|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 09/01/2012 : 10:00:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
GASP...you seem to be arguing MY point. I never said irreducible elements can't change condition. |
So you're claiming that being an electron, quark or photon is just a "condition" of a particle? In your mind, are neutrons collections, entities or conditions?| Now you seem to be reversing yourself. |
No, not at all.| I guess pundits call that "spin". |
I guess I call that an insult.| I used "respect" in the ethical sense to mean I would refrain from ad hominem attacks... |
Except that you don't. You have liberally sprinkled your posts here with insults.| ...not that I would defer to others' interpretations or subjugate my own conclusions. |
Never asked you to, so I don't know why'd you'd bring it up. Just like your bizarre mention of "hate" a couple of comments ago.| What you consider ridicule is my way of pointing out logical incongruities using humo(u)r to drive home the point. It is not ad hominem and it directly addresses the issues of the argument. |
No, your ridicule of scientists' degrees appears to be nothing more than insults. It addresses nothing about the fundamental nature of the universe.| I HAVE respect for those who have a facility to encode data and ideas into the language of mathematics. It is skill I long ago lost to disuse. I also have respect for those who encode data and ideas into other languages (German, French)... |
Coulda fooled me.| ...but that doesn't mean I believe everything they say. |
Nobody asked you to.| You don't seem to understand the difference between conventional wisdom and common sense as I use the terms. |
You don't seem to understand that if you invent new uses for words, you need to tell other people what they are or else expect that you will confuse your audience.| Conventional wisdom would infer a flat Earth or a 'thinking' composite (computer). Common sense is the logical interpretation of the phenomena we observe. When phenomena seem to be illogical, you can bet it is due to some factor that is yet undiscovered that would reconcile the phenomena with the canons of logic. |
And that's what physicists are working hard to do.| Contemporary scientists are all to eager to "throw common sense out the window" and reconcile their calculations with specious assumptions. |
Which assumptions would those be?| Example: Cosmic expansion is one theory that seeks to explain the observed Hubble red shift. It is not the ONLY theory. But the red shift seems to indicate the most distant galaxies are fleeing at a rate greater than 'C'. This is a burdensome inconvenience to contemporary cosmologists, and they have tried to explain it away by proposing that the seemingly extra-logical phenomenon is an illusion caused by the self-same cosmological expansion they seek to substantiate. |
Once again, you are making up stuff about scientists that just isn't true. Cosmic expansion beyond C isn't a "burdensome inconvenience" to any cosmologists, and not an "illusion," but just a fact. Perhaps you are coming at the question from a lay position in which you think that galaxies "move through space" to create the red-shifts observed, but that would indicate your ignorance, and not a problem faced by the scientists. Of course, if you don't understand the premises of an argument, the conclusion might appear "extra-logical," but that's not because it is.| Many similar assumptions have become part of the scientific bible and are adamantly adhered to by zealots who worship them - even if they are not logical. To them it is a matter of faith and in this case I am the skeptic. |
Actually, you just appear to be ignorant of the science, but holding yourself up as omniscient. Perhaps you have a massive case of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.| That IS the purpose of this forum, isn't it? |
Yes, but as a discussion forum, your rejection of substantial and relevant comments isn't particularly welcome. If you just want people to read what you write and leave comments for you to ponder, there are plenty of free blog sites that will meet your needs. That would probably be more inviting to comments than the email link you've got on your site. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2012 : 15:29:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by THoR
GASP...you seem to be arguing MY point. I never said irreducible elements can't change condition. |
So you're claiming that being an electron, quark or photon is just a "condition" of a particle? In your mind, are neutrons collections, entities or conditions? |
