms where the tap occured suddenly get beamed aboard the Starship Enterprise, will the propagation of kinetic energy in the solid stop? Again, no, just as in air, because of the propagation delay even if the prior memebers somehow disappear their effect cannot be undone because it is already in the past, perhaps only a nanosecond in the past, but in the past just the same.
Thus, the propagation of causal influences in a small solid is an "accidental" causal series just as in a large solid or through a fluid medium.
Consider an earthquake. The crust moves in one location, and 1000 miles away it is felt some time later. Clearly this is an "accidental" causal series. How about 500 miles away? 5 miles away? 5 millimeters away? At what distance of propagation does an "accidental" series transform into an "essential" series?
You take away electromagnetic forces and there is no "keeping together" of spinning vibrating and oscillating in shape of protons.
If you suddenly took away all electromagnetic forces everywhere in the universe simultaneously then from that moment forward the universe would progress very much differently. Ok, so what?
You seem to be considering the hierarchy of physics models as somehow a causal series. It is true that bulk materials are explained in terms of, grains, which are explained in terms of molecules, which are explained in terms of atoms, then electrons and quarks, then perhaps quantum fields and perhaps that is the bottom.
Human beings employ a hierarchy of explanatory models, an abstract hierarchy, not a material causal hierarchy.
In a material causal series objects and fields interact in temporal mutual causation. Explanatory models are abstract hierarchies employed for analysis. Those are two very different processes, although they are often conflated.
This doesn't prove essential series to be false, this doesn't show any particular essential dependence to be mistaken,
I suggest you think very long and deeply on this subject by visualizing cause and effect on the atomic scale and relate that by analogy to cause and effect on our mid level scale, on the solar system scale, and the galactic scale.
When you do so you can realize that the differences between these scales is quantitative, but the principles of how causal influences propagate temporally remain the same.
- DanielCC
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 765
Re: Stardusty Psyche's thread
grodrigues wrote:
@DanielCC:
MY point in joining is that contrary to the assertions of some people, the essential difference does not lie in different metaphysical views, or scientism, or what have you. If it were, an argument (even if one already hashed out to death) could be had.
Yes, but that was obvious from the get-go, I mean he doesn't even understand the basic arguments for old school Quinean scientism and reductionism. He could have just said the First Way fails because mereological nihilism is true and the behavior of base particles cannot be captured by the Aristotelian account of causation. He doesn't though because that would actually require *philosophy*. People are making the mistake of taking Stardusty seriously as a rational agent rather than one of the many manifestations of the pop-culture internet's collective Id.
- StardustyPsyche
- Banned
Offline
- Registered: 7/15/2017
- Posts: 184
Re: Stardusty Psyche's thread
@RomanJoe
SP I think maybe the trouble with this discussion is that fundamentally your worldview incredibly conflicts our worldviews. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like you hold to a naturalistic account of the world in which everything is ultimately reducible to the motion of fundamental particles. There are no essences, wholes, forms, etc. There are only particles in motion, fluctuations in those particles, and abstractions from and imposition of mental models onto those fluctuations via the human mind.
Most of us here don't hold to a reductionism of this sort. Most of us believe in forms, essences, substances, etc. I think you need to ultimately show us why your worldview is valid. How is it proved? How does it show that, for starters, something like essences don't exist. Or that wholes are reducible to their parts?
Thank you for that thoughtful insight. In my last post to Calhoun my suggestion to him at the end was along these lines. It does seem as though there is some fundamental lack of a language basis for communication between us. My suggestion to him to consider the propagation of causal influences on distance scales from galactic, to solar system, to planetary, to our level, to atomic to subatomic is along the lines somewhat as you suggest.
forms, essences, substances,...How is it proved? How does it show that, for starters, something like essences don't exist. Or that wholes are reducible to their parts?
Well, that's a lot! I'm sure we will not be able to thoroughly review these major aspects of philosophy in the context of this blog.
