I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

doronshadmi said:
Any asymmetry, including the weak force, is derived from and returns to the absolute symmetry (the simplest state of existence) all along space\time phenomena, in the past, right know and in the future, where only absolute symmetry remains unchanged all along space\time phenomena as its invariant substance.
Click to expand...

But has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
 
Belz... said:
That's not what you said. You said you were aware of [brain waves]' invariant substance.
Click to expand...
Here is what I have said:
Belz... said:
Yes, and I am also directly aware of their invariant substance,
Click to expand...
In other words I am aware of the variant aspect of existence (brain waves, in this case) and I am also directly aware of their invariant substance (awareness without thoughts) which is the simplest state of existence, which is naturally invariant.
 
doronshadmi said:
Here is what I have said:

In other words I am aware of the variant aspect of existence (brain waves, in this case) and I am also directly aware of their invariant substance (awareness without thoughts) which is the simplest state of existence, which is naturally invariant.
Click to expand...

And yet that is STILL unevidenced. Are you going to tackle that anytime soon ?
 
doronshadmi said:
Any asymmetry, including the weak force, is derived from and returns to the absolute symmetry (the simplest state of existence) all along space\time phenomena, in the past, right know and in the future, where only absolute symmetry remains unchanged all along space\time phenomena as its invariant substance.

This is exactly the reason of why one's awareness can be aware of itself without thoughts.
Click to expand...

Great- your "reason" is based on circular assertions. It's true that without "symmetry," you wouldn't be able to define (or use the word) "asymmetry"; but only trivially true, and kind of a weak point to throw so many words at.

You're really on a roll here, Doron; please don't stop, I have to admit I find it kind of entertaining to see what kind of pretentious knots people can tie themselves into with words.
 
doronshadmi said:
It is called Unified Field Theory, and here are some who looked for it:

http://www.emis.ams.org/journals/LRG/Articles/lrr-2004-2/download/lrr-2004-2Color.pdf

and still looking for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory
Click to expand...

Doron, this is the third time that I have made this same joke, and every time, you have interpreted it as an actual coherent question.

"Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?" is one of the most famously incoherent phrases in the history of the internet. Posting it in response to something is essentially shorthand (or longhand, whatever) for "this is meaningless word salad".

You can find the thread that spawned it here, though it is mildly NSFW for use of naughty language.

The fact that, despite this being the third time this same joke has been made in the thread, you repeatedly and consistently think that I am both being serious and that I am actually asking a coherent question only illustrates my point. You are so deep into word salad that this looks coherent to you.

Take a step back and really, seriously think about what that means.
 
Belz... said:
And yet that is STILL unevidenced. Are you going to tackle that anytime soon ?
Click to expand...

All what can be said about it was explained to you in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10423465&postcount=1092.

The only way to get concrete evidence of it (and not just writing, drawing, talking or thinking about it) is by actually practicing techniques like Transcendental Meditation.

As long as you are not actually practicing it, you are not going to get your requested evidence.
 
Nonpareil said:
Doron, this is the third time that I have made this same joke, and every time, you have interpreted it as an actual coherent question.
Click to expand...

Let's see:

"But has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

I have simplified it and got:

"But has anyone really decided to go far enough in order to research such thing?"

So as you see, it is possible to go beyond the joke aspect because of the plasticity of our brain.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Let's see:

"But has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

I have simplified it and got:

"But has anyone really decided to go far enough in order to research such thing?"

So as you see, it is possible to go beyond the joke aspect.
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point.
 
Belz... said:
Then you have literally nothing to say about it.
Click to expand...

Once again:

The only way to get concrete evidence of it (and not just writing, drawing, talking or thinking about it) is by actually practicing techniques like Transcendental Meditation.

As long as you are not actually practicing it, you are not going to get your requested evidence.
 
doronshadmi said:
Yes, the proof that you are stuck in your jokes, so?
Click to expand...

We're at the point where doronshadmi is claiming to have found meaning in the phrase "has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?", and that it is actually a coherent question despite the fact that it was explicitly posted as a joke.

I think we're done here.
 