"No, the tiny things seem to be readily changeable into other tiny things, so the idea that one is "made of" others is simply absurd." - YOUR words, not mine.| Now you seem to be reversing yourself. |
No, not at all.| I guess pundits call that "spin". |
I guess I call that an insult. |
Spin leaves a bad flavor, doesn't it?| I used "respect" in the ethical sense to mean I would refrain from ad hominem attacks... |
Except that you don't. You have liberally sprinkled your posts here with insults.| ...not that I would defer to others' interpretations or subjugate my own conclusions. |
Never asked you to, so I don't know why'd you'd bring it up. Just like your bizarre mention of "hate" a couple of comments ago.| What you consider ridicule is my way of pointing out logical incongruities using humo(u)r to drive home the point. It is not ad hominem and it directly addresses the issues of the argument. |
No, your ridicule of scientists' degrees appears to be nothing more than insults. It addresses nothing about the fundamental nature of the universe.| I HAVE respect for those who have a facility to encode data and ideas into the language of mathematics. It is skill I long ago lost to disuse. I also have respect for those who encode data and ideas into other languages (German, French)... |
Coulda fooled me.| ...but that doesn't mean I believe everything they say. |
Nobody asked you to. |
Math is just another language. Even the most 'beautiful' equations are only as true as the assumptions on which they are based.| You don't seem to understand the difference between conventional wisdom and common sense as I use the terms. |
You don't seem to understand that if you invent new uses for words, you need to tell other people what they are or else expect that you will confuse your audience.| Conventional wisdom would infer a flat Earth or a 'thinking' composite (computer). Common sense is the logical interpretation of the phenomena we observe. When phenomena seem to be illogical, you can bet it is due to some factor that is yet undiscovered that would reconcile the phenomena with the canons of logic. |
And that's what physicists are working hard to do.| Contemporary scientists are all to eager to "throw common sense out the window" and reconcile their calculations with specious assumptions. |
Which assumptions would those be? |
I was quoting YOU.| Example: Cosmic expansion is one theory that seeks to explain the observed Hubble red shift. It is not the ONLY theory. But the red shift seems to indicate the most distant galaxies are fleeing at a rate greater than 'C'. This is a burdensome inconvenience to contemporary cosmologists, and they have tried to explain it away by proposing that the seemingly extra-logical phenomenon is an illusion caused by the self-same cosmological expansion they seek to substantiate. |
Once again, you are making up stuff about scientists that just isn't true. Cosmic expansion beyond C isn't a "burdensome inconvenience" to any cosmologists, and not an "illusion," but just a fact. Perhaps you are coming at the question from a lay position in which you think that galaxies "move through space" to create the red-shifts observed, but that would indicate your ignorance, and not a problem faced by the scientists. Of course, if you don't understand the premises of an argument, the conclusion might appear "extra-logical," but that's not because it is. |
Au contraire, cosmologists explain the excessive red shift by incorporating the theory of expansion. There doesn't seem to be much question about Doppler, but cosmological redshifts have been 'proven' by self serving reverse engineered hypotheticals that make the equations work. | Many similar assumptions have become part of the scientific bible and are adamantly adhered to by zealots who worship them - even if they are not logical. To them it is a matter of faith and in this case I am the skeptic. |
Actually, you just appear to be ignorant of the science, but holding yourself up as omniscient. Perhaps you have a massive case of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. |
Glad you never resort to ad hominem drivel that has no bearing on the argument.| That IS the purpose of this forum, isn't it? |
Yes, but as a discussion forum, your rejection of substantial and relevant comments isn't particularly welcome. If you just want people to read what you write and leave comments for you to ponder, there are plenty of free blog sites that will meet your needs. That would probably be more inviting to comments than the email link you've got on your site.
|
If your ivory tower wasn't being threatened, you'd chalk me up to being a crazy old fart and ignore the challenges to your conventional wisdom. Obviously you don't have much faith in your standard models...else you'd blow off this discussion and save the frustration and ire you so clearly exhibit. (Bye) |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 09/01/2012 17:26:47 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2012 : 16:06:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by THoR
GASP...you seem to be arguing MY point. I never said irreducible elements can't change condition. |
So you're claiming that being an electron, quark or photon is just a "condition" of a particle? In your mind, are neutrons collections, entities or conditions? |
"No, the tiny things seem to be readily changeable into other tiny things, so the idea that one is "made of" others is simply absurd." - YOUR words, not mine. |
Why didn't you answer my question: according to your thesis, is "a neutron" a collection, an entity, or a condition?| Spin leaves a bad flavor, doesn't it? |
So I was right, you're not here to discuss anything in good faith, you're just going to insult people who don't agree with you.| Math is just another language. Even the most 'beautiful' equations are only as true as the assumptions on which they are based. |
A complete non-sequitor given what you quoted.I didn't say a word about "specious assumptions." You may have used some of the same words I did, but you certainly weren't making the same point.| Au contraire, cosmologists explain the excessive red shift by incorporating the theory of expansion. There doesn't seem to be much question about Doppler, but cosmological redshifts have been 'proven' by self serving reverse engineered hypotheticals that make the equations work. |
Um, that's how all of science works. Science is the reverse engineering of nature. And it's done by observing a phenomenon, inventing a hypothesis to explain it, then testing the predictions entailed by the hypothesis. The hypothesis of cosmic expansion has been tested and passed. Is there any evidence that the tests were rigged or flawed? If not, then it becomes unreasonable to doubt the results.| Glad you never resort to ad hominem drivel that has no bearing on the argument. |
I never said I wouldn't stoop to your level, I was just pointing out that you have nothing better than insults to present.| If your ivory tower wasn't being threatened... |
Ah, you have dreams of adequacy. You're not a threat to anyone or anything, because you have no data, just a masturbatory fantasy about knowing more than the scientists do.| ...you'd chalk me up to being a crazy old fart and ignore the challenges to your conventional wisdom. |
No, see, science being wrong is an opportunity for learning new stuff! If you actually had something challenging to present, I'd want to be in on it, so I asked you questions and pointed out some flaws in your arguments in the (obviously ludicrous) hope that your answers and rebuttals would sway me over to agreeing with you. But you could only answer my challenges with insults and ignorance.| Obviously you don't have much faith in your standard models... |
I don't have any faith in anything. That's one thing that makes me a skeptic.| ...else you'd blow off this discussion and save the frustration and ire you so clearly exhibit. |
Yes, you are very frustrating and annoying by refusing to actually engage in discussion. But blowing off crazy old farts who show up to my website isn't something I do. You clearly don't understand my priorities.Yes, run along now. If you have nothing to offer us in terms of new knowledge, interesting hypotheticals or something funny that doesn't look exactly like whiny ridicule, you're wasting your time here. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2012 : 17:18:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by THoR
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by THoR
GASP...you seem to be arguing MY point. I never said irreducible elements can't change condition. |
So you're claiming that being an electron, quark or photon is just a "condition" of a particle? In your mind, are neutrons collections, entities or conditions? |
"No, the tiny things seem to be readily changeable into other tiny things, so the idea that one is "made of" others is simply absurd." - YOUR words, not mine. |
Why didn't you answer my question: according to your thesis, is "a neutron" a collection, an entity, or a condition? |
An irreducible element is not isotropic and homogeneous. Mass is a condition - one interchangeable with energy according to Uncle Al. More than one condition may exist within the domain of an irreducible element. A portion of it may have the property of mass while the remainder does not. And if the sub-structure of an irreducible element is tethered at a nucleus (or nuculus if you are a Bush fan) - yes, conjecture - that condition can instantaneously cease at one location and begin in another to give the illusion some detectable 'thing' has transposed without traveling the distance between.
A neutron may be a condition that resides in part of an irreducible element or it may, itself, be an element. So tell me, where do dead photons go? What do they become?| Spin leaves a bad flavor, doesn't it? |
So I was right, you're not here to discuss anything in good faith, you're just going to insult people who don't agree with you. |
I think your opening salutation "Back for more, THoR?" set the tone for any discourse in which I might engage with you.| Math is just another language. Even the most 'beautiful' equations are only as true as the assumptions on which they are based. |
A complete non-sequitor given what you quoted.I didn't say a word about "specious assumptions." You may have used some of the same words I did, but you certainly weren't making the same point.| Au contraire, cosmologists explain the excessive red shift by incorporating the theory of expansion. There doesn't seem to be much question about Doppler, but cosmological redshifts have been 'proven' by self serving reverse engineered hypotheticals that make the equations work. |
Um, that's how all of science works. Science is the reverse engineering of nature. And it's done by observing a phenomenon, inventing a hypothesis to explain it, then testing the predictions entailed by the hypothesis. The hypothesis of cosmic expansion has been tested and passed. |
Sorry, you've convicted when the jury is still out. It is still a best guess...like bad blood humors causing disease.| Is there any evidence that the tests were rigged or flawed? |
I'm not aware of any billion year long, multi-trillion mile tests that have been run on light. Please cite your source. And I'd like to meet the team that conducted those experiments - and see their laboratory.| If not, then it becomes unreasonable to doubt the results. |
Don't hold your breath waiting for the Higgs Boson or Dark Matter.| Glad you never resort to ad hominem drivel that has no bearing on the argument. |
I never said I wouldn't stoop to your level, I was just pointing out that you have nothing better than insults to present.| If your ivory tower wasn't being threatened... |
Ah, you have dreams of adequacy. You're not a threat to anyone or anything, because you have no data, just a masturbatory fantasy about knowing more than the scientists do. |
1=1 requires no data, 1=8x10^27 seems to be lacking in that regard.| ...you'd chalk me up to being a crazy old fart and ignore the challenges to your conventional wisdom. |
No, see, science being wrong is an opportunity for learning new stuff! If you actually had something challenging to present, I'd want to be in on it, so I asked you questions and pointed out some flaws in your arguments in the (obviously ludicrous) hope that your answers and rebuttals would sway me over to agreeing with you. But you could only answer my challenges with insults and ignorance.| Obviously you don't have much faith in your standard models... |
I don't have any faith in anything. That's one thing that makes me a skeptic. |
Cudda fooled me. You don't seem to have read much about theories that conflict with the standard models of cosmology and particle physics. You parrot the conventional wisdom quite well.| ...else you'd blow off this discussion and save the frustration and ire you so clearly exhibit. |
Yes, you are very frustrating and annoying by refusing to actually engage in discussion. But blowing off crazy old farts who show up to my website isn't something I do. You clearly don't understand my priorities. |
I didn't know you were the SYSOP of this board (geeeeeez, guess that dates me). I am flattered you continue to let me rant.Yes, run along now. If you have nothing to offer us in terms of new knowledge, interesting hypotheticals or something funny that doesn't look exactly like whiny ridicule, you're wasting your time here.
|
I'm on vacation for a couple of weeks. If I don't stay busy on this forum I'll have to paint the house. I might even crank up a separate discussion about the substructure of elemental particles when I get the urge to pound the keyboard again. Bet you can't wait. Keep your eyes peeled (ouch). |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 09/01/2012 17:37:35 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2012 : 18:42:10 [Permalink]
|
Ah, I see that you failed to stick the flounce, THoR.Originally posted by THoR
| Why didn't you answer my ques8tion: according to your thesis, is "a neutron" a collection, an entity, or a condition? |
An irreducible element is not isotropic and homogeneous. Mass is a condition - one interchangeable with energy according to Uncle Al. More than one condition may exist within the domain of an irreducible element. A portion of it may have the property of mass while the remainder does not. And if the sub-structure of an irreducible element is tethered at a nucleus (or nuculus if you are a Bush fan) - yes, conjecture - that condition can instantaneously cease at one location and begin in another to give the illusion some detectable 'thing' has transposed without traveling the distance between.
A neutron may be a condition that resides in part of an irreducible element or it may, itself, be an element. |
That completely fails to answer my question.
But how can an irreducible element have a sub-structure?| So tell me, where do dead photons go? |
You're claiming that there are living photons?!?I wouldn't have a clue as to what happens given your premises.| I think your opening salutation "Back for more, THoR?" set the tone for any discourse in which I might engage with you. |
So you read into it what you wanted, and acted accordingly. Got it.| Sorry, you've convicted when the jury is still out. It is still a best guess...like bad blood humors causing disease. |
If you wait for absolute certainty, you will wait forever.| I'm not aware of any billion year long, multi-trillion mile tests that have been run on light. Please cite your source. And I'd like to meet the team that conducted those experiments - and see their laboratory. |
So you're claiming that there is exactly as much evidence for cosmic expansion as there is for your "entities," yet you deride the one and faithfully cling to the other. Go figure.| Don't hold your breath waiting for the Higgs Boson or Dark Matter. |
Nobody ever claimed that science could answer every question.Just faith, apparently. I understand.| ...1=8x10^27 seems to be lacking in that regard. |
Good thing nobody believes that idea. It's just a strawman you invented.| Cudda fooled me. You don't seem to have read much about theories that conflict with the standard models of cosmology and particle physics. |
Actually, I have. They aren't compelling. They certainly aren't theories.| You parrot the conventional wisdom quite well. |
And you continue to insult instead of providing anything even remotely empirical.| I didn't know you were the SYSOP of this board (geeeeeez, guess that dates me). |
Yes, it's very quaint.| I am flattered you continue to let me rant. |
If you consider your insults and tedium to be bannable offenses, I can help you find your way out.| I'm on vacation for a couple of weeks. If I don't stay busy on this forum I'll have to paint the house. |
Priorities, you have them.| I might even crank up a separate discussion about the substructure of elemental particles when I get the urge to pound the keyboard again. |
You have yet to start a single discussion, really. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2012 : 22:57:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
ok I read it about 17 or 19 times and the major point of his post seems to be that consciousness cannot just emerge from a collection of atoms without some magical thinking. Is anyone actually addressing that?
|
My answer would be he doesn't know that, so it's little more than jumping to conclusions disguised by unjustified definitions as logical inevitability. |
Conclusions can be unjustified, definitions cannot - they are explanations of meaning and no argument can be had without that clarity. |
Definitions can build assumptions into words by referring to established words within. Definitions can use words derived from the natural world and therefore, combining them in a particular way can make claims about the natural world (hence, unjustified). A definition can be self-contradictory. And worst, definitions might be useless! For example, I can call some numbers "nargs" and define a narg as "any sum of two single-digit natural numbers that is greater than 25," but it's useless because then there's no such thing as a narg because no sum of two single-digit numbers can be more than 25.
I don't think you've adequately defined an "existence." Let's look at when you introduced the term
| You probably consider yourself to be 'an existence', which is obviously why you call yourself 'I' instead of 'we'. But exactly what IS 'an existence'? |
You say you are an existence, so existences are a superset of you.
| ... It is inherently logical that before the smallest non-empty set can be assembled, there must exist an individual element with which the set may be populated, a single existence that is not composed of independent parts, an irreducible physical manifestation consisting only of itself |
You say existences are irreducible physical manifestations. Combined with the above, you have implicitly claimed you are irreducible.
Without giving criteria for determining the "size" of a set, you said it is "inherently logical that before the smallest non-empty set can be assembled, there must exist an individual element, a single existence."
Therefore, this argument depends on the possibility of assembling the smallest non-empty set (the smallest implying uniqueness).
Putting this together, you have, under the assumption that it is possible to assemble the smallest non-empty set (without giving criteria for "size" of a set), defined an existence as an irreducible physical manifestation, and claimed you are an existence and, therefore, are a irreducible physical manifestation.
My questions:
(A) What determines the size of a set?
I believe you said different types of fundamental irreducible particles wouldn't refute the arguments in your earliest response to me. How do you decide if a singleton containing an irreducible particle of type 1 or a singleton containing an irreducible particle of type 2 is smaller?
(B) How do you justify the idea that you are irreducible?
(C) How do you know anything is irreducible? How do I know your "existence" isn't the equivalent of my "narg"?
(D) Why must it be possible to assemble the smallest non-empty set? (And why must it be unique?)
There might well not even exist a smallest non-empty set, such a thing certainly doesn't exist in most mathematical environments, cardinality assigns sets to equivalence classes of "sizes," but no single set can typically be called uniquely the smallest.
| Consciousness is a condition. Only existences can have conditions. |
Let's break this down.