But to begin, everybody knows about atoms and molecules. So, one place to start could be crystals, say, an ice crystal, why is it fundamentally hexagonal? To answer that we look at how water molecules bond into a solid and we find that their molecular structure is such that when they bond into a solid they form a hexagonal pattern at the molecular level. That pattern repeats a trillion trillion times and we see a hexagonal crystal at our level of perception.
So, where does the form exist for an ice crystal? Does a form exist for the ice crystal? Before people knew about H2O perhaps they imagined that there existed some sort of hexagonal form in a world of forms that water would naturally conform to as it froze. Maybe your view of forms is different from that, ok fine, but why employ any sort of form concept at all?
The hydrogen atoms in a water molecule arrange according to interatomic forces at a particular angle, about 104.5 degrees. When water molecules bond intermolecular forces lead to arrangements that are fundamentally hexagonal. Every piece of water is made of these molecules that are thusly arranged due to forces at the molecular, atomic, and subatomic scales. Why would one think some notion of form for an ice crystal is the case?
Where did this form come from? Was it always there waiting to get filled up, as it were? Did the form somehow activate or arise when the crystal became visible to the naked eye, or was the form somehow present when just 6 water molecules joined in a hexagonal arrangement? Does the form keep growing to accommodate the growing crystal?
It seems to me the very notion of a form as a real existent entity is simply unnecessary.
I think you need to ultimately show us why your worldview is valid. How is it proved?
Science doesn't do proof in the absolute sense, only within the context of certain postulates, such as the principles of logic, the basic reliability of the human senses, and the intelligibility of existence.
The evidence for reductionism is very strong in its myriad successes. In physics, chemistry, biology, geology, medicine, engineering...large scale processes are described by their aggregate characteristics but explained and understood by reductionism.
Ancient ways of thinking, such and the Five Ways of Aquinas, were long ago discarded in science and engineering as unnecessary and largely erroneous and therefore obsolete.
For example in this paper
Feser claims there is no formal contradiction between
“whatever is in motion is moved by another.”
and inertia, but that is false because Aquinas also says
"Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover"
Thus Aquinas actually claimed
“whatever is in motion is necessarily moved by another.”
If his premise were not necessary then his conclusion could not be necessary.
If the conclusion is asserted to be necessary then the premise must be asserted to be necessary.
But modern science says another mover is not necessary.
The formal conflict between Aquinas and science is in the assertion of necessity.
Science cannot show that there cannot be an invisible being continuously nudging things along, but science can show such a being is not necessary.
Inertia can be explained in terms of conservation of kinetic energy for an object in uniform linear motion. Energy is not, in general, conserved for a particular object, but kinetic energy is conserved absent an interaction with another object. The kinetic energy of an object can increase, decrease, or stay the same. An increase or decrease in kinetic energy is an acceleration (positive or negative respectively). If kinetic energy stays the same then motion stays the same. If kinetic energy changes then motion changes as acceleration occurs.
There simply is no necessity for an invisible being to account for this. If the object in motion is a closed system (absent an interaction with another object) then mass/energy are conserved in that closed system which is no change in kinetic energy of the system so no changer is necessary.
If you one wishes to speculate that there is actually an invisible being changing the kinetic energy an object in just the right way as to provide us with the illusion that no change in kinetic energy is happening and this invisible being is performing this illusion action simultaneously on every particle in the universe...well, not only is that speculation unnecessary I would say it is entirely fantastic.
Well, you raised some very expansive issues, I am sure there is much I did not cover, but I will leave it here for now, hope that at least begins to address your points.
Last edited by StardustyPsyche (12/25/2017 11:37 am)
- Calhoun
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 3/09/2017
- Posts: 176
Re: Stardusty Psyche's thread
@Calhoun
First like I repeatedly shown the macro wholes aren't completely reducible to its parts,
Where did you show that at all?
Are you even serious, I have explained to you multiple times why such is the case, and you ignored those points once again.
Reduction means accounting for the perceived aggregate properties of the whole in terms of the processes of the parts interacting with each other.
This exactly is what I tried to show to be mistaken in the first place, that "all" such properties of wholes can be reduced entirely to parts, So what is your point?
That's what science does. That's why physics and chemistry and material sciences are so successful because they characterize aggregate behaviors and understand them using reductionism.
Again whats your point? How does science "eliminate" the wholes? or entirely reduce them? All it does is try to uncover the properties and causal powers of parts, that doesn't always result in reduction. And Finally , science only proved certain provisional, abstract representation , it doesn't uncover everything there is.
Consider a persons who blows a loud horn. The pressure wave begins to propagate through the air. In a chain of temporal causation molecules transfer kinetic energy again and again and again as the sound propagates in a dynamic causal series.
Here too you merely first sneak accidentalness in then run away with it. Essential elements are again ignored by you, The if there is no "movement" to molecules here and now , there is no kinetic energy, If there are no molecules there is no transfer of kinetic energy, if there is no medium of air there is no sound and propagation.
Now suppose the person suddenly dies, does the sound stop? No, of course not, it continues to propagate. So I am sure you will agree that this is an "accidental" causal series.
If the person is suddenly annihilated then "production" of sound stops, So their is essentiality there ,If air is annihilated then then propagation of tune stops, so their is essentiality there too. And what about the fact that even if there is an infinitely long horn or an infinite stack of horns, it still won't produce anything without something blowing air through it. So again we have essential dependence there too.
Now suppose we have a small solid material object. I tap on one side of it, and just like in the air kinetic energy is transferred from molecule to molecule in a dynamic causal series. Now suppose the atoms where the tap occurred suddenly get beamed aboard the Starship Enterprise, will the propagation of kinetic energy in the solid stop? Again, no, just as in air, because of the propagation delay even if the prior members somehow disappear their effect cannot be undone because it is already in the past, perhaps only a nanosecond in the past, but in the past just the same.
Here First consider the energy transfer from molecule 1 to 3, 1 transfers to 2 but 1 do not account for its continuation inside 2 when/if that is occurring and it doesn't account for 2's transferring it to 3 when/if that occurs, 1's transferring to 2 in exercise of particular causal power of 1, but other cases aren't. So suppose you tapped on 1, then your claims do not really make sense, as only one of these instances is effect of 1,past that they do not continue. So evidently, effect of "such" prior members does disappear.
And then there are clear essential elements that undergird , the accidental processes. just like the first example, first if there isn't any current movement of molecules then there is no kinetic energy, and no transfer of kinetic energy without the molecules, As a whole system what maintains this particular structure so that such processes can take place and so on.
Consider an earthquake. The crust moves in one location, and 1000 miles away it is felt some time later. Clearly this is an "accidental" causal series. How about 500 miles away? 5 miles away? 5 millimeters away? At what distance of propagation does an "accidental" series transform into an "essential" series?
How is that supposed to show essential series to be false? Once again, Such series is dependent of essential elements, there are essential elements that undergird its movement when it is happening at one location and others that are present when It is heard.
So once again all that do not show essential series to be false.
If you suddenly took away all electromagnetic forces everywhere in the universe simultaneously then from that moment forward the universe would progress very much differently. Ok, so what?
So then existence of certain objects and processes turns out be essentially dependent on it. Like seen above there isn't there isn't any spinning, vibrating and oscillating in shape of protons and no objects that depend on that would exist.
You seem to be considering the hierarchy of physics models as somehow a causal series. It is true that bulk materials are explained in terms of, grains, which are explained in terms of molecules, which are explained in terms of atoms, then electrons and quarks, then perhaps quantum fields and perhaps that is the bottom.
Human beings employ a hierarchy of explanatory models, an abstract hierarchy, not a material causal hierarchy.
In a material causal series objects and fields interact in temporal mutual causation. Explanatory models are abstract hierarchies employed for analysis. Those are two very different processes, although they are often conflated.
Again, that is not what I am doing, You do not establish that and I have shown exactly why, Composite wholes aren't "abstractions" or "fictions" as I've explained , such a view is incoherent and untenable. So No, what I am considering isn't abstract hierarchies , they are concrete and they are essential.
I suggest you think very long and deeply on this subject by visualizing cause and effect on the atomic scale and relate that by analogy to cause and effect on our mid level scale, on the solar system scale, and the galactic scale.
When you do so you can realize that the differences between these scales is quantitative, but the principles of how causal influences propagate temporally remain the same.
Well you're the one who needs to think deeply about these issues, as I demonstrate above You simply do not carefully analyze these carefully, And also you don't show your overall view to be coherent and justified by science in the first place.
- StardustyPsyche
- Banned
Offline
- Registered: 7/15/2017
- Posts: 184
Re: Stardusty Psyche's thread
@DanielCC
He could have just said the First Way fails because mereological nihilism is true and the behavior of base particles cannot be captured by the Aristotelian account of causation
If I expressed myself as you do then I would say things the way you think things should be said, but since I am not you, I don't.
I have multiple arguments against Aquinas, Arisitotle, and modern proponents such as Feser. Their arguments are variously invalid and unsound for many reasons. A reductionist analysis is just one of my approaches. Nor do I ascribe to any single school of philosophy by name or self described membership, rather only to the extent of coincidental overlap of views.
People are making the mistake of taking Stardusty seriously as a rational agent
Don't you realize it is far more interesting, intellectually stimulating, challenging, and educational to engage with people who fundamentally disagree, and when one does so there are likely to be major differences of approach, worldview, and vocabulary?
That's why I rarely post in basic agreement. What's the point of joining a circle jerk of self congratulatory me-too posts?
Calling names is not a respectable response in that case.
- StardustyPsyche
- Banned
Offline
- Registered: 7/15/2017
- Posts: 184
Re: Stardusty Psyche's thread
@Calhoun
Are you even serious, I have explained to you multiple times why such is the case, and you ignored those points once again.
Once again you feel ignored because my responses just don't seem to register with you. I think RomanJoe has some valid observations wrt differences of worldview leading to a disconnect in conversation. DanielCC seems to think I should just assert mereological nihilism, would you accept that as a sufficient argument? No, I didn't think so.
No, Calhoun, you have not effectively argued that reductionism cannot be the case.
I have provided you with examples of propagation through materials that are clearly "accidental" causal series and related them in detail to supposedly "essential" causal series to show that the difference is quantitative, not qualitative, and thus the appearance of an "essential" causal series is illusory.
This exactly is what I tried to show to be mistaken in the first place, that "all" such properties of wholes can be reduced entirely to parts, So what is your point?
That all your attempts fail because they stop short of a complete analysis. Rather than methodically following the subatomic analysis to its comprehensive conclusion you always make some sort of mental jump, skipping over steps while employing a somewhat discontinuous form of reasoning. All I can do is urge you to think through the examples more carefully and thoroughly.
How does science "eliminate" the wholes? or entirely reduce them?
By doing just that, reducing them, which does not mean smashing an object into a pile of atoms, it means accounting for the aggregate properties of an object in terms of the interactions of its constituents. That is what science does.
All it does is try to uncover the properties and causal powers of parts, that doesn't always result in reduction.
When the aggregate is fully accounted for by the parts reduction is complete. When the aggregate is not fully accounted for by the parts there remains work to be done as to what more needs to be learned about how the parts interact.
And Finally , science only proved certain provisional, abstract representation , it doesn't uncover everything there is.
Ok, no reasonable person asserts that science provides absolute and complete knowledge, and A-T demonstrably provided far less.
Here too you merely first sneak accidentalness in then run away with it. Essential elements are again ignored by you,
You confuse my consideration and discounting of them with ignoring them.
The if there is no "movement" to molecules here and now , there is no kinetic energy,
Yes, an object moves. Many objects move. Just because there are multiple objects moving does not mean they comprise an "essential" causal series. You are thinking very loosely here.
If there are no molecules there is no transfer of kinetic energy,
A molecular collision is a temporal process. If a molecule got beamed aboard the Starship Enterprise half way through a collision then half the amount of energy is transferred as would otherwise been the case. Clearly, an "accidental" causal process. If you take away the causal object part way through there simply is no more causation.
You have failed to establish how these temporal processes *necessitate* a first mover.
if there is no medium of air there is no sound and propagation.
So, the simultaneous existence of all the molecules in the atmosphere means they are all in an "essential" causal series? You just are not thinking this through. If you are not committed to employing careful stepwise analysis it will be impossible for you to come to understand how causal influences propagate under various circumstances.
If the person is suddenly annihilated then "production" of sound stops, So their is essentiality there
"Production" is not a material causal series. "Production" is a human abstraction wherein you have mentally joined a multitude of material causal series into one lump and assigned it a title of "production".
As long as things happen then things happen. When things stop happening then things no longer happen. How do those rather tautological statements demonstrate the need for a first mover at all?
If air is annihilated then then propagation of tune stops, so their is essentiality there too.
If we change things so there is no more air then no more sound is propagated. So what? How does that somehow call for a first mover?
And what about the fact that even if there is an infinitely long horn or an infinite stack of horns, it still won't produce anything without something blowing air through it. So again we have essential dependence there too.
The cause of a bit of air blown through a horn is the compression of my lung, caused by muscle contraction, caused by blood pumping, caused my heart muscles, cause by blood sugar, caused by metabolism, caused by breathing, caused by atmospheric pressure, caused by molecules bouncing into each other, and back and back and back.
Until you learn to analyze more thoroughly you will not be able to understand how causal influences propagate.
Here First consider the energy transfer from molecule 1 to 3, 1 transfers to 2 but 1 do not account for its continuation inside 2 when/if that is occurring and it doesn't account for 2's transferring it to 3 when/if that occurs, 1's transferring to 2 in exercise of particular causal power of 1, but other cases aren't. So suppose you tapped on 1, then your claims do not really make sense, as only one of these instances is effect of 1,past that they do not continue. So evidently, effect of "such" prior members does disappear.
You can't undo the past. Once a causal influence has been transferred you can't go back in time and untransfer it.
Tap on 1, transfer to 2, transfer to 3, beam 1 up to the Starship Enterprise, the transfer to 3 remains. You can't undo the past. Every material causal series is "accidental", because just like the grandfather, number 1 can "die" and number 3 still keeps the energy that originated in 1, transferred to 2, and then transferred to 3.
Like seen above there isn't there isn't any spinning, vibrating and oscillating in shape of protons and no objects that depend on that would exist.
I hope you realize this is meant to open a constructive set of suggestions...you clearly have little or no physics education. That's OK, that doesn't make you stupid or bad or worthy of personal attack, but it is an obvious fact.
First, I mentioned the nucleus, which is a single proton only in the case of ordinary hydrogen. But even the single proton is not necessarily spherical, which makes sense, because it is composed of 3 quarks.
Protons spin, and their motions can be quite complex
The shape of a nucleus is not, in general, spherical
's-shape.html
Atoms are in continuous motion, vibrating, spinning, and bouncing about, the major mass of which is in the nucleus.
The last link would perhaps be the most helpful for you. It has a number of interesting animations depicting how atoms and molecules move. When you visualize how causal influences propagate through the chaotic thermal motions you can begin to see why there is no such thing as an "essential" material causal series.
Just because you lack an education in physics does not mean you are somehow a bad or stupid person or your opinions have no value whatsoever, but it is important to admit, at least to yourself, that you are thus at a disadvantage in understanding how material causal influences propagate. The good news is that there are a gazillion resources on line so I invite you to start with the links provided above.
- FrenchySkepticalCatholic
- Member
Offline
- From: France
- Registered: 10/17/2017
- Posts: 151
Re: Stardusty Psyche's thread
@FSC
He's spouting incoherent babble, and shows no interest or intention of rational debate or dialog.
He's vague at best, incompetent and false at worst.
He's not arguing at all, just repeating the same refuted nonsense all over. He's starting a new loop on his toilet thoughts. The only times he produces content is the ones we forced words out of his mouth.What's the matter, frustrated because you have no rational rebuttals to my responses in #410?
First you complain I don't respond, and when I respond you get all mad.
Methinks the Frenchy doth protest too much.
Rather tired that I got no answer. This #410 post is just a pseudoanswer. You're like the average atheist ignoramus : you boast we're wrong and we don't understand corectly, and that we're stupid. But when you're asked to tell what you think, you run around and muddies the water.
There's nothing to reply in that #410, because it's empty. Void. You're like Krauss : you fuss over nothing, and fart so much out of it you can write books on the topic. At one times, it's just particles. At others, it's not. Then there are abstractions, then there are not. Then there are particles, but you, but not just you.
And you have the guts to come here and protest without reading.
So no. You didn't respond at all. You just did as you usually do : producing nonsense.
Now, I can picture why you enjoy the world so much. It sure feels good to be SP, pretending the world is just a dream, and then that he'll fade into nothingness with causation altogether. Though, out of that pathetically gratifiant worldview, I much prefer the real world.
You don't like arguing online. You like pestering people who gave lot of thought on their worldview because it makes you feel great, feeling that you too, did thought a lot. Guess what : you're flat wrong. Your whole idea of life is a fantasy, and it's a stupid fantasy.
Once you'll finish contemplating the nothingness of your navel, be the first to go there. As soon as possible.
If I were next to you, I'd gladly give your thought what it lacks, namely a good fist to the nose.
Or, to put it in your view, particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle hallucinating particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle in your particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle particle.
- Calhoun
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 3/09/2017
- Posts: 176
Re: Stardusty Psyche's thread
Once again you feel ignored because my responses just don't seem to register with you. I think RomanJoe has some valid observations wrt differences of worldview leading to a disconnect in conversation. DanielCC seems to think I should just assert mereological nihilism, would you accept that as a sufficient argument? No, I didn't think so.
No, Calhoun, you have not effectively argued that reductionism cannot be the case.
Here again SP, this whole post you simply demonstrate that you aren't willing to engage with any discussion points at all, you simply do not discuss any of those argument simply do not refute them, merely assert that you are right, So No, I have successfully reached my conclusions without your overturning them, your ignoring and failing to address the arguments is evidence of that.
And asserting mereological nihilism is what you're doing anyway, so Yeah I don't find your arguments persuasive.
That all your attempts fail because they stop short of a complete analysis. Rather than methodically following the subatomic analysis to its comprehensive conclusion you always make some sort of mental jump, skipping over steps while employing a somewhat discontinuous form of reasoning. All I can do is urge you to think through the examples more carefully and thoroughly.
Once again you don't engage with particular reasoning, mere produce ad hominems and red herring, just asserting that I am careless does nothing to refute me. once again it only shows why my arguments and conclusions are sound.
A molecular collision is a temporal process. If a molecule got beamed aboard the Starship Enterprise half way through a collision then half the amount of energy is transferred as would otherwise been the case. Clearly, an "accidental" causal process. If you take away the causal object part way through there simply is no more causation.
You have failed to establish how these temporal processes *necessitate* a first mover.
Once again this simply ignores the particular essential elements that I have already established, your case is complete red herring as it doesn't show falsity of essential series. all those points are addressed in previous posts that discuss these particular examples , you do nothing to overturn that. instead again sneak accidentalness in then run away with it.
Molecular collision is temporal process but it isn't thereby accidental because it depends here and now existence of molecules if molecules don't exist there is no molecular collision.
By doing just that, reducing them, which does not mean smashing an object into a pile of atoms, it means accounting for the aggregate properties of an object in terms of the interactions of its constituents. That is what science does.
But once again As I've demonstrated thats not true , You're the one who misunderstands the point, I haven't talked about smashing an object into pile of atoms in the first place.
Ok, no reasonable person asserts that science provides absolute and complete knowledge, and A-T demonstrably provided far less.
The point once again is that you simply haven't justified your claims through science and it doesn't really support your claims.
Yes, an object moves. Many objects move. Just because there are multiple objects moving does not mean they comprise an "essential" causal series. You are thinking very loosely here
You're the one who is thinking loosely here and making assertion, if A moves and B moved and movement of A is dependent here and now on movement of B then such series is essential not accidental.