Belz... said:
Doron, get this through your head: EVIDENCE THAT IS OBJECTIVE. You are asking me to say "**** the evidence" and instead look for subjective musings.
Click to expand...
The objective aspect of it was already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10422401&postcount=1076.

The simplest state of existence is not objective or subjective, but it is the substance of both of them.

The only way to get concrete evidence of it (and not just writing, drawing, talking or thinking about it) is by actually practicing techniques like Transcendental Meditation.

As long as you are not actually practicing it, you are not going to get your requested evidence.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The simplest state of existence is not objective or subjective, but it is the substance of both of them.
Click to expand...

Yes, we know that, but I really must ask again: has anyone, anyone at all, really, truly been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
 
Nonpareil said:
We're at the point where doronshadmi is claiming to have found meaning in the phrase "has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?", and that it is actually a coherent question despite the fact that it was explicitly posted as a joke.

I think we're done here.
Click to expand...

No, now you are simply ignore UFT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory).
 
Last edited:
Nonpareil said:
Yes, we know that, but I really must ask again: has anyone, anyone at all, really, truly been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
Click to expand...

I very rarely say this on the Internet (in fact, I find it a little irritating when other folks do); but when I read this whole exchange with doronshadmi trying to dig himself out of a hole, I really did LOL.
 
doronshadmi said:
Nonpareil said:
Yes, we know that
Click to expand...

When, exactly?
Click to expand...

mlfw5161_small.png


And this is officially where I have to get off this crazy train. Entertainment value aside, we have now gone so far down the rabbit hole that all meaningful conversation has ceased, since it is impossible to tell if doronshadmi is trolling, being trolled, both at the same time, or neither.

While I have enjoyed this brief foray into the magical realm of objective subjectivity, in the interest of keeping this entire thread from being relegated to AAH, I will stop here.
 
turingtest said:
I very rarely say this on the Internet (in fact, I find it a little irritating when other folks do); but when I read this whole exchange with doronshadmi trying to dig himself out of a hole, I really did LOL.
Click to expand...

It is not a rare thing that somebody says something (a joke, in this case) and someone else can take it and move forward beyond what was firstly said, so?
 
doronshadmi said:
Once again:

The only way to get concrete evidence of it (and not just writing, drawing, talking or thinking about it) is by actually practicing techniques like Transcendental Meditation.

As long as you are not actually practicing it, you are not going to get your requested evidence.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I said: you are denying the possibility of objective evidence, and are instead relying on anecdote. You refuse to prevent anything tangible, even a working hypothesis or mechanism for this.

The simplest state of existence is not objective or subjective, but it is the substance of both of them.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense unless you don't know the meaning of those words. Subjective is a subset of objective. Asking for objective evidence is simply asking for evidence that is true under ALL points of view. You answer by telling me to seek subjective evidence, which doesn't work.

You lose.
 
LarryS said:
(this line of reasoning) doesn't deny the possibility of knowledge, only admits that knowledge is modulated by our current state of consciousness. In this regard, we can agree, that Materialism appears true from the POV of human waking state. And, if it helps to get a good night sleep, the inquiry can end right there.
Click to expand...

Um and the other stuff is superfluous and speculation.
 
doronshadmi said:
Why, just because you now ignore UFT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory)?
Click to expand...

I'll attempt a sensible comment on the subject of UFTs and symmetry.

The central theme in most unified field theories is spontaneous symmetry breaking. You try to model the laws of physics we see by guessing that perhaps the laws long ago were invariant under such-and-such a specific set of transformations, but that that symmetry was spontaneously broken in the very early universe, giving us what we have today.

Rather than being some vague undefined bunch of things, the symmetries in question are specific ways of mapping the fundamental fields to new fields in such a way that the mathematical form of the Lagrangian density (which encapsulates the equations of motion for the fields) is unchanged.

To emphasise: The symmetry transformations in question form a specific set with specific mathematical properties and relationships (they'd form a Lie group or Lie supergroup if you're curious). While the symmetry groups posited in unified field theories are indeed larger than the symmetries of the Standard Model used today, the rather vague claim earlier that "any possible set is a transformation" is definitely a false statement in such a context.