(1) Consciousness is a condition
(2) A condition is a state of being taken by an existence (defined in your first response to me)
(3) An existence is an irreducible physical manifestation assuming there exists a unique assemble-able smallest possible set.
Both condition and consciousness depend on an irreducible physical manifestation existing, which depends on the existence of the smallest possible set, which depends on some unspecified criteria for smallness. Neither irreducible physical manifestations or the smallest set have been shown to exist. And the applicability of consciousness to people rests on people being irreducible, also unjustified.
If those aren't true, does consciousness cease to exist? Of course not! It means your definition of consciousness doesn't match the consciousness of nature. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 09/03/2012 00:12:17 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2012 : 22:22:19 [Permalink]
|
| Are quarks entities or not? They can only exist in 2s or 3s. So do we treat those groupings as single entities or the quarks themselves as single entities, despite the fact they can never be isolated? I need to know this asap. |
 |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2012 : 09:45:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
But how can an irreducible element have a sub-structure? |
Glad you asked.
I don't know if you've actually read my web-thesis - or whether or not it would do you any good. To understand it, it must be engaged with an open mind and not a jaundiced eye. In any case I will endeavor to capsulize it for you.
BACKGROUND:
1) Existence is not the result of cause and effect, in fact the opposite is true. Something must exist (be physically available) before it can change or be changed. If cause and effect is derived from existence then existence is the more fundamental phenomenon
2) Processes (change/cause and effect) are governed by basic laws called principles. If existence is more fundamental than cause and effect and principles are more fundamental than processes, it would seem logical the explanation for the phenomenon of existence may be found in a principle rather than a process.
3) If you parce the nature of process a single governing dymamic becomes evident - natural balance. Mathematics - the language of science - encodes its logic into a device called an equation which requires its elements to be equivalent on opposite sides of the argument. Newton codified it with: every action precipitates an equal and opposite reaction.
4) The Standard Model of particle physics portrays the material world as paired sets of fundamental particles and anti-particles usually protrayed as structureless, fungible building blocks. Strangely, there seems to be a lot more matter than anti-matter and if two independent particles were truly opposite existences rather than just elements in opposing condition, then instead of simply changing state from mass to energy on contact, all of their properties should entirely negate each other and they should cease to exist without a trace.
Hypothesis: Fundamental particles have sub-structure
The intuitive assumption of particle physicists is that qualities and anti-qualities must be disbursed between independent existences as separate particles and anti-particles, but what if qualitative symmetry exists within the physical boundary of an entity? If such qualitative balance exists, then each fundamental particle must have some form of substructure, dependent qualities and anti-qualities that cannot exist apart from the whole.
Just as Ø represents a null quantitative value, assume BLACK represents a null qualitative value. Within the realm of subtractive colors, the opposite (negative) of the color quality MAGENTA is GREEN. Equivalent proportions of MAGENTA and GREEN produce BLACK. But GREEN is, itself, an equal mixture of the colors CYAN and YELLOW.
Just as the quantitative value of Ø is equivalent to two opposing numbers (+1) + (-1), the qualitative value of BLACK is equivalent to its three opposing colors MAGENTA + CYAN + YELLOW. All of the opposing sub-elements must be present in precisely equal proportion in order to reciprocally balance each other and maintain a neutral value. Of course the number of opposing sub-elements within a fundamental particle may not be limited in scope to just two or three or any other finite number.
I define an irreducible element as an independent integral of null value - something comprised only of itself.
In the form of reciprocal balance, "nothing" is the common essence of every element in the cosmic spectrum and it is the fulcrum of an eternally balanced perpetual system.
|
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 09/03/2012 09:47:53 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2012 : 11:55:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
I don't know if you've actually read my web-thesis... |
Years ago. I found it incoherent and rambling. When I looked again the other day, it appeared that my prior assessment still holds.| ...or whether or not it would do you any good. To understand it, it must be engaged with an open mind and not a jaundiced eye. |
My mind would have to be so open that my brain would fall out.In any case I will endeavor to capsulize it for you.
BACKGROUND:
1) Existence is not the result of cause and effect, in fact the opposite is true. Something must exist (be physically available) before it can change or be changed. If cause and effect is derived from existence then existence is the more fundamental phenomenon |
So existence is a condition, and cause-and-effect is a meta-condition.| 2) Processes (change/cause and effect) are governed by basic laws called principles. If existence is more fundamental than cause and effect and principles are more fundamental than processes, it would seem logical the explanation for the phenomenon of existence may be found in a principle rather than a process. |
It might seem that way, but is it true?| 3) If you parce the nature of process a single governing dymamic becomes evident - natural balance. Mathematics - the language of science - encodes its logic into a device called an equation which requires its elements to be equivalent on opposite sides of the argument. Newton codified it with: every action precipitates an equal and opposite reaction. |
Massively oversimplified, but okay...| 4) The Standard Model of particle physics portrays the material world as paired sets of fundamental particles and anti-particles usually protrayed as structureless, fungible building blocks. Strangely, there seems to be a lot more matter than anti-matter and if two independent particles were truly opposite existences rather than just elements in opposing condition, then instead of simply changing state from mass to energy on contact, all of their properties should entirely negate each other and they should cease to exist without a trace. |
But nobody ever claimed that particles and anti-particles are "truly opposite existences." In fact, the only thing that the "anti" refers to is an opposite electric charge.Hypothesis: Fundamental particles have sub-structure
The intuitive assumption of particle physicists is that qualities and anti-qualities must be disbursed between independent existences as separate particles and anti-particles, but what if qualitative symmetry exists within the physical boundary of an entity? If such qualitative balance exists, then each fundamental particle must have some form of substructure, dependent qualities and anti-qualities that cannot exist apart from the whole. |
Like what qualities? We know, for example, that particles other than electrons and positrons have electric charge, so electric charge must be just a "condition" in your system, and one that can be held by many different "existences," right?| Just as Ø represents a null quantitative value, assume BLACK represents a null qualitative value. Within the realm of subtractive colors, the opposite (negative) of the color quality MAGENTA is GREEN. Equivalent proportions of MAGENTA and GREEN produce BLACK. But GREEN is, itself, an equal mixture of the colors CYAN and YELLOW. |
Within the context of paint or dye, the above is correct. When speaking of light, magenta mixed with green makes white, and it is the absence of red, blue and green which makes black.| Just as the quantitative value of Ø is equivalent to two opposing numbers (+1) + (-1), the qualitative value of BLACK is equivalent to its three opposing colors MAGENTA + CYAN + YELLOW. All of the opposing sub-elements must be present in precisely equal proportion in order to reciprocally balance each other and maintain a neutral value. Of course the number of opposing sub-elements within a fundamental particle may not be limited in scope to just two or three or any other finite number. |
Offering examples of balances does nothing to support your hypothesis, though. The fact that balance exists within the context of math or colors doesn't mean that the same principles are at work inside of fundamental particles.| I define an irreducible element as an independent integral of null value - something comprised only of itself. |
Provide an example of such a thing, please.| In the form of reciprocal balance, "nothing" is the common essence of every element in the cosmic spectrum and it is the fulcrum of an eternally balanced perpetual system. |
Great, now prove it.
Math certainly doesn't help. Equations are equations because both sides are equal, not opposite. If you add E to mc2 you get E times two, not zero. 1=-1 is false, not balanced.
Even your color analogy fails in this regard. Put down equal and large amounts of C, M and Y dye on paper, and yes, you'll get black. Put down less of each (but still equal amounts) and you'll get gray. Simply putting down equal amounts is not a sufficient condition to get black, otherwise paper with no dye at all would be black (C, M and Y dye in equal - zero - amounts). Merely having "balanced" amounts of dye results in some shade of gray, but you won't know which until you actually look at the amounts in question.
Now again I ask: is purple a condition? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Evolution of Intelligent Design