So, the simultaneous existence of all the molecules in the atmosphere means they are all in an "essential" causal series? You just are not thinking this through. If you are not committed to employing careful stepwise analysis it will be impossible for you to come to understand how causal influences propagate under various circumstances.
Once again zero substance ,zero argumentation, no engagement only assertions on your part, No need to take your claims seriously.
"Production" is not a material causal series. "Production" is a human abstraction wherein you have mentally joined a multitude of material causal series into one lump and assigned it a title of "production".
But this is again mistaken, because it is a real process which designates origination to something, This merely illustrates that you don't really grasp abstract/concrete distinction in the first place,
If we change things so there is no more air then no more sound is propagated. So what? How does that somehow call for a first mover?
So then that illustrates an essential causal series to us, You annihilate the air you discontinue the sound.
You can't undo the past. Once a causal influence has been transferred you can't go back in time and untransfer it.
Tap on 1, transfer to 2, transfer to 3, beam 1 up to the Starship Enterprise, the transfer to 3 remains. You can't undo the past. Every material causal series is "accidental", because just like the grandfather, number 1 can "die" and number 3 still keeps the energy that originated in 1, transferred to 2, and then transferred to 3.
This is complete misunderstanding of point on your part, I simply have talked about changing the past or going back in time anyway, I have talked about discontinuation of exercising of causal power on parts of members, Which simply isn't related to changing the past, Secondly once again you've simply missed the point , the "keeping" of energy in 3 isn't exercising on part of 1 Now similarly neither is any action of grandson are exercising of grandfathers power now.
I hope you realize this is meant to open a constructive set of suggestions...you clearly have little or no physics education. That's OK, that doesn't make you stupid or bad or worthy of personal attack, but it is an obvious fact.
But this has all the ingredients of personal attack, first it has little to no relevance to any of my points , it doesn't reveal any lack of physics education on my part, It only serves for you to substantiate your otherwise completely substance free post.
Further , I actually do happen to have a physics education and I don't need to prove it to you. And I also remember having gone through the articles you linked. .
First, I mentioned the nucleus, which is a single proton only in the case of ordinary hydrogen. But even the single proton is not necessarily spherical, which makes sense, because it is composed of 3 quarks.
This not only does not refute or even address any of my claims, but instead provide an instance of essential causal dependence, namely that of protons and quarks.
Protons spin, and their motions can be quite complex
This once again, reveal only an instance of essential dependence.
Just because you lack an education in physics does not mean you are somehow a bad or stupid person or your opinions have no value whatsoever, but it is important to admit, at least to yourself, that you are thus at a disadvantage in understanding how material causal influences propagate. The good news is that there are a gazillion resources on line so I invite you to start with the links provided above.
Its a pity that You're having to make up for your complete lack of argumentation on your part and insufficiency of your knowledge of physics and inability of your incomplete knowledge in demonstrating any errors of particular arguments in question, this whole post was clear evidence of that, as you've simply failed to engage with or any rebut particular refutations of your claims, I have repeatedly shown how your point about propagation is mistaken, there is this simple essential dependence here, one between the medium and the propagation without the medium there is no propagation. I also have shown you how arguing through series and any problem with that can be circumvented.
Its sad to see you engaging in Strawmen and ad hominems, Simply asserting I am wrong, I am not being careful in my analysis, or that Your claims are simply too sophisticated to be grasped does nothing to establish this. Only thing you've proven till now is that your Ban on Blog was entirely justified. .
Last edited by Calhoun (12/25/2017 4:17 pm)
- FrenchySkepticalCatholic
- Member
Offline
- From: France
- Registered: 10/17/2017
- Posts: 151
Re: Stardusty Psyche's thread
Ah, and forget your "ScienceDaily". Sciences publishes papers. You know, what's used in Universities.
Science journalism is usually as dork as your head. Or as your idol, Krauss.
Prefer real papers. Like, .
But in doing this, I'm perhaps assuming your reading comprehension.