Invoking UFTs as support for doronshadmi's ideas makes about as much sense as far as decided to use even go want invoking set theory to do more look binary tree.
 
LarryS said:
That is my point . . . so we state the world is material as a concession to our not being able to verify it.
Click to expand...

No, the point is that phenomenological naturalism is the only valid ontology. the universe behaves as it does, and it doesn't give a damn what we label it, it looks as though it is 'material' on one level, but on others it is irrational chaotic and probabilities.

All there is is what is observed. There is no ideal or material, the question is which labels are useful.
 
Dancing David said:
No, the point is that phenomenological naturalism is the only valid ontology. the universe behaves as it does, and it doesn't give a damn what we label it, it looks as though it is 'material' on one level, but on others it is irrational chaotic and probabilities.

All there is is what is observed. There is no ideal or material, the question is which labels are useful.
Click to expand...

we agree, materialism is a model useful in answering specific questions
 
turingtest said:
I very rarely say this on the Internet (in fact, I find it a little irritating when other folks do); but when I read this whole exchange with doronshadmi trying to dig himself out of a hole, I really did LOL.
Click to expand...

*Out*???? Man, we are talking about someone who will rent a backhoe to dig deeper the one he fell in to!

EDIT: It may be a lucrative idea to make a collection of Doron's antics and bundle them into a booklet...
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Once again:

The only way to get concrete evidence of it (and not just writing, drawing, talking or thinking about it) is by actually practicing techniques like Transcendental Meditation.

As long as you are not actually practicing it, you are not going to get your requested evidence.
Click to expand...
And there we have it. You have to Truly BeliveTM in order to believe it. The epitome of circular reasoning.

Why, exactly, should I or anyone else engage in a practice which has no detectable benefit? If you want to convince anyone to engage in any practice, you should be able to prove the tangible benefits which will result from such practice a priori. Yet you cannot. All you claim is that benefit will accrue only by means of doing it and such benefit is not measurable in any way.
 
realpaladin said:
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
I very rarely say this on the Internet (in fact, I find it a little irritating when other folks do); but when I read this whole exchange with doronshadmi trying to dig himself out of a hole, I really did LOL.
Click to expand...
*Out*???? Man, we are talking about someone who will rent a backhoe to dig deeper the one he fell in to!
EDIT: It may be a lucrative idea to make a collection of Doron's antics and bundle them into a booklet...
Click to expand...

It's the Chief Wiggum tactic- "no, no, dig up, stupid!"
 
Belz... said:
Asking for objective evidence is simply asking for evidence that is true under ALL points of view.
Click to expand...
Wrong, both subjective and objective evidences are variant by nature.

Please show me even a single objective evident that is absolutely invariant.

If you can't provide such an evidence then (by using your terms) it is not true under ALL points of view.

So, I am waiting to your objective evidence that is true under ALL points of view (where this evidence is definitely not material, because matter is a variant space\time phenomena).
 
Last edited:
ctamblyn said:
I'll attempt a sensible comment on the subject of UFTs and symmetry.

The central theme in most unified field theories is spontaneous symmetry breaking. You try to model the laws of physics we see by guessing that perhaps the laws long ago were invariant under such-and-such a specific set of transformations, but that that symmetry was spontaneously broken in the very early universe, giving us what we have today.

Rather than being some vague undefined bunch of things, the symmetries in question are specific ways of mapping the fundamental fields to new fields in such a way that the mathematical form of the Lagrangian density (which encapsulates the equations of motion for the fields) is unchanged.

To emphasise: The symmetry transformations in question form a specific set with specific mathematical properties and relationships (they'd form a Lie group or Lie supergroup if you're curious). While the symmetry groups posited in unified field theories are indeed larger than the symmetries of the Standard Model used today, the rather vague claim earlier that "any possible set is a transformation" is definitely a false statement in such a context.

Invoking UFTs as support for doronshadmi's ideas makes about as much sense as far as decided to use even go want invoking set theory to do more look binary tree.
Click to expand...
Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10417706&postcount=936 , in order to understand better my UFT view.

Fortunately you are a reasonable poster that I can communicate with him in this thread.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom